<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>This outcome from WCIT has actually given me a lot more hope. Hope that various countries will realize that pushing these through the ITU is a non starter.<br><br>I am glad to see that India voted against the ITRs too. For all the initial rubbish about CIRP, and for all DoT's initial submission that suggested the contrary.</div><div><br>--srs (iPad)</div><div><br>On 14-Dec-2012, at 11:10, parminder <<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Friday 14 December 2012 10:00 AM,
Adam Peake wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:CAFabd1K3sghLj+KuNwuYSMLgzHXGntw6x0zTThVfwqtmk8d0jQ@mail.gmail.com" type="cite"><snip)</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:CAFabd1K3sghLj+KuNwuYSMLgzHXGntw6x0zTThVfwqtmk8d0jQ@mail.gmail.com" type="cite">So why did he encourage plenary to spend so many hours
on Human
Rights? It seemed to obsess him, he was personally stung by
comments
and concerns (very legitimate) that some proposal had potential to
harm fundamental rights. How many full sessions discussed a single
line of text in the preamble, 2, 3, more? All for his own PR, he
said
as much, it was about the press and perception. So I wonder, if he
has used the same passion and time to persuade and cajole
delegates to
think of ways in which the ITRs could contain high-level and
lasting
principles that encouraged the spread of/access to broadband
across
the globe, perhaps we would have had something useful and lasting.
</blockquote>
<br>
Adam, <br>
<br>
Can you suggest how ITRs could have encouraged spread of broadband
without mentioning Internet or broadband (which is Internet) in the
ITRs? You know that one side was completely intent that, what come
may, Internet/ broadband cannot find mention in the ITRs....<br>
<br>
The problem with the WCIT process was that it was a battle between
two sides both with an entirely negative agenda. One side wanted to
prevent US et all from making a historical point that Internet is an
unregulated space - whereby their new global domination strategy
could be unrestrained. The other side was trying to prevent China/
Russia et all from changing the basic nature of the global Internet
into a tightly state controlled space. <br>
<br>
The middle, which is supposed to be the sane lot, and that should
have included many countries, as well as, prominently, the civil
society, which is supposed to contribute a positive agenda, failed.
That I think is the primary failure here. The 'sane public
interest-oriented middle' did not get formed. And the civil society
was supposed to have a big role in it. So, perhaps, we failed, more
than anyone else. (Do we want to look into this failure?)<br>
<br>
A global treaty, especially as concerning a matter of such
monumental importance as the Internet, is supposed to give the
people of the world some hope.... Take any treaty or global summit
process till now, whether concerning climate change, trade,
traditional knowledge, etc etc........... There is always some hope
built from a summit/ treaty process, and civil society is on the
side of this positive hope. Mostly leading the positive hope
brigade. <br>
<br>
What was the hope or positive expectation offered by the WCIT? Was
there any? No, none. It was a battle between two perverse agendas.
And, I dare say, good that neither won, and the process broke down.
I highly appreciate the sentiment of Marilia's email, but in this
case, I am not too unhappy that the treaty process kind of failed. I
am not celebrating the breakdown of dialogue. I am hopeful that this
breakdown will come as a positive shake-up to our collective and
selective slumbers that many of us seem to be caught in, in terms of
public interest regulation of the Internet. My hope is that such
shake-up will now start a real honest dialogue. Thus I am still
celebrating the process of dialogue - honest and open dialogue about
real issues (and not shadow boxing) and beyond selective hype,
focussed on global public interest and not narrow partisan agendas
as the WCIT process was.<br>
<br>
The situation which had been reached in the WCIT process, I am
completely unable to figure out, if WCIT process had succeeded, <i>what
would it have succeeded at.</i> I am unable to form any conception
of what I could have considered as WCIT success - that, one could
say proudly, <i> it gave the world this and this</i>.... I will be
happy if anyone here can share any such possible conception of a
'successful WCIT' (keeping within the limits in which WCIT process
has been trapped for a long time now), and perhaps I can still be
persuade to feel bad about this 'failure'. But right now, I am
unable to do so.<br>
<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:CAFabd1K3sghLj+KuNwuYSMLgzHXGntw6x0zTThVfwqtmk8d0jQ@mail.gmail.com" type="cite">
Instead he seems to have allowed the Union under his leadership to
become divided. We'll see how badly later on.
Also found his comments last night poor:
Last night: "I have been saying in the run-up to this conference
that
this conference is not about governing the internet. I repeat,
that
the conference did not include provisions on the internet in the
treaty text." etc.
Opening plenary: "In preparing for this conference, we have seen
and
heard many comments about ITU or the United Nations trying to take
over the Internet. Let me be very clear one more time: WCIT is not
about taking over the Internet. And WCIT is not about Internet
governance."
Sorry, that's twisting words and twisting generally. The
resolutions
are part of the ITRs, they can be binding on the secretariat, they
are
"WICT.
So I wonder if Toure's blown his chance for a legacy.
Best,
Adam
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Cheers
Keith
On 14/12/2012 4:31 p.m., Adam Peake wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Toure's words of congratulation (and sound-bites for the media) we hollow.
Adam
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
____________________________________________________________
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>
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>
<pre wrap=""></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>____________________________________________________________</span><br><span>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:</span><br><span> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a></span><br><span>To be removed from the list, visit:</span><br><span> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a></span><br><span></span><br><span>For all other list information and functions, see:</span><br><span> <a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a></span><br><span>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:</span><br><span> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a></span><br><span></span><br><span>Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>