[bestbits] Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Wed Nov 6 13:31:12 EST 2013
On Wednesday 06 November 2013 06:32 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> India hasn't explicitly repudiated that proposal.
Which more or less goes against what you said in your earlier email.
The following is a proposal that India distributed to the WGEC today,
and I quote the relevant part
"Thus there is a clear mandate for defining a mechanism for effective
global Internet governance. 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".
Does it sound like CIRP?
And I can assure that this is a well considered official position of
government of India, with agreement of all the concerned ministries,
and 'not the product of overzealousness of one bureaucrat or the other'.
Here it is not the question of whether I agree with the above position
or not, but to clear falsehoods being spread systematically about
India's position. BTW, this is not very different from the position
articulated by Brazilian President in here recent UN speech, and I quote...
"The United Nations must play a leading role in the effort to regulate
the conduct of States with regard to these technologies. For this
reason, Brazil will present proposals for the establishment of a
civilian multilateral framework for the governance and use of the
Internet and to ensure the effective protection of data that travels
through the web. We need to create multilateral mechanisms for the
worldwide network that are capable of ensuring principles such as:........"
Public policy development spaces are urgently needed at the global
level, We need to ensure these are as open and participative as
possible, and that civil society has a strong role in these spaces, and
these are connected appropriately to the IGF, without making the
manifestly anti-democratic demand that corporations, self selected
civil society persons and such actually have an equal role as
governments in decision making processes in terms of Internet related
pubic policy making. Such a demand is no less unacceptable than a demand
that pharma companies should have a veto over health policies at the
global and national levels.
> They (and specifically Mr. Sibal) have only gone on to support
> something that is diametrically opposite to it, and strongly
> reaffirmed India's commitment to multi stakeholderism.
>
> As for publicly repudiating a proposal - just a proposal mind you, not
> something actually signed or anything - made by one of their
> bureaucrats, why embarrass themselves by doing so, when it can be
> quietly buried and a much better proposal taken forward?
Another mis representation.... It was an official input made under the
name of government of India, fully signed by all that it needed to be
signed by...
>
> Same end result, thank God.
The (end) result remains the quoted Indian position, re articulated
today, as above.....
parminder
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
> On 06-Nov-2013, at 0:40, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tuesday 05 November 2013 07:27 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>>> But the CIRP proposal has been repudiated even by India,
>>
>> Just for factual correction.... CIRP was never repudiated by India.
>> the fact that they showed openness to engage with critical comments
>> cannot be held against them. If they did engage, one is saying they
>> have repudiated their earlier stand, if they hadnt engaged one would
>> call them closed and inflexible... Damned if you do, damned if you dont.
>>
>> Essentially the same proposal is put forward by India in its WGEC
>> response - without the name though, and with an improvement of
>> separating the treatment of the 'oversight' issue which India now
>> wants to be seen separately from the mandate of the body which deals
>> with general public policy issues related to the Internet. So, the
>> Indian proposal for a new body for the latter purpose is still fully
>> current.
>>
>>> no matter that it was originally floated by an Indian bureaucrat.
>>
>> It was government of India proposal with clearance from the highest
>> level, and all concerned ministries. Daily Mail, which has an overly
>> conservative image even in UK, isnt the most authoritative source of
>> Southern geo politics.
>>
>>
>>> And it never did have broad support or consensus that'd make it
>>> viable even if India had not repudiated it.
>>
>> Again, India never repudiated it.
>>
>> In any case, the main burden of my email is not that there is one
>> view on the subject, but that we need to begin a structured
>> discussion on the needed institutional frameworks.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>>
>>> So, pointing out the various inaccuracies in any comparison with the
>>> ICCP is thankfully, moot.
>>>
>>> --srs (iPad)
>>>
>>> On 05-Nov-2013, at 4:14, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Saturday 26 October 2013 09:56 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> The clock is ticking, the agenda will be set basically in stone by
>>>>> the end the year. Well not the end of the year, say December 15.
>>>>> Whether by the coalition of the willing, or others.
>>>>>
>>>>> Meaning we (cs, global + Brazil), i orgs, Brazilian and other
>>>>> governments and oh yeah the telco elephants definitely in the room
>>>>> have just 7 weeks to come up with something sensible.
>>>>>
>>>>> So far from the cheap seats it seems unlikely the panic of 2014
>>>>> (Who's afraid of a Plenipot? Does sound like a scary thing...)
>>>>> will accomplish anything substantive. (quick! we need a photo op
>>>>> to ward of the wicked plenipot)
>>>>>
>>>>> Odds on the Summit taking credit for the easy wins of patching
>>>>> ICANN + IANA contract, per what we are hearing: zero
>>>>>
>>>>> Odds on the Summit kicking a 'everything else' ICANN-like orphan
>>>>> issues home of some coherence into existence: zero
>>>>>
>>>>> (Unless someone has a strawman not-ICANN plan
>>>>> somewhere...Parminder and I might agree that we could do worse
>>>>> than starting with blowing up OECD's ICCP and related processes to
>>>>> a global model in some mind meld with ICANN as a the sugar
>>>>> daddy/cash machine to fund and to offer prototypical msh processes
>>>>> for the borrowing...but has anyone advocated that or anything in
>>>>> particular else? Nope, didn't think so.)
>>>>
>>>> Lee,
>>>>
>>>> India's CIRP proposal, if you take out the I* oversight part, is
>>>> basically OECD's ICCP structure; in fact a great improvement over
>>>> it, since the CIRP proposal outlines an organic link of the new
>>>> proposed 'policy development body' with the IGF. In its latest
>>>> submission to the WG on EC, India has sought separate treatment of
>>>> oversight and other public policy issues, and therefore seem to
>>>> indeed have removed the I* oversight part from the proposed CIRP -
>>>> which makes it almost identical to OECD's ICCP, plus the IGF
>>>> linkage bonus.
>>>>
>>>> And of course IT for Change along with many other NGOs have given a
>>>> specific proposal to the WGEC to (1) develop an OECD ICCP kind of
>>>> global body, (2) deal with the internationalisation of oversight
>>>> issue separately through a techno-political body with a very thin
>>>> and clearly constrained role, and (3) globally accept and formally
>>>> recognise the current distributed architecture of technical and
>>>> logical infrastructure related policy making and implementation
>>>> processes.
>>>>
>>>> In seeking some real movement forward on global IG, Brazilians have
>>>> listed two key objectives for the proposed summit - outlines of an
>>>> global institutional framework, and some global Internet related
>>>> principles.
>>>>
>>>> I think IGC should initiative discussion on a global institutional
>>>> framework for IG, under three distinct heads (1) Internet related
>>>> public policy issues (which category has been called as 'orphan
>>>> issues' in some recent discussions), (2) internationalisation of
>>>> ICANN oversight, and (3) technical and logical structure policy
>>>> development and day to day technical operations.
>>>>
>>>> And another thread on key Internet principles, which can begin with
>>>> some principles listed in Dilma's UN speech as a good starting point.
>>>>
>>>> We, as in the global civil society, are still bogged down over
>>>> procedural issues - and being reactive - first to the Brazil summit
>>>> initiative, and then to the I* proposal for a new non-gov
>>>> stakeholders coalition, which also seeks to develop substantive
>>>> positions. We need to get pro-active, and produce substantive
>>>> positions towards the summit.
>>>>
>>>> parminder
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And besides, since when were all 'orphan IG issues' ITU plenipot
>>>>> matters? Someone needs to spend more time with Bill Drake and/or
>>>>> Anthony Rutkowski telling Plenipot war stories of the last several
>>>>> decades, to realize what is really likely to happen there. Or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, I am afraid that right now this does indeed smell like a
>>>>> classic 'Summit' in the making, where the main outcome is indeed
>>>>> the group hug/photo op. And a press release.
>>>>>
>>>>> If that's all this is going to be then here's my 2 cents:
>>>>>
>>>>> forget about the event and the photo op, and focus on the 1-2 page
>>>>> press release.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because that's odds on the only significant thing coming out of this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Meaning, to end on a positive note, if we as igc can boil down to
>>>>> say 5 bullet points what we want from the summit, then we should
>>>>> say it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rather than wasting time saying please may I (participate, attend,
>>>>> whatever), let's just get to the (5) points. Ok, could be 7, but
>>>>> remember if we are now dealing in sound bites and photo ops, then:
>>>>> deal with it, and be very succinct.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lee
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>> [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of David Cake
>>>>> [dave at difference.com.au]
>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, October 25, 2013 8:04 PM
>>>>> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting
>>>>> tomorrow lunchtime
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 26/10/2013, at 5:33 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at SYR.EDU
>>>>> <mailto:mueller at SYR.EDU>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 9:43 PM, David Cake
>>>>>> <dave at difference.com.au <mailto:dave at difference.com.au>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Everything that Fadi etc have been saying says that their
>>>>>> primary motivation is to avoid a multi-lateral government led
>>>>>> body for Internet governance, that the ITU plenipot etc are
>>>>>> forcing their timing (in their opinion), and that they are in
>>>>>> a hurry to create a multi-stakeholder process that can stand
>>>>>> as a clear alternative. And it is clear that they have no
>>>>>> idea what exact form that will take, are very keen to have
>>>>>> buy in from CS or any other group that will lend the effort
>>>>>> credibility and participate constructively, and they are to a
>>>>>> large extent rushing things largely due to
>>>>>> circumstances/opportunity, improvising as they go, and
>>>>>> basically dancing as fast as they can (and boy can Fadi dance).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is not possible to be a more adamant opponent of
>>>>>> inter-governmental control of the internet than me. However, I
>>>>>> feel very suspicious of the way the ITU bogeyman is used to rally
>>>>>> uncritical support for hasty and often ill-considered responses.
>>>>>> There was a Plenipot in 2010. The Internet survived. There was
>>>>>> WCIT in 2012. There was no serious attempt to take over the
>>>>>> Internet, and the final treaty that provoked so much rejection
>>>>>> was really not that bad. Now we are told we have to get all
>>>>>> scared again and use the Rio meeting to talk NOT about fixing
>>>>>> ICANN and the actual Internet governance institutions, but to
>>>>>> deal with an extremely broad agenda merely in order to pre-empt
>>>>>> the ITU.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fadi claimed to have spoken to several government leaders (of
>>>>> nations like South Korea) who had become more inclined to
>>>>> multi-lateralism since WCIT, with the additional impetus of
>>>>> post-Snowden anti-USG feeling. The Montevideo statement and
>>>>> outreach to Brazil etc seems to have been prompted by a strong
>>>>> feeling among the I* that the current political climate is worse
>>>>> than in 2010, or even in 2012. I can't say whether their
>>>>> impressions are correct, but it does seem likely that they would
>>>>> strongly reject the line of argument you are putting here.
>>>>> I don't think we have been told we can't use the Brazil meeting to
>>>>> fix ICANN and other institutions. The incorporation of a change in
>>>>> the IANA contract at least opens up some aspects of ICANN
>>>>> oversight for renegotiation, I would have thought. And good.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> And yet, Brazil is basically defecting from the pro-government
>>>>>> coalition, the WCIT results have made it clear that there is
>>>>>> nothing close to an international consensus on inserting the ITU
>>>>>> into IG. Can we be a bit more sober and realistic about what is
>>>>>> happening?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, sure - but Fadi has more contact with government leaders
>>>>> than I do, so if he says things are substantially worse since
>>>>> WCIT, I have no reason to doubt him either.
>>>>>
>>>>>> More to the point, why don't WE try to set the agenda, instead of
>>>>>> letting those who run the I* institutions do so? Why are you
>>>>>> always reacting to their initiatives instead of taking your own?
>>>>>
>>>>> We could have, but we didn't. And then the I* orgs panicked a
>>>>> little. I think Fadi etc were hoping something would emerge
>>>>> spontaneously post-WCIT, but when it didn't and they perceived it
>>>>> as becoming urgent they started the process themselves.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> This isn't an ICANN centric process. Yes, a renewed
>>>>>> discussion about IANA and ICANN accountability can, and
>>>>>> should, form part of that discussion. I can assure others in
>>>>>> civil society that those of us involved with ICANN (including
>>>>>> Milton and myself) are very keen to lead critical discussions
>>>>>> about ICANN accountability. I find it very odd over the last
>>>>>> few days to be cast into the role of defender of ICANN
>>>>>> against paranoia and misinformation - there are quite enough
>>>>>> valid reasons to criticise ICANN (and the near allergic
>>>>>> reaction to the idea of real accountability from parts of its
>>>>>> leadership are among them) without making up conspiracies or
>>>>>> misrepresenting its processes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't see any paranoia or misinformation about ICANN in my
>>>>>> messages. I just see a long-term understanding of how we need to
>>>>>> reform ICANN, a healthy skepticism about CS being used (again),
>>>>>> and a determination to take advantage of Brazil's and Fadi's
>>>>>> wonderful initiative. I do appreciate some of the things Fadi has
>>>>>> done. I just don't think we need to be driven by fear.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, you did sort of imply a little I* conspiracy theory, but
>>>>> I'll cede the point - my comments weren't aimed at you
>>>>> specifically, as of course you do have strong understanding of
>>>>> ICANNs processes, though you do still seem to see this through a
>>>>> somewhat ICANN-centric point of view, which I still think is
>>>>> likely to not be so useful a perspective ongoing. While an
>>>>> opportunity to discuss the IANA contract, oversight of ICANN, etc
>>>>> is welcome, that really doesn't seem to be the main focus of any
>>>>> of what the Brazil meeting is about, and ICANNs seemingly central
>>>>> role might have more to do with Fadi personally choosing to push
>>>>> the process along.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> David
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131107/b0f84472/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list