<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Thursday 21 November 2013 05:49 PM,
Andrew Puddephatt wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D0424F@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:SimSun;
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
{font-family:SimSun;
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@SimSun";
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
h1
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 1 Char";
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:24.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;
font-weight:bold;}
h3
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 3 Char";
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:13.5pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;
font-weight:bold;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
span.Heading1Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 1 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 1";
font-family:"Cambria","serif";
color:#365F91;
font-weight:bold;}
span.Heading3Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 3 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 3";
font-family:"Cambria","serif";
color:#4F81BD;
font-weight:bold;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">As
I intend to follow Jon Postel’s adage, this is my last
comment on this particular theme. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">I
would never ask anyone to “shut up” as I have worked most of
my life to support the free expression of views. But I want
BB to be a constructive platform for the exchange of
everyone’s views and not spiral down as other networks have
done.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
It wont, if you respect other people's views, and not provide meta
constructions over them, which you did in your last email, and you
still are doing here. What do you mean, 'constructive'.... why do
you want to sound like you are speaking to a classroom. And all
those stuff of ' old views repeated' , need for new young
leadership, straw man argument...<br>
<br>
No matter, I have made my point. And I will still respond to
substantive points.... <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D0424F@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">My
point about OECD and CoE was not that they don’t have
influence but that I have not seem anyone <u>in civil
society</u> defend those institutions as appropriate for
global policy making. If that’s not what you meant I
apologise for misunderstanding you.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
You described how OECD and CoE did only produce voluntary standards
and norms.... I showed how they also facilitate treaties - ACTA and
cyber crime convention respectively for instance. The
multilateralism that you criticise - say India's CIRP proposal - is
also supposed to just do these things.... It is my right and duty to
bring up the parallels. <br>
<br>
Now, whether civil society supports the Internet related policy
activities or not of OECD and CoE like rich country populated
bodies.... When we dont like something we actively write agaisnt it
- see the number of letters we so regularly write to the ITU....
When did we write one against OECD's and CoE's global policy
efforts? That is my question... One doesnt need to actually put up a
statement defending them - it is enough that CS groups participate
in these activties and endorse their outcomes (as OECD's Principles
were endorsed.) CoE cyber convention is actively being promoted for
global uptake - are we ready to write a statement against such an
undemocratic practice? The London-Budapest- Seoul series are of the
same kind - led by developed countries with attempts to co opt
developing countries on a secondary and tertiary level. This process
recently produced an globally significant outcome. Many including
your organisation participated in the process. But did we say that
it is not right to not treat all countries at the same level.....
It is these questions that would keep coming from the global
South.... <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D0424F@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">When
I talk about a state based body I mean something like the
Human Rights Council<br>
</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
No you spoke about a 'state based body to *run the Internet*' - and
I asked which one is this that is proposed to *run the Internet*....
I cant see HRC being such a body....<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D0424F@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">–
a group of states elected from within the UNGA – which I
fear in the current climate will </span><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">be
</span><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">subject
to same geo-political competition that leads to human rights
abusers being elected to the HRC to the vast detriment of
human rights.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
The other option is to remain subject to US and OECD making global
internet related policies.... <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D0424F@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Of
course, this does not mean that the current arrangements are
satisfactory – and again I have never heard anyone in cs
claim they are. I think we are all looking for a governance
arrangement that recognised the legitimate interests of
states, companies and users and I want that arrangement to
have democracy and human rights values in its DNA.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">I’m
keen to explore what that governance structure might be with
others in the next few months. My preference is for a
dispersed arrangement in which different interests are
balanced, but will likely comprise internationalised
technical bodies, treaty bodies and national governments,
with an enhanced IGF playing a more normative role. </span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
On the assumption that 'treaty bodies' you mention are inter-gov,
this is precisely the constellation I would support. But unlike in
OECD and CoE, there is no global body that can anchor norm building
and facilitate treaties that may be needed in the area of Internet
policies. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D0424F@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">But
I’m looking forward to others</span><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">’</span><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> views.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">And
finally, on a personal note – please do not, when you reply
to people, accuse them of bad faith, or imply they believe
things that they do not. <br>
</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
That is what you did in your email, Andrew. We could have instead
just discussed respective views, agreeing or not.... parminder <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D0424F@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">It’s
the kind of behaviour that enrages and disillusions people.
We all have an obligation to build t</span><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">h</span><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">is
community, and this means thinking about our
responsibilities to each other as well as our rights to
speak freely.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-top:7.0pt;line-height:115%;text-autospace:none"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#253741;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Andrew
Puddephatt</span></b><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";mso-fareast-language:EN-US">
</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";mso-fareast-language:EN-US">|
</span><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#253741;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">GLOBAL
PARTNERS</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#253741;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">
DIGITAL<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="line-height:115%;text-autospace:none"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#253741;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Executive
Director</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#FF2126;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="line-height:115%;text-autospace:none"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#7F7F7F;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Development
House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#7F7F7F">T:
+44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype:
andrewpuddephatt</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#7F7F7F"><br>
<b>gp-digital.org</b><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext"
lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext"
lang="EN-US"> parminder
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">mailto:parminder@itforchange.net</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> 21 November 2013 11:38<br>
<b>To:</b> Andrew Puddephatt<br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>;
<,<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net>">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net></a>,<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal
by the Government of India to the WGEC<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Andrew<br>
<br>
I have a strong feeling that you asking me to shut up, and I
am not quite sure that is a good thing to do.<br>
<br>
Many here in the last few weeks posted their views on the
proceedings of the WGEC, triggering a very legitimate and
needed debate. Some of them directly referred by name to
positions presented by me/ my organisation which is also
quite fair because we are all in a public space and people
need to be able to say whatever they want to (apart from
some obnoxious personal comments by Adam which is where I
think IGC and BB group responsibility-holders should be
focussing; which they regrettably have let pass.) What I
cant understand is why in your view should I not be able to
present and defend my views, the below being my very first
email on the issue. <br>
<br>
my responses below...</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Tuesday 19 November 2013 08:37 PM,
Andrew Puddephatt wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#0D0D0D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#0D0D0D">I
don’t normally respond to these discussions but
occasionally I feel </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
I think one should enter a debate with enough respect for
those who are engaging in it....<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#0D0D0D">that
straw men are being put up to be knocked down so I wanted to
pick up on this and set out my own thoughts.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#0D0D0D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
You think speaking about OECD and CoE's (council of europe)
'global' public policy activities is a straw man? Well. one of
the most pointed interventions made by Carlos during the
recent WGEC meeting was that developing countries resent
global IG done through processes like the CoE's cybercrime
treaty which was first negotiated among a few countries, and
then sought to be exported to others.... Brazil took the floor
to support Carlos' intervention. Later, India referred to OECD
developing Principles for Internet Policy Making. You think
they were all putting up strawmen? I am disappointed that such
an important position of developing countries against
developed country based "global' public policy making,
especially in the IG space, is being dismissed in such a
summary and disdainful manner. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#0D0D0D">Firstly
I’m not aware of anyone defending the OECD process of policy
making as the model we should follow – maybe I missed that
on the thread at some point – but it passed me by. P</span><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">eople
have been supportive of the changes it has made to become
more multi-stakeholder ( rather than promoting it as the
example of best practice) - c</span><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#0D0D0D">ertainly
no-one I know who argues for a multi-stakeholder approach
has positively supported the OECD’s approach – which in any
case requires voluntary adoption of standards rather than
produce anything binding. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#0D0D0D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#0D0D0D">With
the Council of Europe, this is a regional treaty body – not
global – which was created in the wake of fascism in 1945 to
promote human rights and democracy in Europe. It has a
specific geographic focus and essentially sets out standards
which it is for nation states to adopt – it does bind member
states who have to consent to the norms. It sits alongside
the African Union and the Inter-American Commission in this
respect (both of which have developing countries in their
membership). In the field of human rights protection, with
the court in Strasbourg, it has proved very effective and
its data protection provisions have also been helpful.
Human rights is part of its DNA - but it is not a governance
model for the internet and no one I know claims it to be.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#0D0D0D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#0D0D0D">The
concern I hear about the creation of a state based body to
run the internet </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
What kind of state based body to 'run the Internet' you allude
to, and who proposed it.... BTW, do you think that OECD by
making Internet policy principles 'runs the Internet', or US
through its ICANN/IANA oversight role, and jurisprudence over
the companies which are 70 percent of the Internet, 'runs the
Internet'..... Or, is it that such loaded terms are to be used
only for processes that may include poor, developing
countries? (Accompanied by shutting up any counter-discourse
by calling it various names as your email is full of...)<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#0D0D0D">is
not that it would give developing countries a voice – that’s
a goal we all share – but because the example of bodies like
the Human Rights Council, which has become a place where
governments seek to prevent human rights standards from
being enforced, rather than a place where positive policies
are pursued. Of course the HRC has done good work – but it
is a relentless diplomatic battle to hold the line. In the
most recent elections Saudi Arabia, Russia, China and Cuba
were all elected unopposed and I can tell you that very few
people in the broad human rights movement are comforted by
that.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
Yes that is a problem. However, no less is the problem of US's
dominance and role in OECD, TPP, kind of global IG processes,
for instance its insisting that net neutrality should be
removed from OECD principles, and it pushing in overly strong
IP protections and some clear pointers to private policing by
ISPs in the same Principles document.... We cannot just keep
using the 2-3 names of these above countries that you mention
to discredit anything and everything that the UN or developing
countries in general do or propose. Speaking of repeating old
hackneyed arguments, as you do below, this one would any day
take the cake in global IG space, <br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#0D0D0D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#0D0D0D">My
feeling about Best Bits is that the majority of participants
want to figure out – working collaboratively and
constructively – how we can contribute to the development of
an open internet that supports democracy and human rights.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
I have no doubt that this is what we and networks that we work
with are most interested in.... Democracy btw does not admit
vote or veto power for business reps in public policy making .
And human rights go much beyond FoE and privacy and cover so
many social, economic and cultural issues...<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#0D0D0D">Most
of us think that involving all stakeholders is crucial to
that though we all recognise the difficulties inherent in
such a process. I suggest that those of us who want to
undertake this work get on with it and those who want
something else get on with that. It’s a big world and
there’s room for all opinions. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
IT for Change works closely on the ground to promote
participatory democracy In India, I would not get into
pressing that point too much here... BTW, since you may have
missed it, just one thing - it is we who suggested adding
'Multi-stakeholder' (MS) term to the erstwhile Advisory Group
of the IGF, it is we who worked with India on the famous
"India proposal' during the meetings of WG on IGF improvements
and actually were able to get almost all developing countries
to agree to strengthening IGF (at least over the first year of
WG IGF), whereas you may want to check more on what the so
called MSists were doing then.... 'India proposal' and ITfC's
proposal strongly pushed for recs giving power for the IGF,
strengthening MAG to a much more substantial role, including
working through WGs and so on..... You dont think that would
amount to working on strengthening the multistakeholder
approach....<br>
<br>
Just because you have created a strawman of multilateralism
versus MSism, are you suggesting that MLists, *as defined by
you* should move elsewhere and this is a space for MSists to
work.....<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#0D0D0D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#0D0D0D">I
also feel that the Best Bits platform (not organisation) has
been a way in which many new people have been able to enter
the conversation about IG and internet policy issues but
that there is a danger if the sterile nature of current
discussions continues, they will driven away. (Several
participants at Bali said they did not want BB to go the way
of the IGC.) I think we have thoroughly aired the different
views on multi-lateral v multi-stakeholder so can we move on
and do the work we each want to do </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
No, we havent... But if you think we are all clear about what
is MSism and what is MLism (whereby, as you say, we should
move on), may I ask you whether MSism includes business reps
voting in making actual decisions about substantive public
policy issues. A simple direct question, and if you are not
clear about any element of it I can clarify... If your answer
is yes, I am not a MSist, if it is no, I am as MSist as you or
anyone else is. If you give me an answer to this question, I
promise I'll move on -- depending on your answer with the MS
brigade or the MList one...<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#0D0D0D">though
of course – to be clear – anyone is free to post anything
they want.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
Thanks, but your email really doesnt sound you are too happy
that I put my side of what I think were and are important
issues following the WGEC meeting, and also as we move
forward. <br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#0D0D0D">
I wish those proposing an inter governmental model the best
but I will be supporting something different to you. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
As per the above, I really do not know what do you mean by an
inter-gov model.... If its identifying feature is that
business reps will not be able to vote or veto with regard to
substantive public policy issues, then yes I am proposing an
inter-gov model (for me, all stakeholders should be an
important part of all pre decision making processes, which
for me is an MS approach)..... And since you say, you'd
support 'something different', may I know whether in your
model business will have vote/ veto power in terms of
substantive public policy matters...<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#0D0D0D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#0D0D0D">In
addition, for myself, I would like to see a younger, dynamic
policy leadership emerge in this field so that we don’t just
see the same old voices rehashing the same arguments that
have been around for 10 years or more. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
How many different ways you have used to tell me not to
present my views :). It is really ingenious of you. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#0D0D0D">So
I would ask the veterans in this debate to remember the
adage of Jon Postel – be liberal in what you accept, and
conservative in what you send</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-top:7.0pt;line-height:115%;text-autospace:none"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#253741;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Andrew
Puddephatt</span></b><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";mso-fareast-language:EN-US">
</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";mso-fareast-language:EN-US">|
</span><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#253741;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">GLOBAL
PARTNERS</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#253741;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">
DIGITAL</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="line-height:115%;text-autospace:none"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#253741;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Executive
Director</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="line-height:115%;text-autospace:none"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#7F7F7F;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Development
House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#7F7F7F">T:
+44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype:
andrewpuddephatt</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#7F7F7F"><br>
<b>gp-digital.org</b></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext"
lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext"
lang="EN-US"> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net</a>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net">mailto:bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>parminder<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 19 November 2013 14:13<br>
<b>To:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>;
<,<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net>">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net></a>,<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by
the Government of India to the WGEC</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Monday 18 November 2013 09:23 PM,
Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear Anja<br>
<br>
Thank you for this.<br>
<br>
I followed the meeting remotely (which was really hard as I
could not get the webcast but I could follow the transcript)
and noticed this similarity with the CIRP proposal and the
IT For Change proposal. <br>
<br>
Could it be differences between ministries?<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
No, it isnt. My understanding is that this time around the
document with the mentioned Indian position came from the
Department of IT to the WGEC, and not the Ministry of External
Affairs..... It is also my understanding that this position
was developed and approved by an inter ministerial group
(headed by Department if IT), consisting of all the relevant
ministries, and more, and have all the highest level
clearances. Hopefully this will put all speculations to
rest...<br>
<br>
While I am on the subject, let me also give me views on what
gets demonised as 'multilateral' versus multistakeholderism
that all good people of the world seem to live and
breathe.....<br>
<br>
Now, indeed, I am repeating it for the hundredth time that
India is just proposing to have done by including all
countries of the world that OECD's Internet policy body
(Committee on Computers, Information and Communication Policy
or CCICP) already does with only the richest countries of the
world being involved. Is there anything wrong with it? If so,
what? Isnt it just a vast improvement over the current
'global' Internet policy making system? (Yes, OECD makes
global policy and if the differences are on this point, lets
discuss it.) <br>
<br>
Now, this is not directed against any person(s), but just
against a political viewpoint that I have the right to
critique. I am completely unable to understand how people and
organisations that rather enthusiastically engage with OECD's
'multilateral' Internet policy making, become so active to
criticize exactly the same model whenever it is proposed by
developing countries, as if it had been taken from the devil
himself..... and that dark term 'multilateralism' start
getting thrown around. Why havent these people/organisations
ever protested against the multilateralism of OECD (or of CoE,
and the such) making Internet policies (for the whole world)?
Especially when these rich country clubs dont even include all
countries, excluding all those countries whose only fault is
that they arent rich? That would be something for civil
society to be protesting about.... <br>
<br>
Now, let me guess why such civil society critics do not take
the multistakeholder 'policy making' mime to these developed
country institutions. Maybe, they will be laughed at in their
face and told, no, in democratic systems big business and self
appointed civil society reps do not participate in actual
decision making. They will be told that business and civil
society vote or veto on substantive decision making on public
policy issues will never never be accepted. Just forget it
(and go read your political science books) ! Civil society
persons know this will be the response, and they dont want to
stand there looking a bit sheepish! <br>
<br>
So the question remains, why do then the same civil society
people put this demand of 'equal role in decision making on
public policy' to developing countries, whenever the latter
put up any proposal for new institutional developments to fill
in the deep democratic deficit in the governance to the
Internet, which is today a major instrument of re-distributing
all kinds of power?<br>
<br>
I dont know the answer, but we from developing countries must
be given the answer to the above question - why these double
standards between developed countries and the developing
ones? Why does the meaning of multilaterlism and
multistakeholderism change so suddenly when an institutional
proposal comes from developing countries? Why if OECD's CCICP
is acceptably multistakehoder and exactly the same model
presented by India takes the demonic colors of
multilateralism... Any takers?<br>
<br>
Happy to further discuss India's and other proposals for the
future of global IG...<br>
<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
I have had a sense that in the case of India, similar to South
Africa, the ministry of foreign affairs agenda has not always
been fully cleared with, or co-developed with, the ministry of
communications.<br>
<br>
Ministries of foreign affairs usually try to plug in issue
specific matters into a broader foreign policy agenda.
Sometimes this works will for the line ministries, sometimes
not.. or sometimes they are just a but left out of the loop.<br>
<br>
But I think we should also allow for the fact that all
governments, including some of those most committed to
multi-stakeholder participation, should be watched carefully,
not just those who openly put a multi-lateral model on the
table. Often governments pay lip service to
'multi-stakeholder' models but they are quite comfortable also
working in multi-lateral frameworks and mashing them up in
their speeches and inputs without really concretising what
they mean by multi-stakeholder IG. <br>
<br>
That is why as CS we need to be really vigilant and demand
very clear commitments and mechanisms that allow us to be
integrally part of proposed solutions.<br>
<br>
Anriette<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 18/11/2013 10:22, Anja Kovacs wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear all,<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
As I thought this would be of interest to many people on
these lists, I wanted to share a short blog post about
the proposal for EC India made to the WGEC (see below
this message and here: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://internetdemocracy.in/2013/11/is-india-reviving-its-un-cirp-proposal/"
target="_blank">http://internetdemocracy.in/2013/11/is-india-reviving-its-un-cirp-proposal/</a>
)<br>
<br>
Over the past year, for various reasons, the earlier UN
CIRP proposal seemed to be off the table and Kapil
Sibal, Minister of Communications and Information
Technology, in particular had become increasingly vocal
about his support for multistakeholder models for
Internet governance. However, during the meeting of the
WGEC earlier this month, the Indian government again
tabled a proposal for a multilateral Internet policy to
be established under the UN, very similar to the earlier
UN CIRP. <br>
<br>
Comments most welcome.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Best,<br>
Anja<o:p></o:p></p>
<h1>Is India reviving its proposal for a multilateral UN
body to take over the governance of the Internet? <o:p></o:p></h1>
<h3>by Anja Kovacs <o:p></o:p></h3>
<div>
<p><em>Recent events at the UN CSTD Working Group on
Enhanced Cooperation give the strong impression that
this is indeed the case. </em><o:p></o:p></p>
<p>In a submission to the <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC.aspx"
target="_blank">Working Group on Enhanced
Cooperation (WGEC)</a>, which met for the second
time in Geneva last week, the Indian government
recommended the following:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>The UN General Assembly could embark on creation of
a multilateral body for formulation of international
Internet-related public policies. The proposed body
should include all stakeholders and relevant
inter-governmental and international organisations
in advisory capacity within their respective roles
as identified in Tunis agenda and WGIG report. Such
body should also develop globally applicable
principles on public policy issues associated with
the coordination and management of critical Internet
resources.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Despite the fact that stakeholders from India already
active within the field of Internet governance have
overwhelmingly disagreed with India’s earlier proposal
to establish a Committee for Internet-related Policies
within the UN (UN CIRP), this proposal thus seems to
have been revived.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Like the earlier one, the proposal that is currently
on the table is problematic for a number of reasons.
It clearly seeks to endorse governments as the primary
stakeholders in Internet governance, whose dominance
needs to be established at the expense of other
stakeholders. Irrespective of the issue under
consideration, other stakeholders will only be given
an advisory role in Internet governance. Moreover,
they will only be allowed to play the roles defined in
the Tunis Agenda. That these definitions - especially
where the role of civil society is concerned - are
outmoded is something that has been recognised widely.
During last week’s WGEC meeting, India acknowledged
the debates around the role definitions of the Tunis
Agenda, but said nothing about how these debates might
affect its proposal.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Support for India’s proposal at the meeting of the
42-member WGEC only came from the government of Saudi
Arabia and from an Indian civil society
representative. The latter took with this a position
quite radically different from other Indian members of
civil society active in Internet governace, or indeed
from most of global civil society in this field, who
believe that a multistakeholder model for Internet
governance is the way forward.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Many, including the Internet Democracy Project, have
argued that there might at times be space for
multilateralism within this multistakeholder model.
For example, if a multistakeholder group comes to the
conclusion that the best way forward to protect the
right to privacy of all people in the Internet age is
a new treaty, then from that point onwards,
governments would take over as negotiating treaties is
their job.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>However, a crucial difference between such proposals
and the ones currently and previously made by the
Indian government is that in a multistakeholder model,
broad agreement among all stakeholders, including on
the modalities, is a prerequisite for any solution to
go forward. The India proposals, in contrast, presume
the necessity of government dominance in the policy
process, irrespective of the problem at hand, and thus
requires agreement only among governments. This not
only means that inputs by other stakeholders need not
necessarily be given due consideration, it also leaves
the Internet policy making process much more
vulnerable to the vagaries of global geopolitics.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>The proposal by India that the new UN body would be
responsible also for developing globally applicable
principles on public policy issues associated with the
coordination and management of critical Internet
resources is particularly surprising in this regard.
So far, the coordination and management of critical
Internet resources lies overwhelmingly with bodies
such as ICANN that, though not without their flaws,
are already multistakeholder in their functioning. To
think that principles that should govern the work of
these bodies can be formulated or effectively applied
without a central involvement of all stakeholders
already involved in these groups (stakeholders who
often have, it should be said, conflicting views about
the way forward) is obviously deeply flawed.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>The multistakeholder WGEC is charged with making
recommendations on how to fully implement the mandate
of enhanced cooperation contained in the Tunis Agenda.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>India’s renewed proposal, in this context, to
establish a UN body that would privilege governments
in the making of international Internet-related public
policy was made without any domestic consultation,
even if a Multistakeholder Advisory Group had been
established by the government precisely for such
purposes in August of this year.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>For many observers in India, it therefore came as
something of a surprise - even more so as Mr. Kapil
Sibal, Minister of Communications and Information
Technology, has repeatedly stressed over the past year
(and as recently as 17 October) the importance of
multistakeholderism for effective Internet policy
making, and his own commitment to this model.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
Dr. Anja Kovacs<br>
The Internet Democracy Project<br>
<br>
+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.internetdemocracy.in/"
target="_blank">www.internetdemocracy.in</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>-- <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>------------------------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>anriette esterhuysen <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>executive director, association for progressive communications<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.apc.org">www.apc.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>po box 29755, melville 2109<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>south africa<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>tel/fax +27 11 726 1692<o:p></o:p></pre>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>