AW: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Surveillance paragraph of netmundial document

[parminder]

On Thursday 17 April 2014 03:33 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> Parminder:
> The EU Working party seeks: " An international agreement providing adequate protection against indiscriminate surveillance" and "development of a global instrument providing for enforceable, high level privacy and data protection principles as agreed upon by the International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners in their Madrid Declaration"That is what we should be talking about, not the vacuous statements of the public NetMundial outcome draft, which in fact are not innocent because they seek a multistakeholder public policy decision making model which will simply make such kinds of agreements impossible...
>
> Wolfgang:
> You are confusing things. The Multistakeholder Model does not exclude intergovernmental treaties.

Wolfgang

I prefer to talk specifics... Would you sign on a statement seeking , 
urgently, intergovernmental treaties and agreements, for important 
global issues, starting from areas in  which rich country clubs already 
have or are doing inter-gov treaties and agreements, and then proceeding 
to other important issues of global Internet policy as they arise. Yes 
or No. Should we put it in the Netmundial docs? I will accept everything 
else there on this condition..

So, as you say, no confusion; inter-gov agreements do not exclude MSism, 
MSism does not exclude inter-gov agreements. Why not just make this very 
clear.

And if you do not agree to go as per above, it can be easily seen who is 
into confusing things, and who for clarifying them.


>   The problem today is that those (old and new) intergovernmental treaties are embedded into this new multistakeholder environment

No, governmental work is embedded in participatory democracy 
practices..... but well I am ready to even provisionally call it MS 
environment, if there is indeed a legitimate inter-gov decision making 
centre of this environment.... A global Internet policy development body 
- like CoE and OECD has - for this MS environment of, say, the IGF.

Wolfgang, dont you get the irony of the fact that there are inter-gov 
policy making bodies in CoE and OECD, but no IGF equivalent, and there 
is an IGF at the global level but not 'Internet policy' equivalent at 
the global level.... But still all MS bashing gets directed at 
developing countries and not the developed ones.
> and governments have to take more into account than their own interests if they agree on legally binding mutual rights and duties. The world today is bigger and much more differentiated than "black vs. white". Simplification is very often misleading and triggers conflicts instead  enhanced commmunication, coordination and collaboration.

These are empty terms, that do not address the issues of dis empowerment 
and exclusion; they merely put gloss over continued exploitation by the 
powerful - in economic, political, social and cultural space.. And we 
should not be contributing to such glossing over...

parminder
>
>
>
> 	
>
>


-------------- 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