[governance] CSTD: Adopted Resolution on WSIS and access to statements and recordings
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Tue May 29 05:56:27 EDT 2012
On Sunday 27 May 2012 09:14 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 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.
>
Always happy to talk :). As with Michael, your new formulation enthuses
me, and I am ready to explore its implications. But as Michael says, we
will need to be able to show what it means in its final formulation,
what it means in the present context, what will be the expected
trajectory from the present to the ideal, what are our political
strategies and tactics (I am reminded I addressed almost exactly the
same questions to Wolfgang a few days back). There are pressing human
concerns - of life and death - that are involved here, and we need to
actually 'do' what is best to be done....
For instance, what does one mean when one says that government reps,
civil society reps and business (well. almost always big business) reps
should be considered on the same/ equal footing for all purposes. How do
decisions ever get taken in such a context? And if decision do not get
taken does it not perpetrate status quo, and work against our collective
notions (in the CS) of a better and fairer society. Even if a consensus
is always needed - which means big business too should also agree every
time - what kind of decisions will ever get taken.
Even otherwise, do you really think that in the decision making process
- I am not speaking of pre-decision making processes - a gov rep should
have exactly the same footing as whoever else happens to be able to get
entry into the room... There are simple direct questions of clear
immediate, as well as long term structural, relevance. We need to be
able to develop a clear stance on such issues if we are to be taken with
any seriousness in the political circles.
I also will never agree to consider a rep of a company - representing
narrow private interests - to be on equal/ same footing as a civil
society rep, who is supposed to represent wider public interest (even if
often/ sometimes of a sectional variety). No civil society actor, among
those whom we work here in India, and that includes grassroots level
ones, will accept such 'equal footing'. It is simply out of question!
Also, we cannot accept to take a 'formal' stand that government reps are
ok to represent the interest of government as different from that of
people. They may do so very often in practice, but this is something
that we will never accept formally as normative. We struggle so much,
internally, in our respective countries, to make sure that our
supposedly democratic government represents the aspiration and interests
of the people. Such struggles are made meaningless if we accede to such
a formal position. (this is why I have always linked the question of
multistakeholderism to the issue of democracy.)
In any case, if we take the 'equal footing' formula to its practical
application level, as I was discussing earlier, how does it actual work.
Can everyone who walks into the room have an equal role in decision
making. You know this can never work and any such process will be easily
captured. Then, as the only alternative, should there be a kind of
committee that takes decion on behalf of all those outside. This brings
us back to the original problem. Why not 'equal footing' relationship
between those out of the committee/ room and those inside? Finally, we
will have to have some kind of representative governance structure that
will be subject to same accountability and representativity questions as
governments are today, and of course any such structure contravenes
'equal footing' doctrine for a very large majority. So, I will like to
know, what exactly is meant by the 'equal/ same footing' doctrine of
multistakeholderism'. In my view there are both practical problems and
logical fallacies involved in this.
(On the other hand, we do know what is meant by equality of all people,
as enshrined in our constitutions, and as worked, rather imperfectly,
into our governance system. We should always keep trying to improve
these systems, and make them more democratic, bringing them as close as
possible to the ideal of equality of all people. )
Different kind of social actors have different roles in governance
systems, and these differences should be acknowledged. There is of
course 'equal footing' for all in an open consultative process, a 'town
hall' situation, but it cannot extent to throughout the governance
system. This is simply a recipe for governance paralysis, which the
'most powerful' want in any case. We cannot afford to play into their
hands.
There is no doubt that governance systems today are immensely challenged
vis a vis both their performance and representativity. And we need
change. This is especially true for the global governance system which
faces unprecedented contexts and challenges. However, any blueprint for
change must, inter alia, be based on careful assessment of the different
roles of different actors on the political stage. Multistakeholderism
was always a good word here in the South, till it has started to be used
as a cover for corporatism in global and national politics. We must
therefore lay out our understanding of the different status and role of
different actors if we are to make progress in the direction that you
implore us to.
> I think your mistake is in not recognizing that achieving multistakeholder participatory democracy is a political goal.
>
As per above, I do think it is a worthy political goal to explore, if we
can converge our understanding of what really is meant here.
parminder
> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120529/831ffe18/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list