[governance] Re: critique of the IBSA proposal

Sun Sep 18 12:54:11 EDT 2011

Dear Milton,

This will be a long (though very welcome) discussion and it catches me 
at a particular bad time, but let me jump in....

On Saturday 17 September 2011 11:52 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> Some first reactions to the IBSA proposal. You will not be hearing any 
> applause from me. The proposal is unimaginative, backward-looking, and 
> authoritarian. If it were actually implemented, which is highly 
> unlikely, the proposal would be very destructive.
>
> One notable and surprising thing: IBSA has bypassed the IGF. By 
> putting forward this proposal in the way it has, IBSA has openly 
> declared that it does not put any credibility or legitimacy in the IGF 
> as a forum for multistakeholder Internet policy development or 
> discussion. This is true because the IBSA proposal was developed 
> outside of IGF in an exclusive club of countries, and will not be put 
> forward formally at the IGF. Rather, it will be developed at the 
> closed IBSA summit, and then taken directly to the UN General Assembly.
>
Marilia and Carlos have said thing in this regard. But let me put 
forward some facts to you. Discussion on 'enhanced cooperation' was 
blocked by the MAG, its most powerful constituencies of business sector, 
technical sector, Northern govs et al, and not by developing countries. 
In the run up to the Rio IGF, during the May open consultations, it was 
declared by the chair of the MAG that EC disucssion neither belonged in 
the MAG nor in the IGF, and the two tracks are to kept seperate. (This 
was backed by the above mentioned groups, though it is entirely a 
different matter that after two years when EC actually got discussed in 
the IGF they changed their strategy and suddenly discovered that instead 
of being seperate tracks they were in fact the 'same thing'.) When ITfC 
proposed a workshop on EC for Hyderabad IGF, it was officially refused 
and we were told that EC shouldnt be discussed in the IGF. We approached 
Brazil and they ensured that instead of a workshop EC was discussed in a 
plenary session. I remember clearly the coldness towards an EC 
discussion at the IGF of so many civil society actors that are now 
wondering about why EC was not discussed at the IGF. Surprise. Surprise. 
Earlier Brazil made some 'bold' statements in the Rio IGF opening 
ceremony about looking for new directions in global IGF, for which it 
was almost universally made to look like an 'untouchable'. So, it is 
very very interesting that now Brazil and other countries are being told 
that they ignore the IGF, especially in terms of discussing global 
public policy mechanisms. Isnt it diffuct to discuss thing with people 
who refuse to discuss things. And that now some of them can turn back 
and say; why did you not discuss these things, is a testimony to the 
hegemonic control that is exercised on the whole arena, and rules, of 
discourse.

On the other hand, Milton why does it not surprise you when US comes out 
with the International strategy for cyberspace without raising it first 
at the IGF, ditto for OECD (shaping a bold new extra legal and extra 
territorial IP enforcement regime), and for EU etc. The background paper 
of ITfC for the Rio meeting describes all the global IG policy making 
that is going on in and among the countires of the North.

It is the policies made by these countries and forums that run the 
Internet today, these pronouncements are all about global IG, and the 
IBSA effort is just to seek a democratic seat at the table... So your 
surprise, i must say, is rather politically well informed.
>
> This is unacceptable to civil society. It excludes us from the entire 
> process. IBSA needs to be asked why it has chosen not to use a MS 
> forum, a forum its members helped to create, to gain agreement for 
> this proposal.
>
I understand that they will be happy to seek views. The current IBSA 
statement says it will take in multistakeholder views. Marilia's and my 
organisation are holding a workshop on insituional gaps in global IG. 
All are welcome. IBSA sought a global Internet related policy forum in 
December 2010 at EC consultations, then reiterated the call in their 
statement to annual ECOSOC meeting in July 2010. So the thing has been 
in the public domain for quite a while.  IGC is welcome to discuss it. 
Has been welcome

> The IBSA report says that "the models proposed by the WGIG provided 
> useful guidelines" for a new global Internet governance body. This is 
> a strange statement. There were four different models proposed in the 
> WGIG report, and most of them were inconsistent with each other. One 
> of the WGIG proposals explicitly stated that no new global body was 
> needed. So perhaps IBSA is trying to pretend that its proposal has 
> some kind of imprimatur from the WGIG or the WSIS. It doesn't. WGIG 
> couldn't agree on any of those models, that was the point of listing 4 
> of them.
>

The statement just say the models provide useful guidelines... I do see 
them providing useful guidelines, for those who may want to go down one 
path or the other.
>
> The specific duties of the new global body make up an interesting 
> list. It will be "tasked to develop and establish international public 
> policies." So it makes the same stupid mistake that governments have 
> been making all along: it is law, i.e. rules, not "policy" that is needed.
>

OECD's Committee for ICCP makes Internet related policies, and I have 
witnessed your enthusiastic participation in the process, and never 
heard you badmouth the process. Milton, can you be  a littlemore fair to 
the less powerful,
>
> Policy just means that a gang of governments attempts to dictate 
> outcomes, or alter outcomes whenever something happens that they don't 
> like. Law on the other hand provides a framework of clear rules that 
> allows individual actors guidelines and which also protects freedom.
>
So, then shd we together seek a global framework convention on the 
Internet, an idea which did interest you once?

> And here's my favorite. IBSA proposes to "integrate and oversee the 
> bodies responsible for technical and operational functioning of the 
> internet, including global standards setting." So IBSA is not only 
> proposing to take over regulation of all the world's internet service 
> providers, hosting providers, mobile networks, and perhaps even 
> equipment suppliers, it proposes to "integrate and oversee" the IETF 
> as well. Presumably ICANN, too. No rationale for such a dramatic 
> change is put forward.
>
I already judged that there was a unfortunate drafting here. I know that 
it is not the intention to seek any overhaul of theexisting system. The 
Dec 2010 IBSA statement says so much and I think also 2011 ECOSOC one. 
What was meant, in my understanding, where the word 'integrate' is used 
was something like map and overview..... with a view to provide pubic 
interest oversight wherever necessary and required (as US gov provides 
in many cases at present). But I think it is  a good feedback to give 
that the term 'integrate' simply doesnt sound too good here.

> This proposal will fail to gain support from most of the 
> internet-using civil society,
>
You dont seem to have a good idea of how politically conscious and 
active civil society in developing countries see the democratic deficit 
issue vis a vis global governance. And, another minor point, we seek to 
represent interests of both internet using and non user groups.

> it will be adamantly opposed by the technical community, and it will 
> have very little support from the academic community.
>

again, a presumption.
>
> Needless to say, all Internet businesses will oppose it,
>

they oppose your proposal to strengthen IGF into a soft power body as 
well. So?

> and so will most governments outside the IBSA orbit.
>

You think so. Are you ready for a vote in the General assembly? :) . I 
see you chickening out of your statement already. Or perhaps when you 
think governments you think just the powerful northern ones,

parminder
>
> Milton L. Mueller
>
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>
> Internet Governance Project
>
> http://blog.internetgovernance.org
>
> On Saturday 17 September 2011 01:40 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>
> Hello everybody,
>
> I would like to share with you some news about the IBSA seminar on 
> global Internet governance that took place in FGV-Rio de Janeiro in 
> the beginning of this month. Tight schedule and deadlines have 
> prevented me to report the discussions with the depth and length I 
> would like to, but I have written a blog post about it to the site of 
> the Brazilian Observatory of Digital policies, which has been 
> circulating on Twitter recently:
> http://observatoriodainternet.br/discussions-and-recommendations-from-the-ibsa-seminar-on-internet-governance
>
> I will be happy to talk more about it and share impressions here (if 
> time allows) or in Nairobi.
>
> Best wishes,
> Marília
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110918/532b76a3/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