[bestbits] [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations

Wed Oct 22 13:51:45 EDT 2014

Just to add that Fadi's (and the CS's statement's) position that either you
have MSism or you have the ITU is a complete red herring.  

The UN (as with the ITU) were of their time and gave enormous service on
behalf of the global public interest.  With the Internet we have entered
into a new era, one where principles of representation as through the UN and
the UN's state oriented structure is perhaps no longer an appropriate and
effective protector/proponent of the global public interest.  That doesn't
mean that we should discard the "we the peoples" democratic basis of the UN
Charter but rather that we should find alternative and effective ways of
manifesting those necessary democratic impulses in this new era and with new
mechanisms and processes.

The alternative is not the ITU vs. MSism but rather democratic governance
vs. governance by and for corporate and other "stakeholders" and of course
our challenge is to find ways of designing and implementing the new forms,
mechanisms and processes to respond to the new challenges and resources of
democracy in a new Internet age.

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

*	to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice
in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
*	to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and
worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of
nations large and small, and
*	to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the
obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can
be maintained, and
*	to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger
freedom

M

From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 10:20 AM
To: michael gurstein; 'Anne Jellema'; rhill at hill-a.ch
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; 'IRP'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org;
forum at justnetcoalition.org
Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour
sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations

And if there indeed is real ignorance and people want to know what a
neo-liberal model of global Internet governance looks like just read the
below interview of the CEO of ICANN. He lays it all out rather well

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/10/07/internet-operat
ions-chief-snowden-disclosures-make-my-job-easier/

It is this model that the Best Bits statement helps push forward. There can
simply be no doubt in it. 

And people will need to choose which side they would want to be at this
crucial juncture - on the side of slow ( perhaps even painfully slow)
evolving democratic governance of our collective global affairs including
the Internet, or shifting over to neoliberal governance by the elite.. And
if they side with this structural shift to neolib governance today, it will
be for keeps. We are in a real danger of loosing our democratic traditions.
At the very least, this requires deep thinking on the part of all of us. 

parminder 

parminder 

On Wednesday 22 October 2014 07:17 PM, michael gurstein wrote:

Further to Parminder's comments below.

I recently published a blogpost
<http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/10/19/democracy-or-multi-stakeholderism-
competing-models-of-governance/>  (also please not the comments) where I
argued that the democratic model of "governance by and for the people" is in
direct conflict/competition with the multi-stakeholder model of "governance
by and for stakeholders".

I am fully aware that presenting these contrasting positions in such a way
is highly simplistic but I also think that there is a value in simplicity
particularly where it removes the obfuscation that often masks fundamental
positions and values.

I think that the division within Civil Society and I would argue more
broadly in the larger world between those who believe in a democratic
approach to governance including in areas as central to our experience,
well-being and future as the Internet and those who would give this
governance over to decision making by those with specific "interests/stakes"
in the outcome (and where the broad public interest if represented at all
would be only one among many such competing "stakes") is a fundamental one.

It is extremely disappointing to see such broad swathes of "civil society"
and others opting for a position that does not support democracy and
democratic governance however and in what manner that might be achieved.

M

From: IRP [mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On
Behalf Of parminder
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 9:06 PM
To: Anne Jellema; rhill at hill-a.ch
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; IRP; governance at lists.igcaucus.org;
forum at justnetcoalition.org
Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour
sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations

On Tuesday 21 October 2014 09:28 PM, Anne Jellema wrote:

Thank you, Parminder for the thoughtful criticisms. We're aware that
different parts of civil society have well-founded reasons for holding
different opinions on the role of the ITU, and we fully respect these. I was
very pleased to see that JustNet has expressed its point of view in its own
proposals for the Plenipot, which I found interesting and valuable.  

In that spirit, I would like to respond to a couple of your criticisms of
our statement that I think don't reflect an entirely accurate reading of its
content: 

- I think your claim that we are advocating unregulated free markets is
unfair, since we state twice: "Each country should retain individual
authority to regulate IP interconnection rates where necessary and advisable
in order to ensure universal service and promote robust competition." The
drafters include organisations that have been on the forefront of the fight
for stronger net neutrality regulation at national and regional (EU) level.

- I don't agree that our statement fails to identify who should take
responsibility for resolving key IG challenges; proposes the "withdrawal of
all internet policy related agenda from the global governance stage"; or
fails to acknowledge any important role for the ITU. We repeatedly stress
the need for coordination and collaboration among UN agencies (including the
ITU) and multistakeholder bodies; and refer several times to what we think
are the ITU's critical roles in addressing the huge challenges ahead. 

That said, we agree that the reference to "ITU mission creep" was poorly
judged, and the entire para should be deleted as proposed by Jeanette. 

I sincerely hope that a respectful and informed exchange of views can
continue among CSOs, along with the equally important effort to find the
common ground between differing positions.  

Dear Anne

Thanks for your response and engagement. I mean to further engage  on this
discussion. But my present email will only make one point, about the mutual
respectfulness  of any discussion, which your email mentions. I am not
saying that you meant it in that manner, but I do often find a hyper
sensitivity to political criticism in these circles and personalisation of
it, here I mean personalisation in receiving political criticism. We must
recognise that civil society work is a work of strong conviction and
submersion in that conviction... People have a vision of the world they'd
like to see, and there are forces that block the realisation of that vision.
Obviously therefore, for anyone who really cares, the feelings involved are
strong... And I mean, on all sides of what could become a political divide.
And such a political divide is as possible, even likely, in the civil
society space, as in the conventional political space. However, for instance
in India, which has a rather high level of professional in traditional
political space, at least at the national level, political personalities are
able to be scathing and unsparing in terms of their political positions and
counter positions without it being taken as being inappropriately uncivil or
any such thing.  

I probably should  not be so defensive, but I say all this because many
people here are simply too touchy. (I know that you come from a core
political civil society background, and so I an really not talking about
you.) I also say it because I and people that I work with feel that the
present position that is being proposed on the BestBits platform a major
political statement that we find extremely problematic and something that
sets a solid tone for a neoliberal paradigm for the emerging
Internet-mediated society. In that respect its impact on the world,
especially in terms of democracy, equity and social justice is going to be
far reaching, and these are the corner stone canons of our work.  And
therefore we will strongly contest it, with all means at our disposal. 

I will separately respond to some substantive points in your above email. 

best regards
parminder 

Best

Anne

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:

I fully agree with Parminder's analysis and strongly support his comments.

Best,

Richard

-----Original Message-----
From: Forum [mailto:forum-bounces at justnetcoalition.org]On Behalf Of
parminder
Sent: mardi, 21. octobre 2014 12:47
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org;
forum at justnetcoalition.org; IRP
Subject: Re: [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period
for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations

I have not had the chance to go into the long statement in detail. However,
what I see as its main refrain is bothersome. It says yes there are many
very important global Internet policy issues, and then says that the ITU
should not take them up, but tells us nothing about who should take them up.
This becomes a recipe for, or at least, towards a political governance free
world, the kind one nowadays read about frequently in the documents of the
World Economic Forum (read for instance its Global Redesign Initiative). 

I am agnostic about whether ITU takes up at least some important Internet
policy issues at the global level or some other democratic global body takes
them up. However, it is not tenable that they be just left hanging out
there, which only allows those who have the greatest default power on the
Internet, mostly the US based economic and political establishment, to carry
on consolidating their power. This statement for me is simply an expression
of support for the Internet power status quo, and therefore I strongly
oppose it.

To take a few examples (a more detailed critique will follow);

Perhaps the most disturbing part of the statement, from developing countries
viewpoint, is tha which sanctifies unregulated global market models for
global Internet inter-connectivity.... This is a major reversal from the
stand of all developing countries and all progressive civil society at the
WSIS, where unfair global interconnection regimes was one of the main
'development issues'. This statement seems to close that issue by declaring
that such things be best left to free markets, with no regulatory framework,
or even a normative/ principles framework. In any case, it is not clear how
even working on the interconnection issue, an express mandate for ITU from
the WSIS is a 'mission creep' for the ITU. It appears that there is not one
thing that ITU can do in 2014 which will not be called a mission creep. In
the circumstances one thinks that the proponents of the statement should be
bold and just ask for the closing down of the ITU. 

Further, the statement says that the ITU should not work towards a treaty on
cyber- security, an issue that has shaken the world post Snowden.  Just
today I read an interview with Snowden's colleague Laura Poitras about how
little has really changed on the ground as far as mass surveillance by the
five eyes is concerned. What other than a treaty that reigns in the conduct
of the states in this regard can be a solution? Or have we simply given up
and are ready to allow the powerful to do what they may? Alternatively, is
there any other solution being thought of? Civil society must answer these
questions. 

The statement seems to suggest that the first committee of the UN Gen
Assembly should keep doing the work on cyber security. That is quite
surprising becuase by all means, the first committee's work is much less
participative (of other stakeholders) than even of the ITU. So, what is the
rationale here, other than just to say ITU should not do it (we will see
when we have to stop even the first committee from doing it, but right now
the imperative is.... ). I am fine with the first committee doing it, but
remember that any effort towards a cyber security treaty will require the
expertise of ITU which is the agency that has hitherto dealt with this
issue. Such an simply obstructionist attitude to global governance bespeaks
of a movement towards a very unequal, unfair and unjust world. Progressive
civil society must take note rather than blindly signing on this rather
dangerous statement.  

The statement says, we should not begin working on a cyber security treaty
because there is no consensus on basic concepts and principles in the
area.... Is there a greater consensus on the area of climate change, and so
many other areas. Do we just give up in these areas? if not, why in the area
of Internet governance? Consensus on concepts and principles emerge as a
part of a process towards development of global principles and agreements
and not a as a pre condition of them. This is universally known. One can
understand why US wants to protect the status quo, but why civil society? 

Again, this is simply a statement for maintaining the Internet power status
quo... Dont do it at the ITU, but we wont tell you where to do either....
Supporting this statement in my view will simply be to support the global
Internet status quo....

Yes, we need to reform the ITU, but seeking simple withdrawal of all
Internet policy related agenda from global governance stage is very
problematic. As this agenda is withdrawn from the global stage, the dominant
political and economic forces get a free reign, and the little policy that
needs to be made is made at plurilateral forums like the OECD, or the
Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP (see for instance, just the day before's
news,  http://infojustice.org/archives/33428, on how TPP seeks to regulate
global IP TV transmissions). 

Such statements as this one simply clear the way for such rule of the
economically and politically powerful...

parminder

On Tuesday 21 October 2014 02:08 AM, Anne Jellema wrote:

Dear colleagues 

As you know, a fluid working group was formed after the IGF to try to come
up with joint recommendations for the ITU Plenipot. We produced the open
letter on transparency and participation in the Plenipot process itself,
which many of you signed (thank you!). Our second and harder task was to
develop positions on some of the most important substantive issues before
the conference. The output of this second phase of our work is a 7 page
lobby document that is now available for endorsement for the next 24 hours
at:

http://bestbits.net/itu-plenipot-notes

The fluid working group struggled to obtain the conference proposals on
which to base our analysis and recommendations, both because of the ITU's
restrictions on document access and because many Member States submitted
their proposals quite late in the day. As a result, our drafting process has
taken us hard up against the start of the Plenipot itself. 

It is now very urgent to get this text in front of delegations, so we are
opening it for endorsements rather than comment. If however someone has a
red flag, "absolutely can't live with it" issue that prevents them from
signing on, they should email me personally in the next 24 hours to propose
an edit(s) to resolve this issue, and I will consult the other members of
the ITU fluid working group on whether to accept this edit. 

Due to the lack of time for comment and consensus, we are not presenting
these recommendations in the name of Best Bits or on behalf of civil society
in general but only on behalf of the specific organisations endorsing. 

If you would like your organisation to be listed, please send your logo to
Carolina Rossini (crossini at publicknowledge.org) by 22:30 CET (16:30 EST)
tomorrow, 21 Oct.

Best wishes

Anne

-- 

Anne Jellema 

CEO  

+27 061 36 9352 (ZA) 

+1 202 684 6885 (US)

@afjellema 

World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC,
20005, USA |  <http://www.webfoundation.org/> www.webfoundation.org |
Twitter: @webfoundation 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

_______________________________________________
Forum mailing list
Forum at justnetcoalition.org
http://justnetcoalition.org/mailman/listinfo/forum_justnetcoalition.org

-- 

Anne Jellema 

CEO  

+27 061 36 9352 (ZA) 

+1 202 684 6885 (US)

@afjellema 

World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC,
20005, USA |  <http://www.webfoundation.org/> www.webfoundation.org |
Twitter: @webfoundation 

_______________________________________________
IRP mailing list
IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141022/54e023c3/attachment.htm>