<html dir="ltr">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<style id="owaParaStyle" type="text/css">P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
</head>
<body ocsi="0" fpstyle="1" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color: #000000;font-size: 10pt;">Parminder,<br>
<br>
I don't know that you can pin this on civil society, who remember was not even an invited guest to the party at the start of the WCIT preparatory process.<br>
<br>
IF the resolution had a different more conciliatory phrasing oriented towards 'exploring' what to do as Internet progresses etc etc, maybe then the split could be have been avoided. The resolution was too directive for issues for which a consensus does not
exist.<br>
<br>
In a treaty-making poker game, if key players blow their hand....things happen. <br>
<br>
And at that final table, CS still didn't have a seat even if it had a peek at a few players cards.
<br>
<br>
Lee<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000; font-size: 16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div style="direction: ltr;" id="divRpF626531"><font color="#000000" face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>From:</b> governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of parminder [parminder@itforchange.net]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, December 14, 2012 12:40 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> governance@lists.igcaucus.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [governance] WCIT melt down<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div></div>
<div><br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Friday 14 December 2012 10:00 AM, Adam Peake wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"><snip)</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote 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 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>Cheers
Keith
On 14/12/2012 4:31 p.m., Adam Peake wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Toure's words of congratulation (and sound-bites for the media) we hollow.
Adam
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">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/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>