[governance] WCIT melt down

Carlos A. Afonso ca at cafonso.ca
Fri Dec 14 17:57:41 EST 2012 

Here is the ITU official table of the voting (the ones voting in favor 
are in green):

http://www.itu.int/osg/wcit-12/highlights/signatories.html

--c.a.

On 12/14/2012 06:05 AM, parminder wrote:
>
> 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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
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