[governance] CSTD: Adopted Resolution on WSIS and access to statements and recordings

Sun May 27 10:02:56 EDT 2012

Bravo, Anriette. 

I heartily agree that another summit now would at best be a pointless waste of time, energy and resources and at worst -- given the present global lineup and climate -- harmful for the future of an unfettered cyberspace.

Bests, Rony Koven

-----Original Message-----
From: Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>
To: governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
Sent: Sun, May 27, 2012 1:46 pm
Subject: [governance] CSTD: Adopted Resolution on WSIS and access to statements and recordings

Dear IGC list

Attached is the resolution related to WSIS follow-up adopted during last
week's meeting of the CSTD.

The resolution is rather minimalist, and represents the fact that there
was very little consensus among CSTD members on:

- enhanced cooperation in internet governance
- WSIS + 10

On the former there is not much more to be said. What is quite sad is
that several countries made a huge fuss about the report from the Chair
(a very patient and able Mr. de la Pena, vice minister of ICTs from the
Philippines) on the meeting of 18 May in Geneva. His report was a very
short summary of all the views presented. I certainly felt it was
accurate and easy to read. It did not go into detail.. but that was not
the point of a chair's report. Particularly not when all the statements
are available on the CSTD website, as well as a transcript.

But, as this report is forwarded to the GA it is political and subject
for negotations.

On WSIS +10 it is disappointing that a very good panel discussion on
this process during the CSTD (that included inputs from UNESCO, ITU, and
others) is not reflected. E.g. David Souter made the point that
assessing WSIS +10 outcomes and progress should not just focus on
statistics and ICT access measures. It should focus on human
development, and on the broader outcomes of the massive ICT/information
society related changes of the last 10 years.  He also pointed out that
the assessment should not just be left to governments, but that business
and civil society should be encouraged to assess changes/impacts from
their perspective.

Good comments from the floor, e.g. one from Brazil saying we should
consider the impact of the Summit itself, also did not make it to the
resolution.

The differences of views on how WSIS +10 should take place is relevant
for civil society. Parminder and I talked about this a bit in Geneva,
and we don't quite agree.

Some governments, Iran, South Africa, Saudi Arabia among others feel
very strongly that we need another Summit. They said that only
governments can assess progress on achieving outcomes. They believe
there should be a multi-stakeholder prep process, but that the final
assessment should be negotiated between States.

Parminder shares the view that there should be another Summit, but his
reasons are more nuanced and complex than that of the governments. He
can explain them himself.

My view is that another Summit is not a good idea.  While I like the
idea of civil society having a platform to reconvene, I doubt that the
resources needed for a fully participative and regionally distributed
preparatory process will be available.

I am also not convinced that even if available, it would be the best way
of spending money and time.

But my main concern is that I think it will result in negotiated
outcomes which will not be in the public interest.

I have been looking at the Geneva Declaration and the Tunis Agenda a lot
recently. They are messy documents, with view very firmly stated goals.
But they are full of good ideas, openness to doing things in a different
way. People-centred development and human rights are concepts scattered
throughout.

I doubt very, very much that in a new text we would get references to
'open source and licensing'.  Take this text for example:

" 27. Access to information and knowledge can be promoted by increasing
awareness among all stakeholders of the possibilities offered by
different software models, including proprietary, open-source and free
software, in order to increase competition, access by users, diversity
of choice, and to enable all users to develop solutions which best meet
their requirements. Affordable access to software should be considered
as an important component of a truly inclusive Information Society.

28. We strive to promote universal access with equal opportunities for
all to scientific knowledge and the creation and dissemination of
scientific and technical information, including open access initiatives
for scientific publishing."

If this was negotiated today, it would look different, or more likely,
be negotiated into oblivion as governments bargained with one another
over security, oversight over ICANN and IANA, commercial interests of
the companies they are close to.

Rather than another Summit I think that as civil society we should focus
our efforts on identifying key issues that can be addressed and forming
partnerships that can achieve this in as short a space of time as
possible. For example, internationalisation of ICANN and IANA that gives
governments equal participation without giving any single one of them
control. And, another example is for us to use existing international
and regional bodies mandated to protect freedom of expression and
privacy rights to challenge governments and companies who violate these
rights.

The concerns expressed on this list about monopolies/distortion of power
and companies having the influence to shape policies in their own
interests also represent struggles we can take on now. We don't need new
intergovernmental processes to do so. The examples of SOPA and ACTA
being sent back to the drawing board illustrate this clearly.

We spend time arguing about new UN bodies or not when we should be
spending this time collaborating across countries, regions and policy
spaces to achieve greater 'net neutrality' and more consumer choice and
rights protection.

This is all work that can be done NOW.

Every time I listen to governments arguing with one another about the
IGF, EC, etc. I am more convinced that intergovernmental oversight of
internet public policy at this moment in time will do more harm than good.

If - as someone from the academic community suggested to me last week -
in the longer term there will have to be an international agreement of
some kind (a convention, or treaty) on internet governance, the more
precedent we have been able to set in terms of protecting freedom of
expression and association on the internet, and the broader the public
interest, the better. It will make it more likely that that agreement
will be based on rights that have been won than on lowest common
denominator interests among sparring governments.

Anriette

____________________________________________________________
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/20120527/3940c15b/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