[governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime
Suresh Ramasubramanian
suresh at hserus.net
Wed Nov 6 14:20:50 EST 2013
Shooting it and burying it in the backyard versus giving it a state funeral
so to speak
--srs (htc one x)
On 6 November 2013 10:31:12 AM parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 06 November 2013 06:32 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> > India hasn't explicitly repudiated that proposal.
>
> Which more or less goes against what you said in your earlier email.
>
> The following is a proposal that India distributed to the WGEC today, and I
> quote the relevant part
>
> "Thus there is a clear mandate for defining a mechanism for effective
> global Internet governance. The UN General Assembly could embark on
> creation of a multilateral body for formulation of international
> internet-related public policies. The proposed body should include all
> stakeholders and relevant inter-governmental and international
> organisations in advisory capacity within their respective roles as
> identified in Tunis agenda and WGIG report. Such body should also develop
> globally applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the
> coordination and management of critical Internet resources".
>
> Does it sound like CIRP?
>
> And I can assure that this is a well considered official position of
> government of India, with agreement of all the concerned ministries, and
> 'not the product of overzealousness of one bureaucrat or the other'.
>
> Here it is not the question of whether I agree with the above position or
> not, but to clear falsehoods being spread systematically about India's
> position. BTW, this is not very different from the position articulated by
> Brazilian President in here recent UN speech, and I quote...
>
> "The United Nations must play a leading role in the effort to regulate the
> conduct of States with regard to these technologies. For this reason,
> Brazil will present proposals for the establishment of a civilian
> multilateral framework for the governance and use of the Internet and to
> ensure the effective protection of data that travels through the web. We
> need to create multilateral mechanisms for the worldwide network that are
> capable of ensuring principles such as:........"
>
>
> Public policy development spaces are urgently needed at the global level,
> We need to ensure these are as open and participative as possible, and that
> civil society has a strong role in these spaces, and these are connected
> appropriately to the IGF, without making the manifestly anti-democratic
> demand that corporations, self selected civil society persons and such
> actually have an equal role as governments in decision making processes in
> terms of Internet related pubic policy making. Such a demand is no less
> unacceptable than a demand that pharma companies should have a veto over
> health policies at the global and national levels.
>
>
> > They (and specifically Mr. Sibal) have only gone on to support something
> that is diametrically opposite to it, and strongly reaffirmed India's
> commitment to multi stakeholderism.
> >
> > As for publicly repudiating a proposal - just a proposal mind you, not
> something actually signed or anything - made by one of their bureaucrats,
> why embarrass themselves by doing so, when it can be quietly buried and a
> much better proposal taken forward?
>
> Another mis representation.... It was an official input made under the name
> of government of India, fully signed by all that it needed to be signed by...
>
>
> >
> > Same end result, thank God.
>
> The (end) result remains the quoted Indian position, re articulated today,
> as above.....
>
> parminder
>
> >
> > --srs (iPad)
> >
> > On 06-Nov-2013, at 0:40, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Tuesday 05 November 2013 07:27 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> >>> But the CIRP proposal has been repudiated even by India,
> >>
> >> Just for factual correction.... CIRP was never repudiated by India. the
> fact that they showed openness to engage with critical comments cannot be
> held against them. If they did engage, one is saying they have repudiated
> their earlier stand, if they hadnt engaged one would call them closed and
> inflexible... Damned if you do, damned if you dont.
> >>
> >> Essentially the same proposal is put forward by India in its WGEC
> response - without the name though, and with an improvement of separating
> the treatment of the 'oversight' issue which India now wants to be seen
> separately from the mandate of the body which deals with general public
> policy issues related to the Internet. So, the Indian proposal for a new
> body for the latter purpose is still fully current.
> >>
> >>> no matter that it was originally floated by an Indian bureaucrat.
> >>
> >> It was government of India proposal with clearance from the highest
> level, and all concerned ministries. Daily Mail, which has an overly
> conservative image even in UK, isnt the most authoritative source of
> Southern geo politics.
> >>
> >>
> >>> And it never did have broad support or consensus that'd make it >>>
> viable even if India had not repudiated it.
> >>
> >> Again, India never repudiated it.
> >>
> >> In any case, the main burden of my email is not that there is one view
> on the subject, but that we need to begin a structured discussion on the
> needed institutional frameworks.
> >>
> >> parminder
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> parminder
> >>
> >>>
> >>> So, pointing out the various inaccuracies in any comparison with the
> ICCP is thankfully, moot.
> >>>
> >>> --srs (iPad)
> >>>
> >>> On 05-Nov-2013, at 4:14, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Saturday 26 October 2013 09:56 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
> >>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The clock is ticking, the agenda will be set basically in stone by
> the end the year. Well not the end of the year, say December 15. Whether by
> the coalition of the willing, or others.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Meaning we (cs, global + Brazil), i orgs, Brazilian and other
> governments and oh yeah the telco elephants definitely in the room have
> just 7 weeks to come up with something sensible.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So far from the cheap seats it seems unlikely the panic of 2014
> (Who's afraid of a Plenipot? Does sound like a scary thing...) will
> accomplish anything substantive. (quick! we need a photo op to ward of the
> wicked plenipot)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Odds on the Summit taking credit for the easy wins of patching ICANN
> + IANA contract, per what we are hearing: zero
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Odds on the Summit kicking a 'everything else' ICANN-like orphan
> issues home of some coherence into existence: zero
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (Unless someone has a strawman not-ICANN plan >>>>>
> somewhere...Parminder and I might agree that we could do worse >>>>> than
> starting with blowing up OECD's ICCP and related processes to >>>>> a
> global model in some mind meld with ICANN as a the sugar >>>>> daddy/cash
> machine to fund and to offer prototypical msh processes >>>>> for the
> borrowing...but has anyone advocated that or anything in >>>>> particular
> else? Nope, didn't think so.)
> >>>>
> >>>> Lee,
> >>>>
> >>>> India's CIRP proposal, if you take out the I* oversight part, is
> basically OECD's ICCP structure; in fact a great improvement over it, since
> the CIRP proposal outlines an organic link of the new proposed 'policy
> development body' with the IGF. In its latest submission to the WG on EC,
> India has sought separate treatment of oversight and other public policy
> issues, and therefore seem to indeed have removed the I* oversight part
> from the proposed CIRP - which makes it almost identical to OECD's ICCP,
> plus the IGF linkage bonus.
> >>>>
> >>>> And of course IT for Change along with many other NGOs have given a
> specific proposal to the WGEC to (1) develop an OECD ICCP kind of global
> body, (2) deal with the internationalisation of oversight issue separately
> through a techno-political body with a very thin and clearly constrained
> role, and (3) globally accept and formally recognise the current
> distributed architecture of technical and logical infrastructure related
> policy making and implementation processes.
> >>>>
> >>>> In seeking some real movement forward on global IG, Brazilians have
> listed two key objectives for the proposed summit - outlines of an global
> institutional framework, and some global Internet related principles.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think IGC should initiative discussion on a global institutional
> framework for IG, under three distinct heads (1) Internet related public
> policy issues (which category has been called as 'orphan issues' in some
> recent discussions), (2) internationalisation of ICANN oversight, and (3)
> technical and logical structure policy development and day to day technical
> operations.
> >>>>
> >>>> And another thread on key Internet principles, which can begin with
> some principles listed in Dilma's UN speech as a good starting point.
> >>>>
> >>>> We, as in the global civil society, are still bogged down over
> procedural issues - and being reactive - first to the Brazil summit
> initiative, and then to the I* proposal for a new non-gov stakeholders
> coalition, which also seeks to develop substantive positions. We need to
> get pro-active, and produce substantive positions towards the summit.
> >>>>
> >>>> parminder
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> And besides, since when were all 'orphan IG issues' ITU plenipot
> matters? Someone needs to spend more time with Bill Drake and/or Anthony
> Rutkowski telling Plenipot war stories of the last several decades, to
> realize what is really likely to happen there. Or not.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Anyway, I am afraid that right now this does indeed smell like a
> classic 'Summit' in the making, where the main outcome is indeed the group
> hug/photo op. And a press release.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If that's all this is going to be then here's my 2 cents:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> forget about the event and the photo op, and focus on the 1-2 page
> press release.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Because that's odds on the only significant thing coming out of this.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Meaning, to end on a positive note, if we as igc can boil down to say
> 5 bullet points what we want from the summit, then we should say it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Rather than wasting time saying please may I (participate, attend,
> whatever), let's just get to the (5) points. Ok, could be 7, but remember
> if we are now dealing in sound bites and photo ops, then: deal with it, and
> be very succinct.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Lee
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of David Cake
> [dave at difference.com.au]
> >>>>> *Sent:* Friday, October 25, 2013 8:04 PM
> >>>>> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller
> >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting
> tomorrow lunchtime
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 26/10/2013, at 5:33 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at SYR.EDU
> <mailto:mueller at SYR.EDU>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 9:43 PM, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au
> <mailto:dave at difference.com.au>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Everything that Fadi etc have been saying says that their
> >>>>>> primary motivation is to avoid a multi-lateral government led
> >>>>>> body for Internet governance, that the ITU plenipot etc are
> >>>>>> forcing their timing (in their opinion), and that they are in
> >>>>>> a hurry to create a multi-stakeholder process that can stand
> >>>>>> as a clear alternative. And it is clear that they have no
> >>>>>> idea what exact form that will take, are very keen to have
> >>>>>> buy in from CS or any other group that will lend the effort
> >>>>>> credibility and participate constructively, and they are to a
> >>>>>> large extent rushing things largely due to
> >>>>>> circumstances/opportunity, improvising as they go, and
> >>>>>> basically dancing as fast as they can (and boy can Fadi dance).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It is not possible to be a more adamant opponent of
> inter-governmental control of the internet than me. However, I feel very
> suspicious of the way the ITU bogeyman is used to rally uncritical support
> for hasty and often ill-considered responses. There was a Plenipot in 2010.
> The Internet survived. There was WCIT in 2012. There was no serious attempt
> to take over the Internet, and the final treaty that provoked so much
> rejection was really not that bad. Now we are told we have to get all
> scared again and use the Rio meeting to talk NOT about fixing ICANN and the
> actual Internet governance institutions, but to deal with an extremely
> broad agenda merely in order to pre-empt the ITU.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Fadi claimed to have spoken to several government leaders (of nations
> like South Korea) who had become more inclined to multi-lateralism since
> WCIT, with the additional impetus of post-Snowden anti-USG feeling. The
> Montevideo statement and outreach to Brazil etc seems to have been prompted
> by a strong feeling among the I* that the current political climate is
> worse than in 2010, or even in 2012. I can't say whether their impressions
> are correct, but it does seem likely that they would strongly reject the
> line of argument you are putting here.
> >>>>> I don't think we have been told we can't use the Brazil meeting to
> fix ICANN and other institutions. The incorporation of a change in the IANA
> contract at least opens up some aspects of ICANN oversight for
> renegotiation, I would have thought. And good.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> And yet, Brazil is basically defecting from the pro-government
> coalition, the WCIT results have made it clear that there is nothing close
> to an international consensus on inserting the ITU into IG. Can we be a bit
> more sober and realistic about what is happening?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Well, sure - but Fadi has more contact with government leaders than I
> do, so if he says things are substantially worse since WCIT, I have no
> reason to doubt him either.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> More to the point, why don't WE try to set the agenda, instead of
> letting those who run the I* institutions do so? Why are you always
> reacting to their initiatives instead of taking your own?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We could have, but we didn't. And then the I* orgs panicked a little.
> I think Fadi etc were hoping something would emerge spontaneously
> post-WCIT, but when it didn't and they perceived it as becoming urgent they
> started the process themselves.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> This isn't an ICANN centric process. Yes, a renewed
> >>>>>> discussion about IANA and ICANN accountability can, and
> >>>>>> should, form part of that discussion. I can assure others in
> >>>>>> civil society that those of us involved with ICANN (including
> >>>>>> Milton and myself) are very keen to lead critical discussions
> >>>>>> about ICANN accountability. I find it very odd over the last
> >>>>>> few days to be cast into the role of defender of ICANN
> >>>>>> against paranoia and misinformation - there are quite enough
> >>>>>> valid reasons to criticise ICANN (and the near allergic
> >>>>>> reaction to the idea of real accountability from parts of its
> >>>>>> leadership are among them) without making up conspiracies or
> >>>>>> misrepresenting its processes.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I don't see any paranoia or misinformation about ICANN in my
> messages. I just see a long-term understanding of how we need to reform
> ICANN, a healthy skepticism about CS being used (again), and a
> determination to take advantage of Brazil's and Fadi's wonderful
> initiative. I do appreciate some of the things Fadi has done. I just don't
> think we need to be driven by fear.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Well, you did sort of imply a little I* conspiracy theory, but I'll
> cede the point - my comments weren't aimed at you specifically, as of
> course you do have strong understanding of ICANNs processes, though you do
> still seem to see this through a somewhat ICANN-centric point of view,
> which I still think is likely to not be so useful a perspective ongoing.
> While an opportunity to discuss the IANA contract, oversight of ICANN, etc
> is welcome, that really doesn't seem to be the main focus of any of what
> the Brazil meeting is about, and ICANNs seemingly central role might have
> more to do with Fadi personally choosing to push the process along.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards
> >>>>>
> >>>>> David
> >>>>
> >>>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>>> 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
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> 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/20131106/edc0b88c/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