AW: [governance] IBSA - Tshwane Declaration

Mon Oct 24 04:28:03 EDT 2011

Hi everybody,

it is very welcome that we have this discussion around IBSA. BTW. I would like to see a similar readiness by Chinese and Russian individuals/institutions to discuss the "Code of Conduct" Proposal by the Shanghai group.

Back to IBSA: Parminder, it is not true that "Westeners" do not realize the changes of the project since it was first submitted (I rememeber that Barzil was fighting for a legally binding "Convention" before the 2nd IGF in Rio). I - and many others - were really impressed by the courage that both the Indian and Brazilan governmental representatives had in Nairobi to face a very controversial open discussion in plenaries and workshops around the proposal. This helped very  much to differentiate between the "objective" and the "means" to achieve this objective. I think that people understand (and accept) that IBSA countries want to play a stronger role in global politics, including Internet politics. But they disagree that a new intergovernmental organisation is the right answer. 

The three leaders have said in their Tshwane Declaration in para. 7 (under the chapter "Global Governance Reform), that "the current international system has to be more reflective of the needs and priorities of developing countries" and they underlined with regard to "Internet Governance" that the IBSA countriesey have the potential "to enhance IBSAs profile as a key player". This is okay and will get a lot of support. In particular, as the declaration says in  para.1, that IBSA sees itself "as a purely South-South grouping of like-minded countries". If we describe Internet Governance as a multilayer multiplayer mechanism than more players are welcome and can lead to a higher level of inclusion and broader diversity (as long as the processes are open and transparent and embedded into the multistakeholder einvronment).

The differences start with the means how to achieve this goal. I have noticed that the "Tswane Declaration" does not refer to a new intergovernmental organisation as an oversight body for non-governmental Internet mechanisms. It says only (para. 54) that the leaders reiterate "the urgent need to operationalise the process of "enhanced cooperation". And they "take note" of the recommendations of the Rio IBSA workshop, without mentioning the concrete proposal or giving a sub-group a manadate to draft a charter for a new intergovernmental organisation. In my eyes this means, that the approach is still open for discussion. To have a decentralized oversight mechanism with participants from all stakeholder groups as members could do the job as well. This is the "new territory" we have to explore together: CS and governments and others and North and South.  

But another point is the proposal in para. 55 which is probably more important than the EC proposal in para. 54. In 55 the leaders emphasize "Internet Governance as a key strategic area that requires close collaboration and concrete action." It would have been certainly better if they would have said "close multistakeholder cooperation". But they did also not say "intergovernmental collaboration". So here is space for a broad multistakeholder debate, einriched by voices from the IBSA countries. This is good. And even more: The concrete proposal in para. 55 is the establishment of an "IBSA Internet Governance ans Development Observatory", This is a very concrete new proposal which I would fully support.

As a reminder, the IGC proposed in the WSIS Interim PrepCom in Paris in July 2003 such an observatory based on multistkakeholder collaboration. The observatory idea of the ciivl society became the core of what later was called (within WGIG) the "forum function" and led to the IGF adopted by WSIS II in Tunis. 

So my proposal is that the IGC supports fully this IBSA project. I would even go one step further and ask the IBSA countries, why to have an "IBSA observatory" onlay? Why not to have an "IGF observatory" which would make the IGF certainly stronger as proposed by Parminder. BTW, in our Council of Europe expert meeting last week in Paris - were we discussed the implementation of the COE Internet Governance Declaration of Principles - we also proposed to the 47 member states of the COE the launch of an "Internet Governance Observatory" with a mandate to start with a collection of national laws relevant for Internet Governance. The Council of Europe is (since 1992) the host of the "Audiovisual Observatory" in Strasbourg which does similar things for the audfio-visual media, in particular broadcasting.  

So lets move forward and lets support this constructive proposal. And IGF Internet Governance Observatory, based on regional depositories, could be big step forward to bring more transparency to Internet Governance Policy Making and would help to strengthen the role of developing countries.   

Wolfgang 
________________________________

Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von parminder
Gesendet: Mo 24.10.2011 08:54
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: Re: [governance] IBSA - Tshwane Declaration

On Friday 21 October 2011 05:02 PM, William Drake wrote: 

	Too much to hope for?

	Bill

	 If intergovernmental control could be taken off the table, at least outside the ITU, that might help to make "IGF improvements" a less divisive topic.  

One important point about the Rio recs is that it was the first time the IBSA countries moved from the demand for 'an existing or a new UN based agency' (as called for in Dec 2010 UNDESA consultation and July 2011 ECOSOC meeting) to calling for a 'new agency' . IBSA thus did show the eagerness to look at new institutional options more in keeping with the present situation than sticking to ITU. It is unfortunate that all critics failed to take notice of this important devleopment, which I must say is not easy to sustain unless the few devleoping countries that are ready to stick their neck out for such new possibilities get the right kind of support. There is every likelihood that we will slip into the default ITU position. It is but obvious that some place has to look into the innumerable Internet related global public policy issues that keep cropping up. And, sorry, it cant be OECD for the developing countries, whether the global civil society engaged in the IG arena is sensitive to this basic democratic proposition or not.

In this regard I also refer to Bill's earlier email of last Fridat whereby the ITU hold over taking charge of the global Internet related policy space is getting strengthened. I also noticed in the presentation of ITU head to the IGF that ITU has bene creeping into areas beyond hard infrastructure or even security to content related issues, Such a creeping acquisition will continue unless we are able to come up with credible alternative global institutional option. 

I can assure you all people of best intentions that are being completely unsympathetic to IBSA countries' effort to move things along towards a more democratic and public interest oriented global IG regime that it wont hold water just to tell IBSA or other developing countries to shut up, and bear with powerful countries and global corporates unilaterally setting the new global techno-social order. If Rio recs has problems - and I think it has significant issues (which I will discuss separately) - let us say so. Say this is wrong,and instead we should do this. Say that we are dissatisfied with existing IG regime, and this is the manner in which we think it can be made more democratic and participative. This is how the civil society can have an active and strong voice and influence, and that, this is the model of global Internet related policy development that we suggest. 

parminder

____________________________________________________________
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