[governance] China: "we don't agree that the IGF should continue"

Wed May 20 16:24:33 EDT 2009

Hello All,

China as a nation with a population of 1.3 billion people represents over a
fifth of the whole world and for this reason, if not for any other, we need
to sit up and listen to anything that China says, though a lot of what China
says may be disagreeable.

On this instance, I consider the views expressed by China largely
respectable, but needs to be bridged in some areas.

 >>CHINA:   the delegation of China prefers the proposal put forward by
Egypt, "Internet, an opportunity for all."

That is positive. Irrespective of how this might have disappointed the
Rights Coalition, the fact that China endorses the theme of " Internet as an
Opportunity for all" is postive and it shows China's inclination to feel
very positive about the Interent.

 >>under the theme of "critical Internet resource management," we think that
JPA is a very important theme ... we're going to [discuss] this in September
... we should do it in IGF, too.

This indicates that China does not feel that the JPA review in September
would be conclusive. Yes, in all probability, the September review could be
inconclusive, so China's opinion that Management of Critical Internet
Resources should be prominently discussed is a valid point. Also, this
implies that China feels that JPA review should stretch beyond the purview
of US Government and the topic of JPA review by itself needs to be
internationalized.

 >>Thirdly, now, as to security, ... we need to talk about regrouping the
energies and resources of all parties concerned and to strengthen the
international mechanism in order to promote security and stability for the
Internet at the worldwide level.

 >>In order to guarantee the security of states and to guarantee the
interests of citizens to fight against terrorism and other crimes, all
countries have the right to filter the contents of certain Internet sites.
 And I think that this is something that all countries are in the process of
doing.

Governments always tend to emphaize Security in such a way that Privacy and
Openness are traded off in the name of Security. China says that all
countries are in the process of filtering certain Internet sites and this is
true and disturbing. While China is vocal about this, rest of the world are
doing just that, in vaying measures such as by enacting legislations,
prompting ISPs, changing policies or by publishing guidelines - so to say
that several nations are rather SILENTLY implementing measures that
compromise on all the fundamental values of the Internet. China is far more
respectable than those nations that quietly pull up legislations, because
China at least states its position unambiguously for the world to know.

 >>IGF as a meeting hosted, under the auspices of the United Nations, talks
about URL blocking.  Now, will this give an impression to the outside world
that the United Nations are against content blocking?  Are the U.N. against
the practice of certain states filtering some Internet sites so that when we
talk about "blocking," should the theme of blocking be incorporated in our
IGF meeting?  We have to be very careful about that.

Interesting to note that China takes the views of IGF as that of the
position adopted by the United Nations. It is also interesting to note that
China talks in terms of a "RIGHT" to block content. (The rights approach is
a double-edged sword. Max Senges, are you listening?)

 >>the essence of IGF's work is establishing dialogue, exchanging points of
view.  But this is not enough to solve the problems.  The real problem is
that in the field of the Internet, there is a monopoly that exists.  And we
need to solve that problem.  It's not by talking about principles merely
that we can solve this problem.

What China says here is very, very true. IGF is a distraction. It is a huge
distraction. A thousand participants representing various stakeholders, not
quite balanced by People's civil representatives, debate on issues, but what
happens out there in legislative chambers of the world is completely
unrelated to the discussions that take place at the IGF. Make a list of the
policy changes and legislations enacted in various countries in the last 3
years and examine if the legislations enacted in bits and pieces reflect the
mood of the IGF in any way. I am alarmed by the seemingly unrelated bits and
pieces happening in various countries that completely disregard the
reflections at the IGF, especially in matters related to Privacy, Human
Rights, Openness, Transparency and more importantly the mutli-stakeholder
principle.

 >>We can also see this kind of discussion taking place.  But it's not
enough for developing countries who don't have enough resources and don't
have the capacities to participate in this kind of dialogue without further
commitments being made, which is why the points of view of developing
countries, especially when it comes to Internet governance, their points of
view are not sufficiently reflected in our discussions, which is why we
don't agree that the IGF should continue its mandate after the five years
are up.

China's rationale is well explained in the above statement, but it has not
come up with an acceptable alternative. My comment follows the next
paragraph.

 >>So we repeat that the delegation of China does not agree with extending
the mission of the IGF beyond the five years ... we would need to look at
the results that have been achieved.  And we need, then, to launch into an
intergovernmental discussion...The work of its next phase should be based on
the results achieved in the previous years.  We need to launch an
intergovernmental discussion in order to solve the real problems that exist
in this field of Internet governance.

Yes, we need to take a very serious look at the results achieved with a
particular emphasis on how the Governments of the world have IGNORED the IGF
deliberations and ignored the mood of the IGF. But why "intergovernmental"
discussions in place of IGF?  That would go towards ending the
mutli-stakeholder principle. That implies an attempt to 'capture' the
Internet and make it the sole 'property' of Governments?

(Exactly the reason why the IGF should continue. The alternatives to IGF
would be a complete reversal of the multi-stakeholder process. Irrespective
of what little has been achieved, IGF should continue and STRENGTHENED to
make it effective.)

China's position needs to be a bit fine-tuned.

The world needs to respond to China with plenty of respect for its views as
it is a nation that is home to 1.35 billion. Some persuasive arguments are
needed, a debate is needed with China in its positions on Security issues
such as content-blocking, privacy, and mutli-stakeholder principle.

We might have enhanced receptiveness from China if the "monopoly" is
conceded in favor of a balanced  governance. But balanced Governance in
unilateral oversight needs to based on the multi-stakeholder principle.
 This is the fine-tuning that is needed on China's views.

Thank you.

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
http://turiya.wordpress.com
Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com

facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh
LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6
Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz
Airtel: +91 99524 03099

On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

>  Carlos
>
> I strongly share your concerns, and think this may be the time of reckoning
> for the global civil society - if it exists in IG arena - to introspect and
> see if they can figure out what best can it do in these circumstances. Apart
> from acting at other global and national fora, it is  important we revisit
> what we did right or wrong vis a vis supporting and shaping the IGF, and
> what are our options ahead.
>
> For the IGC as a group to be able to do this however we need to able to
> share some fundamental values that we all cherish, and a conception of
> people's rights in the emerging information society paradigm. What has
> happened in France, and the way the IG scene is increasingly getting
> ITU-centric, could hopefully act as an eye opener. I do feel that we have a
> strong collective responsibility in this regard, since IGC is perhaps the
> only geographically representative CS group in this area. But  I do get told
> often that I tend to put unrealistic expectations  on the IGC :) .
>
> I will share my impressions of the MAG meeting and the open consultations
> after the official summary is out, in  a day or two.
>
> Parminder
>
>
> Carlos Afonso wrote:
>
> On the other hand, it seems "WSIS II -- The Mission" might be coming by,
> as the ITU's sponsored meeting of this coming week seems to be
> considering, among other issues. And we might have an "IGF Part II" and
> so on. I do hope not -- it is about time the world converges to a far
> more extensive international IG structure.
>
> Most of us (not all, which is sad) in this list are shocked by the
> French decisions to run over several laws and rights to suppress
> Internet users in summary "executions" (motivated centrally by the cozy
> relationship of Monsieur Sarkozy with a French media mogul). One can
> imagine what Berlusconi (himself *the* Italian media mogul) can and will
> do, since he seems to hold the hearts and minds of the Italians in his
> hands. And the Brits seem to be going along.
>
> Worse, what are the aftershocks in developing countries' governments
> throughout the world of these processes in the so-called "Western
> democracies"? We are right now in Brazil fighting against draconian
> bills of law which would in practice eliminate the Internet as we know
> it. And we are left with the chatting and tea-partying of the IGF as the
> international forum to try and do something -- i.e, left with nearly
> nothing in practice to confront this razzia of violations against basic
> human rights.
>
> I remember the jokes the Europeans liked to tell to us Brazilians about
> the group of "like-minded countries" during the WGIG process. After all,
> Brazil is a representative democracy just llike us, what are you doing,
> aligning yourself with Iran, China and so on? I now return the question,
> sadly, as Europe seems to be joining happily, step by step, the likes of
> China and Saudi Arabia regarding fundamental human rights on the Internet.
>
> frt rgds
>
> --c.a.
>
> Ian Peter wrote:
>
>
>  This wont be the end of the calls for IGF to be abandoned. One ISOC trustee
> (speaking as an individual) was saying the same thing today. And once the
> decision making gets out of the sympathetic enclave of IGF attendees a whole
> lot of people who don't know much about it are likely to follow calls from
> entities like ITU and China. This will include decision makers in
> governments who currently appear to be sympathetic.
>
> It doesn't look like IGF will be taking the sort of actions that might help
> to promote its position and effectiveness among those who will make
> decisions on this (no communications campaign, no structured evaluation
> etc).
>
> So I don't think the outcome is a foregone conclusion and we can write off
> the Chinese position as a rogue one. This is likely to have some more
> interesting twists and turns.
>
> Ian Peter
>
> On 14/05/09 3:39 PM, "Jeremy Malcolm" <jeremy at ciroap.org> <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>  For those who didn't follow the open consultation meeting yesterday,
> China became the first to openly oppose the continuation of the IGF:
>
> "Firstly, we very much appreciate the secretariat for their excellent
> work.  We agree in principle with what has been said by previous
> speakers on the specific aims of the IGF.  We feel that the IGF has
> contributed a great deal in light of its historic mandate ...
> establishing dialogue, exchanging points of view.  But this is not
> enough to solve the problems.  The real problem is that in the field
> of the Internet, there is a monopoly that exists.  And we need to
> solve that problem. It's not by talking about principles merely that
> we can solve this problem.
>
> But it's not enough for developing countries who don't have enough
> resources and don't have the capacities to participate in this kind of
> dialogue without further commitments being made, which is why the
> points of view of developing countries, especially when it comes to
> Internet governance, their points of view are not sufficiently
> reflected in our discussions, which is why we don't agree that the IGF
> should continue its mandate after the five years are up.
>
> So we repeat that the delegation of China does not agree with
> extending the mission of the IGF beyond the five years.  We feel that
> after the five years are up, we would need to look at the results that
> have been achieved.  And we need, then, to launch into an
> intergovernmental discussion."
>
> I have blogged about this today (comments welcome, there or here):
> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/china-seeks-to-end-the-igf
>
>        ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090521/6de5d9ca/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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