[governance] WCIT melt down

Sat Dec 15 08:44:19 EST 2012

On Friday 14 December 2012 08:07 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
> 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.
Lee

It does not only depend on what space you have get, it also depends of 
what agenda, and legitimacy (of representing pubic interest), civil 
society carries. The UN convention on disability rights was practically 
written by civil society, and if that appears a relatively non 
controversial issue and thus different, the right to information act, 
that revolutionised gov-citizen relationship in India, was also 
practically written by civil society. And civil society fought in the 
streets, and got an Act that directly goes against the interests of 
politician and bureaucrats who were forced to pass it.

Therefore it is just not about the space CS gets.... I dont think CS 
had, or still has, a positive agenda in the global IG space. It is fine 
to demolish, but while doing so, we must also know what will take its 
place... Else we are just allowing free market to entirely take over the 
precious and important communicative realm of our societies. They will 
soon distort it beyond recognition, and we would have to nothing to turn 
to.

> <snip>

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

An important part of the positive agenda is to come out with the actual 
model of what kind of multistakeholderism really does CS want...( I 
welcome John Curran's recent email seeking building such models.) For 
too long has it avoided facing this challenge. And the glimpses that I 
get about some views on this area makes me very concerned. For instance, 
in the context of WCIT, I have read McTim and John Curran suggest that 
they would want non government stakeholders vote at WCIT kind of 
platforms. Is this really what we want (even outside core technical 
coordination/ policy spaces like ICANN or IETF)?

We need to come out with clear views and a clear model of MSism in which 
regard. What models of CS and private sector participation do we seek in 
forums that deal with substantive policy areas (and, to repeat, not in 
tech coordination/ standards/ policy space)... We cant ask for something 
without telling what is it that we want. We have been doing it for too 
long now...

parminder

>
> Lee
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* 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
> *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
>>> 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/20121215/f3b8ee08/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