<!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 text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">My remarks at the opening
panel are enclosed.... parminder</font>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-style: normal;" lang="en-US">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
</style></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal;" lang="en-US"
align="LEFT"><font size="3"><b><font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><br>
</font>CSTD
meeting on enhanced cooperation on pubic policy issues pertaining to
the Internet</b><font size="4"><b>,</b></font>May 18, Geneva</font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal;" lang="en-US"
align="LEFT">
<font size="3"><i>Parminder Jeet Singh, IT for
Change, India<br>
<br>
</i></font></p>
First
of all I must say how glad I am that we have finally sat down to
discuss in the right earnest the very important WSIS mandate of
'enhanced cooperation' on public policies pertaining to the Internet.
I am sure that today's meeting makes a beginning that would have a
lasting impact on democraticing global Internet governance. <br>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 3.2 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
</style>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b><span lang="en-US"><span
style="font-style: normal;">The
key questions about enhanced cooperation, and the elephant in the
room</span></span></b></p>
<span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal;">We
all know that 'enhanced cooperation' is a very complex and a much
contested area. Before we begin to sort out how to operationalize
'enhanced cooperation', we need to discuss what is meant by this
term, and also why has progress on this mandate been so difficult. In
this regard, there are two important basic questions, and what I
call as </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span
style="font-style: normal;">one
very large elephant in the room. These two important questions are;
Are there enough important and urgent global public policy issues
pertaining to th</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span
style="font-style: normal;"><span
style="background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;">e
Internet
and,
if there indeed are, it brings up the second
question, what institutional system would best address them and how.
And the the elephant in the room that I mentioned is
multistakeholderism, </span></span></span><span lang="en-US"><span
style="font-style: normal;">an
issue tied to what, who and how of EC. Let me briefly engage with
these key issues that frame a purposive and worthwhile discussion on
EC. </span></span>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span lang="en-US"><span
style="font-style: normal;">Talking
to people nowadays, one hardly finds anyone, at least anyone
informed well-enough, who is not quick to admit that Internet is big,
and it is global; and that, therefore, public policy issues around it
are big and global too. Pick up the International Strategy for
Cyberspace of the US, browse through OECD's pronouncements in this
area or look at the CoE experts' report 'cross border Internet' or,
for that matter, any other well- researched document about global
Internet governance. They leave us in no doubt about the existence
of important global public issues pertaining to the Internet.
Therefore, I dont think we should waste too much time on this
question – there are indeed very critical global Internet related
policy issues, and they keep getting more critical and complex by the
day. Global public interest demands that these global public policy
be addressed in an appropriate and timely manner. </span></span><span
lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal;">With
the Internet in its formative stages, and its basic architecture
getting set, which in turn determining the structure of a new social
order, we do not have the luxury of dithering and wasting valuable
time. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span lang="en-US"><span
style="font-style: normal;">Next,
we come to the question, who should address these critical global
policy issues and how. And now the problem begins! Lets first map out
where power resides or rather is concentrated in the Internet system
today, and who at present takes critical decisions about the global
Internet. Any such power mapping will reveal that the greatest power
resides in the US, both with its government and its monopoly Internet
companies, and increas</span></span><span lang="en-US"><span
style="font-style: normal;"><span
style="background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;">ingly,
in
their
close mutual relationship. I would not be able to go into
the detail in this matter here. Then there is the next concentric
circle which includes a few most powerful countries; operating
through OECD's, and also CoE's, Int</span></span></span><span
lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal;">ernet
policy making mechanisms, which have a very active calender of
activities and future plans. Such is the global nature of the
Internet that whether it is the unilateral law or executive power of
the US, private decisions of global monopoly Internet companies, or
policy principles developed by the OECD, they tend to quickly spread
and entrench across the Internet's architecture to take up global
reach and application. The most telling observation of Lawrence
Lessig is important to recall here. With the Internet, architecture
is policy. If we do not have the right public policies, the
architecture of the Internet itself becomes the policy. And thus we,
I mean the rest of the world not involved with Internet governance
decisions, get politically determined by the outside.</span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-style: normal;" lang="en-US">Undoubtedly,
governments
exercise
immense power over the Internet within their
national boundaries, and there are very important issues about how
this power is exercised at present. However, today our concern here
is mainly the power over the global Internet and the issue of its
democratisation. Also, I remain of the firm belief that global
democratization of Internet governance will always have a positive
role in its democratisation within national borders. </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span lang="en-US"><span
style="font-style: normal;">Notwithstanding
the claims by the US of a 'historic role' vis a vis the Internet, or
citing of the privilege by the OECD of being the major global
economic bloc, it should not be difficult to argue, because we all
have this basic democratic urge and spirit - that every country
should be present at the global policy table on an equal footing.
And, one can see such </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span
style="font-style: normal;"><span
style="background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;">a
thing
happen
only in the UN or UN like body. Perhaps since this 'all
countries should be present' justification of changing the status quo
is difficult to argue against, almost all arguments against change
are centred on the issue multistakeholderism – what I had
identified as the elephant in the room, that we must confront, well,
frontally. </span></span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-style: normal;" lang="en-US">
<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 3.2 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
</style>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-style: normal;" lang="en-US"><b>What
does 'democratic and multistakeholder' mean in operational terms</b></p>
One
admits that institutionalizing representativity is never easy – and
remains the central concern of democratic thought and practice.
Governments purport to represent people and public interest, but
there are indeed significant gaps in the chains of representativity
from the people to governments, and further to the global governance
spaces. In some cases such gaps are more acute than in others, and
this 'governance problem' has to be dealt in an appropriate, evolving
and contextual manner. However we cant knock off democracy just
because we dont have it well enough yet.
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span lang="en-US"><span
style="font-style: normal;">I
say this with regard to, I understand, there being proposals on the
table that want all stakeholders to be treated on an equal footing in
any enhanced cooperation mechanism, whereby, apparently, that they
should have the same or similar roles. I find this proposition very
problematic. While one will like to know more details of how exactly
is such an 'equal footing' proposition meant to work in practice,
prima facie it seems to throw up very problematic issues vis a vis
some basic principles of democracy. For instance, is it desired by
such proposals, to put it somewhat bluntly, that a representative of
Google or Microsoft should be voting on policy making at the same
level as a government representative? If it is so intended, we are
indeed going past the ideals and principles of democracy that has
been the single most powerful political ideology and force of the
last few centuries, and we must seriously debate this </span></span><span
lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal;">intended
shift. In the alluring haze of multistakeholderism, we must not
forget that big businesses expressly represent private interests, and
mostly of those who already have much greater economic and social
power. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-style: normal;" lang="en-US">Similarly,
the
role
of civil society is different from both the governments and
business. Participation of civil society deepens democracy. It adds
greater range, diversity and depth to articulation of public
interest. Unlike business, civil society essentially represents
public interest - in its differentiated shades and even internal
tensions. Yet, such is the way in which civil society's legitimacy
and role is structured, civil society actors will not like to claim
an equal role to government representatives in actual decision-making
processes. </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-style: normal;" lang="en-US">Like
business brings valuable expertise about society's production systems
to the table, the technical community brings expertise on
technologies. In addition, many of the technical community are
adherent upholders of some public interest values and principles, in
which regard they are just a specialized section of the civil
society. But the technical community must understand that the needs
and demands of decisions making for larger public policy issues can
be significant;y different from those for making technical decisions.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span lang="en-US"><span
style="font-style: normal;">Here,
I have only briefly touched upon the different roles of different
stakeholders. What I mean to underline in the urgent need to address
this issue </span></span><span lang="en-US"><span
style="font-style: normal;">openly
and earnestly, by all sides. Tunis agenda asked for any mechanism of
enhanced cooperation to be innovative. Yes, we do have this
opportunity here to improve global governance system so that they
better serve global public interest. Internet has transformed so many
social arenas, and it must have its impact on global governance
systems as well. But let us seek these changes while staying within
the long cherished norms and principles of democracy and public
interest, and not, in our enthusiasm for change, breach them.</span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span lang="en-US"><span
style="font-style: normal;">If
we can agree on the principles that govern such a nuanced
understanding of a differential role - and I stress this phrase </span></span><span
lang="en-US"><i>'
differential role'</i></span><span lang="en-US"><span
style="font-style: normal;">
- of different stakeholders, we would have crossed perhaps the most
significant block that prevents progress on this issue of enhanced
cooperation, which is of immense and epochal significance to global
public interest, and to the future of our social systems, as an
information society matures. In this regard, while we need not remain
too closely stuck to the Tunis Agenda definition of the respective
roles of stakeholders, we also must not breach the boundaries of
democratic ideology and practice, and the distinction between public
and private interest. </span></span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-style: normal;" lang="en-US">
<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 3.2 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
</style>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-style: normal;" lang="en-US"><b>Steps
to
take
towards agreeing to an enhanced cooperation mechanism</b></p>
In my
view, we should approach the enhanced cooperation conundrum through
the following steps. First we agree on the need and justification for
a new mechanism for enhanced cooperation, which I think should not be
difficult since everyone seems to accept that there are indeed
critical global Internet related public policy issues. Next, we need
to figure out what functions a new mechanism must perform to meet
this important and urgent need. Thirdly, we come to the structure of
the new mechanism, where it should not be difficult to accept that
all countries must be represented equally. However, the role of
different stakeholders, as I discussed, would be the key question to
agree upon. If we have a focused, open and principled, discussion on
this issue, I am sure we can overcome this key 'problem area'. At
least, it is useful to know that this is the key 'problem area' with
regard to moving the dialogue and process of enhanced cooperation
forward.
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-style: normal;" lang="en-US">Once
we have the justification, functions and the overall structure of a
new mechanism on EC, it will be that much easier to find the
appropriate location of such a mechanism. EC discussions seem too
quickly to veer towards this sticky point, of whether such a
mechanism should be inside the UN, ITU, or somewhere else
altogether. Agreeing to keep such a discussion and decision for the
last may be a good way to move out of the logjam in which the
enhanced cooperation issue is caught today. This way we do not get
too early into institutional politics that can cloud discussion about
real basic issues which are more important to first address and sort
out. </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-style: normal;" lang="en-US">To
conclude, I must say that many of us in the civil society have
received India's proposal for a UN Committee on Internet-Related
Polices with much interest. It follows the Tunis mandate and
principles for an appropriate body for enhanced cooperation, and has
proposed a promising structuring for the role of different
stakeholders, especially if seen in conjunction with India's 2010
proposal for strengthening the IGF. Of course, the proposal can
indeed do with many improvements. We think that India's proposal is a
good basis to start a dialogue on how to operationalize enhanced
cooperation. In this regard, setting up a CSTD working group on
enhanced cooperation should be a good first step in this direction. </p>
<br>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><br>
<br>
</font><br>
</body>
</html>