[WSIS CS-Plenary] (no subject)

[Parminder]

Hi All, 

I am sorry to use the the already crowded plenary list to state these views on 
matters in front of sub-committee A , but I am not subscribed on the IG CS 
list and I really wanted to share this with all.

I found a lot of enthusiasm in CS content and themes meeting on the Canadian 
proposal on the forum. Most of the support came because canadian proposal 
seems strong on the MSP priciple. That’s great, but we need the 'substance' 
too - perhaps that may be more important. 

And if we look at the canadian proposal on the forum from 'substance' 
or 'content;' angle, it is abysmal (excuse my use of strong language). 

It completely transforms the very purpose and agenda of the 'forum' as was 
nicely laid out by WGIG reports points 43 to 47  - it was supposed to be a 
global IG policy deliberation space. But the canada proposal makes it into a 
capacity building body for developing countires etc- badly reeking of WIPO's 
technical assistence programs which suppose that 'they' know everything and 
the those with poor capacities (read, developing counteries)need to 
be 'taught' what the right frameworks and concepts are. 

The canadian proposal (cut-pasted at the end of the email) opens in this 
fashion -- 

>>>We commit to establishing a new forum mechanism, dedicated to 
>>>enhancing the
capacity of all stakeholders, particularly those from developing countries, to 
participate fully and effectively in all forums relevant to Internet 
governance.  >>>

Were we looking for a forum for this purpose, I thought we wanted it for 
policy deliberation, advise, taking new issues (see WGIG report, pt.s 43 to 
47).... Capacity building is only one of the functions of the forum, and it 
comes way down on the list.......

Why is there an attempt to cut out such needed global policy spaces by subtly 
substituting them with 'capacity building' bodies. And why should the CS be in 
a hurry to accept that - do we have such aversion to global public policy 
deliberations and policy development. 

This is a very status quo-ist view..... Things are fine as they are..... And 
lets obfuscate and confuse substantial policy issues, since developing 
countires in any case have poor capacities, and are liable to miss the 
subterfuge. 

CS need not be enthused about it just because MSP principle is promised - MSP 
for what.......

I thought CS always wanted a forum as proposed by WGIG - the canadian proposal 
is NOT about the same 'forum'. And if anyone has some doubt, see the fact that 
canada has even proposed to move the 'forum' section to the part 4 of the 
working document. This section deals with development aspects of Internet. So 
the forum is now about building capapcity of developing countires - on issues 
already decided and firmly established..... It is about development (building 
capacities of developing countires to adopt to dominant paradigms)and not 
about the the 'way forward' (which would put the 'forum' in part 5 on the 'way 
forward'). Pl see canadian proposal below...

In stating the above, I don’t mean dis-respect for any one's views. This is 
how I see the whole thing..... I may not have followed the IG debate well, And 
I will be glad to be corrected on the issues I have put here......

Regards 

Parminder
_____________________________________________

Canada's proposal 

Proposed Terms of Reference for Forum on Internet Governance To be inserted 
either in section 4 (Development), or section 5 (The Way Forward)

================
NEW PARAGRAPH (# to be determined)

We commit to establishing a new forum mechanism, dedicated to enhancing the 
capacity of all stakeholders, particularly those from developing countries, to 
participate fully and effectively in all forums relevant to Internet 
governance.  Recognizing the rapid development of technology and institutions, 
we propose that the forum mechanism periodically be reviewed to determine the 
need for its continuation.  Further, we propose that it be constituted as a 
neutral, non-duplicative and non-binding process chiefly to facilitate the 
exchange of information and best practices and to identify issues that are not 
otherwise being adequately addressed.
The forum mechanism should be viewed as a continuation of 
the "multistakeholder" approach of the WSIS, building on the valuable lessons 
learned in the WSIS and WGIG processes, in particular I the open WGIG 
consultations.

We call upon all stakeholders to engage in and fully support this important 
new mechanism.  The forum mechanism should be established in a timely fashion
to:
.      Strengthen and enhance stakeholders' engagement in existing
and future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly for those from 
developing countries;
.      Develop capacity to participate in discussions and decisions
on pertinent topics under consideration in relevant institutions;
.      Encourage the full involvement and participation of all
stakeholders and experts engaged in Internet governance to benefit from their 
expertise, including those of the academic and scientific communities, to 
facilitate coordination and collaboration, and to avoid duplication;
.      Make full use of the tools of the information society to
conduct capacity building activities, minimizing the need for conferences and 
face-to-face meetings; and
.      Establish ongoing electronic forums on pertinent topics and,
when appropriate, create a permanent on-line record for future use in capacity 
development activities, and to continue to add value over time.


-

Parminder

www.ITforChange.net
IT for Change
Bridging Developmental Realities and Technological Possibilities