<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Verdana">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 </font><font
face="Verdana">by name </font><font face="Verdana">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...<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 19 November 2013 08:37 PM,
Andrew Puddephatt wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D0403D@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: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:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@SimSun";
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
/* 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.EmailStyle23
{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"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#0D0D0D;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#0D0D0D;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#0D0D0D;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#0D0D0D;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><span
style="color:windowtext">I don’t normally respond to these
discussions but occasionally I feel </span></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I think one should enter a debate with enough respect for those who
are engaging in it....<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D0403D@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#0D0D0D;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#0D0D0D;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><span
style="color:windowtext">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.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#0D0D0D;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#0D0D0D;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<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>
<blockquote
cite="mid:F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D0403D@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#0D0D0D;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#0D0D0D;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><span
style="color:windowtext">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><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;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#0D0D0D;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><span
style="color:windowtext">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. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#0D0D0D;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#0D0D0D;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#0D0D0D;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#0D0D0D;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><span
style="color:windowtext">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. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#0D0D0D;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#0D0D0D;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><span
style="color:windowtext"> <o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#0D0D0D;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#0D0D0D;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><span
style="color:windowtext">The concern I hear about the
creation of a state based body to run the internet </span></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<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>
<blockquote
cite="mid:F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D0403D@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#0D0D0D;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#0D0D0D;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><span
style="color:windowtext">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></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<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>
<blockquote
cite="mid:F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D0403D@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#0D0D0D;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#0D0D0D;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><span
style="color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#0D0D0D;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#0D0D0D;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#0D0D0D;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#0D0D0D;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><span
style="color:windowtext">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></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<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>
<blockquote
cite="mid:F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D0403D@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#0D0D0D;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#0D0D0D;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><span
style="color:windowtext">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></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<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>
<blockquote
cite="mid:F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D0403D@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#0D0D0D;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#0D0D0D;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><span
style="color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#0D0D0D;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#0D0D0D;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><span
style="color:windowtext"> <o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#0D0D0D;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#0D0D0D;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><span
style="color:windowtext">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></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<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>
<blockquote
cite="mid:F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D0403D@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#0D0D0D;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#0D0D0D;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><span
style="color:windowtext">though of course – to be clear –
anyone is free to post anything they want.</span></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<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>
<blockquote
cite="mid:F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D0403D@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#0D0D0D;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#0D0D0D;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><span
style="color:windowtext"> I wish those proposing an inter
governmental model the best but I will be supporting
something different to you. </span></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<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>
<blockquote
cite="mid:F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D0403D@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#0D0D0D;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#0D0D0D;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><span
style="color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#0D0D0D;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#0D0D0D;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#0D0D0D;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#0D0D0D;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><span
style="color:windowtext">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></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<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>
<blockquote
cite="mid:F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CC557D0403D@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#0D0D0D;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#0D0D0D;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><span
style="color:windowtext">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></span><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"> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" 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 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> [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"><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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>