[governance] critique of the IBSA proposal
Raul Echeberria
raul at lacnic.net
Mon Sep 19 11:12:16 EDT 2011
Parminder:
I have been member of the IGF MAG since the beginning and It is not true that the Internet technical community has opposed to discuss about the concept of Enhanced Cooperation. I myself have participated in many discussion in the IGF in workshops and also in the plenary sessions about EC, and the NRO has never opposed neither we oppose to have such discussion in IGF.
Raúl
El 18/09/2011, a las 13:54, parminder escribió:
> 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
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
Raul
Twitter @raulecheberria
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110919/e988262b/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