[governance] WCIT melt down
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Sat Dec 15 09:08:50 EST 2012
Milton/ Lee
I think both the US gov-corporate establishment and the ITU will take a
considerable hit by this breakdown. And more I think of it, it appears
to me to be a somewhat historic moment. The kid gloves are off. US plus
has clearly said - off with the ITU, we are done with the polite noises
that we used to make at and about ITU with regard to its various
Internet related activities. (Among other things, the ITU's May WTPF
meeting is in serious trouble; if the Internet resolution at the WCIT
was the real problem, with WTPF almost entirely about what was written
in the Resolution, I dont know what is going to happen to it. )
On the other side, G 77 may also begin to assert; and correspondingly
respond by saying, the detente on passive acceptance of US led/
controlled private IG systems is over now ..... With US plus having
walked out of what was a harmless ITR, its diplomatic resources will get
seriously depleted to defend the status quo.
It seems that 2013 is going to an important year for global IG.... The
battle lines are more clearly drawn. I hope civil society contributes in
a positive way, in what can in a way be constructed as a 'significant
opportunity' having opened up for appropriate agenda framing and
insitutional development that is in the best global public interest.
/*BTW, two days back second committee of UN GA approved the text on CSTD
WG on enhanced cooperation,*/ after a week of what seemed to be a
complete impasse, with chances of a WG looking low.
Also, the WSIS review will take place by the end of 2015 now, rather
than towards end of 2014. So more time now before the what is expected
to be a high level event (though the decision for the level and
modalities has been put off to the next GA).
parminder
On Friday 14 December 2012 08:22 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> 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/20121215/6ba30c98/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list