[bestbits] Outcome of cyberspace conference in Seoul

[Lea Kaspar]

Hi Parminder, Byoung-il Oh and others,

To substantiate the discussion below, find attached the most up-to-date draft of the set of principles being discussed in Seoul.

The ‘principles’ are a set of articles taken from other documents. Most originate from the General Assembly (GGE refers to the Group of Governmental Experts which is housed within the first committee of the UNGA which deals with security) or the OECD. They will be included as part of the chairman’s report, which the organisers might ask attending governments to sign on to.  For example, one of the principles in there is this:

*         State Sovereignty and international norms and principles that flow from sovereignty apply to State conduct of ICT-related activities, and to their jurisdiction over ICT infrastructure within their territory.（UN GGE Report 2013, Para 20)

Interestingly (and somewhat ironically), though, given the closed process in which this document is being drafted, the document also quotes the following articles:

*         Stakeholders including business, civil society, the Internet technical community and academic institutions, make an essential contribution to the on-going development of the Internet and the enrichment of society using the Internet. (OECD Communique on Principles for Internet Policy-Making)

*         The international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of Government, the private sector, civil society, academic and technical communities and international organizations.(UN A/RES/67/195)

Both the substance of these principles and the process around drafting them is something civil society should have a stance on. If the BB group could draft a joint statement to address civil society concerns around this document, a few of us who managed to get accredited (I am aware of four other CS people who are going) could aim to submit it to the governments while in Seoul.

I think Parminder is right - we should pay closer attention to this and related processes. These UN/OECD source documents have not just appeared out of the blue - they have been drafted across many months by governments sitting in these forums, while going almost unnoticed in our circles. Seeing as internet governance is increasingly entering the field of high politics at the UNGA, and how the issue area is becoming an MFA agenda item (rather than just a telecom ministries’ issue), we could do worse than to start working of a strategy to engage in these forums and not just the ITU and WSIS+10-related events. Perhaps something to address at the BB session in Bali?

Looking forward to taking this forward.

Best,
Lea


From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder
Sent: 04 October 2013 08:35
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Outcome of cyberspace conference in Seoul


I had previously cautioned that some kind of important "Seoul Principles' will be worked out at the conference. So, friends, it is in these rather tightly-controlled forums, designed and run by OECD countries (chiefly, the US and UK, in this case) where real global Internet governance is taking place. But, from the reactions that my post on this subject got a few days back, civil society seems still insistent on keeping its head tightly dug in the sand.

And we want to pursue in full vigor the rather non-consequential events like WSIS plus 10 conference to be hosted by the ITU in April next..... (Remember the UNESCO's WSIS plus 10 event earlier this year!)

Any reason, why we dont target events where the powerful OECD countries, otherwise civil society's comrades-in-arms on multistakeholderism, un-regulated, bottom-up Internet and so on, undertake real global IG, and only target genuinely multi-lateral forums, like those associated with the UN, where at least all countries are allowed to participate...

And these UN forums are much much more open.... Look at the Seoul conference. It is not possible to even register and attend it in an unhindered manner for a civil society organisation, what to talk about substantially participating. And see how all the preparatory processes, and actual text negotiations is shrouded in so much secrecy. Compare it to the WSIS process, where any entity could get its inputs into the text at any stage, which was then openly negotiated over a vast screen...

 Friends, we have got something absolutely wrong here, and need to reassess our positions and priorities.

As a communication rights activist said on another list recently, characterising the current situation about global Internet governance, 'an 'irrational normal' always exists in tension, awaiting its 'the emperor has no clothes'  moment .

It for the global IG civil society to make that call..... Or, in default, it can awaits its own 'the emperor has no clothes' moment.

What I am asking here is - do we want to write to the Seoul conference organisers about how badly and wrongly organised their meeting it, and therefore what comes out of it simply has no legitimacy... And also, at the BestBits meeting in Bali, when we discuss global IG spaces, give due prominence to such rich countries run and controlled forums - and hit at the core of illegitimate power, which is civil society's prime business to do.

By the way, it is one of the funniest statements to hear

------"Deputy of Preparatory Secretariat told " Though US and UK, which regard cyberspace as neutral,........... "

Yes, neutral for completely unhindered transgressions and theft of other people's data..... Now we know what 'neutral' and 'unregulated' really is meant to mean.... Also perhaps why these countries were so much against mentioning the term 'security' in an international enforceable agreement like the ITRs.... They sure want to keep the Internet 'neutral', and civil society merrily follows the pipe piper's alluring tune...

parminder


On Friday 04 October 2013 08:04 AM, Byoung-il Oh wrote:
Hi all,

Several press reported that so called 'Seoul Principle' will be made as an outcome of cyberspace conference in Seoul.

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2013/10/120_143618.html

interview of Ambassador for International Security Affairs at S. Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs
http://www.koreaittimes.com/story/32042/inside-seoul-conference-cyberspace-2013

In other press, (which is in Korean, so rough translation)

Republic of Korea as well as the United States and the United Kingdom, China and Hungary which had been under constant cyber attacks, lead this principle and other major 20 countries including France and Germany have agreed to it.


Deputy of Preparatory Secretariat told " Though US and UK, which regard cyberspace as neutal, had show different view with China and Russia which see as national sovereignty, but all countries sympathized with general principle that cyberspace should be a peaceful place, so they are tring to complete 'Seoul Principle' through the intense debate. As of now, they are seeking agreement for the draft from all participants, and most major countries have agreed, so in the situation around 90~95% of the final stage."

Best,
Oh Byoungil

--
[cid:~WRD001.jpg]<http://www.jinbo.net/support/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131004/26f7c25b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ~WRD001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 823 bytes
Desc: ~WRD001.jpg
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131004/26f7c25b/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Draft Principles - SEOUL.DOCX
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 33164 bytes
Desc: Draft Principles - SEOUL.DOCX
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131004/26f7c25b/attachment.docx>