[WSIS CS-Plenary] Canada at WSIS and WIPO

[Thomas Ruddy]

Dear all,
Just across the road from PrepCom3, the General Assembly of WIPO is taking
place concurrently, on which Jamie Love has a list of current links,
http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/ga2005.html

In a recent interesting article, the Canadian law professor Michael Geist
compares the WSIS and WIPO processes, and bemoans the latest turn in
Canadian policy,
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=961&Ite
mid=70 

Best,
Thomas Ruddy, convenor of www.wsis.ethz.ch  Switzerland 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] On
> Behalf Of William Drake
> Sent: Freitag, 30. September 2005 09:55
> To: plenary at wsis-cs.org
> Subject: RE: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Canada's proposal on IG forum - its
> COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE
> 
> [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire list.
> Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific
> people]
> 
> Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic translation of
> this message!
> _______________________________________
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Parminder is right.  Upon inspection, it is entirely an ICT4D proposal,
> building on programs and approaches Canada/IDRC have supported
> previously---generally useful but not at all what WGIG or CS previously
> had
> in mind.  All capacity building for developing countries, seemingly to fit
> in to the topography of existing IG mechanisms, not dialogue, analysis,
> trend monitoring, soft law making as necessary with an eye toward
> improving
> them.  Capacity building is of course critically important, but the other
> functions are needed.  The caucus statement is much better that the
> Canadian, which makes no mention of the functions and foci we specified,
> listed below.
> 
> If we get the chance to take the floor today, I hope the caucus will
> reiterate support for its own position and diplomatically note the
> comparative limitations of the Canadian one, which many parties do seem to
> be flocking toward, perhaps because it is the most detailed language from
> a
> government.  They should read CS language too...
> 
> Bill
> 
> --------
> IG Caucus List of Forum Functions
> 
> a.	inclusive dialogue, with a differentiated architecture allowing for
> peer-level interaction where appropriate, for example in Birds of a
> Feather,
> working groups, study groups, plenaries, etc.
> 
> b.	comparative, cross-sectoral analysis of governance mechanisms, with
> an
> eye toward "lessons learned" and best practices that could inform
> individual
> and collective institutional improvements
> 
> c.	assessment and monitoring of horizontal issues applicable to all
> Internet
> governance arrangements, e.g. the promotion of transparency,
> accountability,
> inclusion, and other guidelines for "good governance," such as the WSIS
> principles;
> 
> d.	identification of weaknesses and gaps in the governance
> architecture,
> i.e. "orphaned" or multidimensional issues that do not fall neatly within
> the ambit of any existing body;
> 
> e.	identification of potential tensions between separately developed
> mechanisms, and possibly efforts to promote enhanced coordination among
> them;
> 
> f.	promotion of decentralized convergence among positions and
> initiatives,
> where possible;
> 
> g.	pre-decision agenda setting that could, inter alia, feed into the
> work of
> other bodies;
> 
> h.	provide a clearing house for coordination, resource mobilization,
> identification of new needs and gaps, in relation to supporting meaningful
> developing country participation and capacity building
> 
> i.	promote the usage of ICTs to allow remote participation in Internet
> governance processes;
> 
> j.	release recommendations, best practices, proposals and other
> documents on
> the various Internet governance issues.
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org]On
> > Behalf Of Parminder
> > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 11:06 PM
> > To: plenary at wsis-cs.org
> > Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Canada's proposal on IG forum - its
> > COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Plenary mailing list
> Plenary at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary