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

Wed May 20 17:46:15 EDT 2009

some corrections.

On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 1:54 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy <
isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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?)
>

(I want to add that I implied that I disagree with China's position that
Governments have a right to block content)

>  >>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.
>

correction:  ... a debate is needed with China in its positions on issues
such as Security, content-blocking ....

>
> 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.
>

Correction:  balanced Governance in place of unilateral oversight .....

> 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/20090521/3f51322d/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