[bestbits] Position by IT for Change and some other NGOs on enhanced cooperation

[Shahzad Ahmad]

Dear Anja,

Very very keen to read more about the third way. "Politics of Justice"
hmmmm… very interesting.

Can't wait to discuss and hear more on this next week :)

Best wishes and regards
Shahzad



From:  Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>
Date:  Friday, August 30, 2013 11:23 PM
To:  Valeria Betancourt <valeriab at apc.org>
Cc:  "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt>
" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject:  Re: [bestbits] Position by IT for Change and some other NGOs on
enhanced cooperation

Dear all,

While the Internet Democracy Project is not a member of APC, and though we
do have differences of opinion with APC (e.g. on how severe the threat of
backgtracking on the Tunis agenda is), we broadly agree with APC's views on
the IT for Change statement as outlined by Valeria. We will not be able to
sign the IT for Change statement.

It is oftentimes made to seem as if there are only two options where
Internet governance arrangements are concerned: the status quo and a more
centralised form of governance, the latter often (though not always)
imagined as involving greater government control. We believe that there is a
third way, and one that has far greater potential for a politics of justice,
which is that of distributed governance. We will be submitting a submission
to the WGEC along these lines.

Best regards,

Anja


On 30 August 2013 20:02, Valeria Betancourt <valeriab at apc.org> wrote:
> Dear all, 
> 
> We are busy compiling an APC's network response and we will submit our own
> statement.  We will also endorse the Best Bits statement, to which we
> contributed to. 
> 
> While we appreciate the effort that has gone into it and many of the points
> raised, APC will not endorse the IT for Change statement.  APC members are
> independent so while some individual APC members might endorse it, APC as an
> organisation won't.  Some of the main reasons why we have made that decision
> are explained at the end of this message. We thought it is useful to share our
> thinking in these spacea as a contribution to the debate.
> 
> Best, 
> 
> Valeria 
> ------------------------
> 
> * The basic case for "global governance of the Internet" is simply not made.
> The evidence for the proposed new mechanisms is weak, laden with polemic, and
> with a political bias that is not corrected by balanced,
> judicious weighing of options nor informed by practical experience (this in
> relation to ICANN and the technical community in particular).
> 
> * The statement takes government and an internet-centric approach to policy
> making and suggests that a global internet policy making framework convention
> and new body is desirable. This overlooks and would
> undermine the many other approaches to policy making currently mandated by
> international law including rights based, environmental, and development among
> others. we have seen in the intellectual property field, for example, what
> happens when UN bodies are set up with topic specific mandates for global
> related policy issues.
> 
> * To place the internet as the centre for public policy making is a grave
> conceptual error in our view -rather a better conceptual approach is to focus
> on internet related aspects of policy issues (such as health, education,
> discrimination, access, telecommunciations policy and so on). Even better, to
> put people at the centre of policy making. We must never forget that the
> internet does not exist in a parallel dimension. Nor can internet policy.
> Creating a new UN body to focus on internet policy and identifying which
> issues it should deal with is not going to be sustainable, or effective. The
> internet touches on so many issues that no single policy space could ever
> effectively deal with them all.
> 
> * The imposition of a new global internet policy framework determined and
> agreed by governments - and therefore being a top down and central mechanism -
> contradicts the bottom-up multi-stakeholder principles of
> policy making and end to end principles of internet architecture: it's just
> wrong. This is not to say that multi-stakeholder policy processes are not
> flawed and still producing outcomes that reflect the interest of those with
> power and resources. But creating new frameworks and bodies will not address
> this automatically.
> 
> * Most international agreements set MINIMUM standards because governments
> generally can only agree on the lowest common denominator - apart from
> generally resulting in inadequate policy, it also risks back- tracking on the
> existing points of agreement in the Tunis Agenda.
> 
> * The statement proposes a new framework convention similar to the convention
> on climate change. Such conventions are inevitably negotiated and agreed by
> governments and not multi-stakeholder. in addition, the
> inequalities between States (a key source of friction in current arrangements)
> will not be solved by the creation of new mechanisms which the same States
> need to agree on - inevitably the politics simply transfer, Rather than
> propose a new convention (most take between 5-10 years to negotiate, assuming
> agreement can be reached), it would be better to empower and strengthen
> existing mechanisms - more ideas on
> that separately. APC proposed a framework convention of this nature
> immediately after Tunis in 2005. But after our work on the 'code of good
> practice' for internet governance during which we looked closely at
> environmental and climate change policy processes, and our experience in
> observing governments in the CSTD when they try to negotiate an annual
> resolution on WSIS follow up we decided against this.
> 
> * Finally, the focus on global internet public policy undermines the role of
> national and regional IGFs and policy making processes many of which have
> quite different politics and are still evolving to suit their conditions. Not
> all these processes are inclusive, or even legitimate, but they are not going
> to be fixed from above by new agreements negotiated by governments.
> 
> * On balance, then, we think more work is needed to develop options which suit
> civil society and empower civil society as stakeholders in policy making and
> that systematically try to consolidate current achievements with regard to
> human rights on the internet in, for example, the Human Rights Council.
> 
> 
> On 28/08/2013, at 11:51, parminder wrote:
> 
>>            
>>     Apologies for cross posting
>>  
>>       Dear All
>>       
>>       IT for Change and some other NGOs plan to forward the following
>> position to the UN Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation.      Preceding the
>> position statement is a covering letter seeking      support. You are welcome
>> to support this position any time          before 12 noon GMT on 31st Aug. We
>> are happy to      provide any additional information/ clarification etc. Also
>> happy      to otherwise discuss this position, and its different elements. We
>> are motivated by the need to come up with precise and clear
>> institutional options at this stage. Politics of inertia and not      doing
>> anything just serves the status quo. These may not be the      best
>> institutional options, and we are ready to enter into      discussion with
>> other groups on what instead would be the better      options. But, again,
>> not doing anything is, in our opinion, would      be detrimental to global
>> public interest.
>>  
>>       The web link to this position is at
>> http://www.itforchange.net/civil_society_input_to_the_UN_Working_Group_for_gl
>> obal_governance_of_the_Internet      .
>>  
>>       parminder 
>>       
>>     
>>     Covering letter / Background
>>         
>>     In May 2012, more than 60 civil society organisations and several
>> individuals participated in a campaign for 'democratising the       global
>> governance of the Internet
>> <http://www.itforchange.net/civil_society_statement_on_democratic_internet>
>> '. A joint letter signed by    the participants of this campaign inter alia
>> asked for    setting up a UN Working Group towards this objective. Such a
>> Working    Group was set up and has now asked for public inputs to formulate
>> its recommendations.
>>  
>>     In our joint letter, we had proposed some outlines for reforming the
>> current global governance architecture of the Internet. Time has    come now
>> to make more clear and specific recommendations of the    actual
>> institutional mechanism that we need. With most governments    more worried
>> about their narrow geopolitical interests and    relationships with
>> individual countries, it falls upon the civil    society to be bold and
>> forward looking and put precise proposals on    the table that can then be
>> taken forward by state actors.
>>  
>>     In a post-Snowden world, there is deep discomfort among almost all
>> countries, other than the US, with the manner in which the global    Internet
>> is run and is evolving. The need for some global norms,    principles, rules,
>> and necessary governance mechanisms for the    global Internet is being felt
>> now as never before. The Internet can    no longer remain anchored to the
>> political and business interests of    one country, or to serving global
>> capital, as it is at present. As a    global commons, it is our collective
>> democratic right and    responsibility to participate in the governance of
>> the Internet, so    that it can become a vehicle for greater prosperity,
>> equity and    social justice for all.
>>  
>>     We seek your support to join us in proposing the enclosed document    as
>> an input to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. The    Working Group
>> has sought public inputs through a questionnaire which    can be seen at
>> http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD.aspx    . The most important question is at
>> number 8, which seeks input with    regard to precise mechanism(s) that are
>> required. Our response will    mostly address this all-important question.
>> (You are also encouraged    to, separately, give a fuller response to the
>> questionnaire on your    behalf or on behalf of your organization.) We will
>> also like to give    wide media publicity to this civil society statement .
>>  
>>     We will be glad if you can send your response to us before        the
>> 30th of August. We are of course happy to respond to    any clarification or
>> additional information that you may want to    seek in the above regard.
>> Please also circulate this to others who    you think may want to participate
>> in this initiative. The global    Internet governance space seems to be
>> dominated by those who push    for neoliberal models of governance. We must
>> therefore have as many    voices heard as possible.
>>  
>>     (The statement is cut pasted below this email and may also be seen
>> here 
>> <http://www.itforchange.net/civil_society_input_to_the_UN_Working_Group_for_g
>> lobal_governance_of_the_Internet>  )
>>  
>>     With best regard,
>>     
>>     Parminder
>>     
>>     
>>     Parminder Jeet Singh
>>     
>> 
>> IT         for Change
>>  In            special consultative status with the United Nations ECOSOC
>>         www.ITforChange.net <http://www.itforchange.net/>
>>  T: 00-91-80-26654134 | T: 00-91-80-26536890 | Fax: 00-91-80-41461055
>>  
>> A civil society                input to the UN Working Group looking at
>> 
>> institutional                mechanisms for global governance of the Internet
>> 
>> (Please write to itfc <mailto:manasa at itforchange.net> @itforchange.net
>> <mailto:manasa at itforchange.net>           before 29th Aug if you will like to
>> endorse this statement)
>> 
>> 
>>               Why global governance of the Internet?
>> 
>> Internet governance is      seen largely in terms of national sovereignty and
>> security or as      pertaining to free speech and privacy. We are of the view
>> that      there exist many other equally important issues for global
>> Internet governance that arise from the whole gamut of rights and
>> aspirations of people – social, economic, cultural, political      and
>> developmental. The relationship of the global Internet to      cultural
>> diversity is one example. The Internet increasingly      determines not only
>> the global flows of information but also of      cultures, and their
>> commodification. No social process is exempt      from the influence of the
>> Internet – from education to health      and governance. Social systems at
>> national and local levels are      being transformed under the influence of
>> the global Internet.
>> 
>>  Instead of decentralizing power, the      current structure of the global
>> Internet tends to centralize      control in the hands of a small number of
>> companies. Some of these      companies have near-monopoly power over key
>> areas of economic and      social significance. Therefore, regulation of
>> global Internet      business through pertinent competition law, consumer
>> law, open      interoperability standards, etc, is becoming a pressing need.
>> Increasing statist controls need to be similarly resisted. With      the
>> emergent paradigm of cloud computing presenting the looming      prospect of
>> remote management of our digital lives from different      'power centres'
>> across the world, it is inconceivable that we can      do without appropriate
>> democratic governance of the global      Internet. Post-Snowden, as many
>> countries have begun to      contemplate and even embark upon measures for
>> 'digital      sovereignty', the only way to preserve a global Internet
>> is through formulating appropriate global norms,      principles and rules
>> that will underpin its governance.
>> 
>> Background of this civil society input
>> 
>> A group of over 60      civil society organizations and several individuals,
>> made a      statement on 'Democratizing the           global governance of
>> the Internet 
>> <http://www.itforchange.net/civil_society_statement_on_democratic_internet> '
>> to the open      consultations on 'enhanced cooperation'1      called by the
>> Chair of the UN Commission on Science and Technology      for Development
>> (CSTD) on May 18th, 2012, in Geneva. The statement      inter alia sought the
>> setting up of a CSTD Working Group to      address this issue. We are happy
>> to note that such a Working Group      has been set up and has now called for
>> public inputs to make its      recommendations. This document is an input to
>> the Working Group on      Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC) on the behalf of the
>> undersigned . 
>> 
>> In the aforementioned      statement
>> <http://www.itforchange.net/civil_society_statement_on_democratic_internet>
>> of May 2012, the civil society signatories had called for the      following
>> institutional developments to take place in the global      Internet
>> governance architecture:
>> 
>>  Our demands with respect to            'global' Internet Governance espouse
>> a simple and obvious            democratic logic. On the technical governance
>> side, the            oversight of the Internet's critical technical and
>> logical            infrastructure, at present with the US government, should
>> be            transferred to an appropriate, democratic and participative,
>> multi-lateral body, without disturbing the existing            distributed
>> architecture of technical governance of the            Internet in any
>> significant way. (However, improvements in            the technical
>> governance systems are certainly needed.) On            the side of larger
>> Internet related public policy-making on            global social, economic,
>> cultural and political issues, the            OECD-based model of global
>> policy making, as well as the            default application of US laws,
>> should be replaced by a new            UN-based democratic mechanism. Any
>> such new arrangement            should be based on the principle of
>> subsidiarity, and be            innovative in terms of its mandate,
>> structure, and            functions, to be adequate to the unique
>> requirements of            global Internet governance. It must be fully
>> participative            of all stakeholders, promoting the democratic and
>> innovative            potential of the Internet.
>> 
>> As the WGEC      deliberates on concrete ways to move forward, the time is
>> ripe to      propose clear and specific institutional mechanisms for
>> democratizing the global governance of the Internet. We have,      therefore,
>> expanded the above demands into specific mechanisms      that should be set
>> in place for this purpose.
>> 
>> New global governance mechanisms are needed
>> 
>> We are of the view      that it would be useful to have two distinct
>> mechanisms – one      that looks at the global Internet-related public
>> policy issues in      various social, economic, cultural and political
>> domains, and      another that should undertake oversight of the technical
>> and      operational functions related to the Internet (basically,
>> replacing the current unilateral oversight of the ICANN2      by the US
>> government). This will require setting up appropriate      new global
>> governance bodies as well as a framework of      international law to
>> facilitate their work, as follows.
>> 
>> A new UN body for Internet-related public              policy issues:
>> An anchor global institution for taking up and      addressing various public
>> policy issues pertaining to the Internet      in an ongoing manner is
>> urgently required. It can be a committee      attached to the UN General
>> Assembly or a more elaborate and relatively autonomous set        up linked
>> loosely to the UN (as a specialized UN body). It        should have a very
>> strong and institutionalized public consultative       mechanism, in the form
>> of stakeholder advisory groups that are      selected through formal
>> processes by different stakeholder      constituencies, ensuring adequate
>> representativeness. (OECD's Committee on           Computer, Information and
>> Communication Policy <http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/18/39/37328586.pdf>  and
>> India's recent proposal for a UN
>> <http://itforchange.net/Techgovernance/IndiaCIRP>
>> <http://itforchange.net/Techgovernance/IndiaCIRP> Committee on
>> Internet-related Policies <http://itforchange.net/Techgovernance/IndiaCIRP>
>> <http://itforchange.net/Techgovernance/IndiaCIRP> are      two useful, and
>> somewhat similar, models that can be looked at.)
>> 
>> This 'new body' will      stay abreast of global Internet-related issues;
>> where necessary,      develop international level public policies in the
>> concerned      areas; seek appropriate harmonization of national level
>> policies,      and; facilitate required treaties, conventions and agreements.
>> It      will also have the necessary means to undertake studies and
>> present analyses in different policy areas.
>> 
>> Most Internet-related      public policy issues are of a cross-cutting
>> nature, and involve      overlaps with mandates of other existing global
>> governance bodies,      like WIPO, UNESCO, WTO, UNDP, UNCTAD, ITU and so on.
>> Due to this      reason, the proposed new 'body' will establish appropriate
>> relationships with all these other existing bodies, including      directing
>> relevant public policy issues to them, receiving their      inputs and
>> comments, and itself contributing specific      Internet-related perspectives
>> to issues under the purview of these      other bodies.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> A new 'Internet Technical Oversight and              Advisory Board': This
>> board will      replace the US government's current oversight role over the
>> technical and operational functions performed by ICANN. The membership of
>> this        oversight board can be of a techno-political nature, i.e.
>> consisting of people with        specialized expertise but who also have
>> appropriate political        backing, ascertained through a democratic
>> process. For instance,        the board can be made of 10/15 members, with
>> 2/3 members each        from five geographic regions (as understood in the UN
>> system).        These members can perhaps be selected through an
>> appropriate process by the relevant technical standards bodies      and/or
>> country domain name bodies of all the countries of the      respective
>> region. (Other mechanisms for constituting the      techno-political
>> membership of this board can also be considered.)
>> 
>> The Internet technical      oversight and advisory board will seek to ensure
>> that the various      technical and operational functions related to the
>> global Internet      are undertaken by the relevant organizations as per
>> international      law and public policy principles developed by the
>> concerned      international bodies. With regard to ICANN, the role of this
>> board      will more or less be exactly the same as exercised by the US
>> government in its oversight over ICANN. As for the decentralized
>> Internet standards development mechanisms, like the Internet      Engineering
>> Task Force, these self organizing systems based on      voluntary adoption of
>> standards will continue to work as at      present. The new board will have a
>> very light touch and      non-binding role with regard to them. It will bring
>> in imperatives      from, and advise these technical standards bodies on,
>> international public policies, international law and norms being
>> developed by various relevant bodies.
>> 
>> For this board to be      able to fulfill its oversight mandate, ICANN must
>> become an      international organization, without changing its existing
>> multistakeholder character in any substantial manner. It would      enter
>> into a host country agreement with the US government (if      ICANN has to
>> continue to be headquartered in the US). It would      have full immunity
>> from US law and executive authority, and be      guided solely by
>> international law, and be incorporated under it.      Supervision of the
>> authoritative root zone server must also be      transferred to this
>> oversight broad. The board will exercise this      role with the help of an
>> internationalized ICANN.
>> 
>> This board will also      advise the afore-mentioned new public policy body
>> on technical      matters pertaining to the Internet policy making, as well
>> as take      public policy inputs from it.
>> 
>> Framework Convention on the Internet:        An appropriate international
>> legal framework will be      required sooner than later for the above bodies
>> to function      properly. Accordingly, one of the early tasks of the
>> proposed 'new      body' dealing with Internet-related public policy issues,
>> discussed above, will be to help negotiate a 'Framework Convention      on
>> the Internet' (somewhat like the Framework Convention           on Climate
>> Change 
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Framework_Convention_on_Climate_
>> Change> ). Governance of the Internet      concerns different kinds of issues
>> that are ever-evolving. It is,      therefore, preferable to formulate an
>> enabling legal structure as      a 'framework convention' rather than as a
>> specific treaty or      convention that addresses only a bounded set of
>> issues. It may      also be easier to initially agree to a series of
>> principles,      protocols and processes that can then frame further
>> agreements,      treaties etc on more specific issues.
>> 
>> Such a Framework      Convention will thus enable appropriate and ongoing
>> global policy      responses to various opportunities and challenges that the
>> fast-evolving phenomenon of the Internet throws up. It will also
>> formalize the basic architecture of the global governance of the
>> Internet;  inter alia recognizing and legitimizing the      existing role and
>> functions of the various bodies currently      involved with managing the
>> technical and logical infrastructure of      the Internet, including the
>> ICANN, Regional Internet Registries,      Internet technical standards bodies
>> and so on. 
>> 
>> Appropriate mechanisms      for crisis response and dispute resolution in
>> relation to the      global Internet, and the social activity dependent on
>> it, will      also be required to be set up.
>> 
>> Relationship with the IGF
>> 
>> The          UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was      established as a
>> multistakeholder 'policy dialogue forum' by the      World Summit on the
>> Information Society. The proposed global      Internet policy mechanism,
>> especially the new UN based body, will      maintain a close relationship
>> with the IGF. IGF affords a very new      kind of participative mechanism for
>> policy making, whereby the      participation realm is institutionalized, and
>> relatively      independent of the policy making structures. The IGF should
>> preferably pre-discuss issues that are taken up by this new policy      body
>> and present diverse perspectives for its consideration. A      good part of
>> the agenda for this new body can emerge from the IGF.      Whenever possible,
>> draft proposals to be adopted by this new body      should be shared with the
>> IGF. 
>> 
>> To perform such a      participation enhancing role, the IGF must be
>> adequately      strengthened and reformed, especially to address the
>> dominance of      Northern corporatist interests in its current working. It
>> must be      supported with public funds, and insulated from any funding
>> system      that can bring in perverse influences on its agenda and outcomes.
>> Other required processes must also be put in place to ensure that      the
>> IGF indeed brings in constituencies that are typically
>> under-represented, rather than provide further political clout to      the
>> already dominant.
>> 
>> A participative body      is only as good as the policy making mechanisms
>> that feed off it.      To that extent, the meaningfulness and effectiveness
>> of the IGF      itself requires a strong policy development mechanism, as
>> suggested in this document, to be linked to it. Investing in the      IGF is
>> useful only if its outputs and contributions lead to      something concrete.
>> 
>> Funding
>> 
>> An innovative way to      fund the proposed new global Internet policy
>> mechanisms, and also      the IGF, is to tap into the collections made by the
>> relevant      bodies from allocation of names and numbers resources
>> pertaining      to the global Internet (like the fee that ICANN collects
>> annually      from each domain name owner). These accruals now run into
>> millions      of dollars every year and could be adequate to fund a large
>> part      of the needed mechanisms for democratic governance of the global
>> Internet. 
>> 
>> In the end, we may add      that there is nothing really very novel in the
>> above proposal for      setting up new mechanisms for global governance of
>> the Internet.      Similar models, for instance, were proposed in the report
>> of the      Working Group on Internet Governance that was set up during the
>> World Summit on the Information Society, back in 2004.
>> 
>> We hope that the      Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation will fulfill its
>> high      mandate to lead the world towards the path of democratic
>> governance of the global commons of the Internet.
>>  
>>     
>>     
>> 1The           outcome documents of the World Summit on the Information
>> Society, held in 2005, employed this as a placeholder term          giving
>> the mandate for further exploration of the necessary          mechanisms for
>> global governance of the Internet.
>>   
>>          
>>  
>> 
>> 2Internet           Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the US based
>> non-profit that manages much of technical and logical
>> infrastructural functions related to the Internet.
>>  
>>   
>>  
> 
>  
> -------------
> Valeria Betancourt
> Directora / Manager
> Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and
> Information Policy Programme
> Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for
> Progressive Communications, APC
> http://www.apc.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 



-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130831/2cf0c192/attachment.htm>