AW: Fwd: Re: AW: [governance] cross-border IG issues
Fouad Bajwa
fouadbajwa at gmail.com
Mon Jan 24 13:19:35 EST 2011
This video may also be a point to consider as both theme suggestions
for the IGF as well as with regards to cross-border information
sharing:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/the-argument-in-favor-of-defending-wikileaks-right-to-exist/43874
The core values and principles topic has somehow gotten lost in our
renewed IGF discussions after the mandate renewal.
-- Foo
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 7:00 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
> Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:
>
> Parminder
>
> you are confusing issues.
>
> Prof Kleinwachter,
>
> It will be good if you realize that I am not your student, and state your
> case more humbly and less patronisingly. (I am already contending with
> another email from Adam 2 days back on this list which reduces my analysis
> of the problem with US state apparatus being able to control the global
> behaviour of global digital corporates like Twitter in wikileaks case to my
> long standing confusion between infrastructure and content issues, which
> confusion he described as being beyond help.)
>
> The belief that all those who do not subscribe to your world view are
> confused comes from a blinkered vision, in this case of believing that you
> got everything about IG right, and everything about civil society right,
> and the burden is now upon you to teach everyone else about it.
>
> Now that we are on the subject of 'confusion' I am emboldened to say that I
> so often find your responses very confused and quite beside the point under
> discussion. I can say that about your email yesterday in response to my
> email that pointed out that your characterisation of IBSA statement as
> supporting a ISOC kind of view of what was enhanced cooperation was
> completely off mark. And I can say the same about your email below which
> simply doesnt address the main point of my email to which it is a response -
> which is about growing global imbalance in Internet policy matters, and ways
> to correct the imbalance, which in my understanding should be a key
> objective of global civil society concerned with IG. Instead of answering my
> clear questions like why dont you make the make MSism demands of CoE and
> OECD IG policy making structures as you do of the UN, you are describing
> many things at length which I have no issues with, and mostly already know
> of.
>
> In any case I have many errors in your email to point out and a few specific
> issues to respond to. However I wont take up that discussion now because we
> need to focus on our inputs to the WGIGF which need to be submitted in less
> than a week. I will be back after the 1st.... thanks, and best regards,
> parminder
>
> A government is a government and an intergovernmental organisation is an
> intergovernmental organisation with its own statues, rules, procedures,
> membership, budget etc. From a legal point of you it is the same with the
> UN, UNESCO, ITU, WTO, WIPO and also regional organisations like OECD and
> CoE. These organisation of a constoution and they adopt legally binding
> instruments (cnventions) or give non-binding receommednations (in form of
> resolutions and declarations). For the CoE for instance members have to
> ratify the European Human Rights Convention as a legally binding document.
> Ther CoE was established in 1950. Europe was the battlefield of WW II and
> the new European govenrments wanted to do everything to avoid another war.
> And human rights was in their center. The European Humn Right Convention was
> inspired by the Un Declaration (1948). But the CoE was able to translate the
> non-binding declaration into a legally binding document within two years. It
> needed to
>
>
> UN another 16 years to finanlize the the UN convenants and it is non
> obligatory for a UN memberstate to ratify the two UN human rights
> conventions. The ssytem of intergovernmental organisaitons i an achievement
> in hisotry and it is part of the efforts to globalize democracy.
>
> A large number of these organisations have subsidary groups like UN with the
> ECOSOC and its various Commissions and Committees, including the UNCSTD.
> They have to follow their rules and this is okay.
>
> Another question is, if it comes to the development of policies, in our case
> on Internet Governance policies. It should be in the self-interest of
> governments to enhance their knowledge and collaboration if they invite
> non-governmental actors and experts into their PDPs. The OECD is and will
> remain an intergovernmental body, but it decided that if it comes to the
> Internet (it is only one issue among a lot of others within the OECD) that
> it makes sense to have some advise from non-govenrmental stakeholders. And
> in the Ministerial Conference in Seoul 2008 they discovered that advise from
> Civil Society is needed and they created the CISIAC, When the CoE
> Ministerial Conference in Rejkjavik (May 2009) discussed the Internet, they
> realized that they would need the advice from an expert group and the expert
> group should include non-govermental experts. In fact in the small expert
> group (five members) there is only one governmental representative (although
> two others worked quite a
>
>
> long time for a government).
>
> If the UNCSTD decides to develop a policy how to improve the IGF it was a
> big mistake that in the first meeting they excluded non-governmental
> representatives. And if the UNCSTD will decide to develop a policy how to
> deal with "enhanced cooperation" it would be stupid to exclude
> non-governmental stakeholders from such a discussion process.
>
> The other open question - raised by the IBSA proposal - is, whether there is
> indeed a gap and we need a new intergovernmental component in the global
> Internet Governance mechanism . And please rememeber, "enhanced cooperation"
> was the buzzword for "ICANN overisght". In the WGG there were four models
> how to deal with this issue (ranging from a new UN Internet
> Organisation/UNIO (proposed by South Africa), an Intergovernmental Council
> (proposed by the EU), the status quo (with the US/ICANN MoU) and a Status
> Quo minus (without the US/ICANN MoU). The Intergovernmental Council idea
> failed because the governments which supported this idea could not say what
> is the level of principle (where governments have a special responsibility
> for the development of public policies) and how far the day to day
> operations will go (where the private sector should have the lead).
>
> >From an academic point of view, to re-open this discussion after five years
> makes sense, because some of the questions are still on the table.However
> the environment has changed (including the substitution of the MoU, first by
> the JPA and now by the AoC). The IBSA countries have to ask themselves - and
> to explain to the public -where the "missing link" is and what such a new
> proposed body have to do and how this will become integrated into the
> broader global mechanism of Internet Governance and how to avoid duplication
> anbd overlapping with activities of other intergovernmental bodies.
>
> One variable in this calculation will be certainly the GAC. To be frank, I
> do not see any issue a new organisation can do better than the GAC. Lets
> wait and see how the interaction between GAC and the ICANN Board will
> further evolve. It makes a good sense to look deeper into the "GAC Operating
> Principles" and the practices of interaction among the GAC and the ICANN
> Board.
>
> I would be afraid to waste time and resources to enter into an endless
> battle to create a new intergovernmental Internet body which would probably
> duplicate a lot of activties which are discussed also in other
> intergovernmental bodies like UNESCO, WIPO, ITU, WTO, UNCITRAL etc. However
> to have a (multistakeholder) working group which looks deeper into this
> issue makes always sense.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Wolfgang
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von parminder
> Gesendet: So 23.01.2011 18:29
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake
> Betreff: Re: Fwd: Re: AW: [governance] cross-border IG issues
>
>
> 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> <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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>
> <http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance>
> List-Help: <mailto:sympa at lists.cpsr.org?subject=help>
> <mailto:sympa at lists.cpsr.org?subject=help>
> List-Owner: <mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org>
> <mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org>
> List-Post: <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> List-Subscribe:
> <mailto:sympa at lists.cpsr.org?subject=subscribe%20governance>
> <mailto:sympa at lists.cpsr.org?subject=subscribe%20governance>
> List-Unsubscribe:
> <mailto:sympa at lists.cpsr.org?subject=unsubscribe%20governance>
> <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 establi
>
>
> shing 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 rec
>
>
> ogn
> 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
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
More information about the Governance
mailing list