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

[David Allen]

Now after the fact, let me concur with the choice, as Michael  
describes, to endorse both the BestBits statement and that from IT For  
Change.  As I did.

Until we have a global solution - one born of political realities, but  
steeped in democratic principle - all the mischief that human nature  
so currently displays will continue to run rife.

No statement is going to satisfy all views.  What we can hope for, and  
surely must encourage, are positions that head in the right direction.

David


On Aug 30, 2013, at 3:00 PM, michael gurstein wrote:

> Below is my response to the APC message (I'm currently an Associate  
> (individual) member of APC…
>
> Thanks for this Anriette and all...
>
> I'll be endorsing the ITfC statement along with the BestBits  
> statement which I don't see as being incompatible.
>
> I think the major difference between the two and where I'm  
> suggesting that individual members might consider endorsement of  
> both statements is that the IT for Change document begins the  
> process of placing the overall issues of Internet governance into  
> the larger (geo) political context into which the Snowden  
> revelations have firmly placed them.
>
> I don't believe it is possible now to think about or take action in  
> the Internet governance space without recognizing the degree to  
> which that space is seen by certain parties (as articulated by  
> various of Snowden's NSA documents) as being of sovereign and  
> "national security" level importance.  What that means is that what  
> Internet governance mechanisms are proposed/responded to have to be  
> understood within the broader context of global governance and the  
> possible distribution of power/control within that framework.
>
> I would point you folks to the recent blogpost by Byron Holland the  
> Executive Director of the Canadian Internet Registry Authority  
> (CIRA) reflecting on recent events in the Internet governance space  
> and how, post-Snowden, all of that needs to be reconsidered...
> http://blog.cira.ca/2013/08/the-internet-as-we-know-it-is-dead/?goback=%2Egde_110405_member_268692395#%21
>
> http://tinyurl.com/pywp46b
>
> I don't necessarily agree with the specifics of the institutional  
> approaches identified in the ITfC document. But that some sort of  
> global (and globally authorized) mechanism is required to counter  
> the very clear attempts to design Internet governance in such a way  
> as to ensure future and permanent enshrinement of the dominance of  
> certain national and corporate interests is I believe manifestly  
> evident. A "hands off the Internet" approach,  does I believe  
> mitigate in direct opposition to the interests of civil society and  
> particularly civil society in LDC's in support of a free, open,  
> transparent and responsive Internet as a basis for overcoming social  
> and economic inequalities.
>
> What Snowden/NSA makes clear I believe, is that if the Internet is  
> to be developed as a resource for all rather than as a tool  
> benefiting the interests of only some then mechanisms which allow  
> for the broadest base of input into Internet governance need to be  
> created -- how, what and by whom I think is what we need to be  
> discussing--I think that Snowden has given us sufficient insight to  
> recognize that the question of whether such is necessary and most  
> certainly from a civil society perspective needs no longer to be  
> discussed.
>
> Mike Gurstein
>
> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net 
> ] On Behalf Of Anja Kovacs
> Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2013 1:24 AM
> To: Valeria Betancourt
> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt
> 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 athttp://www.itforchange.net/civil_society_input_to_the_UN_Working_Group_for_global_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'. 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 )
>
> With best regard,
>
> Parminder
>
>
> Parminder Jeet Singh
> IT for Change
> In special consultative status with the United Nations ECOSOC
> 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 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' 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 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 and India's recent proposal for a UN Committee  
> on Internet-related Policies 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). 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130831/2fe7886f/attachment.htm>