<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
"We've spoken loudly enough about what we don't want - the ITU. So,
what <i>do</i> we want?" Jeremy<br>
<br>
I entirely agree that we need to proceed with a positive agenda, and
developing principles for IG, or Internet policy principles, is the
best way to go forward. I am sorry to take a 'we said so' position
but since the very first IGF, in fact even before it, in the call to
contribute to developing the agenda of the first IGF, IT for Change
has been insisting that developing Internet policy principles is the
best way to go, especially given the stalemate on which institution
should do what. WIth this objective in view we, along with other
partners, set by the IGF dynamic coalition on <span lang="en-US">'
Framework of Principles for the Internet</span>' which later
merged with the dynamic coalition on bill of rights to form the DC
on Internet rights and principles....<br>
<br>
We are happy that there is now an even greater sentiment for
developing principles for Internet policy making today. It is
however unfortunate that a good part of this sentiment has risen as
a reaction to what may be perceived to have begun happening at the
UN. To that extent, it will not be entirely misplaced if some
developing countries look at these 'new' - apparently reactive -
initiatives with a good degree of cynicism, inviting doubts about
'whose agenda it really is'. We often are so quite careful about
what US may think of an initiative; it is at least equally required
that we bear in mind what developing countries may think. <br>
<br>
It is therefore always best to seize any initiative pro-actively,
leveraging the moral high ground that civil society has. Though we
are quite late on the Internet principles thing, it is still good
time, However, if we are to be informed by the lessons learnt of not
being always reactive, and always looking to what a US gov or a
google will think of this or that, and if we, as global civil
society, are to be taken seriously, we just must go ahead and
present the best public interest Internet principles that we can
pull together and present it to the world. And then we should seek
to get as many as possible public interest actors behind us. Let us
not get too circumspect quite early on. We should certainly be
practical and pragmatic but not already negotiating too much with
the key dominant actors, whether actually, or in our minds. To put
it somewhat bluntly - we dont negotiate when it is inappropriate
content regulation or privacy issues, why should we negotiate when
it is net neutrality. The only legitimacy and 'power' that civil
society has is of its taking up the interests and struggles of the
less powerful - lets stick to our legitimising roots. <br>
<br>
In sum, and to repeat, what I propose is that we pull together the
best public interest principles for Internet policy (or IG) that we
can, keeping reasonable pragmatism in background of our work, and
then take it to the world. The methodology that we adopt - and I
understand that is the question my mail is trying to respond to -
should be determined by this objective. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Thursday 06 December 2012 03:15 PM,
Jeremy Malcolm wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:18978622-60EC-4E9C-8173-47110B907D9F@ciroap.org"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<div>
<div>On 04/12/2012, at 12:01 AM, Norbert Bollow <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch">nb@bollow.ch</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">Anriette Esterhuysen <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">This does bring us back to our 'Best
Bits' goal about developing and<br>
proposing principles for internet governance. Should we not
begin to<br>
plan our next steps?<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Absolutely.<br>
<br>
How can things realistically be moved forward in a positive,<br>
constructive way?<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I worry that the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" meme with
which most are approaching WCIT will solidify into a general
opposition to any global norm-setting outside of the Internet
technical community's institutions, and that Internet policy
development will thereby be confined to the national level.
This is not helped by the US government's predisposition to
avoid taking on international obligations (the Disabilities
Treaty being the latest example, besides the Law of the Sea, the
International Criminal Court, the Cybercrime Convention, the
Treaty for the Visually Impaired, etc) - except of course
through multilateral trade agreements! I think we need to work
on addressing that perception, and point out that:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>1. Multi-stakeholder Internet governance will be soft law,
guidance rather than compulsion.</div>
<div>2. Even the US is promulgating global Internet norms through
fora that suit it (OECD, APEC, and the "free flow of
information" provisions in the TPP).</div>
<div>3. So we need to move this into multi-stakeholder global
fora, at a higher level that does not bind anyone, and need not
restrict national policy space.</div>
<div>
<div>4. There are various non-technical Internet policy issues
that have no appropriate global home (nor should the ITU
become their home).</div>
</div>
<div>5. For example, a potential core competency is connecting
Internet governance with human rights, as a framework to guide
the development of national and multilateral norms for IP
enforcement.</div>
<div>6. Let's propose an IGF-based multi-stakeholder enhanced
cooperation mechanism that would be an acceptable way to deal
with such issues.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We all hate hierarchy, but sometimes a little bit of
structure is necessary to provide firm enough guidance to
policymakers (look at the failure of IPv6 adoption). The
existing loose network of Internet governance institutions, even
if their "cooperation" is "enhanced", isn't structured enough to
provide such guidance in a way that will satisfy the
stakeholders (governmental and non-governmental) who are seeking
more from the enhanced cooperation process.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>At Best Bits a few options were described, though we ran out
of time to debate them. As I see it, there is a UN-linked
option (which in turn divides into an IGF-based option or an
IGF-independent option), or there is a UN-independent option
(the Enhanced Cooperation Task Force, ECTF). So far, almost
none of us have been serious about pursuing any of these. But
the status quo is not going to hold. One way or another,
Internet governance is going to evolve, and it will do so with
us or without us. We've spoken loudly enough about what we
don't want - the ITU. So, what <i>do</i> we want?</div>
<br>
<div apple-content-edited="true">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate;
border-spacing: 0px; ">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate;
color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style:
normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2;
text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2;
word-spacing: 0px; border-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none;
-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width:
0px; font-size: medium; ">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode:
space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse:
separate; font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans:
2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2;
word-spacing: 0px; border-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none;
-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; ">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode:
space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse:
separate; font-family: Helvetica; font-style:
normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal;
orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent:
0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal;
widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; border-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none;
-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; ">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break:
after-white-space; "><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0,
0, 0); font-size: medium; border-collapse:
separate; font-family: Helvetica; font-style:
normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height:
normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto;
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing:
0px; border-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none;
-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; ">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><span
class="Apple-style-span"
style="border-collapse: separate;
font-family: Helvetica; font-style:
normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal; orphans: 2;
text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent:
0px; text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;
border-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none;
-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; ">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><span
style="background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255); ">-- </span><br
style="background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255); ">
<p style="font-size: 9pt;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);
position: static; z-index: auto; "><b>Dr
Jeremy Malcolm<br>
Senior Policy Officer<br>
Consumers International | the global
campaigning voice for consumers</b><br>
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle
East<br>
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji
Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia<br>
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599</p>
<p style="font-size: 9pt;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);
"><b>Your rights, our mission –
download CI's Strategy 2015:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://consint.info/RightsMission">http://consint.info/RightsMission</a></p>
<p style="font-size: 9pt;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);
">@Consumers_Int | <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/">www.consumersinternational.org</a> | <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational">www.facebook.com/consumersinternational</a></p>
<p style="background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255); font-size: 8pt; color:
rgb(153, 153, 153); ">Read our <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality"
target="_blank">email
confidentiality notice</a>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.</p>
</div>
</span></div>
</span></div>
</span></div>
</span></div>
</span></div>
</span>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>