[governance] CSTD Meeting on Enhanced Cooperation Note 1

Sat May 19 10:38:12 EDT 2012

My remarks at the opening panel are enclosed.... parminder

*
CSTD meeting on enhanced cooperation on pubic policy issues pertaining 
to the Internet**,*May 18, Geneva

/Parminder Jeet Singh,  IT for Change, India

/

First of all I must say how glad I am that we have finally sat down to 
discuss in the right earnest the very important WSIS mandate of 
'enhanced cooperation' on public policies pertaining to the Internet. I 
am sure that today's meeting makes a beginning that would have a lasting 
impact on democraticing global Internet governance.

*The key questions about enhanced cooperation, and the elephant in the room*

We all know that 'enhanced cooperation' is a very complex and a much 
contested area. Before we begin to sort out how to operationalize 
'enhanced cooperation', we need to discuss what is meant by this term, 
and also why has progress on this mandate been so difficult. In this 
regard, there are two important basic questions, and what I call as one 
very large elephant in the room. These two important questions are; Are 
there enough important and urgent global public policy issues pertaining 
to the Internet and, if there indeed are, it brings up the second 
question, what institutional system would best address them and how. And 
the the elephant in the room that I mentioned is multistakeholderism, an 
issue tied to what, who and how of EC. Let me briefly engage with these 
key issues that frame a purposive and worthwhile discussion on EC.

Talking to people nowadays, one hardly finds anyone, at least anyone 
informed well-enough, who is not quick to admit that Internet is big, 
and it is global; and that, therefore, public policy issues around it 
are big and global too. Pick up the International Strategy for 
Cyberspace of the US, browse through OECD's pronouncements in this area 
or look at the CoE experts' report 'cross border Internet' or, for that 
matter, any other well- researched document about global Internet 
governance. They leave us in no doubt about the existence of important 
global public issues pertaining to the Internet. Therefore, I dont think 
we should waste too much time on this question -- there are indeed very 
critical global Internet related policy issues, and they keep getting 
more critical and complex by the day. Global public interest demands 
that these global public policy be addressed in an appropriate and 
timely manner. With the Internet in its formative stages, and its basic 
architecture getting set, which in turn determining the structure of a 
new social order, we do not have the luxury of dithering and wasting 
valuable time.

Next, we come to the question, who should address these critical global 
policy issues and how. And now the problem begins! Lets first map out 
where power resides or rather is concentrated in the Internet system 
today, and who at present takes critical decisions about the global 
Internet. Any such power mapping will reveal that the greatest power 
resides in the US, both with its government and its monopoly Internet 
companies, and increasingly, in their close mutual relationship. I would 
not be able to go into the detail in this matter here. Then there is the 
next concentric circle which includes a few most powerful countries; 
operating through OECD's, and also CoE's, Internet policy making 
mechanisms, which have a very active calender of activities and future 
plans. Such is the global nature of the Internet that whether it is the 
unilateral law or executive power of the US, private decisions of global 
monopoly Internet companies, or policy principles developed by the OECD, 
they tend to quickly spread and entrench across the Internet's 
architecture to take up global reach and application. The most telling 
observation of Lawrence Lessig is important to recall here. With the 
Internet, architecture is policy. If we do not have the right public 
policies, the architecture of the Internet itself becomes the policy. 
And thus we, I mean the rest of the world not involved with Internet 
governance decisions, get politically determined by the outside.

Undoubtedly, governments exercise immense power over the Internet within 
their national boundaries, and there are very important issues about how 
this power is exercised at present. However, today our concern here is 
mainly the power over the global Internet and the issue of its 
democratisation. Also, I remain of the firm belief that global 
democratization of Internet governance will always have a positive role 
in its democratisation within national borders.

Notwithstanding the claims by the US of a 'historic role' vis a vis the 
Internet, or citing of the privilege by the OECD of being the major 
global economic bloc, it should not be difficult to argue, because we 
all have this basic democratic urge and spirit - that every country 
should be present at the global policy table on an equal footing. And, 
one can see such a thing happen only in the UN or UN like body. Perhaps 
since this 'all countries should be present' justification of changing 
the status quo is difficult to argue against, almost all arguments 
against change are centred on the issue multistakeholderism -- what I 
had identified as the elephant in the room, that we must confront, well, 
frontally.

*What does 'democratic and multistakeholder' mean in operational terms*

One admits that institutionalizing representativity is never easy -- and 
remains the central concern of democratic thought and practice. 
Governments purport to represent people and public interest, but there 
are indeed significant gaps in the chains of representativity from the 
people to governments, and further to the global governance spaces. In 
some cases such gaps are more acute than in others, and this 'governance 
problem' has to be dealt in an appropriate, evolving and contextual 
manner. However we cant knock off democracy just because we dont have it 
well enough yet.

I say this with regard to, I understand, there being proposals on the 
table that want all stakeholders to be treated on an equal footing in 
any enhanced cooperation mechanism, whereby, apparently, that they 
should have the same or similar roles. I find this proposition very 
problematic. While one will like to know more details of how exactly is 
such an 'equal footing' proposition meant to work in practice, prima 
facie it seems to throw up very problematic issues vis a vis some basic 
principles of democracy. For instance, is it desired by such proposals, 
to put it somewhat bluntly, that a representative of Google or Microsoft 
should be voting on policy making at the same level as a government 
representative? If it is so intended, we are indeed going past the 
ideals and principles of democracy that has been the single most 
powerful political ideology and force of the last few centuries, and we 
must seriously debate this intended shift. In the alluring haze of 
multistakeholderism, we must not forget that big businesses expressly 
represent private interests, and mostly of those who already have much 
greater economic and social power.

Similarly, the role of civil society is different from both the 
governments and business. Participation of civil society deepens 
democracy. It adds greater range, diversity and depth to articulation of 
public interest. Unlike business, civil society essentially represents 
public interest - in its differentiated shades and even internal 
tensions. Yet, such is the way in which civil society's legitimacy and 
role is structured, civil society actors will not like to claim an equal 
role to government representatives in actual decision-making processes.

Like business brings valuable expertise about society's production 
systems to the table, the technical community brings expertise on 
technologies. In addition, many of the technical community are adherent 
upholders of some public interest values and principles, in which regard 
they are just a specialized section of the civil society. But the 
technical community must understand that the needs and demands of 
decisions making for larger public policy issues can be significant;y 
different from those for making technical decisions.

Here, I have only briefly touched upon the different roles of different 
stakeholders. What I mean to underline in the urgent need to address 
this issue openly and earnestly, by all sides. Tunis agenda asked for 
any mechanism of enhanced cooperation to be innovative. Yes, we do have 
this opportunity here to improve global governance system so that they 
better serve global public interest. Internet has transformed so many 
social arenas, and it must have its impact on global governance systems 
as well. But let us seek these changes while staying within the long 
cherished norms and principles of democracy and public interest, and 
not, in our enthusiasm for change, breach them.

If we can agree on the principles that govern such a nuanced 
understanding of a differential role - and I stress this phrase /' 
differential role'/ - of different stakeholders, we would have crossed 
perhaps the most significant block that prevents progress on this issue 
of enhanced cooperation, which is of immense and epochal significance to 
global public interest, and to the future of our social systems, as an 
information society matures. In this regard, while we need not remain 
too closely stuck to the Tunis Agenda definition of the respective roles 
of stakeholders, we also must not breach the boundaries of democratic 
ideology and practice, and the distinction between public and private 
interest.

*Steps to take towards agreeing to an enhanced cooperation mechanism*

In my view, we should approach the enhanced cooperation conundrum 
through the following steps. First we agree on the need and 
justification for a new mechanism for enhanced cooperation, which I 
think should not be difficult since everyone seems to accept that there 
are indeed critical global Internet related public policy issues. Next, 
we need to figure out what functions a new mechanism must perform to 
meet this important and urgent need. Thirdly, we come to the structure 
of the new mechanism, where it should not be difficult to accept that 
all countries must be represented equally. However, the role of 
different stakeholders, as I discussed, would be the key question to 
agree upon. If we have a focused, open and principled, discussion on 
this issue, I am sure we can overcome this key 'problem area'. At least, 
it is useful to know that this is the key 'problem area' with regard to 
moving the dialogue and process of enhanced cooperation forward.

Once we have the justification, functions and the overall structure of a 
new mechanism on EC, it will be that much easier to find the appropriate 
location of such a mechanism. EC discussions seem too quickly to veer 
towards this sticky point, of whether such a mechanism should be inside 
the UN, ITU, or somewhere else altogether. Agreeing to keep such a 
discussion and decision for the last may be a good way to move out of 
the logjam in which the enhanced cooperation issue is caught today. This 
way we do not get too early into institutional politics that can cloud 
discussion about real basic issues which are more important to first 
address and sort out.

To conclude, I must say that many of us in the civil society have 
received India's proposal for a UN Committee on Internet-Related Polices 
with much interest. It follows the Tunis mandate and principles for an 
appropriate body for enhanced cooperation, and has proposed a promising 
structuring for the role of different stakeholders, especially if seen 
in conjunction with India's 2010 proposal for strengthening the IGF. Of 
course, the proposal can indeed do with many improvements. We think that 
India's proposal is a good basis to start a dialogue on how to 
operationalize enhanced cooperation. In this regard, setting up a CSTD 
working group on enhanced cooperation should be a good first step in 
this direction.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120519/33c567f6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Parminder EC CSTD.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 33280 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120519/33c567f6/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Parminder EC CSTD.odt
Type: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text
Size: 45079 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120519/33c567f6/attachment.odt>
-------------- 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