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

[Anriette Esterhuysen]

Hi Parminder.. yes.. they are two separate discussions. I linked them
because when I posted the resolution I kind of spontaneously posted my
thoughts.. not something I do very often on this list :)

Good to pursue the discussions in two threads. Both are important.

Anriette


On 27/05/2012 18:56, parminder wrote:
> 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> <mailto:anriette at apc.org>
>>>> To: governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org> <mailto: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> <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
>>>>       
>>   

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692

-------------- 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