[governance] WCIT melt down

Carlos A. Afonso ca at cafonso.ca
Fri Dec 14 19:26:22 EST 2012 

Extremely careful positioning. They support the resolutions and the 
treaty, but will not *sign* the treaty (which, unlike the resolutions, 
means a legal commitment) until they analyze all its implications.

frt rgds

--c.a.

On 12/14/2012 09:49 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
> India's official stance now released:
>
> http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=90748
>
> -mc
>
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Declan McCullagh <declan at well.com> wrote:
>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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