<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Monday 18 November 2013 09:23 PM,
Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:528A37DC.1030908@apc.org" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
Dear Anja<br>
<br>
Thank you for this.<br>
<br>
I followed the meeting remotely (which was really hard as I could
not get the webcast but I could follow the transcript) and noticed
this similarity with the CIRP proposal and the IT For Change
proposal. <br>
<br>
Could it be differences between ministries?<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
No, it isnt. My understanding is that this time around the document
with the mentioned Indian position came from the Department of IT to
the WGEC, and not the Ministry of External Affairs..... It is also
my understanding that this position was developed and approved by an
inter ministerial group (headed by Department if IT), consisting of
all the relevant ministries, and more, and have all the highest
level clearances. Hopefully this will put all speculations to
rest...<br>
<br>
While I am on the subject, let me also give me views on what gets
demonised as 'multilateral' versus multistakeholderism that all good
people of the world seem to live and breathe.....<br>
<br>
Now, indeed, I am repeating it for the hundredth time that India is
just proposing to have done by including all countries of the world
that OECD's Internet policy body (Committee on Computers,
Information and Communication Policy or CCICP) already does with
only the richest countries of the world being involved. Is there
anything wrong with it? If so, what? Isnt it just a vast improvement
over the current 'global' Internet policy making system? (Yes, OECD
makes global policy and if the differences are on this point, lets
discuss it.) <br>
<br>
Now, this is not directed against any person(s), but just against a
political viewpoint that I have the right to critique. I am
completely unable to understand how people and organisations that
rather enthusiastically engage with OECD's 'multilateral' Internet
policy making, become so active to criticize exactly the same model
whenever it is proposed by developing countries, as if it had been
taken from the devil himself..... and that dark term
'multilateralism' start getting thrown around. Why havent these
people/organisations ever protested against the multilateralism of
OECD (or of CoE, and the such) making Internet policies (for the
whole world)? Especially when these rich country clubs dont even
include all countries, excluding all those countries whose only
fault is that they arent rich? That would be something for civil
society to be protesting about.... <br>
<br>
Now, let me guess why such civil society critics do not take the
multistakeholder 'policy making' mime to these developed country
institutions. Maybe, they will be laughed at in their face and told,
no, in democratic systems big business and self appointed civil
society reps do not participate in actual decision making. They will
be told that business and civil society vote or veto on substantive
decision making on public policy issues will never never be
accepted. Just forget it (and go read your political science books)
! Civil society persons know this will be the response, and they
dont want to stand there looking a bit sheepish! <br>
<br>
So the question remains, why do then the same civil society people
put this demand of 'equal role in decision making on public policy'
to developing countries, whenever the latter put up any proposal for
new institutional developments to fill in the deep democratic
deficit in the governance to the Internet, which is today a major
instrument of re-distributing all kinds of power?<br>
<br>
I dont know the answer, but we from developing countries must be
given the answer to the above question - why these double standards
between developed countries and the developing ones? Why does the
meaning of multilaterlism and multistakeholderism change so suddenly
when an institutional proposal comes from developing countries? Why
if OECD's CCICP is acceptably multistakehoder and exactly the same
model presented by India takes the demonic colors of
multilateralism... Any takers?<br>
<br>
Happy to further discuss India's and other proposals for the future
of global IG...<br>
<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:528A37DC.1030908@apc.org" type="cite"> <br>
I have had a sense that in the case of India, similar to South
Africa, the ministry of foreign affairs agenda has not always been
fully cleared with, or co-developed with, the ministry of
communications.<br>
<br>
Ministries of foreign affairs usually try to plug in issue
specific matters into a broader foreign policy agenda. Sometimes
this works will for the line ministries, sometimes not.. or
sometimes they are just a but left out of the loop.<br>
<br>
But I think we should also allow for the fact that all
governments, including some of those most committed to
multi-stakeholder participation, should be watched carefully, not
just those who openly put a multi-lateral model on the table.
Often governments pay lip service to 'multi-stakeholder' models
but they are quite comfortable also working in multi-lateral
frameworks and mashing them up in their speeches and inputs
without really concretising what they mean by multi-stakeholder
IG. <br>
<br>
That is why as CS we need to be really vigilant and demand very
clear commitments and mechanisms that allow us to be integrally
part of proposed solutions.<br>
<br>
Anriette<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 18/11/2013 10:22, Anja Kovacs
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJqNAHAWtmzUffYYoS3FVjx17cT24_YHsuX8KuinAW-ibqk=eQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Dear all,<br>
<div><br>
As I thought this would be of interest to many people on
these lists, I wanted to share a short blog post about the
proposal for EC India made to the WGEC (see below this
message and here: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://internetdemocracy.in/2013/11/is-india-reviving-its-un-cirp-proposal/"
target="_blank">http://internetdemocracy.in/2013/11/is-india-reviving-its-un-cirp-proposal/</a>
)<br>
<br>
Over the past year, for various reasons, the earlier UN CIRP
proposal seemed to be off the table and Kapil Sibal,
Minister of Communications and Information Technology, in
particular had become increasingly vocal about his support
for multistakeholder models for Internet governance.
However, during the meeting of the WGEC earlier this month,
the Indian government again tabled a proposal for a
multilateral Internet policy to be established under the UN,
very similar to the earlier UN CIRP. <br>
<br>
Comments most welcome.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Best,<br>
Anja<br>
<br>
<h1 class=""> Is India reviving its proposal for a
multilateral UN body to take over the governance of
the Internet? </h1>
<h3 class=""> <span class="">by Anja Kovacs</span> </h3>
<div class="">
<p><em>Recent events at the UN CSTD Working Group on
Enhanced Cooperation give the strong impression that
this is indeed the case. </em></p>
<p>In a submission to the <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC.aspx"
target="_blank">Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation
(WGEC)</a>, which met for the second time in Geneva
last week, the Indian government recommended the
following:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The UN General Assembly could embark on creation of a
multilateral body for formulation of international
Internet-related public policies. The proposed body
should include all stakeholders and relevant
inter-governmental and international organisations in
advisory capacity within their respective roles as
identified in Tunis agenda and WGIG report. Such body
should also develop globally applicable principles on
public policy issues associated with the coordination
and management of critical Internet resources.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Despite the fact that stakeholders from India already
active within the field of Internet governance have
overwhelmingly disagreed with India’s earlier proposal
to establish a Committee for Internet-related Policies
within the UN (UN CIRP), this proposal thus seems to
have been revived.</p>
<p>Like the earlier one, the proposal that is currently on
the table is problematic for a number of reasons. It
clearly seeks to endorse governments as the primary
stakeholders in Internet governance, whose dominance
needs to be established at the expense of other
stakeholders. Irrespective of the issue under
consideration, other stakeholders will only be given an
advisory role in Internet governance. Moreover, they
will only be allowed to play the roles defined in the
Tunis Agenda. That these definitions - especially where
the role of civil society is concerned - are outmoded is
something that has been recognised widely. During last
week’s WGEC meeting, India acknowledged the debates
around the role definitions of the Tunis Agenda, but
said nothing about how these debates might affect its
proposal.</p>
<p>Support for India’s proposal at the meeting of the
42-member WGEC only came from the government of Saudi
Arabia and from an Indian civil society representative.
The latter took with this a position quite radically
different from other Indian members of civil society
active in Internet governace, or indeed from most of
global civil society in this field, who believe that a
multistakeholder model for Internet governance is the
way forward.</p>
<p>Many, including the Internet Democracy Project, have
argued that there might at times be space for
multilateralism within this multistakeholder model. For
example, if a multistakeholder group comes to the
conclusion that the best way forward to protect the
right to privacy of all people in the Internet age is a
new treaty, then from that point onwards, governments
would take over as negotiating treaties is their job.</p>
<p>However, a crucial difference between such proposals
and the ones currently and previously made by the Indian
government is that in a multistakeholder model, broad
agreement among all stakeholders, including on the
modalities, is a prerequisite for any solution to go
forward. The India proposals, in contrast, presume the
necessity of government dominance in the policy process,
irrespective of the problem at hand, and thus requires
agreement only among governments. This not only means
that inputs by other stakeholders need not necessarily
be given due consideration, it also leaves the Internet
policy making process much more vulnerable to the
vagaries of global geopolitics.</p>
<p>The proposal by India that the new UN body would be
responsible also for developing globally applicable
principles on public policy issues associated with the
coordination and management of critical Internet
resources is particularly surprising in this regard. So
far, the coordination and management of critical
Internet resources lies overwhelmingly with bodies such
as ICANN that, though not without their flaws, are
already multistakeholder in their functioning. To think
that principles that should govern the work of these
bodies can be formulated or effectively applied without
a central involvement of all stakeholders already
involved in these groups (stakeholders who often have,
it should be said, conflicting views about the way
forward) is obviously deeply flawed.</p>
<p>The multistakeholder WGEC is charged with making
recommendations on how to fully implement the mandate of
enhanced cooperation contained in the Tunis Agenda.</p>
<p>India’s renewed proposal, in this context, to establish
a UN body that would privilege governments in the making
of international Internet-related public policy was made
without any domestic consultation, even if a
Multistakeholder Advisory Group had been established by
the government precisely for such purposes in August of
this year.</p>
<p>For many observers in India, it therefore came as
something of a surprise - even more so as Mr. Kapil
Sibal, Minister of Communications and Information
Technology, has repeatedly stressed over the past year
(and as recently as 17 October) the importance of
multistakeholderism for effective Internet policy
making, and his own commitment to this model.</p>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<div><br clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
Dr. Anja Kovacs<br>
The Internet Democracy Project<br>
<br>
+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.internetdemocracy.in/" target="_blank">www.internetdemocracy.in</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a>
executive director, association for progressive communications
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.apc.org">www.apc.org</a>
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>