[governance] WCIT melt down

Declan McCullagh declan at well.com
Fri Dec 14 18:34:19 EST 2012 

Thanks. My quick count is 89 of 144 signed the final treaty and 55 did not.

-Declan

On 12/14/12 2:57 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
> 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