And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting

Thu May 12 12:02:14 EDT 2011

Agreed with Marila.

With caveat that access, freedom of expression and cybersecurity are all important and  it is appropriate for all 3 issues and other Internet Governance issues to be discussed at G20 meetings, just as they have been at G8 meetings for years already; as well as IGF.

Lee

________________________________________
From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Marilia Maciel [mariliamaciel at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2011 10:22 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
Subject: Re: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting

Hi Wolfgang, please see some comments below:

2011/5/12 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de<mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>>

Wolfgang:
I am not so sure, Lee. The G 20 includes the three countries who are proposing a new intergovernmental platform for Internet Governance (to close a gap in the existing Internet Governance ecosystem, as they argue). This will be negotiated in the he 2nd Committee of the UN General Assembly in October 2011. With other words, there is an option that Brazil, India and South Africa bring their IBSA-idea also to the forhtcoming G 20 summit in November, not waiting, until the French president takes the Internet to his G 20 priority list. And there is China and Russia. With other words, the chances for civil society to get heard are probably better in the G 8 environmentr than in the G 20.

I disagree with your judgement, for some reasons:

- There is no clear proposal on enhanced cooperation yet and how it would complement the IGF. IBSA statement manifests unhappiness with status quo: Internet policies being decided between developed countries and exported to the world. It is a call to multilateralism in opposition to plurilateralism. It is not an opposition to multistekeholderism per se. Of course, we need to act and make sure that EC proposal does not kill multistakeholderism as horrible "collateral damage".

- Brazil and India will participate in a workshop in the IGF, organized by civil society, to discuss IG institutional Gaps and to share their views on EC and other stuff. Are G8 countries being as open to explain their selective view of multistakeholderism?

- India and Brazil made concrete proposals in CSTD WG to improve the IGF, the only platform for full multistakeholder involvement we have today, while most developed countries did not want any significant changes. We know that if the IGF is not improved, it will fade away eventually. What are these G8 countries doing to improve the IGF, despite paying lip service?

- Take a look at the line-up of sessions CS has proposed to discuss IG regime improvement (in WSIS, in IGF, ICANN). How many G8 representatives you find there?

- Since CSTD WG meeting in February, in Montreaux, India and Brazil defended more civil society seats in the drafting group that was supposed to write the CSTD WG report and defended more civil society seats in the MAG. G8 countries have taken the opposite direction, being tied-up and committed to private interests and shutting down the participation of civil society.

- Certainly China and Russia have different interests. But the world is diverse, we cannot keep discussing among friends, otherwise we will never reach a truly global solution to problems. And honestly, with policies such as Hadopi, I cannot say that France is a "friendly" country that respects freedom of expression, can I?

Nevertheless in both G8 and G20 civil society has something unique to offer in substance to the "discussion platform" (or the forthcoming "negotiation table"). Just to call for a seat in the front row makes not so much sense. In WSIS, when CS was asked what the added value could be, CS brings to the table, we argued
a. expertise and specific (technical) knowledge
b. linkage to the real problems of the real people on the ground
c. networks for capacity building at the grass root level
d. power to mobilize masses of Internet users

Totally agree with you.

The question we have to answer today is, inter alia:
a. What we can do to enhance cybersecurity for individual end users?
b. How can we enhance the knowledge of people whi to use the Internet in the right way?
c. How we can continue with efforts to bridge the digital divde on the ground?
e. How can we safe human rights like freedom of expression and privacy of individual users against undue political or commercial interests by governments and corporations.

I certainly would not list cybersecurity as a top priority (points a and b) on this list, first because I believe we should be careful not to adhere to a governmental and business agenda, secondly while so many people are still excluded from the internet, the first concern of the world should be access. And I would certainly add the problem of ensuring freedom of expression (opposed to filtering and censorship and opposed to policies such as COICA and Hadopi) and of ensuring access to information and knowledge.

BTW, when we had the ATLAS (ICANNs At-Large Summit) in Mexico, we called this as the "first" world summit of Internet users (a little bit overstretched, but not so wrong). This was in March 2009. More or less there was an agreement to have a 2nd Internet User Summit (ATLAS II) in the near future. If we think about 2012 or 2013 we have to start the preparations rather soon.

Wolfgang
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto: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

--
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
____________________________________________________________
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