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

Sun May 27 12:56:27 EDT 2012

Hi Anriette

First of all, I would seperate the discussions on a summit level WSIS + 
10 event and that about a possible new UN based Internet policy body. In 
my view, they are different arguments. (Please allow me to engage with 
some other issues raised in your email later, in a separate email.)

The proposed summit is to be with a participative preparatory process, 
including corresponding regional processes, as with WSIS (it can only be 
improved with our improved multistakeholder experience at IG related 
forums since). This was specifically the demand of developing countries 
at the CSTD, and some of  it finds mention in the final resolution 
(although the final modalities of the review process will be decided at 
the UN GA).

And if  indeed we have to connect this discussion about a possible WSIS 
like process to that about shaping institutions for global Internet 
policy making, when you say that a long preparatory process may be 
required before we can think of the right institutional design, isnt the 
WSIS kind of process, that goes to the regional levels as well, the 
right kind. Alternatively, we have the G8 meetings, OECD meetings, the 
London/ Stockholm kind of meetings, and the calender is quite busy .... 
Is this the right preparatory process to what we want eventually... And 
this point also goes to your question about resources for such a summit 
process.Why does the resources question always gets raised for a UN 
based globally democratic process, while so much money globally gets 
spent every year on these other kind of 'global' Internet governance 
meetings.

parminder

On Sunday 27 May 2012 09:38 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I agree with Parminder in the sense that 'cyberspace' is not
> 'unfettered' at the moment, and that keeping the freedom we have, and
> increasing it where needed, cannot be done without using existing
> regulations (e.g. what we are trying to do with freedom of expression at
> HRC level) and in some cases creating new ones (e.g. efforts to make
> social networking platforms default to max privacy settings).
>
> I just don't agree that establishing a new UN body is the best way of
> going about this. I think it will take too long, that will be too
> difficult to get agreement between governments, participation of
> non-governmental stakeholders will be too constrained, and, that when
> governments do agree... the results are not likely to be what most
> people on this list want.. not from the perspective of introducing more
> geo-political balance or if your goal is to contain the influence of
> large internet companies.
>
> Perhaps once we have a more stable, rights oriented institutional and
> regulatory environment it could make sense to assign oversight to one or
> more UN-linked mechanisms... as for example in the case of human rights
> standards.
>
> But to build the institution first, and then assume it will make public
> policy that we like in the current political and economic environment is
> a very hopeful assumption.
>
> As Parminder, correctly, pointed out to me.. there will be a need to
> lobby for such a body to act in a public-interest oriented way, and to
> be multi-stakeholder in a meaningful way.  Just as we have to lobby in
> this way at national level, and in other global forums.
>
> I just don't feel based on the current environment in the UN that
> starting with the 'new body' is the way to go.
>
> Hypothetically, as more and more governments are leaning to the ITU
> having oversight of internet public policy, a new body might be a better
> option and therefore I do think we should discuss the IT for Change
> statement seriously even if many of us don't support it.
>
>
> Anriette
>
>
> On 27/05/2012 17:34, parminder wrote:
>    
>>
>> On Sunday 27 May 2012 07:32 PM, Koven Ronald wrote:
>>      
>>> B ravo, 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>  <mailto:anriette at apc.org>
>>> To: governance<governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>> <mailto: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<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/20120527/918b1ca4/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