WSIS+10 workshop?, was Re: [bestbits] Next steps on principles (was Re: Coordination...)

Sun Dec 9 15:36:42 EST 2012

Good idea to do a workshop, and we should try to have a meeting
beforehand.  I like the idea of "developing a positive civil society
agenda on internet governance" as a theme although making it concrete
could be difficult.  One way of doing this would be to do a
'stock-taking of where things have moved since they were highlighted in
the WGIG documents, as Pranesh suggests.

I suggest that someone from Best Bits writes to Unesco to say we need a
bit more time. As long as we tell them tomorrow that we want a workshop
they are likely to give us more time to finalise a proposal.

For everyone's information, APC is planning to submit a few workshop
proposals, including one that will look at the WSIS civil society
declaration from 2003. We will present initial research outcome of a
survey we have been doing to get a sense of civil society perceptions on
progress/lack of progress in meeting these goals.

Anriette

On 09/12/2012 21:06, Kevin Bankston wrote:
> Hello everyone:
>
> Watching this very interesting discussing, and looking at the impending deadline 
> for workshop proposals for the WSIS+10 review meeting Feb 25-27 in Paris 
> (www.unesco.org/wsis2013 <http://www.unesco.org/wsis2013>)--proposals are due 
> tomorrow, Monday the 10th, form attached--we at CDT were wondering whether it 
> might make sense for some of the Best Bits participants to collaborate on a 
> workshop proposal on the positive agenda issue.  Perhaps a "developing a 
> positive civil society agenda on internet governance" type of workshop if the 
> meeting format would tolerate a civil society-dominated workshop, or perhaps a 
> more broadly constituted panel focusing on "If not the ITU, then what? Positive 
> visions for the future of internet governance".  (I suggest the former simply 
> because it would be the easiest to put together on such short notice, since most 
> if not all of the best potential panelists are already on this list, and indeed, 
> are perhaps already on this thread).
>
> Matthew Shears will be attending the WSIS meeting for CDT; it's not clear yet 
> whether I and/or Emma would join him, but either way, one of us would be happy 
> to be on such a panel if folks think it's worthwhile.  I'm also happy to work to 
> get this proposal out the door tomorrow but would love to hear feedback on 
> whether it is a good idea, and whether we need to make it a diverse panel or 
> could focus on civil society's role.  Also curious to hear what if anything 
> others on the list are planning in terms of workshops for this meeting (speaking 
> generally we're happy to participate and help out wherever we can).
>
> I suppose we also should start discussing whether we'd like to attempt to 
> reconvene the Best Bits group in Paris prior to the WSIS+10 meeting and the MAG 
> meeting.
> ____________________________________
> Kevin S. Bankston
> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director
> Center for Democracy & Technology
> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100
> Washington, DC 20006
> 202.407.8834 direct
> 202.637.0968 fax
> kbankston at cdt.org <mailto:kbankston at cdt.org>
>
> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech
>
>
> On Dec 6, 2012, at 9:58 AM, Pranesh Prakash wrote:
>
> > Jeremy Malcolm [2012-12-06 15:15]:
> >> On 04/12/2012, at 12:01 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch 
> >> <mailto:nb at bollow.ch>> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org <mailto:anriette at apc.org>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> This does bring us back to our 'Best Bits' goal about developing and
> >>>> proposing principles for internet governance. Should we not begin to
> >>>> plan our next steps?
> >>>
> >>> Absolutely.
> >>>
> >>> How can things realistically be moved forward in a positive,
> >>> constructive way?
> >>
> >>
> >> I worry that the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" meme with which most are 
> >> approaching WCIT will solidify into a general opposition to any global 
> >> norm-setting outside of the Internet technical community's institutions, and 
> >> that Internet policy development will thereby be confined to the national 
> >> level.  This is not helped by the US government's predisposition to avoid 
> >> taking on international obligations (the Disabilities Treaty being the latest 
> >> example, besides the Law of the Sea, the International Criminal Court, the 
> >> Cybercrime Convention, the Treaty for the Visually Impaired, etc) - except of 
> >> course through multilateral trade agreements!  I think we need to work on 
> >> addressing that perception, and point out that:
> >>
> >> 1. Multi-stakeholder Internet governance will be soft law, guidance rather 
> >> than compulsion.
> >> 2. Even the US is promulgating global Internet norms through fora that suit 
> >> it (OECD, APEC, and the "free flow of information" provisions in the TPP).
> >> 3. So we need to move this into multi-stakeholder global fora, at a higher 
> >> level that does not bind anyone, and need not restrict national policy space.
> >> 4. There are various non-technical Internet policy issues that have no 
> >> appropriate global home (nor should the ITU become their home).
> >> 5. For example, a potential core competency is connecting Internet governance 
> >> with human rights, as a framework to guide the development of national and 
> >> multilateral norms for IP enforcement.
> >> 6. Let's propose an IGF-based multi-stakeholder enhanced cooperation 
> >> mechanism that would be an acceptable way to deal with such issues.
> >
> > This is a most excellent summation and suggestions.
> >
> >> We all hate hierarchy, but sometimes a little bit of structure is necessary 
> >> to provide firm enough guidance to policymakers (look at the failure of IPv6 
> >> adoption).  The existing loose network of Internet governance institutions, 
> >> even if their "cooperation" is "enhanced", isn't structured enough to provide 
> >> such guidance in a way that will satisfy the stakeholders (governmental and 
> >> non-governmental) who are seeking more from the enhanced cooperation process.
> >>
> >> At Best Bits a few options were described, though we ran out of time to 
> >> debate them.  As I see it, there is a UN-linked option (which in turn divides 
> >> into an IGF-based option or an IGF-independent option), or there is a 
> >> UN-independent option (the Enhanced Cooperation Task Force, ECTF).  So far, 
> >> almost none of us have been serious about pursuing any of these.  But the 
> >> status quo is not going to hold.  One way or another, Internet governance is 
> >> going to evolve, and it will do so with us or without us.  We've spoken 
> >> loudly enough about what we don't want - the ITU.  So, what do we want?
> >
> > I think a stock-taking of where things have moved on the issues highlighted in 
> > the WGIG documents then would be helpful.
> >
> > I've some notes from conversations I was having with different people at Best 
> > Bits in terms of a 'positive agenda', that I hope to type up and elaborate on, 
> > and send to the list.
> >
> >
> > -- 
> > Pranesh Prakash
> > Policy Director
> > Centre for Internet and Society
> > T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
> > PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash
> >
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121209/2f96b3ef/attachment.htm>