<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Friday 14 December 2012 08:07 PM,
Lee W McKnight wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1729EC@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<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>
<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>
</div>
</blockquote>
Lee<br>
<br>
It does not only depend on what space you have get, it also depends
of what agenda, and legitimacy (of representing pubic interest),
civil society carries. The UN convention on disability rights was
practically written by civil society, and if that appears a
relatively non controversial issue and thus different, the right to
information act, that revolutionised gov-citizen relationship in
India, was also practically written by civil society. And civil
society fought in the streets, and got an Act that directly goes
against the interests of politician and bureaucrats who were forced
to pass it. <br>
<br>
Therefore it is just not about the space CS gets.... I dont think CS
had, or still has, a positive agenda in the global IG space. It is
fine to demolish, but while doing so, we must also know what will
take its place... Else we are just allowing free market to entirely
take over the precious and important communicative realm of our
societies. They will soon distort it beyond recognition, and we
would have to nothing to turn to. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1729EC@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
#000000;font-size: 10pt;">
<snip><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1729EC@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
#000000;font-size: 10pt;">
And at that final table, CS still didn't have a seat even if it
had a peek at a few players cards.
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
An important part of the positive agenda is to come out with the
actual model of what kind of multistakeholderism really does CS
want...( I welcome John Curran's recent email seeking building such
models.) For too long has it avoided facing this challenge. And the
glimpses that I get about some views on this area makes me very
concerned. For instance, in the context of WCIT, I have read McTim
and John Curran suggest that they would want non government
stakeholders vote at WCIT kind of platforms. Is this really what we
want (even outside core technical coordination/ policy spaces like
ICANN or IETF)?<br>
<br>
We need to come out with clear views and a clear model of MSism in
which regard. What models of CS and private sector participation do
we seek in forums that deal with substantive policy areas (and, to
repeat, not in tech coordination/ standards/ policy space)... We
cant ask for something without telling what is it that we want. We
have been doing it for too long now...<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1729EC@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
#000000;font-size: 10pt;">
<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>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>] on behalf of
parminder [<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, December 14, 2012 12:40 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [governance] WCIT melt down<br>
</font><br>
</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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>