[governance] WCIT melt down

Adam Peake ajp at glocom.ac.jp
Fri Dec 14 01:15:52 EST 2012 

More countries that say they won'y sign or have to go back and have
further national consultation, the stronger the multi-stakeholder
model looks.   But a wasted opportunity all the same.

Adam



On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
<suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> This outcome from WCIT has actually given me a lot more hope.  Hope that
> various countries will realize that pushing these through the ITU is a non
> starter.
>
> I am glad to see that India voted against the ITRs too.  For all the initial
> rubbish about CIRP, and for all DoT's initial submission that suggested the
> contrary.
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
> On 14-Dec-2012, at 11:10, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
> On Friday 14 December 2012 10:00 AM, Adam Peake wrote:
>
> <snip)
>
>
> So why did he encourage plenary to spend so many hours on Human Rights? It
> seemed to obsess him, he was personally stung by comments and concerns (very
> legitimate) that some proposal had potential to harm fundamental rights. How
> many full sessions discussed a single line of text in the preamble, 2, 3,
> more? All for his own PR, he said as much, it was about the press and
> perception. So I wonder, if he has used the same passion and time to
> persuade and cajole delegates to think of ways in which the ITRs could
> contain high-level and lasting principles that encouraged the spread
> of/access to broadband across the globe, perhaps we would have had something
> useful and lasting.
>
>
> Adam,
>
> Can you suggest how ITRs could have encouraged spread of broadband without
> mentioning Internet or broadband (which is Internet) in the ITRs? You know
> that one side was completely intent that, what come may, Internet/ broadband
> cannot find mention in the ITRs....
>
> The problem with the WCIT process was that it was a battle between two sides
> both with an entirely negative agenda. One side wanted to prevent US et all
> from making a historical point that Internet is an unregulated space -
> whereby their new global domination strategy could be unrestrained. The
> other side was trying to prevent China/ Russia et all from changing the
> basic nature of the global Internet into a tightly state controlled space.
>
> The middle, which is supposed to be the sane lot, and that should have
> included many countries, as well as, prominently, the civil society, which
> is supposed to contribute a positive agenda,  failed. That I think is the
> primary failure here. The 'sane public interest-oriented middle' did not get
> formed. And the civil society was supposed to have a big role in it. So,
> perhaps, we failed, more than anyone else. (Do we want to look into this
> failure?)
>
> A global treaty, especially as concerning a matter of such monumental
> importance as the Internet, is supposed to give the people of the world some
> hope.... Take any treaty or global summit process till now, whether
> concerning climate change, trade, traditional knowledge, etc etc...........
> There is always some hope built from a summit/ treaty process, and civil
> society is on the side of this positive hope. Mostly leading the positive
> hope brigade.
>
> What was the hope or positive expectation offered by the WCIT? Was there
> any? No, none. It was a battle between two perverse agendas. And, I dare
> say, good that neither won, and the process broke down. I highly appreciate
> the sentiment of Marilia's email, but in this case, I am not too unhappy
> that the treaty process kind of failed. I am not celebrating the breakdown
> of dialogue. I am hopeful that this breakdown will come as a positive
> shake-up to our collective and selective slumbers that many of us seem to be
> caught in, in terms of public interest regulation of the Internet. My hope
> is that such  shake-up will now start a real honest dialogue. Thus I am
> still celebrating the process of dialogue - honest and open dialogue about
> real issues (and not shadow boxing) and beyond selective hype, focussed on
> global public interest and not narrow partisan agendas as the WCIT process
> was.
>
> The situation which had been reached in the WCIT process, I am completely
> unable to figure out, if WCIT process had succeeded, what would it have
> succeeded at. I am unable to form any conception of what I could have
> considered as WCIT success - that, one could say proudly,  it gave the world
> this and this.... I will be happy if anyone here can share any such possible
> conception of a 'successful WCIT' (keeping within the limits in which WCIT
> process has been trapped for a long time now), and perhaps I can still be
> persuade to feel bad about this 'failure'. But right now, I am unable to do
> so.
>
>
> parminder
>
>
> Instead he seems to have allowed the Union under his leadership to become
> divided. We'll see how badly later on. Also found his comments last night
> poor: Last night: "I have been saying in the run-up to this conference that
> this conference is not about governing the internet. I repeat, that the
> conference did not include provisions on the internet in the treaty text."
> etc. Opening plenary: "In preparing for this conference, we have seen and
> heard many comments about ITU or the United Nations trying to take over the
> Internet. Let me be very clear one more time: WCIT is not about taking over
> the Internet. And WCIT is not about Internet governance." Sorry, that's
> twisting words and twisting generally. The resolutions are part of the ITRs,
> they can be binding on the secretariat, they are "WICT. So I wonder if
> Toure's blown his chance for a legacy. Best, Adam
>
> Cheers
>
> Keith
>
>
> On 14/12/2012 4:31 p.m., Adam Peake wrote:
>
> Toure's words of congratulation (and sound-bites for the media) we hollow.
>
> Adam
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/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.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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