<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Verdana"><br>
Milton,<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Friday 26 October 2012 01:47 AM,
Milton L Mueller wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD227161C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">While it is obvious that the Daily Mail article was _not_ an impartial and sober assessment of the situation,</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Thanks for this 'sober' judgement. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD227161C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> it does seem to unearth background documents </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
No background document has been unearthed. All concerned documents
from IT for Change are open and public document, and also well
publicized, including on this list. So please do not put intrigue
where it doesnt belong. IT for Change first sought a CIRP like body
in the UN DESA open consultations that you too attended. All
contributions to the consultation, including ours. remain available
on the <a
href="http://www.unpan.org/DPADM/EGovernment/WSISImplementationMechanism/CommentsonWSISFollowup/tabid/1448/language/en-US/Default.aspx">UN
website</a>. It was also specifically distributed to this list and
a discussion on it was attempted. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD227161C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">indicating that the CIRP proposal came from IT4Change,</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Some kind of CIRP was indeed proposed by us at the above UN meeting,
and then also further elaborated in the background paper we did for
Rio meeting. However, the CIRP proposal that India made in Oct 2011
to UN GA is quite distinctive in many respects. Please read the two
documents and you can manifestly see the differences as well as
similarities. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD227161C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> i.e., from Parminder, not from a groundswell of support from "the global South." </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
The CIRP proposal puts in concrete detail things that most
developing countries were demanding since at least 2003, and
demanding repeatedly. Most concretely it was demanded by IBSA joint
statement at the mentioned UN DESA open consultations. As my
elaborate note on the history of CIRP indicates, and further
supported by your emial, it is rather unfortunate that guys like you
would completely ignore voices, documents, statements and
propositions from South till something really strikes with force and
concreteness as CIRP did, and then blame it for striking with force,
and taking you by 'complete surprise'. What can 'the global South'
do about it. Such is the construction of the dominant discourse, and
in general, power, globally. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD227161C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">And it calls into question the degree to which the Rio conference agreed on the proposal,</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
The three government reps developed Rio recommendations (which is
different from CIRP proposal, but a kind of forerunner to it), among
themselves at Rio, at a closed door meeting. No one other than
government reps were at that meeting which took place immediately
after the open workshop . This has been made clear several times,
although there was a mistake whereby the paper was titled initially
as if it came from the multistakeholder workshop itself. This was
corrected and clarified immediately. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD227161C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> indicating instead that Parminder found it easier to gain the assent of a few governmental officials behind the scenes, than to get broad, democratic support from civil society, the IGF, or other stakeholders.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
We work both with open discursive processes (does IGC need to be
told about it) and work with government officials when needed to
advance our advocacy goals. All advocacy groups do it. As for broad
democratic support, and your impressions from Indian groups you
mention below, I am sure you would once again have completely
ignored the support that we built among Southern civil society
actors just over 10 days or so before the May special meeting on
enhanced cooperation. Although you seem to have firmly decided that
our position has no wide support in the South you may still want to
see the <a
href="http://www.itforchange.net/civil_society_statement_on_democratic_internet">joint
civil society statement</a> and its <a
href="http://www.itforchange.net/list_of_signatories">list of
supporters</a> which include some of the most important Southern
civil society networks, India's top consumer groups, gender
activists, those involved in access to information movement, farmer
groups, those working on right to health, right to education, right
to information, right to food etc. So, I really do not know what
your definition of 'broad, democratic civil society support' for the
South or otherwise, is. <br>
<br>
Well, I normally would desist form discussing this issue, but it is
difficult to do more in showing the support, which obviously is
there among the civil society sector in the South, when IT for
Change has simply no IG funding for more than 2 years now, and we
have no core support either. But we know of the support this issue
has among the networks of civil society actors that we work with. I
can assure you, we make no position that we would not be able to get
the support for among these very wide set of networks. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD227161C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
It is also interesting how quickly Indian ministers, not to mention Brazil and So. Africa., backed down when the proposal was challenged. Since it wasn't their idea, they were unable to defend it. </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
CIRP remains India's official position. although there is a lot of
drama and concerted effort, especially by the US IT industry based
in India, to subvert this position. No one has backed down. Your
information is wrong. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD227161C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
A lot of things can be attributed to the power of industry and the U.S., but the lack of support for CIRP is not one of them. There just is no popular support for greater UN involvement in Internet governance.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
See the joint civil society statement above. Also see the <a
href="http://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ITfC/press%20release%20by%20UNspecial%20rapporteur.pdf">joint
statement</a> of Special Rapporteurs on Freedom of Expression and
Special Rapporteur on Cultural Rights made on the eve of CSTD's
special meeting on enhanced cooperation held in may 2011, which
inter alia noted "the demand expressed by some civil society
organizations for a democratization of the global governance of the
Internet" (the same joint CS statement referred above). Would you
tell me what is your indicator of 'popular support'. <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD227161C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> My understanding from various civil society organizations I have met from India is that the CIRP proposal was not popular there, either. </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
That just the people and groups you meet. The structural problems I
see with how much of IG civil society is constructed has often been
discussed by me on this list and elsewhere. That is unfortunate, but
that does not hat what is really popular or not. There are other
groups with much deeper connections with people and communities (and
not just with the US enamoured anti-political upper middle class)
who also, unlike waht you may suspect and must the biting your
tongue to propose, have very well developed capacities of structural
analysis and understanding of social phenomenon. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD227161C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> It is all in keeping with my general take on Parminder's ideas, which seek to replay 1970s-era battles between U.S. hegemony and third world sovereignty, with sovereign nation-states being confused with "democracy," at a time when sovereignty is either irrelevant to, or a regressive overlay on, global Internet governance.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
You are back to propoganda, trying to box me where you find most
convenient to have me boxed. The fact is that I simply do not care
much about state centric conceptions of sovereignty. I only support
sovereignty of people, which is what democracy is. And I dont
confuse democracy at all, I very well understand what democracy is,
and often have discussed it here. like I recently did by positing
version 1, 2 and 3 of participative democracy, the version three
being where participator spaces are themselves institutionalised,
largely independent of executive and legislative spaces, and where I
would like to put institutions like IGF ideally to be. Therefore my
ideas about politics and democracy are quite forward looking and
keeping with them.<br>
<br>
<br>
However, while we are at the subject, I ust say that I have noted
with great regret, over the years that I have known you, that what I
thought once was a fine supporter of democracy and rule of law, even
of a somewhat extreme right wing variety, is increasingly confused
about democracy, especially with regard to global issues, resources
and spaces. I have not been able to get from you what you think is
the way democratic rule of law can be developed and maintained vis a
vis the global Internet despite directly questioning you directly
about it. I mean, what practical steps you would have taken next to
ensure that for instance any global 'principles for Internet policy'
are indeed arrived at democratically and not by OECD countries as it
has been at present, and now they are looking to getting on with
imposing it on others. What would you be thinking, if the
locational lens helps, though it should not be needed for a real
democrat, of all this if you were indeed a prof of internet
governance in a Southern city? Can you give an honest answer to this
simple question. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD227161C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
As for the assertion that the CIRP proposal had nothing to do with ICANN, it is all on record, it called for domain name registration taxes to fund the thing and contained a statement that it would "coordinate and oversee the bodies responsible for technical and operational functioning of the Internet, including global standards setting."</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
It is not it has nothing to do with ICANN. It is nothing to do with
dislocating the current technical and operational functions of
ICANN, Tunis Agenda being also clear about it. It has something to
do with the small and focussed 'oversight' function that US gov
does. However still CIRP is 5/6th about broader global public policy
issues (and hence also its name) and only maybe 1/6th about
exploring how US's oversight role can be replaced by a more
international one. <br>
<br>
IT for Change's own stand, as would be clear to the documents linked
above and the paper on 'dev agenda in IG', is that the CIR/ ICANN
focus that some people put on the enhanced cooperation process is
very unfortunate. We think that non CIR/ ICANN issues are by far
more important. We also think, as stated in our <a
href="http://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ITfC/EC_statement_May222012.pdf">recent
statement to CSTD</a>, that it will be best if CIRP divest itself
of the proposed oversight role, and this is done through another
mechanism. <br>
<br>
Whether revenues collected from DNS operation is to be used for
CIRP's functions is a different issue. The problem is, one of the
main ways any new mechanism at UN is resisted is by saying, well
there is no money. This is a devious game of minimizing global
governance when we are getting so global otherwise. WIPO is
subtantially funded by international patent registration fees. No
reason global governance of Internet may not be funded by revenues
from DNS operation. There is an EU document that discusses whether
and how excess ICANN funds can be employed for various public
interest activities. At WG o IGF improvements we suggested that one
of these could be to fund the IGF. That wont make IGF taking control
of ICANN, would it.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD227161C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
An accurate description and analysis of the CIRP proposal can be found here. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/2011/10/29/a-united-nations-committee-for-internet-related-policies-a-fair-assessment/">http://www.internetgovernance.org/2011/10/29/a-united-nations-committee-for-internet-related-policies-a-fair-assessment/</a>
Milton L. Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
Internet Governance Project
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://blog.internetgovernance.org">http://blog.internetgovernance.org</a>
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">-----Original Message-----
From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a> [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:governance">mailto:governance</a>-
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:request@lists.igcaucus.org">request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>] On Behalf Of McTim
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 12:12 PM
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>; parminder
Subject: Re: [governance] U.S. - Japan Policy Cooperation Dialogue on the
Internet Economy
Parminder,
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 3:44 AM, parminder <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><parminder@itforchange.net></a>
wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
<snip>
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Does anyone here have answers why they remain silent with regard to the
active work of rich countries to develop 'global' Internet policy
principles, and react so rabidly to any effort at democratising global
Internet policy making.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
My reaction is that CIRP was NOT an effort to make policy principles,
rather an effort
to make IG LESS democratic (in a top-down gov only style).
It's clear we see the world differently.
--
Cheers,
McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>