<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Verdana">Wolfgang,<br>
<br>
Thanks for your response. Pl see inline..<br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 18 March 2014 03:28 PM,
"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016420AD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Parminder:
In the circumstances, we need a standing global mechanism where such discussions of Internet related social issues (the top layer in Vint Cerf's paper) could take place, and appropriate measures begun to be shaped; which would of course eventually involve a lot of different actors . The biggest existing global Internet governance issue or problem is the absence of any such standing global forum or mechanism.
Wolfgang:
Mechanisms should emerge on the basis of concrete needs and identified gaps. The first thing you have to do is to define the issues which have no existing natural home.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
There is a huge list of such issues. WGIG mentioned some. Many
contributions to WG on Enhanced cooperation list them (see, for
instance, Brazil's and IT for Change's contributions). Now if this
is not enough I can remind you that you chaired the Council of
Europe (CoE) Experts Group on Cross Border Internet, which refers to
some key global or international public policy issues like cross
border Internet traffic, net neutrality and principles for technical
administration of CIRs (and this is a very incomplete list, from a
narrow geo- political perspective).... All these issues do not have
an existing natural home in global space.<br>
<br>
Your expert committee's own mandate came from the CoE
(inter-governmental) committee on media and information society -
which need not exist if Internet or information society issues are
in fact either non existent, or adequately spread over other
sectoral bodies (a huge number of which exist in CoE as well) <br>
<br>
Your own report while outlining some international Internet related
public policy issues recommended to the mentioned CoE
(inter-governmental) committee " to continue action aimed at drawing
up new international legal instruments on cross-border Internet,
which may include the development of mechanisms to identify issues
where commitments or regulation are needed ......."<br>
<br>
Where from then does your scepticism arise when we discuss cross
border Internet related public policy issues on a truly global
stage, to the extent that you doubt whether any such issues exist at
all? I think you need to explain what to me clearly looks like
double standards. <br>
<br>
In your report, you have not recommended that the CoE Committee on
Media and Information Society should abolish itself, which you
should have done as the chair of the mentioned expert committee if
you really believe and advocate that no similar committee is needed
at the global/ UN level . Again, please explain the apparent double
standards. <br>
<br>
And also of course the OECD has similar inter-governmental committee
on Internet issues called the Committee on Computers, Information
and Communication Policies. Why and how do you, and others who work
with these inter-gov committees of rich nations, advocate against
any similar committee/ body where all countries are present/
represented? Does such apparent double standards not amount to
supporting the rule of the richer nations over the less developed
ones? Because when these rich country Internet policy bodies are
working overtime and there is no policy space with globally
democratic representation, it is the policies developed by these
rich country bodies that become the default global laws and
policies. Numerous instances of such default or force-negotiated
global application of Internet related public policies developed by
rich countries can be cited, and if you want examples, I will be
happy to give them. <br>
<br>
It is not the first time that I have posed these questions to you
and others, but I never seem to get a response. Trying once more, in
a different space, since NetMundial is about institutional
development in the global IG space, and the meeting is hosted by a
developing country. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016420AD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> Many public policy related Internet issues have a natural home. There are about 50 governmental and non-governmental global organisations dealing with various Internet related issues: From UN bodies like the Human Rights Concil to the I*Organisations.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Even issues like e-commerce and Intellectual property rights and
access to information in relation to Internet flow, which may have
an apparent home like WTO and WIPO, need a new kind of Internet
specific treatment, in addition to existing sector specific
treatments. This Internet specific treatment has to holistic, taking
into account many other connected Internet-related issues. For
instance, e-commerce, has a lot to do with Internet related privacy,
technical standards, internet security, data rights, Internet
traffic exchange agreements, specific nature of cultural products
and services, banking and payment services, micro or retail taxes,
general jurisdiction issues, and so on..... Similar breath and
variety of Internet specific correlations can be shown for
practically every Internet related public policy issue. <br>
<br>
Of course this is the reason that CoE and OECD has specific Internet
policy related organs, even when they have scores and scores of
sectoral committees dealing with issues like trade, IP, culture,
security, and so on.... Can you tell me your specific reasons that
developing countries too should not avail of participation in such
global Internet related policy making? <br>
<br>
Regards<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016420AD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">To find out what the missing link is and where we have a gap (or a malfunction) we need first of all something like a Multistakeholder Internet Governance Clearing House (I have called this MIPOG / Multistakeholder Internet Policy Group). If a stakeholder, including a national government, has a problem, it could go to MIPOG with a request and MIPOG would recommend how to move forward by delegating the request to an existing mechanism or by launching a (multistakeholder) process in a bottom up, inclusive, open and transparent way to develop policies (as an RFC) which could, if needed, also include the launch of new multistakeholder mechanisms.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>