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

Tue Nov 19 10:07:53 EST 2013

I don’t normally respond to these discussions but occasionally I feel that straw men are being put up to be knocked down so I wanted to pick up on this and set out my own thoughts.

Firstly I’m not aware of anyone defending the OECD process of policy making as the model we should follow – maybe I missed that on the thread at some point – but it passed me by.  People have been supportive of the changes it has made to become more multi-stakeholder ( rather than promoting it as the example of best practice) - certainly no-one I know who argues for a multi-stakeholder approach has positively supported the OECD’s approach – which in any case requires voluntary adoption of standards rather than produce anything binding.

With the Council of Europe, this is a regional treaty body – not global – which was created in the wake of fascism in 1945 to promote human rights and democracy in Europe.  It has a specific geographic focus and essentially sets out standards which it is for nation states to adopt – it does bind member states who have to consent to the norms.  It sits alongside the African Union and the Inter-American Commission in this respect (both of which have developing countries in their membership).  In the field of human rights protection, with the court in Strasbourg, it has proved very effective and its data protection provisions have also been helpful.  Human rights is part of its DNA - but it is not a governance model for the internet and no one I know claims it to be.

The concern I hear about the creation of a state based body to run the internet is not that it would give developing countries a voice – that’s a goal we all share – but because the example of bodies like the Human Rights Council, which has become a place where governments seek to prevent human rights standards from being enforced, rather than a place where positive policies are pursued.  Of course the HRC has done good work – but it is a relentless diplomatic battle to hold the line.  In the most recent elections Saudi Arabia, Russia, China and Cuba were all elected unopposed and I can tell you that very few people in the broad human rights movement are comforted by that.

My feeling about Best Bits is that the majority of participants want to figure out – working collaboratively and constructively – how we can contribute to the development of an open internet that supports democracy and human rights.  Most of us think that involving all stakeholders is crucial to that though we all recognise the difficulties inherent in such a process.   I suggest that those of us who want to undertake this work get on with it and those who want something else get on with that.  It’s a big world and there’s room for all opinions.

I also feel that the Best Bits platform (not organisation) has been a way in which many new people have been able to enter the conversation about IG and internet policy issues but that there is a danger if the sterile nature of current discussions continues, they will driven away.  (Several participants at Bali said they did not want BB to go the way of the IGC.)  I think we have thoroughly aired the different views on multi-lateral v multi-stakeholder so can we move on and do the work we each want to do though of course – to be clear – anyone is free to post anything they want.  I wish those proposing an inter governmental model the best but I will be supporting something  different to you.

In addition, for myself, I would like to see a younger, dynamic policy leadership emerge in this field so that we don’t just see the same old voices rehashing the same arguments that have been around for 10 years or more.  So I would ask the veterans in this debate to remember the adage of Jon Postel  – be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send

Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Executive Director
Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder
Sent: 19 November 2013 14:13
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC

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 esterhuysen anriette at apc.org<mailto:anriette at apc.org>

executive director, association for progressive communications

www.apc.org<http://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/d3870467/attachment.htm>