RES: [governance] WCIT melt down

Vanda UOL vanda at uol.com.br
Fri Dec 14 07:16:24 EST 2012 

Touré needed to have something in hands  to finish the conference. But
better than the radical proposal, still open doors for countries to go
further in the previous document line. But without relevant signatures like
Europeans or US the document become less important than it was intended to
be.  Not a good solution but the possible one. Guess none is happy.

-----Mensagem original-----
De: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] Em nome de Adam Peake
Enviada em: sexta-feira, 14 de dezembro de 2012 04:16
Para: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Assunto: Re: [governance] WCIT melt down

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