[WSIS CS-Plenary] Canada's proposal on IG forum - its COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE

Fri Sep 30 10:20:58 BST 2005

Thanks Jeanette, I will very much like believe that canadians just goofed up, 
but I know this is not true. The issues implied here have too long, and 
consistent, a history in North-south geo-politics for this to be true. 

And I have reasoned them in my email - for instance, canada's offer to move 
the 'forum' part to section 4 on 'IG and development' from its present 
location in section 5 on 'the way forward'. So obviuosly they really know what 
they are doing. The approach is too systematic for them not to....

Parminder 

-----Original Message-----
From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] On Behalf 
Of Jeanette Hofmann
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 8:58 AM
To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; Parminder
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, I asked a Canadian delegate the questions you raised in your 
mail. To my surprise, she didn't have to say much on this subject. 
My impression is the Canadian proposal did not leave out deliberately the 
actual purpose of the forum. I think they would be open to suggestions 
regarding this part.
jeanette

Parminder wrote:
> [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 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

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