[governance] CSTD: Adopted Resolution on WSIS and access to statements and recordings
michael gurstein
gurstein at gmail.com
Sun May 27 12:08:37 EDT 2012
Avri,
That sounds really really great and I really applaud with you the idea of a
"bottom-up multistakeholder participatory democracy" or at least I can and
do applaud each of the terms taken on their own, which to me individually
actually have some meaning... Bottom-up-yes, multistakeholder-yes,
participatory-yes, democracy-yes...
However, I have no idea what the overall concept/model/structure/form would
be of a "bottom-up-multistakeholder-participatory-democracy" i.e what it
might actually look like in practice.
Honestly for me it either means simply "democracy" with its mutliple
meanings, ambiguities and frailities or it means nothing much at all.
But maybe it means something more than that to you and I would be very
interested in having you describe (another homework assignment :) what it
might look like--without, dare I say, invoking as an example the IETF or any
grouping that isn't larger than one than can comfortably meet in a room
let's say the size of the UN GA (or a New England Town Hall..
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 8:44 AM
To: IGC
Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD: Adopted Resolution on WSIS and access to
statements and recordings
Hi,
> Wanting to globalize economic-ally and socially, without doing so
> politically, is ... vain fantasy of an anarchist ...
If by anarchist;s fantasy you mean:
The long range goal of those who beleive in bottom-up multistakeholder
participatory democracy.
we can talk.
I think your mistake is in not recognizing that achieving multistakeholder
participatory democracy is a political goal.
avri
On 27 May 2012, at 11:34, parminder wrote:
>
>
> On Sunday 27 May 2012 07:32 PM, Koven Ronald wrote:
>> Bravo, Anriette.
>>
>> I heartily agree that another summit now would at best be a pointless
>> waste of time, energy and resources and at worst
>
> At least for the most powerful, this is for the same reason as UNCTAD
> was sought, last month, to be disallowed to continue with some of its
> most important mandates, like analysing and giving recommendations
> regarding the global financial system. This was becuase the powerful
> wanted such key matter of global governance to be left to the forums
> controlled by them - IMF, G8 and such. The same powerful forces want
> Internet policies to continue to be developed unilaterally, or at
> clubs of rich countries like the OECD, and therefore the resistance to
> a WSIS like summit. Think where would we be without the original WSIS
> - the IGF, even the IGC, all the present global discussions .......
>
>> -- given the present global lineup and climate -- harmful for the
>> future of an unfettered cyberspace.
>
> Yes, we want an unfettered cyberspace (based btw on human rights
> discussed and decided at the UN). At the same time, we also want a fair
and just Internet, which helps support global economic, social, cultural and
political flows towards greater democracy, equity and social justice. All of
these requires greater political work at the global level.
>
> Wanting to globalize economic-ally and socially, without doing so
> politically, is either the vain fantasy of an anarchist, or the design of
the more powerful for an unfettered run on global resources.
>
> parminder
>
>
>>
>> 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
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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