SV: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Fri Nov 19 08:25:24 EST 2010
On Friday 19 November 2010 06:04 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> Hi Parminder
>
> I understand your concerns and we have discussed this at length during the previous years.
>
Wolfgang, thanks for your responses.
>
> I fully support 100 percent involvement of developing countries into policy development and decision making with regard to the Internet. I am not in favour for exclusive rights of OECD or COE.
>
Unfortunately, as I read your email below, it seems that we seem to
means very different things when we speak of ' involvement of developing
countries into policy development and decision making with regard to the
Internet'. As I discuss below the modalities that you suggest are not at
all democratic to me, and I wont want to be a part of them. Neither, I
assure you, will most civil society and other actors in developing
countries will want to be part of them.
>
> When I mentioned the COE as a "better place" my argument was that institutions which have a procedure in place for the negotiation of texts are better prepared to work on consensus language than an institution like the IGF which is a platform for innovative and creative discussion, or, as said in my article for the IGF book, it is primarily an observatory, a laboratory, a clearing house, a watchdog, a scout, a school and an early warning system and not a negotiation body.
>
In that case, you should support a UN anchored 'enhanced cooperation'
process, right! But I did not see you support it.
>
> With regard to the Council of Europe (COE), where I chair the Cross Border Internet expert group (established in March this year) we have succesfully argued so far - also with the help of experts from non COE countries during the recent workshop at the IGF in Vilnjus - that a possible COE Declaration makes only sense as a global instrument which has to involve also countries like India, Brazil, China and many others.
Involve? The question is involve how? We dont accept any involvement
other than which is equal. Think we all learnt our
lessons of democracy long ago.
> BTW, a lot of COE members are developing countries from Asia. Also Russia is a member of the COE. It has 47 member states much more than the 27 member states of the EU.
>
I simply dont understand what are you trying to say here. How Russia
being a member of CoE makes any difference to the argument of democratic
aspirations of those outside the CoE.
>
> When the COE offered the Cybercrime Convention in 2001 for global signature, a lot of states which are no members of the COE, joined.
> However some countries, like Brazil, rejected the concept because they were not involved in the making of the instrument.
it doest come from the merit of the content of the convention. A
stronger and politically assertive country can refuse (but may be not
for too long) and weaker or otherwise more suppliant ones may not be
able to.
> The COE has learned. What our small group will propose to the COE is that they should convene a "global" multistakeholder conference with high level governmental participation in April 2011 in Strasvbourg to identify ways how to move towards such an "Instrument".
Things are becoming even more difficult for me to understand. Why should
CoE convene such a conference abd not the UN .. which would directly be
a possible suggestion for a possible modality to move forward on
'enhanced cooperation' process. I am really perplexed. Would greatly
appreciate a response to this. Why do you not support UN to convene a
similar process?????
> BTW we propose to be innovative also with the tilte. We will probably not propose to call it a "Declaration of Principles" but a "Framework of Commitments". Embedded into such a multistakeholder framework governments among themselves should work towards a more specific non-binding "Recommendation on Rights, Duties and Responsibilities of Government in the Cross Border Internet" which would specify the "respective roles" of governments, as called for in the Internet Governance definition, adopted by more than 150 heads of States and govenrments of the UN member states.
We seem to refer to 150 states and their declarations entirely when it
is convenient . Why not let those guys do the rest of the work as well
which you propose CoE govs do.
> And further embedded into this two layers governments can move forward to identify very concrete issues were a legally binding regulation is needed in form of a series of individual "Intergovernmental Internet Protocols".
>
No, i dont want this driven by CoE. How can we accept that CoE govs are
good and the fully global group of govs not good. Why not take the
oppurtunity of the WSIS (same 150 heads of states you spoke of so
approvingly) mandated EC process to hold the meeting you propose and
develop inter-gov Internet instruments you refer to.
>
> But all this is work in progress. We have just started. And we will start asking for public comment before the end of the year on the COE website. And the April 2011 conference will give us an opportunity to discuss very concretly what should be done in this field. Nothing is decided, nobody is excluded.
We dont understand the same thing by the term 'exclusion'. In fact very
different things. No one I work with in India or other developing
countries will consider this as 'non-exclusion'.
> We are just in the beginning of a process which has been triggered by the IGF and EC discussions of the last five years.
>
> Indeed one can argue that the IGF has inspired the CEO to put this on its agenda and to start doing something which is needed. The COE sees this as a "service for the global community" by putting human rights into the center.
Thanks very much . But I would rather have myself done service by
institutions where i am democratically represented,
> As you know the COE is based upon the European Human Rights convention and sees itself as a key player in the field of human rights. And it provides an environment where you can take a next step and make a substantial cotribution to enhance further communication, coordination and collaboration (EC3) in an "Enhanced cooperation mechanism for Internet Governance".
>
Dont understand it at all. But overall am greatly disappointed by such
an open advocacy of undemocratic global governance structures.
>
> Hope this brings us a little bit foreward.
>
I very much want to take the dialogue forward. Would be happy to hear
your views on my comments, even if you think them a bit provocative. I
just only said what i really felt, in congruence with the general
sentiment of the views and perspectives of the groups I work with.
Thanks and regards.
parminder
>
> best wishes
>
> Wolfgang
>
> ________________________________
>
> Fra: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
> Sendt: fr 19-11-2010 13:02
> Til: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder
> Emne: Re: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
>
>
>
> Hi Parminder. Some of us dont think in terms of nation states as the
> unit of Internet policy making, we think of networks and individuals
> taking this role instead. At least, thats my position. Rgds, mctim
>
> On 11/19/10, parminder<parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Thursday 18 November 2010 01:52 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everybody
>>>
>>> thanks for the work. I am sorry that I jump in in a very late stage. I
>>> have three comments:
>>>
>>> 1. 3a: The old debate on receommendations is not really helpful. In the
>>> past CS tried also to use the terminology "messages".
>>>
>> Wolfgang
>>
>> Global CS did never abandon the concept of recommendations in the IGF
>> context, though at places 'messages' may also have been used.
>> Recommendations (or 'recommend') is mentioned in the Tunis Agenda's
>> mandate for the IGF and we seem to have largely supported it, in some
>> form or the other.
>>
>>> The problem is as soon as you introduce a process to negotiate a text
>>> which then has been the subject of voting you change the nature of the the
>>> whole event. Even if you stress that these receommendations will be not
>>> binding, this does not matter. In the Un context (like in other
>>> intergovernmental mechanisms) the category "receommednation" is well
>>> defined and you can not avoid that an IGF recommendation is seen as
>>> something similar to what other Un bodies are doing with receommendations.
>>> Again I prefer the "message". BTW, I will circulate later this week the
>>> Interim Report of the Council of Europe Cross Border Expert Group where we
>>> propose also the elaboration of some instruments. The Council of Europe -
>>> or other organisations with an established procedure to negotiat texts -
>>> are a better place for such
>>> an excercise.
>>>
>>>
>> Sure, it may be a better place. But I or my country in not in the CoE
>> (though CoE instruments finally do impact me). So which 'better place'
>> do you think I can look upto? Can you please provide me an answer to this.
>>
>> I continue to be (unpleasantly) surprised at the manner in which the
>> concerns of developing countries in terms of their non-participation in
>> global policy making and the global shaping of the ICT pehnomenon is
>> ignored so blatantly, in a group which wants to describe itself as a
>> global civil society group.
>>
>> We may all glibly talk about development issues or IG for development.
>> Pl take note that in the IGF plenary on IG for development the prime
>> issue which came up was that IG for development first of all means due
>> participation of developing countries in global IG related policy making
>> (see the Chairman's summary). What does the IGC plan to do on this
>> issue? Ask us to watch and cheer on CoE and OECD policy making processes?
>>
>> I can still understand the stand of someone like Milton (though I do not
>> agree with it) who is a bit afraid of supporting new institutional
>> development for democratic global policy making as coming out of the
>> current 'core' UN configurations (which is why he is afraid of the
>> enhanced cooperation or EC process), even as an positively evolutionary
>> process (which is my considered expectation of the EC process). Because
>> he does, correspondingly, support a more open, diverse, multistakeholder
>> process like the IGF making some clear positive contributions towards
>> development of global Internet policies through making policy
>> recommendations.
>>
>> What I cant understand is the position of those who both oppose the EC
>> process (in whichever evolutionary form) as well as oppose possibilities
>> of the IGF making recommendations (I see Wolfgang, Katitza, Bill,
>> Jeanette among others state that position). Moreover, they all seem to
>> closely associate with OECD/ CoE policy making processes, which are in
>> fact much less open, transparent, multistakeholder etc than even the
>> 'enhanced cooperation' model which, for instance, I proposed and they
>> strongly resisted.
>>
>> I am unable to understand why a comity of powerful nations needs
>> specific well-structured systems of making inter-country policies (which
>> then become default global ones) and all countires as a global group,
>> which (unfortunately?) include developing countries, should not aspire
>> to any such structures. So, it appears, that while (global?) CS should
>> enthusiastically support the former (CoE / OECD kind of process) it is
>> presented as its bounden duty to strongly oppose any such - or in fact
>> structurally even much better - institutional developments at the
>> global level.
>>
>> And I also do hope that the IGC members form developing countries both
>> increase their participation in IGC kind of groups, and become more
>> vocal in articulating their interests.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> 2. 6a: I thin SOC has an IGF Fellowship Programm.
>>>
>>> 3. Under nine we could say that we ould like to see that the IGF enhances
>>> its function and could become, inter alia, an observatory, a
>>> clearinghouse, an early warning system and a watchdog.
>>>
>>> Sorry for the late reply. If it is too late then ignore it.
>>>
>>> Best wishes
>>>
>>> wolfgang
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU
>>> Gesendet: Do 18.11.2010 03:13
>>> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> Betreff: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean
>>> version
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Here follows are the Clean version of the Final Draft for the CSTD IGF
>>> questionnaire answer
>>> in full text. Sorry for the confusion.
>>>
>>> Please respond if you agree or disagree as soon as possible. Friday, Nov
>>> 19
>>> is the deadline for submission. More comments are also very much
>>> appreciated
>>> as we can further feed them into the Consultation meetings next week in
>>> Geneva.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> izumi
>>>
>>> ------------
>>>
>>> FINAL Draft for Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF
>>>
>>> 1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first
>>> five IGF meetings?
>>>
>>> IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open,
>>> inclusive manner. These emergence and development of the
>>> multistakeholder principle and practice are perhaps the biggest
>>> contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to
>>> understand the issues of their interest, as well as to understand how
>>> other actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of
>>> Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another
>>> achievement.
>>>
>>> 2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of
>>> discussions at the IGF and the impact they have had on developments in
>>> national, regional or international Internet governance?
>>>
>>> IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the
>>> issues. Yet, at national, regional and international levels, we have
>>> mixed assessment for the impact it brought.
>>>
>>> 3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the
>>> impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the
>>> interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify the
>>> kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations,
>>> concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental
>>> bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.).
>>>
>>> a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
>>> recommendations where all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They
>>> will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or
>>> common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough
>>> consensus will create better and deeper understandings amongst
>>> different stakeholders.
>>>
>>> b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly
>>> foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions,
>>> instead of avoiding them.
>>>
>>> 4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning
>>> Internet governance have emerged or become important since the Tunis
>>> phase of the Summit, which deserve more attention in the next five
>>> years?
>>>
>>> IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning
>>> the marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained sufficient level of
>>> work at IGF and its outcome. These may not be the "new" issues, but we
>>> strongly feel they are very important.
>>>
>>> Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such
>>> as cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing services
>>> such as wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI and
>>> behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of mobile
>>> services including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of
>>> new challenges for governance.
>>>
>>>
>>> 5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work
>>> of the IGF during the next five years?
>>>
>>> Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have priorities we
>>> think.
>>> a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
>>> b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance
>>> c) Balancing the interests - to empower those of marginalized and
>>> under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with Internet
>>> governance - such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD,
>>> UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.
>>>
>>> 6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well
>>> represented at the IGF be improved? In particular, what could be done
>>> to improve the capacity of representatives from developing countries?
>>>
>>> a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors
>>> from developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and related
>>> organizations and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by
>>> DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other reference, please] and
>>> other institutions offer good reference for this, but they should be
>>> expanded in larger scale. Targeting youth groups or younger generation
>>> in profession, will have, in the long run, effective impact.
>>>
>>> b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training
>>> to engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the
>>> under-represented and also even well-represented.
>>>
>>> 7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and
>>> the IGF process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected
>>> by Internet governance but who are not yet part of the IGF process?
>>>
>>> a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making
>>> more direct "links" to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to
>>> those who have not yet involved in IGF process. Securing the same
>>> level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder
>>> composition and inclusion of civil society groups (where such practice
>>> is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained.
>>>
>>> b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet
>>> governance processes will also be effective in reaching out to those
>>> yet to participate.
>>>
>>> c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for
>>> participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and
>>> asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF made
>>> good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs,
>>> Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an extended period may
>>> also increase the awareness.
>>>
>>> d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create "level
>>> playing field" among all participants, and may also demonstrate the
>>> effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and may also improve the
>>> quality of services in turn.
>>>
>>> e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than
>>> English at certain meetings and occasions as main working language
>>> (translated into other UN languages) will increase the outreach to
>>> non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more sense
>>> of ownership. Currently, English is the only default working language,
>>> but we think it does not have to be so.
>>>
>>> 8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process needs to change
>>> to meet changing circumstances and priorities?
>>>
>>> As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF
>>> primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction
>>> might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be
>>> carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF
>>> which contributed a great deal.
>>>
>>> 9. Do you have any other comments?
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>> END
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> --
> Sent from my mobile device
>
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101119/75204242/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
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance
mailing list