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

[parminder]

Andrew

I have a strong feeling that you asking me to shut up, and I am not 
quite sure that is a good thing to do.

Many here in the last few weeks posted their views on the proceedings of 
the WGEC, triggering a very legitimate and needed debate. Some of them 
directly referred by name to positions presented by me/ my organisation  
which is also quite fair because we are all in a public space and people 
need to be able to say whatever they want to (apart from some obnoxious 
personal comments by Adam which is where I think IGC and BB group 
responsibility-holders should be focussing; which they regrettably have 
let pass.) What I cant understand is why in your view should I not be 
able to present and defend my views, the below being my very first email 
on the issue.

my responses below...

On Tuesday 19 November 2013 08:37 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>
> I don’t normally respond to these discussions but occasionally I feel
>

I think one should enter a debate with enough respect for those who are 
engaging in it....

> 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.
>

You think speaking about OECD and CoE's (council of europe) 'global' 
public policy activities is a straw man? Well. one of the most pointed 
interventions made by Carlos during the recent WGEC meeting was that 
developing countries resent global IG done through processes like the 
CoE's cybercrime treaty which was first negotiated among a few 
countries, and then sought to be exported to others.... Brazil took the 
floor to support Carlos' intervention. Later, India referred to OECD 
developing Principles for Internet Policy Making. You think they were 
all putting up strawmen? I am disappointed that such an important 
position of developing countries against developed country based 
"global' public policy making, especially in the IG space, is being  
dismissed  in such a summary and disdainful manner.


> 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
>

What kind of state based body to 'run the Internet' you allude to, and 
who proposed it.... BTW, do you think that OECD by making Internet 
policy principles 'runs the Internet', or US through its ICANN/IANA 
oversight role, and jurisprudence over the companies which are 70 
percent of the Internet, 'runs the Internet'..... Or, is it that such 
loaded terms are to be used only for processes that may include poor, 
developing countries? (Accompanied by shutting up any counter-discourse 
by calling it various names as your email is full of...)

> 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.
>

Yes that is a problem. However, no less is the problem of US's dominance 
and role in OECD, TPP, kind of global IG processes, for instance its 
insisting that net neutrality should be removed from OECD principles, 
and it pushing in overly strong IP protections and some clear pointers 
to private policing by ISPs in the same Principles document.... We 
cannot just keep using the 2-3 names of these above countries that you 
mention to discredit anything and everything that the UN or developing 
countries in general do or propose. Speaking of repeating old hackneyed 
arguments, as you do below, this one would any day take the cake in 
global IG space,
>
> 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.
>

I have no doubt that this is what we and networks that we work with are 
most interested in.... Democracy btw does not admit vote or veto power 
for business reps in public policy making . And human rights go much 
beyond FoE and privacy and cover so many social, economic and cultural 
issues...

> 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.
>

IT for Change works closely on the ground to promote participatory 
democracy In India, I would not get into pressing that point too much 
here... BTW, since you may have missed it, just one thing - it is we who 
suggested adding 'Multi-stakeholder' (MS) term to the erstwhile Advisory 
Group of the IGF, it is we who worked with India on the famous "India 
proposal' during the meetings of WG on IGF improvements and actually 
were able to get almost all developing countries to agree to 
strengthening IGF (at least over the first year of WG IGF), whereas you 
may want to check more on what the so called MSists were doing then.... 
'India proposal' and ITfC's proposal strongly pushed for recs giving 
power for the IGF, strengthening MAG to a much more substantial role, 
including working through WGs and so on..... You dont think that would 
amount to working on strengthening the multistakeholder approach....

Just because you have created a strawman of multilateralism versus 
MSism, are you suggesting that MLists, *as defined by you* should move 
elsewhere and this is a space for MSists to work.....

> 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
>

No, we havent... But if you think we are all clear about what is MSism 
and what is MLism (whereby, as you say, we should move on), may I ask 
you whether MSism includes business reps voting in making actual 
decisions about substantive public policy issues. A simple direct 
question, and if you are not clear about any element of it I can 
clarify...  If your answer is yes, I am not a MSist, if it is no, I am 
as MSist as you or anyone else is. If you give me an answer to this 
question, I promise I'll move on -- depending on your answer with the MS 
brigade or the MList one...


> though of course – to be clear – anyone is free to post anything they 
> want.
>

Thanks, but your email really doesnt sound you are too happy that I put 
my side of what I think were and are important issues following the WGEC 
meeting, and also as we move forward.

>   I wish those proposing an inter governmental model the best but I 
> will be supporting something  different to you.
>

As per the above, I really do not know what do you mean by an inter-gov 
model.... If its identifying feature is that business reps will not be 
able to vote or veto with regard to substantive public policy issues, 
then yes I am proposing an inter-gov model (for me, all stakeholders 
should be an important part of all  pre decision making processes, which 
for me is an MS approach)..... And since you say, you'd support 
'something different', may I know whether in your model business will 
have vote/ veto power in terms of substantive public policy matters...
>
> 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.
>

How many different ways you have used to tell me not to present my views 
:). It is really ingenious of you.

parminder
>
> 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 esterhuysenanriette 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/20131121/a9d7a6e9/attachment.htm>