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

Thu Oct 13 03:16:08 EDT 2011

This is excellent. Marilia, ignore my comment on the KCS. Following
Professor Wolfgang's email, I would like to submit my perspective on the
matter. I agree that we should ask concrete questions before making policy
recommendation. I think also that people should dialogue on what those
questions should be. I agree that a more holistic approach is needed. My
illustrations are not visible in text so I am attaching my comments in a
document.

Whilst I may not agree with everything in it, I still think that  the IBSA
should be commended for stimulating the dialogue and discussions. My views
are attached.

Best Regards,
Sala

2011/10/13 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

> Hi everybody
>
> it seems to me that the time has come again to have a very basic discussion
> about what have to be done by whom and where shuld it be done to keep the
> Internet open, free, stable, accessible for everybody, human rights oriented
> and to guarantee - as outlined in the Tunis Agenda - that governments have
> equal rights in determining Internet related public policy issues on a
> global level.
>
> 2011 has seen numerous approaches and initiativeas to answer questions
> which have raised in the six years since the adoption of the Tunis Agenda,
> which included IGF and EC as two interelated but distinct processes. A
> number of the proposals are new, others are old wine in net bottles. A
> number of issues from 2005 have been settled now. Other issues are still
> open.
>
> From a CS point of view I think time is ripe now to take a more holistic
> approach, to define more in detail what the "respective role" of CS is in
> this global power struggle, what WE want to achieve in the discussions with
> governments and the private sector and how we shuld re-organize ourselves.
> We should first ask some very concrete questions before we propose general
> policy recommendations and legal actions.
>
> The various proposals on the table now (IBSA, COE, G8, OECD, OSCE, NATO,
> USA, EU, Shanghai-Group plus APC, Brazil, DC IRP plus ACTA and numerous
> national laws etc.) have something in common but are also rather different
> and contradict each other. Sometimes one government in one IGO supports a
> principle which is in contrast to another principle in a document adopted by
> another IGO where the same government is a member state. Look at Russia: As
> member of the G 8 it supports the principle of multistakeholder policy, but
> in the joint proposal with the Shanghai Group, it ignores it. Or Germany: It
> supports the more economic approach in the OECD and the more human rights
> aproach in the Council of Europe (which can lead to conflicts in concrete
> cases where you have to balance conflicting interests). The US supports
> freedom of expression but is critical with regard to Wikileaks, which is in
> the eyes of a lot of stakeholders a good example for freedom of expression.
> UK supports in the G8 a free Internet, but works at home to introduce
> drastic limitations, as France does it with HADOPI.
>
> And there are differences in approaches. Council of Europe has included
> civil society in drafting its declaration and was lstening to it until the
> very end. OECD included also civil society but ignored the voice in the last
> minute. Both OECD and COE were open for discussion in Nairobi. ISBA (in
> particular the Brazilian and Indian government) were also not afraid to face
> a multistakeholder discussion in Nairobi and they accepted critical
> interventions. But Russia and China rejected any form of multistakeholder
> debate on their proposal in Nairob. They just announced their plan of the
> Code of Conduct and did not answer any question. So we have also different
> discussion cultures on the governmental level.
>
> What I propose for our discussiomn is to seperate the issues for a more
> systematic structured discussion. I see three big issues:
>
> 1. the need to work towards a general (and global) "Framework of
> Commitments" (FoC) in form of a set of general principles as guidelines for
> "good behaviour" in the Internet (the so-called "constitutional moment", as
> it was discussed in Nairobi). Here one question is whether such a
> Declaration, code of conduct, compact or FoC should be elaborated by
> governments only or should it be a multistakeholder task. And the second
> question is who shoud do this: one of the existing bodies? the UN? the IGF?
> a new multistakeholder body (like the WGIG)?
>
> 2. the need to identify gaps in the existing institutional framework. The
> question here is which issues can NOT be settled within the existing
> governmental and non-governmental organisations. In case we can clear define
> what the missing link is what would be the right answer: tzo improve
> existing organisaitons by a reform process? To create a new body? What such
> a new body would do better and why? What would be the concrete mandate, the
> membership, the budget, the oversight?
>
> 3. the need to specify global public policies on specific issues like
> social networks, search engines, cloud computing, CIR management, IOT,
> intermediaries etc. with regard to privacy, freedom of expression, security,
> crime prevention, IPR etc. Here we have to identify the specific nature of
> the problem and to look for a concrete answer how to deal with this specific
> problem, whether a best practice guideline, a general political
> recommendation or a legally binding norm is necassary. And again: who should
> do this? We have to be very carefully that we first identify the issue
> before we start to develop policies and move to instruments. Here we need a
> case by case approach. There will be different solutions for different
> issues and at the end there will be a very diversified and distributed
> system of policies and mechanisms to implement (and to oversee/review) those
> policies.
>
> 4. the need to develop further a multistakeholder oversight mechanism.
> There new AoC review mechanism is conceptually a good starter to rethink the
> traditional approach to oversight. We need oversight to strengthen
> transparency, legitimacy and accountability, but there is no need to have
> ONE oversight body for all Internet related public policy issues. Each issue
> probably needs a specifically designed oversight mechanism. And such a
> mechanism has to be designed on a multistakeholder basis. Unfortunately the
> first review under the AoC (ATRT) was done in a hurry and was not so
> impressive. But the proposed design is an interesting step into a new
> territory how oversight can be organized issue based, decentralized and on a
> multistakeholder basis. And BTW, who oversees bodies like ITU, WIPO and the
> UN?
>
> Part of this issue will be discussed in the IGF Imrpovment working group
> but CS and the Caucus should trs to find its own mechanisms to move foreward
> to make proposals to the various bodies. The letter to the UNGA (the
> Shanghai project) was a good starter. More has to be done.
>
> Wolfgang
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20111013/aee56211/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Email to IGC List dated 13th October.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 179605 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20111013/aee56211/attachment.pdf>
-------------- 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