[governance] WCIT melt down

parminder parminder at itforchange.net
Fri Dec 14 03:05:15 EST 2012 

my information is specific to the voting that took place yesterday, 
India was among 77 that voted for...

On Friday 14 December 2012 01:08 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> you can sue various newspapers for lying then
>
> here's one to start with, with statements from the DoT that are 
> remarkably divergent from their earlier position.
>
> http://www.livemint.com/Industry/3gtX8BWmMEaIfNyCfFI7xL/UN-group-gives-nod-for-greater-Internet-oversight.html
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
> On 14-Dec-2012, at 12:30, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>>
>> 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
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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/20121214/4e3847b1/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