[governance] WCIT melt down

Fri Dec 14 11:37:02 EST 2012

Milton,

I noted up front my analysis depended upon final numbers of 'refuseniks' being ~ 1/3rd.

So maybe we went to extra time, and final score is still unknown, and you're right.

It's a bit hard seeing the playing field from - the cheap seats of ITU's opaque processes ; )

Lee

________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Milton L Mueller [mueller at syr.edu]
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 9:52 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: RE: [governance] WCIT melt down

Lee:
The more I look at this, the more it seems that the US misplayed its hand.
There is nothing objectionable or demonstrably harmful in the ITRs per se.
The fact that countries like the Netherlands, Tunisia and Brazil plan to sign the ITRs (if that list is correct) is not quite consistent with the contention that the new ITRs are a massive deviation from “MS governance” or part of an attempt by authoritarian states to take over the internet.
If and when the refusniks are limited to a handful of Anglo-Saxon countries they will end up looking isolated.

--MM

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 9:37 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder
Subject: RE: [governance] WCIT melt down

Parminder,

I don't know that you can pin this on civil society, who remember was not even an invited guest to the party at the start of the WCIT preparatory process.

IF the resolution had a different more conciliatory phrasing oriented towards 'exploring' what to do as Internet progresses etc etc, maybe then the split could be have been avoided. The resolution was too directive for issues for which a consensus does not exist.

In a treaty-making poker game, if key players blow their hand....things happen.

And at that final table, CS still didn't have a seat even if it had a peek at a few players cards.

Lee

________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net]
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 12:40 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
Subject: Re: [governance] WCIT melt down

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<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/fa0316ff/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