Hi Jeanette,
Thanks for your response ... That hopefully sets the tone for us to debate
real issues and fears and see what we can all do about them.
On the first fear: on a undesirable dichotomy.
The IGF as Parminder said is the 'only' multi-stakeholder forum, where
Governments, inter-gov institutions CS and businesses can come and discuss
issues. Most global fora are largely Governmental or inter-Governmental with
at least CS having little say (as the recent OOXML debate indicates,
business interests manage to have their influence on such processes
anyways). Hence to me it makes most sense to discuss CIRs in the IGF. Just
because there is a fear that the governance would come under the control of
Governments is no reason to accept the current illegitimate,
unrepresentative, 'captured by special interests' (these are strong words,
but I believe, entirely true) governance structures. CS has a role to
equally resist the current structures as any Government eagerness to
dominate and shut others out (one of the reasons why Parminder protested
against a danger of making a precedence of having the host Government
co-chair the IGF).
Second fear - "A debate on critical Internet resources that absorbs almost
all public attention although other issues, particularely access, are what
most people in developing countries really care about. As long as they are
not online they don't give a damn about the role of the USG in Internet
Governance."
This does seems a bit patronising. As a person from the developing world, I
can see that 'having access', while extremely important, is no reason for
me/ my constituency to have no stake in the processes of determining the
nature of the information society. I recollect the paper 'cakes for the
north, crumbs for the south' that couple of my colleagues in ITfC had
written around the WSIS PC3.
http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:GMyJESGurcAJ:www.itforchange.net/WSIS/gi
s/papers/anita-gurumurthy-political-economy.doc+cakes+for+the+north,+crumbs+
for+the+south&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=in .
Access is itself not independent of the 'control' or 'influence' that we can
have on the process of goveranance. To give a simple parallel, for access to
cheap / reasonably priced HIV AIDS drugs, it is quite essential to have some
influence over the patent/IP processes. If Brazil and some other developing
countries had not resisted and adopted generic drug making, which is clearly
an IP Governance act, access to drugs would have been not possible for most
of the people of these countries.
I am sure the French royalists had similar views - that the common people in
France only wanted mundane material things in life and were not concerned
with 'democracy' issues as equality or liberty. IMO, the two are not
independent issues, if anything - power/empowerment is essential to
meaningfully access and use resources.
It is easier to understand why people from the US/EU/First world feel more
comfortable with USG dominance, in a sense they are part of that world. To
expect the rest of the world will also see it in the same light suggests
that the geo-political interests of all countries / peoples are similar.
While vision of a 'people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented
Information Society' can be common, the strategies and interests are likely
to conflict. As I see it, the current structures benefit a minority and
large majority of people have no role to play at all. We cannot ignore the
fact that for many of such groups, their Governments are currently the only
representatives in this space. This should not be construed to defend any
undemocratic act of any of these or any other Governments.
Recognising this and showing willingness to negotiate, specially on the part
of those who or whose interests currently dominate, is a pre-requisite to a
democratic, multi-stakeholder IG. I think the IGF is a real opportunity to
build such a society and putting things under the carpet will not get us
anywhere ... Atleast not those, at who currently only crumbs get thrown....
I do hope more people will come onto this list and share their thoughts ...
It should also help make the debates in Rio sharper and real.
Guru
_____________
Gurumurthy K
IT for Change, Bangalore
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
www.ITforChange.net |
A man's worst difficulties begin when he is able to do as he likes.~Thomas
Huxley~
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 12:02 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
Subject: Re: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community
or 'who is afraid of the IGF'
Hi Parminder,
judging from what I heard the last 3 days in Geneva what people find
threatening are basically two things.
1. An ideological deadlock resulting from a polarizing discussion that
narrows down potential options for future governance models to exactly
two: intergovernmental (ITU) versus private (ICANN). We all know from WSIS
that dichotomic debates don't lead anywhere because none of the participants
seems willing to change political preferences.
2. A debate on critical Internet resources that absorbs almost all public
attention although other issues, particularely access, are what most people
in developing countries really care about. As long as they are not online
they don't give a damn about the role of the USG in Internet Governance.
I am sure there are lots of other reasons why people prefer not to discuss
critical internet resources. But the two reasons mentioned above are in my
view already important enough to take them seriously.
jeanette
Parminder wrote:
> Carrying on from my own email
>
>> The other two issues that took a great amount of the time, with most
>> contributions for the technical and business community (on these
>> issues, MAG members from these groups spoke most of the time, when as
>> Anriette observed in her statement they should have focused more on
>> listening), were
>>
>> (1) why the session on CIR should of a very different quality than
>> other sessions
>>
>> (2) what are the problems with a recommendation giving power for IGF
>>
>> Both these issues are such on which a statement on behalf of the IGC
>> could only be made on the after a good amount of online discussions, if
so.
>>
>> So hoping for more life on the IGC list :)
>>
>> Parminder
>
> Meanwhile, I cannot understand why some groups spend so much energy on
> trying to shape - or put out of any shape - a discussion session on
CIRs....
> So much was spoken during the consultations on how this session should
> be treated in a manner different from other main sessions, and
> frankly, I could not really understand even one argument well..... It
> may be my ignorance and inaptitude but they seem to be putting some
> meaningless argument or other to push this very illogical thing that a
> CIR main session should be different (basically ineffectual).
>
> Quoting Vittorio's earlier comment on the discussion on IGC taking a
> pro-active role to come up with IGF mandate and structure related
> proposals
>
>> finding a way to implement the mandate that is not threatening to the
>> Internet community, and ensuring some clarity, >transparency and
>> democracy in the internal procedures of the IGF.
>
> I Agree. And would like an examination of and a good discussion on
> what is it exactly that threatens the Internet community. Lets discuss
> real issues, perspectives and fears out in the open rather than using
proxy arguments.
> The Internet community and the business sectors strongly supported
> more transparency during the open consultations... transparency starts
> with stating upfront real issues/ concerns/ fears rather than
> masquerading them in arguments that look quite untenable.
>
> The session that is most important to be held is - What is it that
> threatens the Internet community or 'Who is afraid of the IGF' and why?
>
> Why so much energy invested in keeping a discussion on CIRs out, and
> now when it is in, to shape/ distort the session towards ineffectuality.
>
> Why a simple annual IGF report, set of recommendations, a communiqué
> or any such thing that fulfills the corresponding part of Tunis agenda
> for the IGF look SO threatening? Even if it is a wrong thing to do,
> what are the REAL fears? It is of IGF getting hamstrung to do other
> work it needs to do. But then many (not all) who now oppose
> recommendation have not initially been enthusiastic about the IGF as a
> public policy discussion space at all (remember the last phase of the
> WSIS). So why such exaggerated fear of IGF getting unable to do its
> basic work, and becoming ineffective. Or is the fear that governments
> will capture recommendation-making activity. I dont see how this can
> happen given the present structure of the IGF? (I may be wrong on this,
and, in that case, I will like someone to build the 'bad'
> scenario for me)....Or does IGF not represent the only global space
> where non-government actors can be equal partners in giving policy
> recommendations.
>
> The structures and systems may need to evolve, and we may only be able
> to agree on a very few things to start with, but why not try... Why
> kill the first and the only multistakeholder global policy
> recommendation giving body?
>
> Frank and open discussions alone help move things forward. One side
> may realize some things which may be genuine to fear, and the other
> may find that certain fears may not be so justified.
>
> It will be very useful to discuss this issue on this list itself,
> since quite a diversity of views around this matter are represented here.
>
> Parminder
>
> ________________________________________________
> Parminder Jeet Singh
> IT for Change, Bangalore
> Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
> Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890
> Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055
> www.ITforChange.net
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 4:38 PM
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Subject: RE: [governance] IGF public consultation
>>
>>
>> Hi Jeanette
>>
>> I did send out an email on the 29th asking for any issues that
>> members may want raised and myself presented some views in how things
>> stood vis a vis preparation for Rio. I know it was kind of late but
>> there has been too much silence on the IGC lately, a situation which
>> despite some efforts by me and some others did not change much. For
>> instance, we need discussions on the issue of the UN communiqué
>> raising issues of rotation, transparency etc in IGF and MAG, and of
>> giving the issue new consideration after Rio. Bertrand made the very
>> useful suggestion on IGC taking a proactive stance on giving new
>> definitions and recommendations etc...
>>
>> I think statements can only come if such discussions are taken forward...
>>
>> I also asked those members of IGC which were to be present on the 3rd
>> in Geneva to discuss a possible meeting so that if necessary some
>> kind of statement could be read out, after collectively determining
>> that it is in consonance with the known views of IGC... but no one
responded...
>>
>> On the other hand I think APC's input addressed the main issue very
>> well - that of the revision/ reform of the MAG /IGF, including issues
>> of rotation of members, nomination of new members by stakeholders
>> themselves, and of the governmental co-chair.. And IT for Change and
>> some others supported the statement. And also added the point of
>> transparency of MAG and flow of information and gave some concrete
>> suggestion.. I have a feeling that the suggestion for a meeting
>> report of the closed sessions may be accepted since Nitin responded
>> quite well to it. This will also specifically address the concern
>> raised in the UN SG's communiqué.
>>
>> I think APC statement plus these other points could safely have been
>> adopted as the caucus statement, but for this (1) we need some
>> activity on the IGC prior to such meetings and (2) more liberty to
>> those present to judge the 'perspectives of the IGC' and make a
>> statement 'on their feet'. In this case, as an additional factor
>> which worked against a pre-prepared statement, the agenda for the
>> consultation was itself circulated too late (if I am right)...
>>
>> The other two issues that took a great amount of the time, with most
>> contributions for the technical and business community (on these
>> issues, MAG members from these groups spoke most of the time, when as
>> Anriette observed in her statement they should have focused more on
>> listening), were
>>
>> (1) why the session on CIR should of a very different quality than
>> other sessions
>>
>> (2) what are the problems with a recommendation giving power for IGF
>>
>> Both these issues are such on which a statement on behalf of the IGC
>> could only be made on the after a good amount of online discussions, if
so.
>>
>> So hoping for more life on the IGC list :)
>>
>> Parminder
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________________
>> Parminder Jeet Singh
>> IT for Change, Bangalore
>> Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
>> Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890
>> Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055
>> www.ITforChange.net
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 2:05 PM
>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> Subject: [governance] IGF public consultation
>>>
>>> Hi, in case you didn't notice there was no caucus statement yesterday.
>>> While the business sector had interventions on almost every issue on
>>> the agenda, the caucus didn't have a single one. There were only
>>> contributions by ICT for Change, APC, some other organizations and a
>>> few individuals. This is a missed opportunity to influence the
>>> discussion on the further institutionalization of the IGF. It also
>>> makes the role of cs people in the advisory group more difficult. We
>>> have less papers and interventions to refer to in the advisory group
>>> meeting than other stakeholders.
>>> jeanette
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance