<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html><head></head><body><div style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;"><div>Can we have a show of hands on anybody at all other than our colleagues from it for change who endorse the cirp or think it is a good, even a workable idea? </div><div><br></div><div>--srs (htc one x) </div><br><div id="htc_header">----- Reply message -----<br>From: "parminder" <parminder@itforchange.net><br>To: "Dixie Hawtin" <Dixie@gp-digital.org><br>Cc: "Andrew Puddephatt" <Andrew@gp-digital.org>, "governance@lists.igcaucus.org" <governance@lists.igcaucus.org>, "<,bestbits@lists.bestbits.net>," <bestbits@lists.bestbits.net><br>Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC<br>Date: Sun, Nov 24, 2013 6:12 PM</div></div><br><pre style="word-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;">
On Thursday 21 November 2013 10:54 PM, Dixie Hawtin wrote:
> I've never ever entered these debates before either, but I want to add my 2 cents too!
>
> On the OECD principles - CSISAC did not endorse the principles, on the basis of the intellectual property rights provision.
This is not true, Dixie. CSISAC did endorse them.
However, I have stayed away from discussing the substantive merit of the
outcomes of OECD kind of 'global' public policy processes. I only spoke
about their procedural aspects - like inclusiveness, multistakeholder
versus multilateral, etc . That these processes
1. do not involve all countries/ governments, and
2. are no less multilateral, and no more multistakeholder , than some of
the proposed UN based Internet policy fora, like India's CIRP proposal.
And the fact that civil society seems never to bother with this
particular problem of global Internet governance. As for instance we are
fond of regularly writing to ITU about its processes, and have even
started to speak against proposed WSIS + 10, which is supposed to follow
WSIS model which was one of the most participatory of processes that I
have ever seen.
Can you show me an instance where we have addressed the above problem of
global governance - something which is a constant refrain in most
discussions of global governance in the South . How can we simply
dismiss this concern.
Ok, to make it topical: The mandate of OCED's CCICP (OECD's Internet
policy organ) is up for renewal sometime now ( I think it is supposed to
be this December). As they renew their mandate, I propose that we write
to them, that
1. CCICP should seek "full and equal' engagement with UN and other
regional bodies on Internet policy issues that really have implications
across the globe, to ensure global democracy.
2. CCICP should never seek to post facto push their policy frameworks on
other countries - if they indeed think/ know that a particular Internet
policy issue is of a global dimension they should from the start itself
take it up at a global forum and accordingly develop policies regarding
it .
3. CCICP should be made fully multistakeholder on the same principles of
multistakeholderism that OECD countries seek for global Internet policy
related bodies. In this regard, OECD should clearly specify the role of
different stakeholders in terms of Internet policy making by OECD/
CCICP, and whether they are same or different than what they seek at the
global level, with justification thereof.
4. An OECD IGF should be set up and given the same policy role that OECD
countries seek from the global IGF vis a vis global Internet policies.
(Or they may want to manage with an expanded EuroDIG)
and perhaps a few other points.... (I dont think CCICP meetings are open
to observers - that we regularly seek from UN processes, that
transcripts of CCICP proceedings are made public - as for instance that
of UN WGEC are being made public and so on.......)
I wont support it but those here who have asked for a decision making
role for business and civil society in public policy making (or even an
authoritative agenda-filtering/ vetoing role) should also separately
write that the CSISAC and the Business advisory group should be
assimilated into the CCICP to make a multistakeholder OECD's Internet
Policy Committee (paralleling some proposal with regard to global level
submitted to WGEC).
Well, we may not agree on all of it, but are people here ready to take
up this issue and begin framing a letter to the OECD?
parminder
PS: Dixie; There are some other important issues in your email below,
which I will respond to separately. This is about what willy nilly come
off as efforts to foreclose expression of some kind of views on this
list (BestBits). It is really getting 'frustrating' (to use your term)
to continually be subject to such emails about what is the 'correct'
discourse on this list. The views that I express are all very important
to us - the people I work with, and they cant be postponed, because in
politics what you dont do can be as important as what you do. Neither it
is appreciated to put labels of 'inappropriateness of the manner of
their expression' on these views. We are all professionals here and know
the terms of civil discourse. But some people seem to be forgetting
civil society's role to ask hard question of itself and of others, and
tolerate internal 'dissent'.
> And I seem to recall many, many civil society speaking against them at the IGF in Nairobi. In fact, the IRP organised a workshop on copyright that year, one of the main agenda issues discussed was concerns with the OECP Internet Policy-Making Principles.
>
> On the CoE Cybersecurity convention too, I recall huge agreement among civil society that there were serious flaws in the convention, and it was wrong to push it on other countries (and wrong for CoE countries to fully adopt too). In fact, I' specifically remember hearing Anja argue this strongly on many panels.
>
> I think there is so much agreement among civil society on so many issues, but we never reach it because people come back continuously to the few areas where there are disagreement (or where people's opinions aren't fully formed and they aren't willing to concede until they are) and scratch at them on and on that prevents us from working on the areas where there is agreement. If we spent more time working on the areas where there is agreement, I honestly think that by the time we came to the more contentious areas we'd find them much narrower and easier to deal with, then we do by starting at those points. These conversations always seem to be framed as "we need to agree on the most contentious issues BEFORE we discuss anything else".
>
> For example, coming up with a proposal to put forward for the Brazil meeting - I think if we started trying to craft the language, the concerns with the current situation, the things we want to see, I think there would be huge amounts of agreement - strengthening IGF, internationalising ICANN, the values that should be ingrained in any governance mechanism. Then if at the end of that we came to some sort of roadblock (in very crude terms multi-stakeholder vs multi-lateral but I think those generic terms might sound far more apart than they are actually are among many civil society people), we could at that point decide to either submit different proposals, or come up with some slightly diplomatic fudge that most of us could sign on too, and as a result would have a lot of power. That's what happened with the WCIT statement.
>
> Anyways, I'm really frustrated to see the BB list go the same way as the IGC list just one month after we all agreed we didn't want that to happen. And I don't think anyone has caused it by the principles behind what they are saying, but rather by the way in which they say those things. Just to say, I thought the exact same about the debate about civil society funding. It's a completely valid point and I know that we at GPD are working on producing public reports of our funding streams. But it should not be started with: whoever gets funding from x funder is therefore invalid and should not be included in the debate. Again the conversation should start where there is agreement: i.e. "I think transparency and accountability among civil society is important, and one thing we should look at ways of being more transparent about is funding".
>
> Best,
> Dixie
> ________________________________________
> From: bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder [parminder@itforchange.net]
> Sent: 21 November 2013 14:04
> To: Andrew Puddephatt
> Cc: governance@lists.igcaucus.org; <,bestbits@lists.bestbits.net>,
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC
>
> On Thursday 21 November 2013 05:49 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
> As I intend to follow Jon Postel’s adage, this is my last comment on this particular theme.
> 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.
>
> 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...
>
> No matter, I have made my point. And I will still respond to substantive points....
>
> My point about OECD and CoE was not that they don’t have influence but that I have not seem anyone in civil society defend those institutions as appropriate for global policy making. If that’s not what you meant I apologise for misunderstanding you.
>
> 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.
>
> 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....
>
>
> When I talk about a state based body I mean something like the Human Rights Council
> 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....
>
> – a group of states elected from within the UNGA – which I fear in the current climate will be subject to same geo-political competition that leads to human rights abusers being elected to the HRC to the vast detriment of human rights.
>
> The other option is to remain subject to US and OECD making global internet related policies....
> 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.
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> But I’m looking forward to others’ views.
> 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.
>
> That is what you did in your email, Andrew. We could have instead just discussed respective views, agreeing or not.... parminder
>
> It’s the kind of behaviour that enrages and disillusions people. We all have an obligation to build this community, and this means thinking about our responsibilities to each other as well as our rights to speak freely.
>
>
> Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
> Executive Director
> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
> gp-digital.org
>
> From: parminder [mailto:parminder@itforchange.net]
> Sent: 21 November 2013 11:38
> To: Andrew Puddephatt
> Cc: governance@lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org>; <,bestbits@lists.bestbits.net><mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net>>,
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC
>
> Andrew
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> my responses below...
> On Tuesday 19 November 2013 08:37 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>
> I don’t normally respond to these discussions but occasionally I feel
>
> I think one should enter a debate with enough respect for those who are engaging in it....
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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. People have been supportive of the changes it has made to become more multi-stakeholder ( rather than promoting it as the example of best practice) - certainly 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.
>
> 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.
>
> The concern I hear about the creation of a state based body to run the internet
>
> 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...)
>
>
> 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.
>
> 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,
>
>
> 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.
>
> 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...
>
>
> 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.
>
> 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....
>
> 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.....
>
>
>
> 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
>
> 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...
>
>
>
> though of course – to be clear – anyone is free to post anything they want.
>
> 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.
>
>
> I wish those proposing an inter governmental model the best but I will be supporting something different to you.
>
> 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...
>
>
> 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.
>
> How many different ways you have used to tell me not to present my views :). It is really ingenious of you.
>
> parminder
>
> 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
>
> Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
> Executive Director
> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
> gp-digital.org
>
> From: bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net> [mailto:bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder
> Sent: 19 November 2013 14:13
> To: governance@lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org>; <,bestbits@lists.bestbits.net><mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net>>,
> Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC
>
>
> On Monday 18 November 2013 09:23 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Dear Anja
>
> Thank you for this.
>
> 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.
>
> Could it be differences between ministries?
>
> 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...
>
> 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.....
>
> 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.)
>
> 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....
>
> 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!
>
> 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?
>
> 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?
>
> Happy to further discuss India's and other proposals for the future of global IG...
>
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Anriette
>
>
> On 18/11/2013 10:22, Anja Kovacs wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> 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 href="http://internetdemocracy.in/2013/11/is-india-reviving-its-un-cirp-proposal/">http://internetdemocracy.in/2013/11/is-india-reviving-its-un-cirp-proposal/</a> )
>
> 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.
>
> Comments most welcome.
> Best,
> Anja
> Is India reviving its proposal for a multilateral UN body to take over the governance of the Internet?
> by Anja Kovacs
>
> Recent events at the UN CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation give the strong impression that this is indeed the case.
>
> In a submission to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC)<<a href="http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC.aspx">http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC.aspx</a>>, which met for the second time in Geneva last week, the Indian government recommended the following:
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> The multistakeholder WGEC is charged with making recommendations on how to fully implement the mandate of enhanced cooperation contained in the Tunis Agenda.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> <a href="http://www.internetdemocracy.in">www.internetdemocracy.in</a><<a href="http://www.internetdemocracy.in/">http://www.internetdemocracy.in/</a>>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> anriette esterhuysen anriette@apc.org<mailto:anriette@apc.org>
>
> executive director, association for progressive communications
>
> <a href="http://www.apc.org">www.apc.org</a><<a href="http://www.apc.org">http://www.apc.org</a>>
>
> po box 29755, melville 2109
>
> south africa
>
> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>
>
</pre></body></html>