[governance] IBSA - Tshwane Declaration
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Fri Oct 21 08:07:11 EDT 2011
Hi All
Let me join the party too :) . A lot of things that need response on the
IBSA's Rio meeting and the what happened at the IGF vis a vis it, and
now the Tshwane declaration, but let me just join in where we are at
present in the discussion.
On Friday 21 October 2011 01:59 PM, William Drake wrote:
> Snip
> 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.
>
My clear impression is that there is no desire among IBSA countries to
'integrate and centralise' (this later term is Bill's invention)
technical functions of the Internet though the term 'integrate' did
unfortunately (and inadvertently) get used in the Rio recs. The people
in governments I met seem to agree that they did not mean the way it got
read, and meant something closer to 'coordinate'. At the very basic
level, what the IBSA governments seem to be asking for is to shift the
current oversight functions from the US gov to a more democratic body.
This has been a consistent position of developing countries for a long
time, and the Tunis Agenda also recognises this as a clear problem. And
yes, there are concerns about how legitimate public policy concerns may
actually be communicated to many bodies with significant Internet
related technical functions. I saw many countries other than IBSA very
vocally state such concerns at the IGF, for instance those from the EU.
I saw complete openness among the IBSA reps I spoke to on looking at
different possible options of how to address these concerns, and look at
different possible models to channel public policy concerns into the
work of technical bodies. However, first of all, they see the need for a
globally democratic platform where these concerns can be discussed and
articulated clearly, which they want the proposed 'new body' to, inter
alia, be doing.
So, while we are criticising the proposal from other, often imagined,
angles, it may be useful to clearly address these known concerns of
developing countries. People (or countires) mostly would hear you more
if they see you take on board and show willingness to discuss their
'main' concerns as well.
> BTW, do you know if we can assume then that there will not be a proposal going to the UNGA?
>
I am not sure IBSA will make any such proposal, though I hope that they
and others do come up with some clear proposals when the Gen Assembly
specifically takes up the issue of 'enhanced cooperation' this year. It
will be rather strange for developing countries to have fought hard six
years ago for that 'place holder' of 'enhanced cooperation' in Tunis
agenda for new globally democratic institutional developments in the IG
arena , and having regularly asked for progress on this issues since, to
say, when the GA actually formally takes the issue up, that we never
knew what we were talking about.
> Snip
> 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.
>
Yes, multistakeholderism should have been there. Incidentally, it was
there in the Rio recommendations (and no one tipped their hats :) ).
Maybe IBSA countries simply got too disappointed :)
> Why should anyone be neutral? Your compas are opposed to bad ideas irrespective of where they come from, what's wrong with that?
Alas, if it only were so! For instance, to use my pet refrain now a
days, if OECD's inter-governmental internet policy making processes were
subject to same criticism, nay ridicule and disdain, to which the barest
mention of a triggering proposal from IBSA gets. Just because they
wanted to invite all the 'evil minded' developing country governments
too to the party of global Internet related policy making. Before we
dont become neutral, maybe we have to become a little neutral so that we
first puts thing on the same starting line or near about.
parminder
> 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
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20111021/46de9fa9/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list