[governance] E-G8 forum & Follow Up

Wed May 25 05:45:19 EDT 2011

Thanks so much Divina,

this is very helpful and fits into recent developments in other areas: Obamas International Strategy for Cyberspace, OECD and COE Draft for Internet Governance Principles, GACs battle with the ICANN Board on the new gTLD Programm, the IBSA Proposal in the UN, NATO activities like the establishment of the Cybersecurity Center in Tallin and the controversial debates around the future of the IGF in the CSTD/ECOSOC. I expect that the forthcoming 66th Session of the UN General Assembly will mirror those trends and we will see hot debates both in the 1st Committee (security, disarmement and arms control) as well as in the 2nd Committee (social and economc issues). 

All this challenges CS and the IGC. Probably we have to re-mobilize and re-vitalize the WSIS working methods among CS. In WSIS (between 2002 and 2005) we had the Open Plenary, the Content&Themes Group and 20+ working groups and caucuses, the IGC was one of them. And we had the CS bureau as an interlocutor to the other stakeholders, in particular to the intergovernmental buerau. I do not propose to re-create all those bodies, but what we certainly need is a more formalized structure and more communication and coordination among the various activities to speak with one (diversified) CS voice. This includes a clear understanding what CS wants to add to the process, what the CS wants to achieve and what our priorities are. Human Rights, as mentioned in your statement, is certainly number one. Development probably number 2. Anyhow we have to use clear arguments to demonstrate that a government-business PPP (as proposed by Sarkozy) will fail if they exclude the voices of the individual Internet users and the people on the ground. 

A good opportunity to "strategize" will be certainly the IGF in Nairobi, where we have a number of workshops which would allow such a discussion. This is also a good time to discuss how to contribute to the UNGA discussion (which starts in October in New York) and what to do with regard to the G 20 (early November in Cannes). 

If the US has the next G8 presidency, than this is a good opportunity to test the will of the US government to work in a multistakeholder spirit. Among the ten principles, the Obama-Paper is listing (p.10), we have also "Multi-Stakeholder Governance" which is described as "Internet Governance efforts must not be limited to governments, but should include all appropriate stakeholders." More detailed is Section 3.5 of the Obama-Paper: "The US stands firm in our conviction that when the internaitonal community meets to discuss the range of Internet governance issues, these conversations must take place in a multi-stakeholder manner". And it adds: "We will continue to support succesful venues like the IGF which embodies the open and inclusive nature of the Internet itself by allowing nongovernmental stakeholders to contribute to the discussion on equal footing with government." BTW, 2012 is an election year in the US :-)))).

Best regards

wolfgang

________________________________

Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Divina MEIGS
Gesendet: Mi 25.05.2011 09:31
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: [governance] E-G8 forum: quick reporting on day 1

Dear collegues

Please find below a few elements of yesterday¹s sessions at e-G8, with most
of the focus on Sarkozy¹s speech, for reasons that you¹ll understand as I
think it starts a new era of government involvement. I will not go into the
details, only on what I think was his agenda:
-he announced an E-G8 every year, because Internet is now in a phase of
maturity that implies governments have ³responsibility in preserving the
promise of the origins² i.e. openness and universal values. He referred to
human rights values and to their importance as to democracy
-he confirmed the French position on IP rights and Hadopi law
            -he acknowledged that Internet is transborders and that this
calls for ³harmonisation of positions in an international context² and
mentioned the possibility of taking the proceedings to G20 and from there to
the General Assembly of the  UN
            -he sees the role of the e-G8 very much in the same context as
the national CNN (Conseil National du Numérique, composed only of business):
create a space for business and states to start a conversation, but not a
real advisory body and not multi-stakeholder.

Some analysts and most of the press have decided that the thrust of his
message was the moralization of internet (after a question from our
colleague at CUNY, asking that governments ³do no harm², meaning no
regulation), but that was not the message he wanted to send the business
community, even though he did address issues of hate speech, children¹s
protection and state security.

In his personal agenda, Sarkozy wanted to send several ³friendly² messages
to business:
-governments are back and as they pay for infrastructure and higher
education, they have a say in the matter (a prick at ICANN?)
-Europe is back and California-based Hollyweb corporations should realize
that if they don¹t pay taxes and don¹t give back some of the advertising
money to G8 countries and their national businesses, the governments might
move to some international treaty on internet governance.  It is a credible
threat (Council of Europe, OEDC are thinking about it), except that, of
course, none of the G20 countries want to open the debate so much and that
China remains an itchy, but India and Brazil could be ralliedS
-in view of recent events, on foreign policy matters, governments shift from
a position of stability to one of intervention, so as not to be overwhelmed
by their citizens and by the pressure of big corporations (see Google¹s and
Orange¹s role in Tunisia and Egypt).

That¹s why I think the e-G8 will continue and we have to expect policy
coming out of this arenaS also the recommendations are already written and
sent to G8 in Deauville (officious information), which means that the rest
of the 2 days are just a way for big business to settle their positions more
clearly but without any impact from this event on the G8

My perception about the other sessions:
-1- session on economic growth: the usual ³bras de fer² between telcos and
content providers, with a focus on how to allow small businesses to go
global; emphasis on the use of big platforms, especially in developing
countries (Africa and banks, on Indian model); E-public services only
mentioned for productivity enhancement

-2- session on Internet and society: balance between revenue and investment,
mobiles as a way of changing business at local and global level (daily deals
and impulse satisfaction); equal access to internet as means of creating
jobs and growth; ³terms of service² not really seen as a problem and
business self-regulation can solve it (but suggestion from the floor that
Wikipedia to have a ³just prior to your consent² type of sectionS

This is where is was able to make a statement on behalf of our community :
I first stated that there was a sore missing of civil society
representatives on the podiums and sessions, if not in the room, insisting
also on the absence of gender parity (5 women over the full 2 days) and of
youth (much touted by everybody). Then I proceeded to ask 2 questions: how
did they consider multi-stakeholderism in the light of co-regulation of the
internet? And how they could ensure that human-rights are part of such a
design from the start?
The answer about women was fudged (the 5 women are worth so many more men
basically!); the idea of more civil society participation would be taken to
Deauville and taken into account for next e-G8s; and Schwab was the only one
to pick up on the rest of the issues, by suggesting ³co-design²

3-Special talk by Rupert Murdoch on education: no comment (but hard to take,
this said from somebody who cares)

-4-session on the future of the internet: internet as a ³fait accompli²,
part of our DNA; internet of objects is our future, and raises the issue of
³what does the internet do to me²; serious thinking is needed about what
happens if internet breaks down;  utmost personalization of data, and
therefore ³privacy is over²; need for better and stronger infrastructure to
face ³data tsunami²

-5- session on IP rights: protection of authors and creators necessary for
the market; Hadopi works (!); voluntary agreements to stem illegal
downloads.
This is where John Perry Barlow intervened by stating that IP was a break on
free speech on the internet, that the classical models of IP were obsolete,
that the right to know and to satisfy curiosity should be stronger than
control, and that starting to control IP leads to other types of control.
The controversy continued with the floor, as the Quadrature du Net
intervened and made a statement in support of Barlow¹s approachS The issue
was in fact very muddled and I had a strong feeling of regression in
relation to this discussion in other fora

My general impression: not a balanced meeting at all.   But very big voice
of business in a way that we had lost in WSIS and sequel ... and a
regression on multi-stakeholderism

Best
divina

____________________________________________________________
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