[governance] WCIT melt down

parminder parminder at itforchange.net
Fri Dec 14 02:00:46 EST 2012 

On Friday 14 December 2012 11:18 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian 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.

A falsehood...


> 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 
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121214/f7529f4d/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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