[governance] Fwd: The US factor in the WSIS needs highlighting as much as the Tunisian factor

[Robert Guerra]

On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 12:57 +0100, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> 
> this was posted a few hours ago to the plenary list. I disagree with the 
> overall approach and with putting special emphasis on criticism against 
> the US, but I though it useful to forward the message, for those of us 
> who do not follow the Plenary list to get an idea of other points of 
> view. I think they might even be widely shared in the broader WSIS civil 
> society circles.

I will agree with Vottorio on this one.Putting special emphasis on
criticism against the USG is problematic and not constructive at all. 

The UN has its faults too, as does ICANN - should we not be looking at
those as well ? Change and representation at the UN for civil society is
complex, difficult and hard to obtain at times. We have seen, now on
numerous occasions how easy it is for govts to just lock the doors and
keep us out. 

Change at the UN is slow, very slow. I am perplexed why there isn't a
two track approach - both critical (of the USG and others), and
constructive - giving specific recommendations not only to the UN but
ICANN and others on how arrangements could be improved.


more comments below.




> 
> -------- Messaggio Originale --------
> Oggetto: 	[WSIS CS-Plenary] The US factor in the WSIS needs highlighting
> as much as the Tunisian factor
> Data: 	Tue, 1 Nov 2005 14:24:46 +0530
> Da: 	Parminder <Parminder at ITforChange.net>
> Rispondi-A: 	plenary at wsis-cs.org
> A: 	<plenary at wsis-cs.org>
> 
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> > > United States Says No U.N. Body Should Control Internet. US 
> Ambassador David Gross will be conducting an
> online chat about WSIS on November 2………...>>>>
> 
> 
> There is something very basically funny in the US attitude to change in
> the IG regime.

IG regime is perhaps larger than you think. there may be items where the
USG may be flexible and other areas where that is not the case. We
should not lose track of the area where the USG is indeed willing to be
flexible.

> 
> US says that when it - its executive authority and its territorial law-
> exercises oversight control over ICANN it doesn’t amount to exercising
> control.

do we have a lawyer who can check that out for us?

> 
> But when the same arrangement goes to a UN body (let us assume the
> minimalist change in the IG regime where nothing changes except that
> ICANN plugs into the UN, and UN exercises the same level of oversight as
> US does today, and ICANN even if physically located in the US, gets UN
> immunities) *the UN is said to be exercising control. *

when - like in 3 weeks, 3 years, 3 decades? Let's be realistic on the
time frame. I don't think it should happen as fast as you imply.

I would be one that would be scared for the UN to control the internet.
Countries like lybia and cuba have been heading the high commission for
human rights - do we want countries like that to head a UN agency that
controls the internet..? It is possible, and quite scary. too scary for
many.

> 
> And the problem is that many in the CS falls for this argument. They are
> fixated so much on certain fears about Internet getting 'controlled'
> that they entirely forget other issues which are as important.

The are issue of human rights sure - and those are important. 

It looks like there are those that look at IG just in a narrow context,
and others with a wider one. The wider lens seems to including linking
the IG discussions to those of trade and other developmental issues

I would agree that internationally the USG isn't to well liked these
days for a variety of reasons.  Should those other reasons, reasons that
we all "imply" but not mention , be linked to the IG discussions? 

Another key aspect to always consider is the technology itself - what
would the technical/administrative implications be of any change. We
need to hear from the technologists and head their warnings . I do not
think their voices are being heard - at least, not as much as they
should be.

If there is consensus that the "day to day running of the internet" is
to stay how it has been done - then, we should listen to those who do
it..If they say the status quo is fine, then that means something. Let's
not ignore it.


>  And most of this CS constituency comes from the North. 

ah - ha. Just because there are more people from the "north" doesn't
mean that southern issues aren't considered . I think it is too
simplistic a view to use the North vs. south argument to explain things.




> It is the issues of
> sovereignty, legitimacy, and fairness and equity in global governance.

don't forget that there are countries in the north that also care about
national sovereignty.

> They may trust US more than they do UN, we in the South do not. In
> debates over IG, countries like Iran, China and S Arabia are held up as
> self-descriptive symbols of certain things – but please do not forget
> that US is also held as an strong symbol of many uncomplimentary things
> for the South.
> 

Too simplistic an answer for me. the USG has its problems now - but so
does the UN. The oil for food scandal does not make things easier. 

The US congress would have to ok any changes that would bring some
roles, functions and responsibility to an international agency. Frankly,
that "ain't going to happen" in a congress where the republicans rule
both the senate and house of Representatives. 

Calling for big changes is setting expectations too high. Let's get real
- let's reset our expectations to ones that are realistic and
achievable.

regards

Robert







> 
> We know the problems of bringing old political and bureaucratic
> governance frameworks - and what UN or ITU can do - to the free spirit
> of the Internet. And the world community has to deal with this issue,
> very vigilantly. But that comes second, first of all, US must give up
> its control. And if it doesn’t we must treat this *control as
> illegitimate and see US as a usurper. *
> 
> 
> 
> For us in the South with colonial experience, it is the most blatant
> form of imperialism – stay on my side, and you will gain, what if you do
> not have self-rule.  We prefer legitimacy of rule to other goodies
> promised to us.
> 
> 
> 
> A US senator recently justified continued control by US of the Internet
> by saying that --- "The United States is uniquely positioned in the
> world to protect the fundamental principles of free press and free
> speech, upon which the Internet has thrived,"
> 
> 
> 
> The same argument can as effectively be used to take over UN bodies, or
> to bypass them, in global governance by the US. And this no doubt is
> increasingly sought to be done by the US. The North led by US will quote
> financial constraints in setting up any new ‘global policy body for IS
> issues’ but will readily spend many times more in taking up these issues
> in other forums which either have less political legitimacy or admit of
> greater US lordship.
> 
> 
> 
> The US led blocking of effective WSIS implementation/follow-up was
> presented in terms which, at the bottom of it, challenge the very logic
> of WSIS itself – and certainly its Tunis phase.
> 
> 
> 
> And in prepcom 2 all possibilities of seeing worldwide ICTD investment
> as a urgent global need and responsibility – that could usher in a new
> paradigm of development – was scuttled again by US led governments of
> the North.
> 
> 
> 
> *So when it is obvious that the Tunis summit is a momentous failure, and
> US led Northern governments are responsible for this failure, the CS
> needs to be more vocal – both in pronouncing the failure – and the role
> of US in this failure of WSIS. `*
> 
> 
> 
> Tunisian situation is an important issue for the CS, and we aren’t going
> to let go this opportunity provided to us by the WSIS event taking place
> in Tunis, to do all that we can do in aid of improving the rights
> situation in Tunis.
> 
> 
> 
> But, as importantly, we cant let US get away with its self-assumed
> description of ‘uniquely positioned in the world to protect the
> fundamental principles of free press and free speech’ – and not as
> strongly condemn what it has done to the world’s hope for the poor and
> the disadvantaged from the WSIS process.
> 
> 
> 
> Most in the CS at WSIS are apt to say to this that they of course are
> critical of US – but the problem is that they are not strident enough in
> their criticism, as, for example, they are of the Tunisians.
> 
> 
> 
> I have heard many say about US’s unilateral control over IG that they
> are not so strident in opposing it, because it is unlikely that US will
> give up its control easily. But neither do I think Tunisia is going to
> change so much, easily, on our protests. But don’t we still keep making
> the protest, as forcefully as we can.
> 
> 
> 
> *I think, the Tunis summit should be used by the CS to tell the US – in
> clear strong words – what it thinks of its usurping of the Internet
> oversight – and its basic responsibility for failure of the WSIS on all
> fronts. *
> 
> * *
> 
> *Tunis** phase has been an even greater failure than the Geneva phase.
> It is the responsibility of the CS at WSIS to prepare a score card for
> Tunis phase (and WSIS overall) and identify factors of failure. *US will
> outdo everyone else by a big margin in earning red-marks in such a
> report card. But US has for many years now taken such extreme
> geo-political stance regarding fair global governance that most global
> policy related events have been accompanied by fierce criticism of the
> US’s stand by the civil society. (It is a necessary corrective to US
> polices, and one of the most important responsibility of the global CS
> to push for reclaiming fairness and equity in global governance) US must
> be quite used to it by now. Hope, the WSIS civil society does not give
> them a pleasant surprise at Tunis!
> 
> 
> 
> Regards
> 
> 
> 
> Parminder
> 
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________
> 
> Parminder Jeet Singh
> 
> IT for Change
> 
> Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
> 
> 91-80-26654134
> 
> www.ITforChange.net

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