<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 24 September 2013 12:16 PM,
Shahzad Ahmad wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:CE671EB4.479D3%25shahzad@bytesforall.pk"
type="cite">
<div>Dear Parminder,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>At least Budapest conference was not that closed.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Dear Shahzad,<br>
<br>
If you are happy with the level and processes of openness of this
cyber conference series, I am happy for your happiness. In fact, I
would not bother critiquing mere conferences. People have the a
right to hold whatever conference they wish to hold and call
whomever they wish to call.... the human right to free
association...<br>
<br>
My critique, as I mentioned, was in a specific context, whereby this
particular series of cyber conferences, purport to have much more
political weight than any normal conference, and are held with
somewhat clear basic political objectives. One that I harped upon
is; to expose and tout policy frameworks and principles that were
earlier developed by rich countries, in rather inter-gov manners,
for limited co-optation among other countries.... I simply do not
like this model of global governance, and
this_is_the_principal_model_of_global_governance_of_the_Internet_today.
Is it only to the extent that this particular series of cyber
conferences are emerging as an important link in this problematic
model of global governance that I have some issues about the
forthcoming Seoul Conference.<br>
<br>
Again, it is in this specific background alone that I find it non
participative, non inclusive etc. If I remember right, when the
Budapest conference happened, Wolfgang had similarly criticised the
attempt of some countries to take some of the most important and
impactful Internet governance discussions to such closed spaces,
instead of other spaces where participation is so much more open,
like the IGF. <br>
<br>
Now if you have no problem with this particular model of global
governance of the Internet, which is today the dominant one, that it
is fine with me. In that case you would obviously not find my
critique appealing. For just a conference I dont care how they
arrange it, neither I am entitled to do so,<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:CE671EB4.479D3%25shahzad@bytesforall.pk"
type="cite">
<div> I know there was an effort to bring range of stakeholders
(including CSOs) to that event and in some instances even funded
by the Hungarian Government. Though, we could not attend being
committed elsewhere but we had at least two sessions with the
embassy to inform them of local issues. Some of the diplomats
also went to Budapest to attend. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
That is the problem. Why should developing country have to go to
discuss global IG issues in meetings that are designed and tightly
controlled by a few Northern countires... Why should such
discussions, and the outcome documents (as these cyber conferences
do produce), not happen at neutral publicly funded venues, like that
if the UN.... That is the question. The countries that promote this
series of conferences actually say in UN venues that there indeed
aren;t enough coherent set of policy issues that require specific
treatment under names like that of cyberspace, global IG and so
on.... And they oppose any proposal to do similar convening in UN
kind of neutral venues...<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:CE671EB4.479D3%25shahzad@bytesforall.pk"
type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We believe that undermining CSOs strengths and efforts (even
among ourselves) wont't help the cause at all. We believe IGF is
important so are many other spread out forums. Not necessarily
all of us would have the capacity and time to engage with each
one of them but we appreciate the efforts by all the colleagues
especially CSOs and academia to keep the struggle up. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So can we all please pay some urgent attention to the appeal
by Byoungil? Byoungil, please count us in for any response based
on your observations that you plan to put forward on the
openness, access and objectives of this conference. It is all
the more important to engage with this given its importance.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best wishes and regards</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Shahzad</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt;
text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none;
BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT:
0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid;
BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt"><span
style="font-weight:bold">From: </span> parminder <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span> Tuesday,
September 24, 2013 9:51 AM<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span> "<,<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net>">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net></a>,"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span> Re:
[bestbits] Seoul Conference on Cyberspace 2013<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <font face="Verdana">Hi
Byoungil<br>
<br>
I may be wrong but I have a somewhat different perspective
on this Conference on Cyberspace...<br>
<br>
This Seoul conference is one of a series that started with
London Cyber conference and then went to Budapest, now
coming to Seoul....<br>
<br>
One, it is not inclusive (multistakeholder etc) not at all
because of any China/ Russia factor, but because that is
how it always has been. That is how it was designed, and I
can assure you that China and Russia were not among the
chief designers. <br>
<br>
Secondly, it is not an unimportant conference or site of
global IG; it is a very important one.<br>
<br>
This is how it is.... OECD, UN Security Council and such
spaces are where big boys play and decide things; IGF et
all are for the show, a largely managed show for kids, for
all those who would otherwise make noises - yes, you got
it, a large pat of it, civil society.....<br>
<br>
Now, having developed the basic frameworks/ principles.
this series of cyber conferences is where part co-optation
is sought from the outside - from some more powerful
countries outside the 'inner club' , may be one or two
very power non-gov actor too.... But still a strictly
controlled space (as you found out) , of selective
co-optation. In these spaces, the wannabes,
euphemistically called emerging economies, are allowed a
peek in, only if they behave they could be included into
bilateral and pluri-lateral arrangements. Here, the policy
frameworks and principles developed in deep secret closed
spaces are sought to be aired a bit, with an attempt to
expand their legitimacy. (You will find out as you see the
conference outcome documents.) <br>
<br>
Of course, there is no business </font><font
face="Verdana">here </font><font face="Verdana">of the
pesky civil society kinds . They are too powerless, and
perhaps naive, to even be offered an co-optation.... They
have their agreed play space at the IGF where, </font><font
face="Verdana">in less than 2 weeks after this key global
IG meeting</font><font face="Verdana">,
multistakeholderism will again be celebrated by the same
parties holding this conference as strictly for 'adults
only'. <br>
<br>
Do excuse my ironic tone, but I have been earlier trying
to say in plain words that we should focus on real sites
of global IG, at least as much as we do on our few
favourite ones. Incidentally, these latter sites seem to
be also the ones that the most dominant global IG powers
would want civil society to be stay bogged down with.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Monday 23 September 2013
09:00 PM, Byoung-il Oh wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAOGFQRxzpjcoNxxhzPvagcAGsnywUpYpD=n5ti_1EsszJtY4cg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Hi, <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>As you may know, Seoul Conference on Cyberspace
2013 will be held in Seoul on Oct. 17-18. </div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.seoulcyber2013.kr/en/main/main.do">http://www.seoulcyber2013.kr/en/main/main.do</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Last May, I had met the chief officer of
Preparatory Secretariat of the conference to inquire
to him the progress of the conference. At that time,
the detailed agenda and panelists had not been fixed
yet. In the meeting, I inquired what would the output
of the conference and how civil society could
participate in the process. The answer was that they
expected to produce chair's summary plus as the
output, but needed more discussion on what could be
the 'plus'. </div>
<div>As a preparatory process, they told several
pre-workshop would be held. <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.seoulcyber2013.kr/en/event/workshop.html">http://www.seoulcyber2013.kr/en/event/workshop.html</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>However, they didn't give definite answer to the
question of how the result of pre-workshop would be
linked to the output of the conference, how civil
society could participate in the process and give
opinions to draft the output. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>After the meeting, I felt that this conference
would not be for making concrete policy through
substantial discussions of multi-stakeholders, but
just cosmetic diplomatic events. Actually, the
Preparatory Secretariat is operated under the Ministry
of Foreign Affiars, not Telecommunication authority. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In the meeting, the chief officer told that he
himself thought much of the value of open and
multi-stakeholder process, but they had to consider
the position of the countries (China, Russia etc)
which don't like multistakeholderism. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>After that, we, the coaliton of civil society in
Korea, invited a staff of Preparatory Secretariat as a
panel in our public forum last June, but we couldn't
hear nothing new from him. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Recently, I checked its homepage and found with
surprise that anyone from civil society could not
invited as a panel. <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.seoulcyber2013.kr/en/program/speakers_1.html">http://www.seoulcyber2013.kr/en/program/speakers_1.html</a></div>
<div>Moreover, I found that they even restricted the
participation of the public. It was a closed
conference! When I tried to register in the
conference, I had to request PIN first in the <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://register.seoulcyber2013.kr/">http://register.seoulcyber2013.kr/</a>,
but I couldn't receive a PIN. So I called to the
secretariat and ask why. They said that PIN would be
given to the invited person. In the case of who were
not invited, preparatory secretariat will examine the
person who requested to particiapte and dicide whether
to allow participation or not. I have no idea this was
the conventional practice in the former cyberspace
conference. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>And, I wonder how do you think about cyberspace
conference, the importance of the conference in the
context of global internet governance. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best Regards,</div>
<div>Oh Byoungil </div>
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.jinbo.net/support/" target="_blank"><img
moz-do-not-send="true"
src="http://blog.jinbo.net/attach/3778/1166155042.png"></a>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</span>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>