<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#333333">
<br>
<br>
Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07709@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Parminder
you are confusing issues. </pre>
</blockquote>
Prof Kleinwachter,<br>
<br>
It will be good if you realize that I am not your student, and state
your case more humbly and less patronisingly. (I am already contending
with another email from Adam 2 days back on this
list which reduces my analysis of the problem with US state apparatus
being able to control the global behaviour of global digital corporates
like Twitter in wikileaks case to my long standing confusion between
infrastructure and content issues, which confusion he described as
being beyond help.)<br>
<br>
The belief that all those who do not subscribe to your world view are
confused comes from a blinkered vision, in this case of believing that
you got everything about IG right, and everything about civil society
right, and the burden is now upon you to teach everyone else about it.
<br>
<br>
Now that we are on the subject of 'confusion' I am emboldened to say
that I so often find your responses very confused and quite beside the
point under discussion. I can say that about your email yesterday in
response to my email that pointed out that your characterisation of
IBSA statement as supporting a ISOC kind of view of what was enhanced
cooperation was completely off mark. And I can say the same about your
email below which simply doesnt address the main point of my email to
which it is a response - which is about growing global imbalance in
Internet policy matters, and ways to correct the imbalance, which in my
understanding should be a key objective of global civil society
concerned with IG. Instead of answering my clear questions like why
dont you make the make MSism demands of CoE and OECD IG policy making
structures as you do of the UN, you are describing many things at
length which I have no issues with, and mostly already know of.<br>
<br>
In any case I have many errors in your email to point out and a few
specific issues to respond to. However I wont take up that discussion
now because we need to focus on our inputs to the WGIGF which need to
be submitted in less than a week. I will be back after the 1st....
thanks, and best regards, parminder<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07709@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">A government is a government and an intergovernmental organisation is an intergovernmental organisation with its own statues, rules, procedures, membership, budget etc. From a legal point of you it is the same with the UN, UNESCO, ITU, WTO, WIPO and also regional organisations like OECD and CoE. These organisation of a constoution and they adopt legally binding instruments (cnventions) or give non-binding receommednations (in form of resolutions and declarations). For the CoE for instance members have to ratify the European Human Rights Convention as a legally binding document. Ther CoE was established in 1950. Europe was the battlefield of WW II and the new European govenrments wanted to do everything to avoid another war. And human rights was in their center. The European Humn Right Convention was inspired by the Un Declaration (1948). But the CoE was able to translate the non-binding declaration into a legally binding document within two years. It needed to
UN another 16 years to finanlize the the UN convenants and it is non obligatory for a UN memberstate to ratify the two UN human rights conventions. The ssytem of intergovernmental organisaitons i an achievement in hisotry and it is part of the efforts to globalize democracy.
A large number of these organisations have subsidary groups like UN with the ECOSOC and its various Commissions and Committees, including the UNCSTD. They have to follow their rules and this is okay.
Another question is, if it comes to the development of policies, in our case on Internet Governance policies. It should be in the self-interest of governments to enhance their knowledge and collaboration if they invite non-governmental actors and experts into their PDPs. The OECD is and will remain an intergovernmental body, but it decided that if it comes to the Internet (it is only one issue among a lot of others within the OECD) that it makes sense to have some advise from non-govenrmental stakeholders. And in the Ministerial Conference in Seoul 2008 they discovered that advise from Civil Society is needed and they created the CISIAC, When the CoE Ministerial Conference in Rejkjavik (May 2009) discussed the Internet, they realized that they would need the advice from an expert group and the expert group should include non-govermental experts. In fact in the small expert group (five members) there is only one governmental representative (although two others worked quite a
long time for a government).
If the UNCSTD decides to develop a policy how to improve the IGF it was a big mistake that in the first meeting they excluded non-governmental representatives. And if the UNCSTD will decide to develop a policy how to deal with "enhanced cooperation" it would be stupid to exclude non-governmental stakeholders from such a discussion process.
The other open question - raised by the IBSA proposal - is, whether there is indeed a gap and we need a new intergovernmental component in the global Internet Governance mechanism . And please rememeber, "enhanced cooperation" was the buzzword for "ICANN overisght". In the WGG there were four models how to deal with this issue (ranging from a new UN Internet Organisation/UNIO (proposed by South Africa), an Intergovernmental Council (proposed by the EU), the status quo (with the US/ICANN MoU) and a Status Quo minus (without the US/ICANN MoU). The Intergovernmental Council idea failed because the governments which supported this idea could not say what is the level of principle (where governments have a special responsibility for the development of public policies) and how far the day to day operations will go (where the private sector should have the lead).
>From an academic point of view, to re-open this discussion after five years makes sense, because some of the questions are still on the table.However the environment has changed (including the substitution of the MoU, first by the JPA and now by the AoC). The IBSA countries have to ask themselves - and to explain to the public -where the "missing link" is and what such a new proposed body have to do and how this will become integrated into the broader global mechanism of Internet Governance and how to avoid duplication anbd overlapping with activities of other intergovernmental bodies.
One variable in this calculation will be certainly the GAC. To be frank, I do not see any issue a new organisation can do better than the GAC. Lets wait and see how the interaction between GAC and the ICANN Board will further evolve. It makes a good sense to look deeper into the "GAC Operating Principles" and the practices of interaction among the GAC and the ICANN Board.
I would be afraid to waste time and resources to enter into an endless battle to create a new intergovernmental Internet body which would probably duplicate a lot of activties which are discussed also in other intergovernmental bodies like UNESCO, WIPO, ITU, WTO, UNCITRAL etc. However to have a (multistakeholder) working group which looks deeper into this issue makes always sense.
Best wishes
Wolfgang
________________________________
Von: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance-request@lists.cpsr.org">governance-request@lists.cpsr.org</a> im Auftrag von parminder
Gesendet: So 23.01.2011 18:29
An: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>; Adam Peake
Betreff: Re: Fwd: Re: AW: [governance] cross-border IG issues
Adam
IT for Change's statement for the open consultation on enhanced cooperation is at unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan043239.pdf ..
Our view is clearly and in detail presented in the statement. In the context of the para 8 of IBSA statement we asked for a CSTD WG ' on similar lines as the CSTD Working Group on IGF improvements', At the time of writing this statement it was almost universally understood that the CSTD WG on IGF will be multistakeholder, and that is what the IGC, and IT for Change had also called for.
My email to which you responded clearly mentions the areas where we had overlap with IBSA statement - asking for new institutional developments in global Internet policy space (which is the position of many in the IGC and formed a part of IGC statement to the open consultation on enhanced cooperation; listing issues like network neutrality and A2K as among those requiring global attention; and calling for constituting a CSTD WG on enhanced cooperation.
So, no, we did not and do not support a purely inter-gov WG on this issue.
Now that the matter you raised has been taken care of, I would like to hear what all you found as 'anathema to civil society, everything we've worked for' in the IBSA statement. And whether you also noticed that for the first time a gov statement to the UN raised issues like NN and A2K, and in fact mentions human rights among these issues.
Now, since you rightly find purely inter-gov structures anathema to CS values or whatever, do you know that CoE and OECD have Internet policy making platforms which are purely inter-gov and have other stakeholders only at an arms lenght advisory role - a structure much worse than even the recently constituted WG on IGF... Never heard you and many others so scornful of developing countries accused of exclusions in forming the WGIGF criticise these devleoped countries. On the contrary many of these people enthusiastically participate in it.
Since you had insisted (rightly)that I answer your direct questions about my support or not to IBSA position, can you also please directly answer my queries.
Not only other stakeholders are excluded, other country govs are excluded, though when the policy frameworks are final, these countries are invited to sign on. I saw such a scenario at the OECD ministrial in Seoul, (Brazil rightly refused to sign on. Some other developing countries regrettably did). Have you found such exclusions anathema to CS. If you have, I never heard you mention that.
Do you find it anathema to CS that technical community and private sector called for discontinuation of 'IG for development' plenary session at the IGF, and you just need to wait to see what happens when a session on NN is suggested.
See Janna's email forwarding what Sir Tim Berner-Lee thinks are the real IG issues. Not supporting these issues, and not doing very active work on these, is what I think is anathema to CS. When the inventor of web can clearly point out what NN is, and sees it as something which can and needs to be enforced, why do so many of us like to keep believing it may not be so.
When I raise the issue of how US gov has such power vis a vis all the major digital companies which together constitute most of the Internet , you would like to dismiss it as my long standing confusion between infrastructure and content issues. The fact that such huge concentration of Internet related power in one government doesnt bother many who are so much bothered with even a framework making role passing to the UN which is certainly much more representative than the UN gov is what I - and i can speak of most in developing countries - consider anathema to civil society.
So, you may consider it wrong to have a purely inter-gov WG (and I agree) but I am surprised and pained that this is all that you read of as value in the IBSA statement. This position in my view is very narrow and biased, and covering such narrow politics with statements like 'anathema to civil society, everything we've worked for' is something that does no longer pass muster. So I will request your comments on all other parts of the IBSA statement as well.
parminder
Adam Peake wrote:
Parminder,
Wondered if you had any comment on this email.
I've just read the IBSA statement again and find it anathema to civil society, everything we've worked for. Just wondering what parts you support, specifically. And particularly if you supported paragraph 8 of the statement.
Thanks,
Adam
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 23:51:28 +0900
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
From: Adam Peake <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:ajp@glocom.ac.jp"><ajp@glocom.ac.jp></a> <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ajp@glocom.ac.jp"><mailto:ajp@glocom.ac.jp></a>
Subject: Re: AW: [governance] cross-border IG issues
Reply-To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org,Adam">governance@lists.cpsr.org,Adam</a> Peake <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ajp@glocom.ac.jp"><ajp@glocom.ac.jp></a> <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ajp@glocom.ac.jp"><mailto:ajp@glocom.ac.jp></a>
X-Loop: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
X-Sequence: 219
Sender: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance-request@lists.cpsr.org">governance-request@lists.cpsr.org</a>
X-no-archive: yes
List-Id: <governance.lists.cpsr.org>
List-Archive: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance"><http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance></a> <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance"><http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance></a>
List-Help: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:sympa@lists.cpsr.org?subject=help"><mailto:sympa@lists.cpsr.org?subject=help></a> <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:sympa@lists.cpsr.org?subject=help"><mailto:sympa@lists.cpsr.org?subject=help></a>
List-Owner: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:governance-request@lists.cpsr.org"><mailto:governance-request@lists.cpsr.org></a> <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:governance-request@lists.cpsr.org"><mailto:governance-request@lists.cpsr.org></a>
List-Post: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org"><mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org></a> <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org"><mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org></a>
List-Subscribe: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:sympa@lists.cpsr.org?subject=subscribe%20governance"><mailto:sympa@lists.cpsr.org?subject=subscribe%20governance></a> <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:sympa@lists.cpsr.org?subject=subscribe%20governance"><mailto:sympa@lists.cpsr.org?subject=subscribe%20governance></a>
List-Unsubscribe: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:sympa@lists.cpsr.org?subject=unsubscribe%20governance"><mailto:sympa@lists.cpsr.org?subject=unsubscribe%20governance></a> <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:sympa@lists.cpsr.org?subject=unsubscribe%20governance"><mailto:sympa@lists.cpsr.org?subject=unsubscribe%20governance></a>
Parminder,
Thanks for clarifying what you meant about architecture of the Internet. As I said, the Twitter matter you mentioned has nothing to do with the Internet in and of itself, you keep confusing issues of content and infrastructure. Can't help you, it's been going on for years, so let's just forget it.
About the IBSA statement, I hope you and IT for Change had no part in drafting or encouraging paragraph 8 of the statement:
"8. Keeping in view the urgency and importance of establishing such a platform, the IBSA countries reiterate the need to ensure that the present consultations result in a clear roadmap for operationalizing Enhanced Cooperation. In this context, we would like to propose that an inter-governmental working group be established under the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD), the focal point in the UN system-wide follow-up to the outcomes of WSIS. The Working Group should be mandated to prepare a report on the possible institutional design and roadmap for enhanced cooperation in consultation with all stakeholders, and asked to submit its report to the UN General Assembly in 2011. The Working Group should also take on board inputs from all international organizations including the ITU, and should recommend on the feasibility and desirability of placing the Enhanced Cooperation mechanism within an existing international organization or recommend establi
shing a new body for dealing with Enhanced Cooperation, along with a clear roadmap and timeframe for the process."
It would be ironic given that the IGC's nominating committee recommended you as a member of the *multistakeholder* working group rather than the inter-governmental process the IBSA statement suggested. Perhaps you could clarify, did you support or accept para 8 of the IBSA statement?
I read the IBSA statement as extremely detrimental to the Internet (broadly) and the interests of civil society and other non-governmental stakeholders. Given the list of policy issues in the paragraph that precedes it, para 6 extremely troubling. Just don't know what there is to like about a proposal that only favors narrow government interests.
Adam
Wolfgang,
I have read the IBSA statement rather carefully. In fact, let me humbly submit that IBSA statement does have important overlaps with IT for Change's statement and does draw some inspiration from it, a fact that was graciously acknowledged by the authors of the IBSA statement. These overlaps are in terms of call for a possible new institutional structure, listing of global network neutrality and A2K as key global IG issues and call for setting up a CSTD WG on this matter.
Sorry to say but you are completely mistaken when you say "...the objective is to create an enhanced network where stakeholders can "enhance" their communication, coordination and collaboration both among themselves and and with other stakeholders. " which statement represents the general tenor of what you make out the IBSA statement to be.
Yes, IBSA statement does keep a number of options over, but it is very clear that 'enhanced cooperation' process has not started yet and thus must start at the earliest. What you speak of above are obviously ongoing processes. Though, our position is not exactly that of IBSA in the below regard, I must quote some passages from the IBSA statement to show how clearly have you mis-read it.
" Unfortunately, these issues are yet to be discussed among UN Member States in depth from a public policy point of view due to the absence of an intergovernmental platform mandated to systematically discuss them and make decisions as appropriate. It is thus necessary for governments to be provided a formal platform under the U.N that is mandated to discuss these issues. Such a platform would also complement the Internet Governance Forum, a multi-stakeholder forum for discussing, sharing experiences and networking on Internet governance."
" The IBSA believes that this platform once identified and established will allow the international community to accomplish the developmental objectives of the Tunis Agenda,...."
Further more, about the proposed CSTD WG on enhanced cooperation....
"The Working Group should also take on board inputs from all international organizations including the ITU, and should recommend on the feasibility and desirability of placing the Enhanced Cooperation mechanism within an existing international organization or recommend establishing a new body for dealing with Enhanced Cooperation, along with a clear roadmap and timeframe for the process."
Obviously this is noway like your description of the IBSA statement as
"...to create an enhanced network where stakeholders can "enhance" their communication, coordination and collaboration both among themselves and and with other stakeholders. "
However I am very eager to hear you argue why you think that this is all what they really meant.
Parminder
Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:
Parminder:
IBSA (India, S Africa and Brazil) countries (as also my own organization) did call for such a possible new global institutional development (a framework convention ?) in their submission to the open consultations on 'enhanced cooperation'.
Wolfgang:
If you read the IBSA proposal carefully you will discover that this is different from previous proposals for an intergovernmental body. The proposal says very carefully that there is a gap or missing link in the existing architecture of Internet Governance organisations. The proposed intergovernmental body should fill this gap not in a way to substitute exising mechanisms but enhancing the existing mechnisms. With other words, it is about "enhancement", not about "subordination" or "substitution" or "oversight" or "replacement" or "takeover". And this is an important difference. The Chinese MAG member proposed in the IGF Consultations in 2009 to substitute the multistakeholder dialogue by an intergovernmental negotiation process to move towards an intergovernmental (oversight) body. The ISBA proposal is rather different. This is rather similar to what is considered by the Council of Europe (CoE). What we discuss in the CeO Cross Border Internet Expert Group is that we rec
ogn
ize the need to specifiy the "respective role" of governments in Internet Governance but in a way that this intergovernmental component should be embedded into a multistakeholder framework of commitments. The objective is not to create a new hierachiy for top down policy and decision making, the objective is to create an enhanced network where stakeholders can "enhance" their communication, coordination and collaboration both among themselves and and with other stakeholders.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
PK</pre>
</body>
</html>