[governance] Canada's proposal on IG forum - its COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE

[Garth Graham]

> Raboy Marc posting Fri, 30 Sep 2005 10:31:19 –0400
> Re: RE: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Canada's proposal on IG forum - its  
> COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE
>
>
> That said, the Canadian delegation can possibly be slightly swayed  
> and brought closer by CS arguments.

I think this can very likely occur, and those of you “inside” the  
process should try it on for size with confidence.

Particularly with respect to the need to separate technical  
management from policy, I think the Canadian position, as outlined in  
its comments on the July WGIG report, is more nuanced that the  
suggestion of intent to “weaken” implies.

  To focus on the Internet on its own terms, I’m going to re-state, I  
suspect quite undiplomatically, four rules of thumb that, from the  
broad discussion, I believe to be underpinning the CS position:

1.    All foreign policy is domestic policy

2.    Trust no one

3.    Follow the money

4.    The Internet is neither global nor local. It’s distributed



1. All foreign policy is domestic policy: This applies to the EU just  
as much as it does to the USA.  The problem is not “no one  
government.”  It’s getting the roles of any and all governments  
correct in the mix.  As things stand now, governments and “blocks” of  
governments are the risk and the problem, not the answer.

2. Trust no one:  The one thing that must survive intact beyond the  
WSIS process is Internet Protocol.  In the long run, do we trust that  
the USA or markets will insure this?  No. Alternatively, do we trust  
that any particular UN agency will do this? No.

3. Follow the money: The ITU remains afterall primarily an  
organization of the telecom authorities of nation states.  In many  
states, telecom revenue, and the political power that it represents,  
is one of the largest foreign exchange cash cows.  If the real  
purpose of regulation is to keep the foreign exchange revenue stream  
flowing, bye-bye Internet!

4. The Internet is neither global nor local. It’s distributed: I can  
illustrate what this means by paraphrasing the WGIG Internet  
Governance Definition, leaving out the list of actors with its  
implications of a separation of roles:

“Internet governance is the development and application of shared  
principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes  
that shape the evolution and use of the Internet. “
  We know that the key word in that definition is “shared.”  In our  
assessment of any forums or mechanisms, we need to ask ourselves, is  
that word "shared" still there?  If it is, then we’re still on the  
middle ground.



In summary, CS still risks contributing to the evisceration of the  
Internet by:

  a.    Because of getting sidetracked by certain “global” political  
sensitivities , inadvertently supporting the EU’s attempt to use to  
gain ground over a USA that it sees as badly self-wounded in its  
future trading relationships with developing countries, or …

b.   Allowing some UN “mechanism” to turn Internet governance over to  
a cacophony of the interests of nation states.

  If the overall Canadian position isn’t yet pointing to some  
effective middle ground that governs the Internet according to its  
functions, according to its “use,” then what is?

  Garth Graham

Telecommunities Canada
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20051001/4996b573/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance