[governance] On CS I'net Gov. Caucus Response

[Ronald Koven]

Dear Karen and All --

I also share many of the concerns voiced by Elliott Noss. In wanting to
restrict or eliminate ICANN and to remove the US Government, are we not
taking a very large risk of throwing out the baby with the bath water ? 

We seem to have forgotten that the whole WSIS process started out as an
attempted power play by the ITU. Its Secretariat has amply demonstrated, by
insisting on holding WSIS II in Tunisia, its insensitivity to the need to
safeguard free speech and press freedom.

I perfectly understand the widespread feelings about US foreign policy
generally. But when it comes to Internet, the US Government has a vested
interest in its continuation as a vector for the free flow of information
and a channel for democracy promotion. The USG developed the Internet and
made it generally available. Given its professed dedication to the
furtherance of democracy, what would be its interest in undermining its
independence ?

The reality has been that the USG has refrained from interfering in ICANN's
operations.

If/when ITU or another UN agency actually has real authority over how the
Internet works, can one imagine how it will respond to pressures on
content/freedom of expression, etc., from the Chinas, Cubas, Syrias,
Pakistans, etc. ? The current situation is not by any means an ideal
theoretical model. But it works. Why not wait until it stops working more
or less well before trying to substitute a theoretically better model that
could be far worse in practice ? It is a case in which the best is the
enemy of the good. 

On the paper that Karen Banks has so helpfully put together, I suggest:

1.      That it is a major mistake (in paras 9 b. and c.) to give equal
weight to Article 19 and to Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. Article 19 is the world's free speech/free press proviso.
Article 29 is the weasel-worded provision to allow authoritarians to wiggle
out of their Article 19 obligations.

I think we should drop all references to Article 29 and leave that to
China, the national delegation most insistent that it have equal billing.

2.      Further in 9 c., I think there should be an explicit reference to
"press freedom online." For instance, the comment might read, "measures  
must not violate rights to freedom of expression, including press freedom
online, in conformity with Article 19" of the UDHR.

(Lack of such an explicit reference to press freedom is arguably traceable
to the failure to include any journalists on the WGIG. Such a
representative of media practitioners would almost surely have pressed for
such a reference.)

3.      In section 11, I see serious problems with the sentence reading,
"The caucus acknowledges that sovereign rights of governments should not be
compromised."

Precisely what are "sovereign rights of governments" in this field anyway ?
Article 19 of the UDHR speaks of freedom "to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and REGARDLESS OF FRONTIERS."  We
should be pressing, instead, for the dismantlement of national Intra-nets,
such as those of China and Saudi Arabia, that serve as firewalls against
the Internet and are designed to restrict the free flow of information and
opinion "regardless of frontiers."

4.      In para 34, I take issue with the phrase "it is difficult for the
world to believe that ICANN is, or can ever become, the trusted and fair
broker it needs to be." I think that is needlessly provocative. What is the
basis for thinking that ITU or any other UN agency giving equal weight to
authoritarian governments could act as a "trusted and fair broker" ?  In
what instances has ICANN been untrustworthy and unfair ?

Best, Rony Koven, World Press Freedom Committee  

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance