<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Wednesday 02 October 2013 07:35 PM,
Valeria Betancourt wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:8412B7D1-7595-484C-B27B-AD6F043C5004@apc.org"
type="cite">Dear all,
<br>
<br>
A brief response from Bytes for All, Pakistan and APC on the
intervention by Pakistan at the HRC24.
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.apc.org/en/node/18573">http://www.apc.org/en/node/18573</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Hi Valeria<br>
<br>
You rightly observed in your earlier email that this is the first
time a set of countries have raised the NSA surveillance issue in
the HRC. (And APC has long advocated that HRC is the right place for
many if not most global IG issues.) In the circumstances, such a
harsh response to the concerned statement against NSA snooping is
quite surprising. <br>
<br>
Well, as an aside, one can be opportunistic on the occasion of such
pious statements to point towards the domestic HR record of the
complaining countries. Fair enough... (Although we fail to say such
things when US makes pious statement in favour of
multistakeholderism, transparency etc, not immediately pointing to
TPP, ACTA, and other venues of global IG in which US is such a key
player, and their entire lack of transparency or MSism. We should
just be consistent. At Baku, for instance, several civil society
actors sat on numerous panels where US mouthed things about MSism,
transparency etc, without murmuring a word about US' record in other
IG spaces, and at home. Why this partial treatment to the US?).<br>
<br>
What I find quite surprising is the concern expressed in the APC
statement against the call for "<em>development of an international
mechanism in the context of ‘Enhanced cooperation’ within the <span
class="caps">WSIS</span> Tunis Agenda can be a concrete way
forward</em>", when APC had joined others to roundly applaud
President of Brazil's recent UN statement which inter alia calls for
"establishment of a civilian multilateral framework for the
governance and use of the Internet".<br>
<br>
If there is any essential difference between the two calls, I missed
it, and am happy to be enlightened. <br>
<br>
The APC statement decries - "The imposition of a new global internet
policy framework determined and agreed by governments – and
therefore being a top down and central mechanism – contradicts the
bottom-up multi-stakeholder principles of policy making, as well as
the end to end principles of internet architecture that are
essential to a free and open internet. "<br>
<br>
Well, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a framework
determined and agreed by governments.... Whereas, all proposals for
a new global IG framework do seem to come with much much more
participative avenues then were available when UDHR came about....<br>
<br>
APC statement says " creating a new UN body to focus on internet
policy will not be sustainable, or effective. The internet touches
on so many issues that no single policy space could ever effectively
deal with them all."<br>
<br>
Wonder then what is the logic of creating a single
policy-participation space (which btw now wants to be much more than
that) for global IG in the form of IGF..... How is it that the logic
that works for creating an integral single Internet policy space
like the IGF fails for other levels of Internet policy making
processes... I could not understand this. Would like a
clarification. Also, any effort to develop a new Internet policy
space is to look at issues that do not have a home at present
(clearly recognised in the Tunis agenda and the recent BestBits
statement on EC) and to coordinated Internet-relevant work of other
agencies. No one is proposing that any issue that but touches the
Internet (today, most issues do) should be withdrawn from all
relevant agencies and given to the proposed new body. This is a
complete mis- representation of any such proposal from any
developing country. <br>
<br>
And then, the recommendation is "Bytes for All, Pakistan and <span
class="caps">APC</span> believe that a distributed governance with
concrete and effective multi-stakeholder mechanisms of participation
in decision making is a way with great potential for strengthening
an open and free internet."<br>
<br>
This recommendation will be useful if we knew what exactly is the
referred distributed governance system. And before we get on to this
discussion can we please agree to discuss technical/ logical
governance issues (ICANN plus system) as different from larger
social, economic, political and cultural public policy issues, as
was agreed by the BestBits statement on Enhanced Cooperation to
which APC signed....<br>
<br>
I really have nothing to say about the distributed systems of
technical governance - meaning ICANN plus system. Lets accept it as
it is. Lets talk about other global IG issues, the present HRC
statement also being in such a regard. <br>
<br>
My main question in that respect is; what does APC/ Bytes consider
as a distributed governance system in terms of these larger public
policy issues pertaining to the global governance of the Internet?
Is APC proposing a new system(s) of this kind - in which case we
will like to know what does it look like?<br>
<br>
Or is APC pointing to some existing systems? Is is about the OECD,
TPP, ACTA, Cyberspace conference series, etc, kind of global IG
systems that it calls as a distributed system? If not, which ones?<br>
<br>
If we knew more about the preferred model of distributed governance
of the Internet recommended by APC/Bytes, we will be able to discuss
it here. (But, no ICANN here please, we already agreed to agree on
that system, as it is, and for the tasks it accomplishes.)<br>
<br>
<br>
Thanks. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:8412B7D1-7595-484C-B27B-AD6F043C5004@apc.org"
type="cite">
<br>
Best,
<br>
<br>
Valeria
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 20/09/2013, at 14:07, William Drake wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Hi Robert
<br>
<br>
You didn't see the text circulated here the other day proposing
an intergovernmental declaration on harmony?
<br>
<br>
Apparently it was quickly withdrawn (there may be an interesting
story here) and there will now be a meeting summary doc instead.
<br>
<br>
Bill
<br>
<br>
On Sep 20, 2013, at 7:35 PM, Robert Guerra
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:rguerra@privaterra.org"><rguerra@privaterra.org></a> wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Interesting Indonesia joined pack of
like minded countries. Will be interesting if they try to
advance a document or statement at the high level meeting in
Bali.
<br>
<br>
Robert
<br>
--
<br>
R. Guerra
<br>
Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081
<br>
Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom
<br>
Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rguerra@privaterra.org">rguerra@privaterra.org</a>
<br>
<br>
On 2013-09-20, at 11:39 AM, Valeria Betancourt wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Dear all,
<br>
<br>
Sharing this information with you all.
<br>
<br>
Pakistan, speaking on behalf of Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe,
Uganda, Ecuador, Russia, Indonesia, Bolivia, Iran, and
China, highlighted at HRC24 the need to protect the right to
privacy as an essential element of free expression, citing
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR) and La Rue’s report. The statement explicitly
criticized the role of major international internet and
telecommunication technology companies in violating privacy.
It also explicitly made the links between the allegations of
mass state surveillance and the need for reforming global
internet governance. To quote the statement directly:
<br>
<br>
"The existing mechanisms like the Internet Governance Forum
established under paragraph 72 of the World Summit on
Information Society- Tunis Agenda have not been able to
deliver the desired results. A strategic rethinking of the
global internet governance mechanism is inevitable. Further
development of an international mechanism in the context of
‘Enhanced cooperation’ within the WSIS Tunis Agenda can be a
concrete way forward. However we will need to be sincere in
our efforts to ensure a transparent, free, fair and
respectful international intergovernmental mechanism of
internet governance and one that also ensures the right to
privacy."
<br>
<br>
The full intervention by Pakistan is available at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/HRC24_Pakistan_20130919.pdf">http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/HRC24_Pakistan_20130919.pdf</a>
<br>
<br>
Best,
<br>
<br>
Valeria
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>