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

Thu Oct 13 06:33:07 EDT 2011

The ITU has an existing Dedicated Group on International Internet - related
public policy issues, see:

http://www.itu.int/council/groups/wsis/dedicatedgroup.html

The materials are closed of course to *members* only.

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:27 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> Also as I write this the ITU Council meeting, some members are tweeting
> that
>
>
> drafting group to meet later today to discuss ToR for the dedicated group
> on international internet-related public policy issues
>
> Bulgaria: Along with USA, offers to participate in drafting group to
> finalise terms of reference for WG on Net Public Policy
>
> USA: Asks if it would be useful if ITU Sector Members be invited to join
> the WG on Net Public Policy
>
> Mali: Supports Canada's proposal that all stakeholders be involved in open
> consultations for WG on Net Public Policy
>
> Brazil: open consultations for Working Group on Net Public Policy a great
> way to engage with all stakeholders
>
> ITU Council discussing proposal by Saudi Arabia to turn Internet Dedicated
> Group into Working Group as mandated by
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>
> Tweeter: @SalanietaT
> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Cell: +679 998 2851
>
>
>
>

-- 
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/20111013/55c793c9/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