[bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC

[parminder]

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: 
>> http://internetdemocracy.in/2013/11/is-india-reviving-its-un-cirp-proposal/ 
>> )
>>
>> 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) 
>> <http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC.aspx>, 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
>> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
>
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysenanriette 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/20131119/fb488c9d/attachment.htm>