[governance] CIRP+

[Avri Doria]

I don't ignore the policy issues.

That is largely what I meant by CS working to stop the intergovernmental organizations from creating more harm.  For the most part I see most of the work done on cyber-crime etc as causing more harm than good, and something that needs to be fought by the CS groups who are local to those countries and regions.

I include the IGF among the existing multistakeholder groups that I beleive needs fixing and think that it is the place for covering those global policy issues that do not fall into the technical or techno-policy areas already being covered.  But I think there are very few issues that need to be governed at the purely policy level, becasue most of the purely policy governance i see, i beleive, causes more harm than good.  And so while I would like to see more IGF work toward making substantive recommendations, I am happy that no organization, especially not the UN or any organization in its system or that is controled/initiated by the UN or any other inter-governmental treaty, have binding oversight over Interent policy governance.

avri


parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

>
>
>On Sunday 13 May 2012 03:54 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> Not that you asked anyone other than Wolfgang, but
>> I propose we fix the existing multistakeholder Internet governance
>organizations and leave the UN out of it.
>>    
>I am not sure you mean only technical/ CIR governance part of IG or
>also 
>the larger public policies side, the kind of work that OECD's CICCP and
>
>CoE does. As for the technical/ CIR gov part of IG the joint CS 
>statement that we circulated proposes not disturbing the distributed 
>governance system, though improvements are needed which you seem to 
>agree with. Only the US gov role in that system is not acceptable and 
>that should be moved from there.
>
>I dont think it would do to ignore the other side of IG, that I dont
>see 
>you address. CoE writes cyber security policies and export it to other 
>countries, OECD writes principles for Internet-policy making and now 
>seeks other countries to accept it, same with ACTA, CoE writes search 
>engine guidelines, social networking guidelines, and by default they 
>will inflate to become global guidlelines or rules. I find this side of
>
>IG even more important that the tech/CIR side. It is this other side of
>
>global Internet policy making that is significantly shaping the
>Internet 
>as people of the world experience it, and people want to be able to 
>participate equally in the policy making process.
>
>parminder
>
>> As for those the regional inter-governmental organizations and the
>national governments, I propose people from those countries and regions
>work with them to prevent them from doing anything further that harms
>civil society.
>>
>> I, for one, do not endorse your CIRP+ proposal and hope that the IGC
>does not presume to endorse it as an 'organzation'
>>
>> avri
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> parminder<parminder at itforchange.net>  wrote:
>>
>>    
>>> Wolfgang,
>>>
>>> I have many things to say about your arguments, but about that
>perhaps
>>> we can go on  endlessly. But let me be pragmatic and precise.
>>>
>>> Do you agree that
>>>
>>> (1) there are many pressing global public policy issues, the kind of
>>> which OECD and CoE is so actively dealing with at present
>>>
>>> (2) it is not globally democratic that OECD and CoE as clubs of a
>few
>>> rich countries do all this (default) global policy making.
>>>
>>> If you do not agree to the above, lets just first discuss this. If
>you
>>> do, lets move to the next step
>>>
>>> Vide (2) above, developing countries, their governments as well as
>>> people, are obviously not happy with the situation. The May 18th
>>> meeting
>>> is about this specific  problem. And you will also recognise the
>>> dangerous directions that our joint statement argues the Internet
>may
>>> be
>>> moving towards, and the need to address this problem.
>>>
>>> Since you seem to have some model in mind, inspired by WGIG or
>>> whatever,
>>> why dont you present a clear proposal of what global institutional
>>> mechanism should address the global public policy issues that are
>today
>>>
>>> addressed by OECD/CoE.   Please tell us clearly what would be the
>>> structure of this new mechanism, what functions will it perform, and
>>> how, what would be its outcomes and how will they be implemented.
>How
>>> would it address the public policy imperatives in all IG areas that
>>> need
>>> global attention.... What would be its relationship with the current
>>> technical/ CIR governance system. People are looking for real
>solutions
>>>
>>> to real issues, and the May18 meeting is about that. I would request
>>> you
>>> to be as clear and precise about your model as possible...
>>>
>>> Otherwise, just criticising every model for change that is proposed
>is
>>> simply voting for the status quo.
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday 13 May 2012 02:29 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>>>      
>>>> Parminder:
>>>> WGIG was an advisory body to the intergovernmental WSIS. It had no
>>>>        
>>> independent standing or decision making capacity.
>>>      
>>>> Wolfgang:
>>>> Formally you are right. But de facto, WGIG "decided" to define IG,
>to
>>>>        
>>> create the IGF and - as a result of a lack of consensus within WGIG
>-
>>> to launch a process for further discussion on oversight (which ended
>in
>>> EC). A new WGIG would not just repeat what the old was. It has to
>take
>>> the next formal step: From an body which prepares decision to a body
>>> which is able to produce rough consensus. The innovation with WGIG
>was
>>> that all stakeholders participated equally in the discussion and
>>> drafting of the report. Membership was not "layered". What you
>propose
>>> is a "layered" system. This is the hierarchical thinking of the 20th
>>> century. What we need is a network thinking for the 21st century.
>>>      
>>>> Parminder:
>>>> CIRP proposes three separate advisory bodies which can of course
>>>>        
>>> draft clear, written recs like WGIG did. I dont even see any special
>>> barrier for them to do it together if they so wish, but then like
>WGIG
>>> report went to WSIS, and it took and left out things that it wanted
>to
>>> to draft the authoritative Tunis documents, the same may happen with
>>> CIRP/ GA.
>>>      
>>>> Wolfgang:
>>>> That is the problem with CIRP. CIRP does no follow the "WGIG model"
>>>>        
>>> it follows the "WSIS Bureau model" where the non-governmental
>>> stakeholders were put into isolated baskets (CS&   PS bureaus) on a
>>> lower layer with the option to give "advise" to the "master layer",
>the
>>> intergovernmental bureau. In the reality of the WSIS case, the
>advise
>>>      
>> >from the CS bureau was sidelined.  We made 86 recommendations during
>>    
>>> PrepCom3 (September 2003) and when we analyzed the draft produced by
>>> the intergovernmental bureau after they got our recommendations we
>>> discovered, that 82 recommendations were totally ignored and that 4
>>> recommendations went into very vague paragraphs of the
>>> intergovernmental document. We called this "ignorance" and
>"arrogance"
>>> and this produced a deep crisis for the whole summit with the option
>of
>>> a walkout of Civil Society. It needed a lot of diplomatic efforts of
>>> the Swiss president Pierre Couchepin to keep the CS inside the WSIS
>>> process (a lot of CS wanted to got to Plan B and to protest and
>march
>>> through the streets of Geneva). I remember two night sessions in the
>>> Swiss embassy in Geneva, a special invitation by the Lord Mayor of
>the
>>> City of Geneva and a press conference with Minister Marc Furrer,
>Pierre
>>> Couchepin, Utsumi, Karen Banks and me in the conference center. They
>>> argued that they can not include CS proposals directly into their
>>> documents which are negotiated among governments. We argued we can
>not
>>> give (the wanted) legitimicy to a declaration which is negotiated
>only
>>> by governments. CS was invited to WSIS, now we are here and we want
>to
>>> participate in Realpolitik. To give us a seat on the table in
>exchange
>>> for being silent if it comes to decision making is no option. The
>>> compromise was to have two final documents in the end: A
>governmental
>>> declaration and the civil society declaration. It makes sense (and I
>>> recommend this not only to you but to everybody) to read again - in
>the
>>> light of the experiences of the last ten years - the civil society
>WSIS
>>> declaration.
>>> (http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/civil-society-declaration.pdf).
>>>      
>>>> The Geneva compromise was good for the moment. But it was a bad
>>>>        
>>> experience. It was 2003. At this time the multistakeholder model was
>>> still a baby. It grew with WGIG. Now it is a child. Not yet an
>adult.
>>> And you want to repeat this experience now in 2012? Look forward,
>not
>>> backwards and be more innovative. There is no need to continue with
>the
>>> mistakes of the past.
>>>      
>>>> BTW, you always critisize OECD. Did you notice the problems CISAC
>>>>        
>>> has? The step forward is that it can make its voice heard. But there
>is
>>> long way to participate in decision making. CISAC is on the road,
>but
>>> still in the rain. The OECD model - and CIRP is obviously partly
>>> inspired by it - is good for an existing organisation, but not for a
>>> new one. If the 2nd Committee of the UNGA (or the ITU) establishes
>>> advisory bodies for non-govenrmental stakeholders, including civil
>>> society, this would be an interesting proposal to enhance the
>>> mechanisms of yesterday. But if you want to create something new,
>you
>>> have to meet the challenges of tomorrow.
>>>      
>>>> Wolfgang
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>
>>    


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t