[governance] BRICS
Mawaki Chango
kichango at gmail.com
Mon Jul 13 12:31:18 EDT 2015
Yes, being hung up on the "equal footing" as an end in itself may also be
kind of ideological. That governments want equal footing among themselves
when they come together to address a set of issues (or when they are all
legitimately concerned by such issues) is largely understandable, as they
are formally similar organizations/entities.
In the context of a global multistakeholderism, particularly in relation to
public policy, what is most important for other stakeholders of a different
form such as CS is to make sure their views and contributions are taken
seriously, given due consideration and factored into the decision making
process. Now, I'm sure there are various ways to achieve this depending on
the setting and ultimately who can sway the decisions to be made, from the
hard to the soft end of the arrangements spectrum (to use Wolfgang's
terminology in this setting), even when CS* is not sitting directly at the
table. It's just a practice that needs to be established, enshrined (and
WSIS itself has enabled that in a typically intergovernmental process -- a
summit); we may just need to be a little more imaginative about it going
forward.
* Not to mention that CS itself is not a unitary entity, certainly not at
global level, and the way it and its decision making are structured also
plays a role here.
Regards,
Mawaki
/Brought to you by my droid agent
Our messages crossed Wolfgang. I think we are in general agreement. As
civil society what we need is a clear vision of what we want internet
governance to look like - and we need to demand that consistently from
all governments, both in multilateral contexts and in the
multistakeholder space, and in all regions and from all blocs.
Anriette
On 13/07/2015 16:26, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> Keith:
> Does this means the ICANN "breakthroughs" of having Brazil and India
pledging allegiance to multistakeholderism is now meaningless, as the heads
of state of BRICS have reaffirmed their commitment to multilateralism?
>
> Good question Keith,
>
> my understanding was always that the "multilateralists"
vs."multistakeholderists" battle is a purely ideological battle and does
not match the reality.
>
> The reality is that the intergovernmental treaty system (which is based
on the Vienne Convention of the Law of Treaties) will not disappear the
next 100 years. And we will have also in the Internet world multilateral
treaties where governments agree among themselvs (in a legally binding
form) about rights, duties and responsibilities. Take the Budapest
Cybercrime Convention which is ratfied by states which support the
multistakeholder approach (and which is not ratified by governments which
support the multilateral approach).
>
> But on top of legally binding hard law treaties there will be more and
more soft law instruments or other arrangements. In many areas where we
have global problems, governments are and will be unable to agree.
States/government have different ideas, interests and objectives and do not
want to agree if it comes to issues where they see national interests and
national sovereignty at stake. But the system of international relations is
much broader and more complex then bi- or multilateral legally binding
relationships among governments.
>
> Insofar the multistakeholder approach allows to find more flexible
arrangements which can produce even more stability than legally binding
treaties (which can be also ignored when governments change their mind or
the circumstances are changing/ clausular rebus sic stantibus) because such
multistakeholder arrangements pull non-governmental stakeholders into a
mechanism where those groups from the private sector, the technical
community or even civil society take committments to themselves to follow
certain principles, norms or programms (as described in the WGIG
Definition).
>
> Such an approach does not exclude intergovernmental arrangements. They
are and will continue to be a part of the broader picture. The language I
use is that today "the multilateral system is "embedded" into a
multistakeholder environment". So it is not "either-or". You can have both.
This are two different layers. And BTW, the Indian minister in BA used the
language "multistakeholder and multilayer" mechanism which is correct in my
eyes.
>
> With regard to the BRICS: There is the draft convention by the Shanghai
Group in the 1st Committee of the UNGA. I expect that it is rather
unrealistic that this draft gets universal acceptance. Some elements are
reflected now in the new report of the Group of Governmental Experts, which
will be published early August and discussed by the UNGA in October. The
Ufa Declaration tries to keep the door open. India, Brazil, even China can
continue with a "double strategy". But this is part of the political cat
and mouse game. The "Ufa Declaration" does not mention anymore a "regional
cybersecurity treaty" (as it was considered by some Russian experts). The
member states of the African Union have negotiated a regional cybersecurity
treaty. So one scenario could be to have three (or four or five) regional
multilateral cybersecurity treaties. This is probably gone. A good move.
The reality is that we probably will continue with a situation where the
50+ member states of the Budapest
Conventio
n invite the non-member states to sign and ratify the Budapest Convention
and the other governments (including the BRICS countries) propose to have a
new convention under the auspices of the UN. Difficult to make any forcast
how this will be played out.
>
>
> Here is an excerpt from a previous article I wrote to the issue:
>
> "An important role will play how the numerous involved governmental and
non-governmental actors understand the nature of the complexity of the
Internet Governance Eco-System. Already the terminology "Internet
Governance Eco-System" signals that the Internet is not just "another
policy issue" which — after the revelations of Edward Snowden — has been
pushed now for policy decision makers from "low priority" to "high
priority". The problem is much more complex.
>
> The Internet is not a "single issue" which needs to be regulated in one
way or another. The Internet, as it has evolved over half of a century, has
penetrated all areas of the political, economic, cultural and social life
around the globe. It constitutes more and more the environment in which
individuals and institutions do live and learn, do their business, buy and
sell, make love and fun and have all kind of individual or collective
activities. The Internet Governance Eco-System constitutes to a high degree
the virtual environment of the 21st century. Life without the Internet is
meanwhile unthinkable for the young generation which are the decision
makers of tomorrow. From the 20th century we know about the consequences of
the pollution of our natural environment. The lesson learned from those
disasters is that we should be very careful with all kinds of pollutions
and keep our real and virtual environment as healthy as possible.
>
> The Internet Governance Eco-System can be compared a little bit to the
rainforest. In the rainforest an uncountable number of diverse plants and
animals live together in a very complex system. In the "virtual rainforest"
we have also an endless and growing diversity of networks, services,
applications, regimes and other properties which co-exist in a mutual
interdependent mechanism of communication, coordination and collaboration.
One thing which can be learnt is that the rainforest as a whole is not
managable. It can be neither governed nor controlled, but it can be damaged
and destroyed. In the Internet Governance Eco-System many players with very
different legal status operate on many different layers, on local,
national, regional and international levels, driven by technical
innovation, user needs, market opportunities and political interests.
> Good Question Keith,
>
>
> As a result we see a very dynamic process where — from a political-legal
perspective — a broad variety of different regulatory, co-regulatory or
self-regulatory regimes emerge, co-exist and complement or conflict each
other. The system as a whole is decentralized, diversified and has no
central authority. However, within the various subsystems there is an
incredible broad variety of different sub-mechanisms which range from
hierarchical structures under single or inter-governmental control to
non-hierarchical networks based on self-regulatory mechanisms by
non-governmental groups with a wide range of co-regulatory arrangements in
between where affected and concerned stakeholders from governments, private
sector, civil society and technical community are working hand in hand.
>
> There is no "one size fits all" solution. The specific form of each
sub-system has to be designed according to the very specific needs and
nature of the individual issue. In such a mechanism, traditional national
legislation and intergovernmental agreements continue to play a role but
have to be embedded into the broader multistakeholder environment while new
emerging mechanisms have to take note and recognize existing frameworks and
regulations on various levels. The "do-not-harm" principle becomes more
important than ever. It means that whatever a governmental or
non-governmental player will do in the Internet has to take into
consideration its direct or indirect consequences for not involved third
parties as well as the unintended side-effects for the system as a whole.
>
> Such a competitive coexistence of rather different regimes and mechanisms
creates opportunities but has also risks. There are incredible
opportunities for new mechanisms, platforms and services to bring more
dynamic into political strategies, social actions and market developments.
This competitive coexistence can stimulate innovation, promote job
creation, enlarge all kinds of cultural activities and broaden the use of
individual freedoms by the public at large both in developed and developing
nations. But there is also a risk that differences between regimes and
systems create controversies and produce heavy conflicts which includes the
threat to turn down innovation, hamper sustainable development, to reduce
individual freedoms and to pollute the Internet Governance Eco-System in a
way that parts of it will be damaged or destroyed.
>
> The challenge is to find flexible mechanisms for enhanced communication,
coordination as well as formal and informal collaboration among the various
players at the different layers to allow that all stakeholders can play
their respective role on an equal footing without discrimination in an open
and transparent mechanism. Among the key principles for such an enhanced
cooperation are, inter alia, mutual respect and recognition of the role of
other stakeholders, legitimacy, checks and balances in a workable and
recognized accountability system, early engagement and others.
>
>
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20131231_internet_governance_outlook_2014_good_news_bad_news_no_news/
>
> Does this means the ICANN "breakthroughs" of having Brazil and India
> pledging allegiance to multistakeholderism is now meaningless, as the
> heads of state of BRICS have reaffirmed their commitment to
multilateralism?
>
> Cheers
>
> Keith
>
> On 10/07/2015 5:42 a.m., "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> the heads of states of the five BRICS Countries have just finished their
summit in the Russian City of Ufa.
>>
>> They adopted a 50 pages declaration which includes (as the Forteleza
Declaration in Brazil in 2014) also two long paragraphs related to
Internet. There are more good than bad news in the document. And pobably
one have to read the document by recognizing what is NOT in the adopted
language: There is only little use of terminology like "Internet
Governance" or "multistakeholderism". They do not mention ICANN or IANA or
the IGF or the NetMundial conference. The used terminology is "ICT", the
main subject is "security".
>>
>> The key Internet paras 33.4 - 33.6 say:
>>
>> 33.4 We consider that the Internet is a global resource and that states
should participate on equal footing in its evaluation and funtioning,
taking into account the need to involve relevant stakeholders in their
respective roles and responsibilities." And they add in the sama para: "We
are in favour of an open, non-fragmented and secure Internet. We uphold the
roles and responsibilities of national governments in regard to regulation
anf security of the ntwork."
>>
>> 33.5 acknolwledges the need "to promote, among others, the principles of
multilateralism, democracy, transparency and mutual trust and stand for the
universally agreed rules of conduct with regard to the network. It is
necessary to ensure that the UN plays a fascilitating role in setting up
international policies pertaining to the Internet.
>>
>> 33.5 We support the evolution of the Internet governance ecosystem,
which should be based on an open and democratic process, free from the
influence of any unilateral considerations."
>>
>> The other para 35 deals mainly with security questions. In 35.1 the
heads of state recognize "the need for a universal regulatory binding
instrument on combating the criminal use of ICTs under the UN auspieces.
>>
>> In 35.2 they reaffirm the "key role of the UN" in adressing Internet
related security issues.
>>
>> The have also re-established the BRICS Working Group of experts on
security in the use of ICTs. This Group will enhance cooperation among
BRICS countries, including collaboration among existing CSIRTS.
>>
>> Would be good to know why they did not mention IANA Transition, IGF and
WSIS 10+
>>
>> Wolfgang
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
--
-----------------------------------------
Anriette Esterhuysen
Executive Director
Association for Progressive Communications
anriette at apc.org
www.apc.org
IM: ae_apc
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
http://www.igcaucus.org/
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150713/252ece72/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
http://www.igcaucus.org/
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance
mailing list