[governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit?

Fri Oct 7 22:14:43 EDT 2011

Hi guys,

I edited my earlier comments, here is the revised version:

*Noting* that reference to the IBSA Multistakeholder meeting on Global
Internet Governance was restricted to public and private sector and civil
society in India, Brazil and South Africa although there has been some
notable contentions by
Nupef[1]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s.tamanikaiwaimaro/My%20Documents/IGF/Sala's%20comments%20on%20the%20IBSA%20Proposal.doc#_ftn1>;

*Acknowledging* the advice given to the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) by
one of the organisers of the IBSA meeting that invitations were sent to
diverse stakeholders and that proponents are desirous to solicit enhanced
cooperation;

*Noting* that the spirit of Global Internet Governance demands that any
discussions affecting the evolution of internet governance discussions
should involve the global internet community through the global internet
governance forums that are convened annually;

*Noting* the UN General Assembly Resolution
A/63/202[2]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s.tamanikaiwaimaro/My%20Documents/IGF/Sala's%20comments%20on%20the%20IBSA%20Proposal.doc#_ftn2>emphasis
for facilitation of meaningful participation and called on the
Secretary General to provide a Report on enhanced cooperation;

*Noting* the United Nations Economic and Social Council’s Report of the
Secretary General on the Enhanced Cooperation on Public Policy issues
pertaining to the Internet
(E/2009/92*)[3]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s.tamanikaiwaimaro/My%20Documents/IGF/Sala's%20comments%20on%20the%20IBSA%20Proposal.doc#_ftn3>;

*Acknowledging* that the WGIG in its 2005 report concluded that there is
merit in improving institutional coordination as well as coordination among
all stakeholders at the regional, subregional and national levels, the IGC
believes that this does not justify the creation of an
institution[s1]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s.tamanikaiwaimaro/My%20Documents/IGF/Sala's%20comments%20on%20the%20IBSA%20Proposal.doc#_msocom_1>
 ;

[Suggestion to IGC: We can hold a white monkey survey and take a vote on the
issue – although we should be prepared for the results]

We the IGC hold the following views:-

[*It is ok to put a diverse representation of our views on the matter and we
all do not have to agree eg.*

* *

*Perspective 1*

*Perspective 2*

*Perspective 3*

*
*

*It is perfectly understandable not to share the same view on things as we
are from different contexts and perspectives. It is also ok to show where
and in what instances we are in agreement eg. An open and free internet,
meaningful participation even if we disagree on “methodologies”* ]

*Sala’s views*

(My personal views on the matter are that the greatest strength of the
Internet Governance Forum is that it is transparent, democratic and
multi-stakeholder and to create a single institution to manage global
internet processes to develop processes for internet at global level could
threaten vulnerable groups.  The architecture of the Internet where diverse
stakeholders have roles in managing different aspects makes “governance”
using traditional governance models a challenge and is where the two diverse
perspectives of “real law” and “cyber law” may never agree to meet and it is
an attempt in futility to try to get them to agree.

What should be done, in my view is to gather the philosophers to start
thinking of existing or new philosophical foundations that can address this
issue. Jean Jacques Rousseau who developed the social contract theory in the
18th Century clearly did not witness something like the global borderless
internet. Where jurisdictions differ on how they are to control and regulate
something so transcendently global and borderless.

To this day, you can name the few instances where governments are in
complete agreement on something and this is a testament to the diverse
contexts and notions of sovereignty and interests. In WGIG 2005 Report V. A.
36 recommended the “creation of new space for dialogue for all stakeholders
on an equal footing on all Internet governance related issues”. This has
been successful in my view and I acknowledge that people view success
differently as there are various yardsticks because people are different and
expectations clearly differ.

Clearly from observing the discussions on the list, it is clear that some
measure success in getting clear outcomes which can be executed. Some are
content to merely engage people in robust discussions etc. If one examines
all the institutions and stakeholders within the Internet Universe, we will
see that there is always room to improve and what processes currently exist
where we can address this.

Without a doubt, Internet governance discussions are on a crossroads. At the
same time, it is imperative that we examine and dialogue on the drivers and
motivations behind the IBSA. Should it justify the creation of a new entity
and institution?

 The United Nations Internet Governance Secretariat (“Secretariat”) already
exists and if the stakeholders within the IBSA feel that coordination can be
improved then it should communicate to the Secretariat what it feels could
be strengthened. In my view to bypass the Secretariat and lobby within the
United Nations General Assembly is to act in bad faith of the machinery that
is already available to us as members of the Internet Universe.

[I am not sure whether a Survey has been done ever on the matter, perhaps it
has, pardon my ignorance].

In UN meetings, only governments are given votes and in some instances there
are forced governments which are not elected etc. In having a forum like the
current IGF model people can have freedom of expression. The use of
“multilateral” goes against the grain of the core definition of Internet
Governance that was developed  in the WGIG 2005 report that the then UN
Secretary General commissioned which was subsequently endorsed by member
states of the UN.

Internet governance as defined by the WGIG 2005 Report “ is the development
and application by Governments, the private sector and civil society, in
their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision making
procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the
Internet”.

*Authentic enhanced cooperation* *should not* be regulated, it should be
encouraged.  The definition of Internet Governance in my view shows the
beauty and the delicate compromise where stakeholders acknowledge that their
roles and mandates clearly exist and that no one can take it away from them.
There is nothing to stop governments from continuing in their roles and
approaches to governance in their respective jurisdictions. Similarly with
the private and civil society there is nothing to stop them from carrying
out their usual business, responsibilities, mandates etc. This is what makes
the world go round!

The WGIG 2005 Report further reinforced the inclusiveness approach and to
shift the spotlight on a single spectrum, albeit powerful spectrum, is to
forever alter the “inclusiveness” approach. Did the Tunis Agenda mention
“multilateral”?  There are instances within the Internet Universe that wilkl
require multilateral approaches to issues such as cyber security for
instance. However, in terms of the broader framework of Internet Governance
everyone has their place.   In fact Part IV of the WGIG 2005 Report talks
about developing a common understanding of the roles of government, private
sector and civil society.

The use of “fragmentation of the internet”, “disjointed policy making”
within the IBSA needs to be substantiated by solid empirical evidence and
research so that in a transparent nature, the members of the internet
universe can decide whether and how improvements should be made. There
should also be substantive discussions on whether existing procedures and
processes have been exhausted to address these issues.

In terms of encouraging access and participation in developing worlds, I see
it as the responsibility of people from within the regions that they are
respectively from to empower and enlighten their people to participate in
policy processes. If they are denied the opportunity to participate and
participate meaningful, then we have a serious problem but until then, we
should seek to support the multi-stakeholder model. I welcome the call for
A/63/202 for member states and UN members to allocate resources for
meaningful participation. I also welcome moves by the Diplo Community to
encourage e participation in policy processes. Institutions like ICANN are
inclusive in their approach to receiving feedbacks from the all stakeholders
through their diverse processes. Institutions like the ITU only permit
governments and paying members such as Telcos and ISPs to participate in
their processes. This is not a criticism of ITU nor is it praise for ICANN
but a mere observation that all institutions have their place and mandates
and together the internet universe and its stakeholders can work together to
encourage and open and free internet.

If for some reason, the developing world feels that they are not given the
opportunity to have their say, then they should speak up and move into
positions where they can contribute and speak up for their communities.  We
need to encourage catalysts within regions to work closely with the United
Nations Internet Governance Secretariat Remote Participation team and
Network Operator Groups (NOGs), Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and other
stakeholders within the region to ensure cohesive participation for all.
This should be an enhancement of process which is something that the
Coordinators can lobby and push for in a strategic coherent manner. )

------------------------------

[1]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s.tamanikaiwaimaro/My%20Documents/IGF/Sala's%20comments%20on%20the%20IBSA%20Proposal.doc#_ftnref1>
http://www.nupef.org.br/?q=node/84

[2]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s.tamanikaiwaimaro/My%20Documents/IGF/Sala's%20comments%20on%20the%20IBSA%20Proposal.doc#_ftnref2>
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N08/482/91/PDF/N0848291.pdf?OpenElement

[3]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s.tamanikaiwaimaro/My%20Documents/IGF/Sala's%20comments%20on%20the%20IBSA%20Proposal.doc#_ftnref3>
http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/e2009d92_en.pdf
  ------------------------------

 [s1]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s.tamanikaiwaimaro/My%20Documents/IGF/Sala's%20comments%20on%20the%20IBSA%20Proposal.doc#_msoanchor_1>This
is where the survey will be useful (white monkey?)

On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 1:41 AM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:

> I think we can and should do better. I recall this part of Nupef's
> statement:
>
> "Nupef recognizes that the IBSA recommendations might be an interesting
> starting point for a discussion if reformulated and improved, not only
> in its content but also in the process of its further development,
> including a wider range of civil society voices in an open,
> participatory and transparent process."
>
> This is what I think we should be proactively doing. What could be
> improved, changed (in what direction), discarded and so on? Nupef is
> trying to do its part in a dialogue with the BR gov (unfortunately in
> pt_br so far). I suspect the SA CS is trying to do the same, and so are
> our CS fellows from India.
>
> Time is quite short, though.
>
> frt rgds
>
> --c.a.
>
> On 10/07/2011 07:15 AM, Adam Peake wrote:
> > So we're commenting on the summary?
> >
> > Perhaps we should just endorse the Nupef's statement
> > <http://www.nupef.org.br/?q=node/84> ?
> >
> > Adam
> >
> >
> >
> >> The IBSA proposal, in some form, will be issued at the upcoming Summit
> >> on 18-19 October.  This leaves us about a week if we want to issue a
> >> statement ahead of that Summit with our input on the proposal.
> >>
> >> Should we do this?
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> >> Project Coordinator
> >> Consumers International
> >> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
> >> Malaysia
> >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
> >>
> >> Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer
> >> groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only
> >> independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over
> >> 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful
> >> international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere.
> >> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/>www.consumersinternational.org
> >> <http://twitter.com/Consumers_Int>Twitter @ConsumersInt
> >>
> >> Read our <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>
> >> email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
> >>
> >>
> >> Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s"
> >> Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s"
> >> Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
> >>
> >> Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:smime 37.p7s (    /    ) (0053DD04)
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > 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
>
>

-- 
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala

Tweeter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Cell: +679 998 2851
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20111008/f1167923/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