[governance] IBSA - Tshwane Declaration

Fri Oct 21 06:33:57 EDT 2011

Dear Bill and all

I share Carlos Afonso's responses to this. A few more thoughts in
response to Bill.

On 21/10/11 10:29, William Drake wrote:
> Hi Carlos
> 
> On Oct 20, 2011, at 2:25 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
> 
>> OK, my tokens on this:
>> 
>> - It is obvious there was a shift and I am sure Brazil took into
>> account our (BR ngos') insistent dialogue on the issues with them.
> 
> I'm glad to hear this.  Since you talk with the government a lot you
> have a better vantage point from which to read what's behind the
> words.  Others have to go on what the words say, and they are not
> crystal clear on the main point. If the notion of a new UN body that
> would integrate and centralize and oversee and thereby solve all
> problems has been abandoned, it'd be nice to hear that said in plain
> language that doesn't require readers to engage in hermeneutics,
> semiotics, deconstructionism, or related.  Then all the folks who've
> been concerned about this can de-clench and we can start to have a
> probing and useful dialogue about better ways forward.

There was definitely a substantial shift. I don't think it matters that
IGF was not named, or giving any kind of attribution.  It would be
nice.. but I suspect there is still a concern among one or all of those
governments about giving recognition to the IGF being used in
intergovernmental negotiations as 'giving up on any further efforts
towards enhanced cooperation'.

This unfortunate trade off/or lack of it is the result of some
governments and non-governmental actors insisting that 'enhanced
cooperation is already happening through the IGF' (or something along
those lines).

It is a real pity.. and I did propose at the IBSA meeting in Rio that
this kind of 'trading' stops... but I can see why the IBSA governments
are holding on to it.. even if I don't agree.

> BTW, do you know if we can assume then that there will not be a
> proposal going to the UNGA?

That is a really interesting question.  I would not rule it out.. but I
think it is less likely.

>> - The Tshwane Declaration shows the IBSA efforts are far broader
>> than Internet-related issues, and at least BR ngos are interested
>> in the whole set of themes they are dealing with, not just whether
>> Icann's butt will be kicked or not.
> 
> And non-BR ngos often share those interests, so let's have a broader
> discussion.

Yes.. I think some of the IBSA statement positions on e.g. IPR are
shared by many NGOs outside of the IBSA region.  One of the reasons that
IBSA governments have a progressive stance in this regard is because of
many years of collaboration between NGOs in the south and NGOs in the north.

My worry is that only the Brazilian government (among the three) are
consistently applying progressive principles in domestic policy as well
as in global forums. I don't know that much about Indian policy. but I
do know that in South Africa much needed national copyright reform is
not happening.

>> - The "thrust" (whatever the meaning in this context) of the
>> declaration of an intergovernmental meeting, Bill, is
>> intergovernmental, what else would you expect?
> 
> As you know, there have been quite a lot of intergovernmental
> meetings of late that have issued declarations endorsing MS
> approaches to IG.  If the GAC, COE, OECD, et al can say it loud and
> clear, why can't IBSA?  Yes we know the Brazilian govt is friendly to
> MS, but we don't know if IBSA now in fact sees open global MS
> processes as the way to proceed on the issues with which it is
> concerned.  If yes, fabulous, they should say it and we will all tip
> our hats accordingly.

I agree that they should say it. I suspect that they don't yet have a
unified position/and or common understanding of what they mean by
'multi-stakeholder participation'. They are all three broadly in
support.. but degree and consistency of implementation varies
enormously. In South Africa this is a constant site of struggle with
civil society and activists (e.g. the Right to Know coalition)
constantly having to put pressure on government to consult and maintain
transparency. MS participation is not yet institutionalised, other than
in the traditional 'labour/market/government' form.

On the other hand...while saying it loud and clear as European and
Western govs are doing is not enough. It needs to really work.. and MS
participation still has a long way to go to really change power
configurations.  This is why Wolfgang et al's recent issue of MIND is
interesting and important.. it deepens the thinking on this.
>> 
>> I would insist our compas north of the Equator, and especially west
>> of Greenwich :) be a bit more neutral when analyzing joint 
>> intergovernmental efforts from the South,
> 
> Why should anyone be neutral?  Your compas are opposed to bad ideas
> irrespective of where they come from, what's wrong with that?  Are
> bad ideas less problematic if they're from the South?

Hmmm :)  I think our views of government initiatives are often informed
by our histories and experiences. Bad ideas can be in the eyes of the
beholder.

I agree with you Bill, that we should not be neutral in responding to
government actions that could infringe on rights/freedoms or that can
create more barriers.. but I do agree with Carlos that there is a
tendency (more so among the technical community than among civil
society) to assume that developing country intergovernmental efforts are
more sinister than intergovernmental efforts from the traditional
'western democracies'. (Not saying you are guilty of this Bill!)

The whole IGF improvement debate is an example of this.

There are also often knee jerk reactions from civil society in the
'global south'.  We need to be consistently critical and careful.

Cheers

Anriette

>> and always remember to take a look at their own govs' tails first.
> 
> It's not obvious how this is relevant, but bad ideas from Northern
> governments, including those that may have issued their passports,
> have been routinely criticized by said compas since we launched this
> list in 2003.  In fact, these get probably 85% of the air time!
> 

> Cheers,
> 
> Bill
> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 10/19/2011 04:05 PM, William Drake wrote:
>>> Hi Anriette
>>> 
>>> We just had this conversation bilaterally, but sure let's open it
>>> up...
>>> 
>>> On Oct 19, 2011, at 7:25 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Bill
>>>> 
>>>> I think your response is a bit hasty. There are serious gaps..
>>>> e.g. the lack of emphasis on multi-stakeholder participation
>>>> pointed out by Sivasubramanian, but overall I think the section
>>>> on IG shows very clearly that the IBSA government
>>>> representatives took reactions at the IGF to their proposal
>>>> very seriously.
>>> 
>>> As with many diplomatic texts, one can read it a number of ways.
>>> I guess you read the absence of specific reference to a new UN
>>> organization to "integrate and oversee the bodies responsible"
>>> etc. as reflecting a shift.  I read the larger thrust of the text
>>> and its references to prior pronouncements etc and don't come
>>> away confident there's an agreed shift, at least not yet.  But
>>> either way, if you're right they took reactions at the IGF to
>>> their proposal very seriously, why not say that?  Why not help
>>> strengthen the IGF's position by underscoring its value and the
>>> importance of global multistakeholder dialogue on this and
>>> related matters?  That's what I referred to, the no comment on
>>> the IGF dialogue, …
>>>> 
>>>> This is a very different text to what had been proposed,
>>> 
>>> Do you mean the by the Rio recs, or something else?
>>> 
>>>> and clearly indicates that there will be further discussion on
>>>> the September meeting's recommendations, which is what civil
>>>> society organisations from the three countries requested.
>>>> 
>>>> Multi-stakeholder participation in the observatory is not
>>>> mentioned, but it is also not excluded. My assumption is that
>>>> this was an oversight, rather than a deliberate attempt to make
>>>> it 'intergovernmental'.
>>> 
>>> We are always being told, or telling ourselves, that the lack of
>>> mention of multistakeholder participation in these things is an
>>> oversight.  Given all the heated discussions on the matter, I
>>> find that increasingly difficult to swallow.  The lack of
>>> specific reference to a UN body is revealing, but the lack of
>>> specific reference to multistakeholderism is just a case of
>>> whoops, sorry, we forgot…?
>>> 
>>> The thrust still feels pretty intergovernmental, as in "The
>>> Leaders...emphasized its potential to enhance IBSA’s profile as a
>>> key global player."
>>> 
>>>> However, I think that the absence of multi-stakeholder
>>>> participation as a principle is very disappointing. It should
>>>> have been mentioned upfront in the section on global governance
>>>> reform. There are other references to participation from
>>>> stakeholders.. but that is not enough.
>>>> 
>>>> Human rights text is fairly good, as is the IP text.
>>> 
>>> Yes
>>>> 
>>>> Need to still read the whole document carefully.
>>> 
>>> Yes
>>> 
>>> http://www.pravasitoday.com/read-tshwane-declaration-at-5th-ibsa-summit
>>>
>>>
>>> 
Cheers,
>>> 
>>> Bill
>>>> 
>>>> On 19/10/11 18:24, William Drake wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Oct 19, 2011, at 4:55 AM, Pranesh Prakash wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> The leaders took note of the recommendations of the IBSA
>>>>>> Workshop on Global Internet Governance convened in Rio de
>>>>>> Janeiro on 1-2 September 2011 and resolved to jointly
>>>>>> undertake necessary follow-up action.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The leaders took no note of the global community's reactions
>>>>> to those recommendations during the Internet Governance Forum
>>>>> convened in Nairobi on 27-30 September 2011 and resolved to
>>>>> pretend it didn't happen.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 55. The Leaders emphasized Internet Governance as a key
>>>>>> strategic area that requires close collaboration and
>>>>>> concrete action. In this context, it recommended the
>>>>>> establishment of an IBSA Internet Governance and
>>>>>> Development Observatory that should be tasked to monitor
>>>>>> developments on global Internet Governance and provide
>>>>>> regular updates and analyses from the perspective of
>>>>>> developing countries.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The leaders agreed that their initiative is really about IBSA
>>>>> rather than about the Internet, so global multistakeholder
>>>>> participation in the Observatory is not needed.
>>>> 
>>>> -- ------------------------------------------------------ 
>>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director,
>>>> association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box
>>>> 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 
>>>> ____________________________________________________________ 
>>>> 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
>> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________ 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
> 

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
____________________________________________________________
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