[governance] IBSA - Tshwane Declaration

Carlos A. Afonso ca at cafonso.ca
Fri Oct 21 08:33:58 EDT 2011 

I agree with Bill that "neutral" is not a proper word -- I should have
said "biased" just to express what Anriette aptly clarifies.

frt rgds

--c.a.

On 10/21/2011 08:33 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> 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
>>
> 
____________________________________________________________
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