[bestbits] Re: Alternatives?

[Andrew Puddephatt]

I think Wolfgang expresses my view of the issues very well and I don¹t
think I can add to it.  There¹s clearly two views emerging in civil
society on IG - a one based on an  established hierarchical system among
states and the other - as said below - an innovative bottom, transparent,
accountable, open multistakeholder policy development process where
governments are just one (vey important) stakeholder, but do not have a
veto rights

Let¹s now see whose case is more persuasive


On 06/03/2014 11:31, ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang""
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

> 
>Andrew:
>
>Where I think we disagree is that I think you believe governments should
>in the end, make the final decisions about the internet as they are the
>sole source of legitimacy (please correct me if I misunderstand you).
>
> 
>Parminder
>You do understand correctly. I believe that for global public policies
>the final public policy decision has to be taken by governments. This is
>so for policies in all area, whether climate change, health, trade, IP,
>or any other. That is an imperfect system, but that is the best we got...
>We should continually improve it, as various submissions from my
>organisation has sought, and well, IGF is a great reform measure, to
>help, but not do, policy making.
>
> 
>Wolfgang:
> 
>The reality is - and will remain for a long future - that the 190+
>governments of the UN member states will be unable to agree and to reach
>consensus. WCIT was in so far a watershed because it demonstrated that
>there is no political will to agree on an the continuation of an already
>existing (more technical) treaty with some amendements. The only thing
>you will get out - if you follow Parminders advice - is "an agreement to
>disagree" (as enhanced cooperation).
> 
>With other words: If you continue with this established hierarchcial
>system with intergovernmental treaties at the top, you will get nothing.
>You will end up in endless political and ideological battles The most
>restrictive government will determine where the "red line is". This will
>be a blockade for the next 20 years of Internet development with no new
>technical and economic innovations, growing restrictions for individual
>rights and freedoms, slowing down social and economic development - in
>particular in developing countries - reducing job opportunies and
>something more. 
> 
>The only way to bypass this is - as it has proved the last 20 years - the
>innovative bottom, transparent, accountable, open multistakeholder policy
>development process where governments are just one (vey important)
>stakeholder, but do not have a veto right and have to communicate,
>coordinate and collaborate on an equal footing among themsleves and with
>other stakeholders (which have to demonstrate their legitimacy) on an
>issue by issue basis towards rough consensus. And you need more
>non-governmental stakeholders from underprivilegd regions - in particular
>developing countries - to balance (governmental and non-governmental)
>monopolies, domination and capture.
> 
>Study the IETF what rough consensus means. As long as the rough consensus
>is based on an open standard, it can be always enhanced and amended if
>new developments, (politcal) constellations and (social and economic)
>oppotunties arrive. So it is never the last word. But it helps to move
>(or stumble) forward to the benefit of the vast majority which is
>represented by the (multistakeholder) rough consensus.
> 
>The big chance of NetMundial is that there could be a multistakeholder
>rough consensus around very high level, legally non binding general
>principles (which would allow also some governments to make reservations
>in line with the mechanisms which has been build into the Human Rights
>Declarations with regad to Article 19 and Article 29) and to agree on a
>multistakeholder road map which singles out issues of concern and gives a
>direction how to approach them (this could include also timelines and the
>launch of multistakeholder mechanisms like clearing houses, taks forces,
>observatories etc.).
> 
>But the very concrete public policy arrangements - from Privacy to
>Security to Intellectual Property - will be made probably via bi-lateral
>or regional arrangements negotiated in a multistakeholder environment.
>And the outcome of this "Internet Governance Bilateralism" or "Internet
>Governance Regionalism" will produce another set of conflicts because a
>bilateral Chinese - Russian agreement on Internet Privacy would probably
>look rather different from the EU Directive (with 28 member states) and
>the EU Directive is also rather differerent from the US privacy approach.
>And also Brazil, South Africa, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia (in particular
>the governments) will keep their own positions.
> 
>However, as long as you put this (very often historical and cultural
>determined) conflicts into a broader set of principles you avoid an
>escalation among the conflicting positions because at the end of the day
>all the different groups feel polically (and morally) bound by those set
>of principles, which will have the support not only by governments of the
>UN member states but also by all the other non-governmental stakeholders.
>This is a unique chance. It will not settle all problems and will not
>save the world. But it is a step forward at the right moment and in the
>right direction. The adoption of the Human Rights Declaration did not
>stop violations of human rights. But it offered a reference point which
>helped to reduce such violations.
> 
>If we neglect or ignore this, the alternative will be that we are moving
>backwards into the 19th Century or even worse, into the Middle Ages.
> 
> 
>