<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Hi Anriette<br>
<br>
First of all, I would seperate the discussions on a summit level WSIS +
10 event and that about a possible new UN based Internet policy body.
In my view, they are different arguments. (Please allow me to engage
with some other issues raised in your email later, in a separate email.)<br>
<br>
The proposed summit is to be with a participative preparatory process,
including corresponding regional processes, as with WSIS (it can only
be improved with our improved multistakeholder experience at IG related
forums since). This was specifically the demand of developing countries
at the CSTD, and some of it finds mention in the final resolution
(although the final modalities of the review process will be decided at
the UN GA). <br>
<br>
And if indeed </font><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">we </font><font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">have to connect this discussion
about a possible WSIS like process to that about shaping institutions
for global Internet policy making, when you say that a long preparatory
process may be required before we can think of the right institutional
design, isnt the WSIS kind of process, that goes to the regional levels
as well, the right kind. Alternatively, we have the G8 meetings, OECD
meetings, the London/ Stockholm kind of meetings, and the calender is
quite busy .... Is this the right preparatory process to what we want
eventually... And this point also goes to your </font><font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">question about </font><font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">resources for such a summit
process.Why does the resources question always gets raised for a UN
based globally democratic process, while so much money globally gets
spent every year on these other kind of 'global' Internet governance
meetings.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
</font><br>
On Sunday 27 May 2012 09:38 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4FC25193.2070001@apc.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi all
I agree with Parminder in the sense that 'cyberspace' is not
'unfettered' at the moment, and that keeping the freedom we have, and
increasing it where needed, cannot be done without using existing
regulations (e.g. what we are trying to do with freedom of expression at
HRC level) and in some cases creating new ones (e.g. efforts to make
social networking platforms default to max privacy settings).
I just don't agree that establishing a new UN body is the best way of
going about this. I think it will take too long, that will be too
difficult to get agreement between governments, participation of
non-governmental stakeholders will be too constrained, and, that when
governments do agree... the results are not likely to be what most
people on this list want.. not from the perspective of introducing more
geo-political balance or if your goal is to contain the influence of
large internet companies.
Perhaps once we have a more stable, rights oriented institutional and
regulatory environment it could make sense to assign oversight to one or
more UN-linked mechanisms... as for example in the case of human rights
standards.
But to build the institution first, and then assume it will make public
policy that we like in the current political and economic environment is
a very hopeful assumption.
As Parminder, correctly, pointed out to me.. there will be a need to
lobby for such a body to act in a public-interest oriented way, and to
be multi-stakeholder in a meaningful way. Just as we have to lobby in
this way at national level, and in other global forums.
I just don't feel based on the current environment in the UN that
starting with the 'new body' is the way to go.
Hypothetically, as more and more governments are leaning to the ITU
having oversight of internet public policy, a new body might be a better
option and therefore I do think we should discuss the IT for Change
statement seriously even if many of us don't support it.
Anriette
On 27/05/2012 17:34, parminder wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
On Sunday 27 May 2012 07:32 PM, Koven Ronald wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">B ravo, Anriette.
I heartily agree that another summit now would at best be a pointless
waste of time, energy and resources and at worst
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
At least for the most powerful, this is for the same reason as UNCTAD
was sought, last month, to be disallowed to continue with some of its
most important mandates, like analysing and giving recommendations
regarding the global financial system. This was becuase the powerful
wanted such key matter of global governance to be left to the forums
controlled by them - IMF, G8 and such. The same powerful forces want
Internet policies to continue to be developed unilaterally, or at clubs
of rich countries like the OECD, and therefore the resistance to a WSIS
like summit. Think where would we be without the original WSIS - the
IGF, even the IGC, all the present global discussions .......
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">-- given the present global lineup and climate -- harmful for the
future of an unfettered cyberspace.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Yes, we want an unfettered cyberspace (based btw on human rights
discussed and decided at the UN). At the same time, we also want a fair
and just Internet, which helps support global economic, social, cultural
and political flows towards greater democracy, equity and social
justice. All of these requires greater political work at the global level.
Wanting to globalize economic-ally and socially, without doing so
politically, is either the vain fantasy of an anarchist, or the design
of the more powerful for an unfettered run on global resources.
parminder
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Bests, Rony Koven
-----Original Message-----
From: Anriette Esterhuysen <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:anriette@apc.org"><anriette@apc.org></a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:anriette@apc.org"><mailto:anriette@apc.org></a>
To: governance <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org"><governance@lists.igcaucus.org></a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org"><mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org></a>
Sent: Sun, May 27, 2012 1:46 pm
Subject: [governance] CSTD: Adopted Resolution on WSIS and access to
statements and recordings
Dear IGC list
Attached is the resolution related to WSIS follow-up adopted during last
week's meeting of the CSTD.
The resolution is rather minimalist, and represents the fact that there
was very little consensus among CSTD members on:
- enhanced cooperation in internet governance
- WSIS + 10
On the former there is not much more to be said. What is quite sad is
that several countries made a huge fuss about the report from the Chair
(a very patient and able Mr. de la Pena, vice minister of ICTs from the
Philippines) on the meeting of 18 May in Geneva. His report was a very
short summary of all the views presented. I certainly felt it was
accurate and easy to read. It did not go into detail.. but that was not
the point of a chair's report. Particularly not when all the statements
are available on the CSTD website, as well as a transcript.
But, as this report is forwarded to the GA it is political and subject
for negotations.
On WSIS +10 it is disappointing that a very good panel discussion on
this process during the CSTD (that included inputs from UNESCO, ITU, and
others) is not reflected. E.g. David Souter made the point that
assessing WSIS +10 outcomes and progress should not just focus on
statistics and ICT access measures. It should focus on human
development, and on the broader outcomes of the massive ICT/information
society related changes of the last 10 years. He also pointed out that
the assessment should not just be left to governments, but that business
and civil society should be encouraged to assess changes/impacts from
their perspective.
Good comments from the floor, e.g. one from Brazil saying we should
consider the impact of the Summit itself, also did not make it to the
resolution.
The differences of views on how WSIS +10 should take place is relevant
for civil society. Parminder and I talked about this a bit in Geneva,
and we don't quite agree.
Some governments, Iran, South Africa, Saudi Arabia among others feel
very strongly that we need another Summit. They said that only
governments can assess progress on achieving outcomes. They believe
there should be a multi-stakeholder prep process, but that the final
assessment should be negotiated between States.
Parminder shares the view that there should be another Summit, but his
reasons are more nuanced and complex than that of the governments. He
can explain them himself.
My view is that another Summit is not a good idea. While I like the
idea of civil society having a platform to reconvene, I doubt that the
resources needed for a fully participative and regionally distributed
preparatory process will be available.
I am also not convinced that even if available, it would be the best way
of spending money and time.
But my main concern is that I think it will result in negotiated
outcomes which will not be in the public interest.
I have been looking at the Geneva Declaration and the Tunis Agenda a lot
recently. They are messy documents, with view very firmly stated goals.
But they are full of good ideas, openness to doing things in a different
way. People-centred development and human rights are concepts scattered
throughout.
I doubt very, very much that in a new text we would get references to
'open source and licensing'. Take this text for example:
" 27. Access to information and knowledge can be promoted by increasing
awareness among all stakeholders of the possibilities offered by
different software models, including proprietary, open-source and free
software, in order to increase competition, access by users, diversity
of choice, and to enable all users to develop solutions which best meet
their requirements. Affordable access to software should be considered
as an important component of a truly inclusive Information Society.
28. We strive to promote universal access with equal opportunities for
all to scientific knowledge and the creation and dissemination of
scientific and technical information, including open access initiatives
for scientific publishing."
If this was negotiated today, it would look different, or more likely,
be negotiated into oblivion as governments bargained with one another
over security, oversight over ICANN and IANA, commercial interests of
the companies they are close to.
Rather than another Summit I think that as civil society we should focus
our efforts on identifying key issues that can be addressed and forming
partnerships that can achieve this in as short a space of time as
possible. For example, internationalisation of ICANN and IANA that gives
governments equal participation without giving any single one of them
control. And, another example is for us to use existing international
and regional bodies mandated to protect freedom of expression and
privacy rights to challenge governments and companies who violate these
rights.
The concerns expressed on this list about monopolies/distortion of power
and companies having the influence to shape policies in their own
interests also represent struggles we can take on now. We don't need new
intergovernmental processes to do so. The examples of SOPA and ACTA
being sent back to the drawing board illustrate this clearly.
We spend time arguing about new UN bodies or not when we should be
spending this time collaborating across countries, regions and policy
spaces to achieve greater 'net neutrality' and more consumer choice and
rights protection.
This is all work that can be done NOW.
Every time I listen to governments arguing with one another about the
IGF, EC, etc. I am more convinced that intergovernmental oversight of
internet public policy at this moment in time will do more harm than good.
If - as someone from the academic community suggested to me last week -
in the longer term there will have to be an international agreement of
some kind (a convention, or treaty) on internet governance, the more
precedent we have been able to set in terms of protecting freedom of
expression and association on the internet, and the broader the public
interest, the better. It will make it more likely that that agreement
will be based on rights that have been won than on lowest common
denominator interests among sparring governments.
Anriette
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org"><mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.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.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/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>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>