<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 Tuesday 02 December 2014 03:43 AM,
Avri Doria wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:547CE824.1040908@acm.org" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<br>
snip<br>
<br>
We participate in the ITU (I am sure you saw several of us at the
PP where we were participatory and not at all disruptive), the
IGF, the HRC and work with various other agencies of both the UN
and the UN system. I personally worked with some of the ITU-T
architecture and protocol study groups during the last century
before WSIS was even a concept. Currently many of us are knocking
on the ITU Council Working Group asking to be let in so we can
have a seat at their table. That is hardly vilification.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
You cannot claim that you have not heard of UN and ITU vilification
in this space. In fact, I contend that a major part of the politics
of major actors in this space is driven, more or less, by resistance
to any UN body dealing with IG issues. Never mind that the same
organisations gladly engage with intergovernmental systems dealing
with IG inside an OECD or Council of Europe. In my email I mentioned
several recent instances of such anti-UN ism, for instance<br>
<br>
1. Making the very possible mention of Internet in ITU ITRs as a do
or die issue (never mind in the US the same organisations are now
fighting for classification of the Internet as a telecommunication
service and not an information service). <br>
<br>
2. Being lukewarm if not actively resistant to proposals at the ITU
plenipot to take up issues of grave mass scale privacy violations
and data intrusions, even as the world is reeling under the impact
of this issue and there is no globally democratic place to deal with
this issue in its holistic nature.<br>
<br>
3. Being lukewarm if not actively resistant to a full scale WSIS
plus 10 political process, at the same level as the WSIS 1 and 2...<br>
<br>
4. Having completely resistant or at least very lukewarm attitude to
and engagement with the UN Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation
which was trying to seek possible needed institutional reforms/
evolution in the global IG space. <br>
<br>
Any number of further instances can be given. I just think the above
suffices to show that going for the WEF/ ICANN's NM Initiative at
the same time as resisting UN based resolution or institutional
development is a clear political choice that some have made. Putting
our finger to that political choice and what we understand are its
implications is our political duty. We would also obviously resist
efforts to simply describe this choice in a non-political manner, of
'just trying to get all actors in'.<br>
<br>
BTW, remember that at the time of initiation of the original
NetMundial process, not only ICANN but also US government said and I
quote from US ambassador's speech at Bali IGF, "organizing
multistakeholder responses to Internet issues that do not have a
home today. And we must work together with them in good faith on
these important issues'. Therefore this new WEF/ ICANN NMI is
continuation of the same process to deal with 'orphan Internet
issues', the list of which will of course keep expanding, The same
issues about which the UN spaces are struggling to find their feet
to deal with, but it are being strongly resisted in such attempts by
the developed countries and most of the civil society that has
joined the new NMI now.<br>
<br>
So, to repeat, this is a case of particular political choice made by
civil society groups to prefer an ICANN/ WEF system to deal with
Internet related public policy issues over a UN or such globally
democratic system, which is simultaneously being rejected, other
than some 'rear guard' action kind of residual engagements. We think
this is both an extremely dangerous thing, and in that respect
perhaps historic, with regard to possibilities of a democratic
governance of the global Internet. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="LibreOffice 3.5 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
PRE.cjk { font-family: "Droid Sans Fallback", monospace }
PRE.ctl { font-family: "Lohit Hindi", monospace }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
A:link { so-language: zxx }
-->
</style>
<blockquote cite="mid:547CE824.1040908@acm.org" type="cite"> <br>
Yes, I object to the idea of the UN or ITU gaining supremacy over
the Internet but I and many others have long supported them as
equal footing participants in IG functions. <br>
<br>
And yes, I would equally object to NMI or WEF gaining supremacy in
IG as well. I do not have the impression that they are trying to
do this. And if they try, we better be there to nip it in the
bud. But I support them being equal footing participants in IG in
the same way I support the UN and UN system organizations.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>