<div>some corrections.</div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 1:54 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com">isolatedn@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div><div>Hello All,</div><div><br></div><div>China as a nation with a population of 1.3 billion people represents over a fifth of the whole world and for this reason, if not for any other, we need to sit up and listen to anything that China says, though a lot of what China says may be disagreeable.</div>
<div><br></div><div>On this instance, I consider the views expressed by China largely respectable, but needs to be bridged in some areas.</div><div><br></div></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px">
<span style="font-style:italic">>>CHINA: the delegation of China prefers the proposal put forward by Egypt, "Internet, an opportunity for all." </span><br></blockquote><div><div>
<br></div><div>That is positive. Irrespective of how this might have disappointed the Rights Coalition, the fact that China endorses the theme of " Internet as an Opportunity for all" is postive and it shows China's inclination to feel very positive about the Interent.</div>
<div><br></div></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"> <span style="font-style:italic">>>under the theme of "critical Internet resource management," we think that JPA is a very important theme ... we're going to [discuss] this in September ... we should do it in IGF, too.</span><br>
</blockquote><div><div><br></div><div>This indicates that China does not feel that the JPA review in September would be conclusive. Yes, in all probability, the September review could be inconclusive, so China's opinion that Management of Critical Internet Resources should be prominently discussed is a valid point. Also, this implies that China feels that JPA review should stretch beyond the purview of US Government and the topic of JPA review by itself needs to be internationalized.</div>
<div><br></div></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"> <span style="font-style:italic">>>Thirdly, now, as to security, ... we need to talk about regrouping the energies and resources of all parties concerned and to strengthen the international mechanism in order to promote security and stability for the Internet at the worldwide level.<br>
<br> >>In order to guarantee the security of states and to guarantee the interests of citizens to fight against terrorism and other crimes, all countries have the right to filter the contents of certain Internet sites. And I think that this is something that all countries are in the process of doing.</span><br>
</blockquote><div><div><br></div><div>Governments always tend to emphaize Security in such a way that Privacy and Openness are traded off in the name of Security. China says that all countries are in the process of filtering certain Internet sites and this is true and disturbing. While China is vocal about this, rest of the world are doing just that, in vaying measures such as by enacting legislations, prompting ISPs, changing policies or by publishing guidelines - so to say that several nations are rather SILENTLY implementing measures that compromise on all the fundamental values of the Internet. China is far more respectable than those nations that quietly pull up legislations, because China at least states its position unambiguously for the world to know.</div>
<div><br></div></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"> <span style="font-style:italic">>>IGF as a meeting hosted, under the auspices of the United Nations, talks about URL blocking. Now, will this give an impression to the outside world that the United Nations are against content blocking? Are the U.N. against the practice of certain states filtering some Internet sites so that when we talk about "blocking," should the theme of blocking be incorporated in our IGF meeting? We have to be very careful about that.</span><br>
</blockquote><div><div><br></div><div>Interesting to note that China takes the views of IGF as that of the position adopted by the United Nations. It is also interesting to note that China talks in terms of a "RIGHT" to block content. (The rights approach is a double-edged sword. Max Senges, are you listening?)</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>(I want to add that I implied that I disagree with China's position that Governments have a right to block content) </div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div><div></div>
<div><br></div></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"> <span style="font-style:italic">>>the essence of IGF's work is establishing dialogue, exchanging points of view. But this is not enough to solve the problems. The real problem is that in the field of the Internet, there is a monopoly that exists. And we need to solve that problem. It's not by talking about principles merely that we can solve this problem.</span><br>
</blockquote><div><div><br></div><div>What China says here is very, very true. IGF is a distraction. It is a huge distraction. A thousand participants representing various stakeholders, not quite balanced by People's civil representatives, debate on issues, but what happens out there in legislative chambers of the world is completely unrelated to the discussions that take place at the IGF. Make a list of the policy changes and legislations enacted in various countries in the last 3 years and examine if the legislations enacted in bits and pieces reflect the mood of the IGF in any way. I am alarmed by the seemingly unrelated bits and pieces happening in various countries that completely disregard the reflections at the IGF, especially in matters related to Privacy, Human Rights, Openness, Transparency and more importantly the mutli-stakeholder principle.</div>
<div><br></div></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><span style="font-style:italic"> >>We can also see this kind of discussion taking place. But it's not enough for developing countries who don't have enough resources and don't have the capacities to participate in this kind of dialogue without further commitments being made, which is why the points of view of developing countries, especially when it comes to Internet governance, their points of view are not sufficiently reflected in our discussions, which is why we don't agree that the IGF should continue its mandate after the five years are up.</span><br>
</blockquote><div><div><br></div><div>China's rationale is well explained in the above statement, but it has not come up with an acceptable alternative. My comment follows the next paragraph.</div><div><br></div></div>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"> <span style="font-style:italic">>>So we repeat that the delegation of China does not agree with extending the mission of the IGF beyond the five years ... we would need to look at the results that have been achieved. And we need, then, to launch into an intergovernmental discussion...The work of its next phase should be based on the results achieved in the previous years. We need to launch an intergovernmental discussion in order to solve the real problems that exist in this field of Internet governance.</span><br>
</blockquote><div><div><br></div><div>Yes, we need to take a very serious look at the results achieved with a particular emphasis on how the Governments of the world have IGNORED the IGF deliberations and ignored the mood of the IGF. But why "intergovernmental" discussions in place of IGF? That would go towards ending the mutli-stakeholder principle. That implies an attempt to 'capture' the Internet and make it the sole 'property' of Governments?</div>
<div><br></div><div>(Exactly the reason why the IGF should continue. The alternatives to IGF would be a complete reversal of the multi-stakeholder process. Irrespective of what little has been achieved, IGF should continue and STRENGTHENED to make it effective.)</div>
<div><br></div><div>China's position needs to be a bit fine-tuned. </div><div><br></div><div>The world needs to respond to China with plenty of respect for its views as it is a nation that is home to 1.35 billion. Some persuasive arguments are needed, a debate is needed with China in its positions on Security issues such as content-blocking, privacy, and mutli-stakeholder principle.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>correction: ... a debate is needed with China in its positions on issues such as Security, content-blocking .... </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div><div></div>
<div><br></div><div>We might have enhanced receptiveness from China if the "monopoly" is conceded in favor of a balanced governance. But balanced Governance in unilateral oversight needs to based on the multi-stakeholder principle. </div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Correction: balanced Governance in place of unilateral oversight .....</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div><div>This is the fine-tuning that is needed on China's views.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Thank you.</div></div><br clear="all">
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy<br><a href="http://turiya.wordpress.com" target="_blank">http://turiya.wordpress.com</a><br>Blog: <a href="http://isocmadras.blogspot.com" target="_blank">http://isocmadras.blogspot.com</a><br><br>
facebook: <a href="http://is.gd/x8Sh" target="_blank">http://is.gd/x8Sh</a><br>
LinkedIn: <a href="http://is.gd/x8U6" target="_blank">http://is.gd/x8U6</a><br>Twitter: <a href="http://is.gd/x8Vz" target="_blank">http://is.gd/x8Vz</a><br>Airtel: +91 99524 03099<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br><br>
<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Carlos<br>
<br>
I strongly share your concerns, and think this may be the time of
reckoning for the global civil society - if it exists in IG arena - to
introspect and see if they can figure out what best can it do in these
circumstances. Apart from acting at other global and national fora, it
is important we revisit what we did right or wrong vis a vis
supporting and shaping the IGF, and what are our options ahead.<br>
<br>
For the IGC as a group to be able to do this however we need to able to
share some fundamental values that we all cherish, and a conception of
people's rights in the emerging information society paradigm. What has
happened in France, and the way the IG scene is increasingly getting
ITU-centric, could hopefully act as an eye opener. I do feel that we
have a strong collective responsibility in this regard, since IGC is
perhaps the only geographically representative CS group in this area.
But I do get told often that I tend to put unrealistic expectations
on the IGC :) . <br>
<br>
I will share my impressions of the MAG meeting and the open
consultations after the official summary is out, in a day or two. <br><font color="#888888">
<br>
Parminder <br>
<br>
</font></font><div><div></div><div><br>
Carlos Afonso wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>On the other hand, it seems "WSIS II -- The Mission" might be coming by,
as the ITU's sponsored meeting of this coming week seems to be
considering, among other issues. And we might have an "IGF Part II" and
so on. I do hope not -- it is about time the world converges to a far
more extensive international IG structure.
Most of us (not all, which is sad) in this list are shocked by the
French decisions to run over several laws and rights to suppress
Internet users in summary "executions" (motivated centrally by the cozy
relationship of Monsieur Sarkozy with a French media mogul). One can
imagine what Berlusconi (himself *the* Italian media mogul) can and will
do, since he seems to hold the hearts and minds of the Italians in his
hands. And the Brits seem to be going along.
Worse, what are the aftershocks in developing countries' governments
throughout the world of these processes in the so-called "Western
democracies"? We are right now in Brazil fighting against draconian
bills of law which would in practice eliminate the Internet as we know
it. And we are left with the chatting and tea-partying of the IGF as the
international forum to try and do something -- i.e, left with nearly
nothing in practice to confront this razzia of violations against basic
human rights.
I remember the jokes the Europeans liked to tell to us Brazilians about
the group of "like-minded countries" during the WGIG process. After all,
Brazil is a representative democracy just llike us, what are you doing,
aligning yourself with Iran, China and so on? I now return the question,
sadly, as Europe seems to be joining happily, step by step, the likes of
China and Saudi Arabia regarding fundamental human rights on the Internet.
frt rgds
--c.a.
Ian Peter wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>This wont be the end of the calls for IGF to be abandoned. One ISOC trustee
(speaking as an individual) was saying the same thing today. And once the
decision making gets out of the sympathetic enclave of IGF attendees a whole
lot of people who don't know much about it are likely to follow calls from
entities like ITU and China. This will include decision makers in
governments who currently appear to be sympathetic.
It doesn't look like IGF will be taking the sort of actions that might help
to promote its position and effectiveness among those who will make
decisions on this (no communications campaign, no structured evaluation
etc).
So I don't think the outcome is a foregone conclusion and we can write off
the Chinese position as a rogue one. This is likely to have some more
interesting twists and turns.
Ian Peter
On 14/05/09 3:39 PM, "Jeremy Malcolm" <a href="mailto:jeremy@ciroap.org" target="_blank"><jeremy@ciroap.org></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>For those who didn't follow the open consultation meeting yesterday,
China became the first to openly oppose the continuation of the IGF:
"Firstly, we very much appreciate the secretariat for their excellent
work. We agree in principle with what has been said by previous
speakers on the specific aims of the IGF. We feel that the IGF has
contributed a great deal in light of its historic mandate ...
establishing dialogue, exchanging points of view. But this is not
enough to solve the problems. The real problem is that in the field
of the Internet, there is a monopoly that exists. And we need to
solve that problem. It's not by talking about principles merely that
we can solve this problem.
But it's not enough for developing countries who don't have enough
resources and don't have the capacities to participate in this kind of
dialogue without further commitments being made, which is why the
points of view of developing countries, especially when it comes to
Internet governance, their points of view are not sufficiently
reflected in our discussions, which is why we don't agree that the IGF
should continue its mandate after the five years are up.
So we repeat that the delegation of China does not agree with
extending the mission of the IGF beyond the five years. We feel that
after the five years are up, we would need to look at the results that
have been achieved. And we need, then, to launch into an
intergovernmental discussion."
I have blogged about this today (comments welcome, there or here):
<a href="http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/china-seeks-to-end-the-igf" target="_blank">http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/china-seeks-to-end-the-igf</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
For all list information and functions, see:
<a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
For all list information and functions, see:
<a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div></div></div>
<br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>