[governance] WSIS 10+

Analia Aspis analia.aspis at gmail.com
Mon Aug 11 22:31:13 EDT 2014 

Dear all,

Do you have a record of the session?

Kind regards,
Analía


On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> For those who are interested, there is a plenary session on "Developing
> the information society beyond 2015: lessons from the WSIS+10 Review and
> NETmundial", organised by the Internet Democracy Project, tomorrow, 6
> August, at 1 pm IST at the APrIGF. I have pasted the full details of the
> plenary below this message.
>
> Remote participation should be available, (see
> http://2014.rigf.asia/remote/) though I heard that unfortunately today
> there were quite a few problems with it.
>
> And +1 to the proposals to write a letter to the UN Secretary General, as
> well as to the USG and, I would propose, to Fadi Chehade, who seems to have
> become the undisputed cheerleader of the USG position now that the latter
> in many ways stands publicly discredited when it comes to "Internet
> freedom" and multistakeholderism.
>
> As for Parminder's question "Did we ever ask for the WSIS model (of
> course with evolutionary improvements) for WSIS plus 10 review. No, no one
> did" - I thought that I share again this letter that some of us (including
> some who have been following the WSIS+10 Review quite closely) wrote to the
> facilitators of the governmental negotiation processes in February. I think
> it quite clearly disproves the points that Parminder was making in his
> message above.
>
>
> http://internetdemocracy.in/2014/02/letter-to-co-facilitators-calling-for-civil-society-input-into-negotiations-on-wsis10-modalities/
>
> Best regards,
> Anja
>
> *Title:* "*Developing the information society beyond 2015: lessons from
> the WSIS+10 Review and NETmundial*"
>
> Format: Panel discussion
>
> Invited panelists:
>
> Mr. Adam Peake - GLOCOM
> Dr. Anja Kovacs - Internet Democracy Project
> Dr. Govind - NIXI
> Mr. Hardeep Singh Puri - Bharatiya Janata Party and formerly Government of
> India
> Mr. Paul Wilson - APNIC
> Mr. Rajnesh Singh - ISOC
>
> Moderator: Prof. Ang Peng Hwa - Nanyan Technological University, Singapore
>
> Abstract:
>
> In 2015 the WSIS is up for an overall review. Though strictly speaking the
> WSIS was supposed to be about ICTs and development, the Internet governance
> issues that are contained in it have obtained a growing role. In fact,
> during the multistakeholder WSIS+10 MPP meetings, the debate on many more
> 'hard core' development issues often seemed to be held hostage to the IG
> debate, in that there was a reluctance to agree on new language for fear of
> the possible wider implications of such language.
>
> The ICTs for development agenda continues, however, to be of great
> importance for many countries in our region. This then raises the question
> of how the development agenda contained in the WSIS can be revitalised.
> What shape do we want the WSIS agenda and process to take beyond 2015? What
> shape do the overall review in 2015 and its preparatory processes need to
> take for this to be possible? What lessons can we learn from both the
> content and form of discussions at the WSIS+10 MPP and the WGEC to take the
> Internet governance debate forward in a way that serves the Asia-Pacific
> region and ensures that the development debate can gain greater prominence
> again? What role can and do efforts such as the NETmundial, but also
> national Internet governance processes play in shaping this?
>
> The session will reflect on our experiences of the past 11 years as part
> of the WSIS process to move forward towards a better future, and include a
> consideration of lessons learned from multistakeholder processes such as
> the NETmundial, the MPP and the WGEC on how to best get the IG part of the
> WSIS agenda unstuck.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 4 August 2014 21:39, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <
> jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Daniel, for your point about Democracy. We all agree that
>> Democracy is a fragile world that can easily be twisted or lost. It is
>> rather difficult to admit that such a failure or loss can be the result of
>> the wrong acting by a dominating player, presumably not a rogue state.
>>
>> Applied to mass surveillance, it seems indeed a good idea to put
>> Democracy in practice: a well-balanced (and checked) democratic system
>> allows separation of powers (1), and counter-power (2) within its own
>> governing system. I am glad to act as a responsible citizen, as you
>> suggest, and bring my voice to the protesting ones, but that still sounds a
>> bit naive without the two previous settings. So it seems to me that the
>> surveillance planet is not a flat one where all countries show the same
>> surveillance power and desire. So maybe we should not close our eyes so to
>> pass on from on secret to another, concluding that all secret services are
>> equal. I don't think secret services are supposed to spy simply every
>> citizen on this planet. That was the Stasi dream, or the Stalinist
>> bureaucratic terror. In Democracy, where trust and willingness to act
>> together are fundamental assets, this is a great loss of taxpayer money.
>> So, please allow me to disagree: the US have to prove better, and not
>> worse. See their whistleblower new legal vision: a whistleblower should be
>> allowed to speak to its boss! This is presented as a progress, when it is
>> just the opposite.
>>
>> As Internet governance cannot be contained within the boundaries of one
>> single country, neither be managed by one single country, how do we deal
>> with a democratic approach taking into account the two previous points (1)
>> and (2)?
>>
>> Publicity is a good starting point at citizen level. But CS might push a
>> little further its thinking and influence to offer governance innovation to
>> politicians if they have some trouble to understand what citizens are
>> concerned about, and not just lobbyists or PR consultants are telling them
>> over a nice gastronomic table.
>>
>> Another good point for a good start would be to call a cat a cat: I know
>> only one country, moreover a self-proclaimed champion of freedom of speech
>> that has the technical power to organize and handle mass surveillance,
>> thanks to its dominant private sector champions. So even though we can
>> agree on the idea not to play the antagonistic game, we still have to agree
>> on definitions and meanings, we still need to have acceptance for diversity
>> of views and opinions. We also have to accept to speak truth to power:
>> there was no power grab attempt from ITU in December 2012, neither before,
>> nor after. And there is still not. The current asymmetry cannot be but
>> condemned. And we need more US voices to honestly admit that things have to
>> change.
>>
>> All of that means democracy. To cherish it means to use it.
>>
>> JC
>>
>>
>> Le 4 août 2014 à 17:04, Daniel Kalchev a écrit :
>>
>>
>> On 04.08.14 12:18, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote:
>>
>> Nota Bene: Wolfgang, I hope you noticed that I did not mention the
>> troubling fact that the US surveillance of all Internet users browsing and
>> emailing over the beautiful unified, un-fragmented Internet under one
>> single root-zone management, and of all phone users, including president
>> Rousseff, Chancellor Merkel, European diplomats, BRICS diplomats, all
>> diplomats, politicians, citizens, that were hostage of the US surveillance
>> paranoia and infernalia. We all pay for that.
>>
>>
>> Yes, we do all pay for that.
>>
>> But then, what can we do to resolve this situation? The US secret
>> services agencies will continue to do all of this, no matter what. This is
>> why they exist. Most of them run on military style management, and obeying
>> orders is mandatory there. The same can be said about the secret services
>> of any other country. Or any special interests group.
>>
>> My experience dealing with this kind of 'operations' is that your working
>> route is publicity. Talk about it. Don't let them do it in secret. Cops
>> hate being exposed. Let Internet users become aware what is going on. Don't
>> waste your time politicizing it, in the sense of "those bad XYZ spying on
>> us good ABC", because this is nonsense (and not true in general). If
>> Internet users don't mind being subject of surveillance, who are we to
>> force them?
>>
>> If Internet users are so upset about this situation, they as individuals
>> having (whatever - voting, buying, etc) power will act up and fix it.
>>
>> Isn't this how democracy should function? :-)
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>>
>>
>>  So yes let's the CS write to USG and its digital champions. Let's start
>> to balance our role.
>>
>>  That is something everyone has obviously in mind when considering the
>> fact that governments are no longer to be seen out of the IG game. One good
>> reason to have CS coming strong into the democratic multistakeholder model,
>> JNC and others are advocating.
>>
>>  JC
>>
>>  Le 4 août 2014 à 10:46, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang a écrit :
>>
>>
>> http://www.outlookindia.com/news/article/UN-Adopts-Resolution-on-Bridging-Digital-Divide/852511
>>
>> Outlook India:
>> The resolution decided that the overall review will be concluded in
>> December 2015 by a two-day General Assembly high-level meeting to be
>> preceded by an inter-governmental preparatory process that also takes into
>> account inputs from all relevant stakeholders of WSIS.  The
>> intergovernmental negotiation process would begin in June 2015 and lead to
>> an inter-governmentally agreed outcome document for adoption at the UNGA
>> meeting. The process retains the ownership of the preparatory meetings and
>> the final outcome document with member states alone. Mukerji said the
>> resolution ensures that leaders, "at the highest possible level" will meet
>> at the high-level plenary meeting in December next year to adopt the
>> outcome of the intergovernmental negotiations.
>>
>> Wolfgang:
>> One of the big achievements in the WSIS process was that civil society
>> got a voice in the process. A Milestone was the CS WSIS Declaratzion from
>> December 2003 which was handed over to the president of the first summit,
>> WSIS 1. It became an official document. The Tunis Agenda confirmed and
>> enhanced the role of civil society. As you can see from the text above, ten
>> years later this process is back in the hands of "governments only". The
>> final outcome document will be with member states only by taking into
>> account inputs from all relevant stakeholders (which sounds like a joke
>> with the experiences of a enhanced communicartion and cooperation over the
>> last ten years, including the UNCSTD WGs. Should civil society write a
>> letter to UN Secretary General Ban Kin Moon?
>> <ATT00001.png>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20140811/a8e20bb5/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