Fwd: Re: AW: [governance] cross-border IG issues
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Sun Jan 23 12:29:06 EST 2011
Adam
IT for Change's statement for the open consultation on enhanced
cooperation is at
unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan043239.pdf . / /
Our view is clearly and in detail presented in the statement. In the
context of the para 8 of IBSA statement we asked for a CSTD WG ' on
similar lines as the CSTD Working Group on IGF improvements', At the
time of writing this statement it was almost universally understood that
the CSTD WG on IGF will be multistakeholder, and that is what the IGC,
and IT for Change had also called for.
My email to which you responded clearly mentions the areas where we had
overlap with IBSA statement - asking for new institutional developments
in global Internet policy space (which is the position of many in the
IGC and formed a part of IGC statement to the open consultation on
enhanced cooperation; listing issues like network neutrality and A2K as
among those requiring global attention; and calling for constituting a
CSTD WG on enhanced cooperation.
So, no, we did not and do not support a purely inter-gov WG on this issue.
Now that the matter you raised has been taken care of, I would like to
hear what all you found as 'anathema to civil society, everything we've
worked for' in the IBSA statement. And whether you also noticed that for
the first time a gov statement to the UN raised issues like NN and A2K,
and in fact mentions human rights among these issues.
Now, since you rightly find purely inter-gov structures anathema to CS
values or whatever, do you know that CoE and OECD have Internet policy
making platforms which are purely inter-gov and have other stakeholders
only at an arms lenght advisory role - a structure much worse than even
the recently constituted WG on IGF... Never heard you and many others so
scornful of developing countries accused of exclusions in forming the
WGIGF criticise these devleoped countries. On the contrary many of these
people enthusiastically participate in it.
Since you had insisted (rightly)that I answer your direct questions
about my support or not to IBSA position, can you also please directly
answer my queries.
Not only other stakeholders are excluded, other country govs are
excluded, though when the policy frameworks are final, these countries
are invited to sign on. I saw such a scenario at the OECD ministrial
in Seoul, (Brazil rightly refused to sign on. Some other developing
countries regrettably did). Have you found such exclusions anathema to
CS. If you have, I never heard you mention that.
Do you find it anathema to CS that technical community and private
sector called for discontinuation of 'IG for development' plenary
session at the IGF, and you just need to wait to see what happens when a
session on NN is suggested.
See Janna's email forwarding what Sir Tim Berner-Lee thinks are the real
IG issues. Not supporting these issues, and not doing very active work
on these, is what I think is anathema to CS. When the inventor of web
can clearly point out what NN is, and sees it as something which can and
needs to be enforced, why do so many of us like to keep believing it may
not be so.
When I raise the issue of how US gov has such power vis a vis all the
major digital companies which together constitute most of the Internet ,
you would like to dismiss it as my long standing confusion between
infrastructure and content issues. The fact that such huge concentration
of Internet related power in one government doesnt bother many who are
so much bothered with even a framework making role passing to the UN
which is certainly much more representative than the UN gov is what I -
and i can speak of most in developing countries - consider anathema to
civil society.
So, you may consider it wrong to have a purely inter-gov WG (and I
agree) but I am surprised and pained that this is all that you read of
as value in the IBSA statement. This position in my view is very narrow
and biased, and covering such narrow politics with statements like
'anathema to civil society, everything we've worked for' is something
that does no longer pass muster. So I will request your comments on all
other parts of the IBSA statement as well.
parminder
Adam Peake wrote:
> Parminder,
>
> Wondered if you had any comment on this email.
>
> I've just read the IBSA statement again and find it anathema to civil
> society, everything we've worked for. Just wondering what parts you
> support, specifically. And particularly if you supported paragraph 8
> of the statement.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
>
>> Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 23:51:28 +0900
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> From: Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
>> Subject: Re: AW: [governance] cross-border IG issues
>> Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
>> X-Loop: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> X-Sequence: 219
>> Sender: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org
>> X-no-archive: yes
>> List-Id: <governance.lists.cpsr.org>
>> List-Archive: <http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance>
>> List-Help: <mailto:sympa at lists.cpsr.org?subject=help>
>> List-Owner: <mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org>
>> List-Post: <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>> List-Subscribe:
>> <mailto:sympa at lists.cpsr.org?subject=subscribe%20governance>
>> List-Unsubscribe:
>> <mailto:sympa at lists.cpsr.org?subject=unsubscribe%20governance>
>>
>> Parminder,
>>
>> Thanks for clarifying what you meant about architecture of the
>> Internet. As I said, the Twitter matter you mentioned has nothing to
>> do with the Internet in and of itself, you keep confusing issues of
>> content and infrastructure. Can't help you, it's been going on for
>> years, so let's just forget it.
>>
>> About the IBSA statement, I hope you and IT for Change had no part in
>> drafting or encouraging paragraph 8 of the statement:
>>
>> "8. Keeping in view the urgency and importance of establishing such a
>> platform, the IBSA countries reiterate the need to ensure that the
>> present consultations result in a clear roadmap for operationalizing
>> Enhanced Cooperation. In this context, we would like to propose that
>> an inter-governmental working group be established under the UN
>> Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD), the
>> focal point in the UN system-wide follow-up to the outcomes of WSIS.
>> The Working Group should be mandated to prepare a report on the
>> possible institutional design and roadmap for enhanced cooperation in
>> consultation with all stakeholders, and asked to submit its report to
>> the UN General Assembly in 2011. The Working Group should also take
>> on board inputs from all international organizations including the
>> ITU, and should recommend on the feasibility and desirability of
>> placing the Enhanced Cooperation mechanism within an existing
>> international organization or recommend establishing a new body for
>> dealing with Enhanced Cooperation, along with a clear roadmap and
>> timeframe for the process."
>>
>> It would be ironic given that the IGC's nominating committee
>> recommended you as a member of the *multistakeholder* working group
>> rather than the inter-governmental process the IBSA statement
>> suggested. Perhaps you could clarify, did you support or accept para
>> 8 of the IBSA statement?
>>
>> I read the IBSA statement as extremely detrimental to the Internet
>> (broadly) and the interests of civil society and other
>> non-governmental stakeholders. Given the list of policy issues in the
>> paragraph that precedes it, para 6 extremely troubling. Just don't
>> know what there is to like about a proposal that only favors narrow
>> government interests.
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>> Wolfgang,
>>>
>>> I have read the IBSA statement rather carefully. In fact, let me
>>> humbly submit that IBSA statement does have important overlaps with
>>> IT for Change's statement and does draw some inspiration from it, a
>>> fact that was graciously acknowledged by the authors of the IBSA
>>> statement. These overlaps are in terms of call for a possible new
>>> institutional structure, listing of global network neutrality and
>>> A2K as key global IG issues and call for setting up a CSTD WG on
>>> this matter.
>>>
>>> Sorry to say but you are completely mistaken when you say "...the
>>> objective is to create an enhanced network where stakeholders can
>>> "enhance" their communication, coordination and collaboration both
>>> among themselves and and with other stakeholders. " which statement
>>> represents the general tenor of what you make out the IBSA statement
>>> to be.
>>>
>>> Yes, IBSA statement does keep a number of options over, but it is
>>> very clear that 'enhanced cooperation' process has not started yet
>>> and thus must start at the earliest. What you speak of above are
>>> obviously ongoing processes. Though, our position is not exactly
>>> that of IBSA in the below regard, I must quote some passages from
>>> the IBSA statement to show how clearly have you mis-read it.
>>>
>>> " Unfortunately, these issues are yet to be discussed among
>>> UN Member States in depth from a public policy point of view due to
>>> the absence of an intergovernmental platform mandated to
>>> systematically discuss them and make decisions as appropriate. It is
>>> thus necessary for governments to be provided a formal platform
>>> under the U.N that is mandated to discuss these issues. Such a
>>> platform would also complement the Internet Governance Forum, a
>>> multi-stakeholder forum for discussing, sharing experiences and
>>> networking on Internet governance."
>>>
>>> " The IBSA believes that this platform once identified and
>>> established will allow the international community to accomplish the
>>> developmental objectives of the Tunis Agenda,...."
>>>
>>> Further more, about the proposed CSTD WG on enhanced cooperation....
>>>
>>> "The Working Group should also take on board inputs from all
>>> international organizations including the ITU, and should recommend
>>> on the feasibility and desirability of placing the Enhanced
>>> Cooperation mechanism within an existing international organization
>>> or recommend establishing a new body for dealing with Enhanced
>>> Cooperation, along with a clear roadmap and timeframe for the process."
>>>
>>> Obviously this is noway like your description of the IBSA statement as
>>>
>>> "...to create an enhanced network where stakeholders can "enhance"
>>> their communication, coordination and collaboration both among
>>> themselves and and with other stakeholders. "
>>>
>>> However I am very eager to hear you argue why you think that this is
>>> all what they really meant.
>>>
>>> Parminder
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:
>>>
>>>> Parminder:
>>>>
>>>> IBSA (India, S Africa and Brazil) countries (as also my own
>>>> organization) did call for such a possible new global institutional
>>>> development (a framework convention ?) in their submission to the
>>>> open consultations on 'enhanced cooperation'.
>>>>
>>>> Wolfgang:
>>>>
>>>> If you read the IBSA proposal carefully you will discover that this
>>>> is different from previous proposals for an intergovernmental body.
>>>> The proposal says very carefully that there is a gap or missing
>>>> link in the existing architecture of Internet Governance
>>>> organisations. The proposed intergovernmental body should fill this
>>>> gap not in a way to substitute exising mechanisms but enhancing the
>>>> existing mechnisms. With other words, it is about "enhancement",
>>>> not about "subordination" or "substitution" or "oversight" or
>>>> "replacement" or "takeover". And this is an important difference.
>>>> The Chinese MAG member proposed in the IGF Consultations in 2009 to
>>>> substitute the multistakeholder dialogue by an intergovernmental
>>>> negotiation process to move towards an intergovernmental
>>>> (oversight) body. The ISBA proposal is rather different. This is
>>>> rather similar to what is considered by the Council of Europe
>>>> (CoE). What we discuss in the CeO Cross Border Internet Expert
>>>> Group is that we recogn
>>>> ize the need to specifiy the "respective role" of governments in
>>>> Internet Governance but in a way that this intergovernmental
>>>> component should be embedded into a multistakeholder framework of
>>>> commitments. The objective is not to create a new hierachiy for top
>>>> down policy and decision making, the objective is to create an
>>>> enhanced network where stakeholders can "enhance" their
>>>> communication, coordination and collaboration both among themselves
>>>> and and with other stakeholders.
>>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> 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, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
--
PK
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110123/30badc56/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, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
http://www.igcaucus.org/
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance
mailing list