[governance] WSIS 10+
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Mon Aug 18 02:36:35 EDT 2014
On Wednesday 06 August 2014 12:22 AM, Anja Kovacs 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/
Sorry Anja, that I did not respond to this earlier. The recent exchange
about WSIS 10 reminded me of it.
I am aware of the letter that you refer to. However, the issue is
deeper. I am sure that you know that developing countries, through the G
77 drafts, have been asking for a full scale WSIS plus 10 review on the
lines of the original WSIS which would included prepcoms and all (this
was the specific language of the G 77 drafts) . If the developed
countries had agreed to this demand - and at least civil society groups
supported it - we could have had the WSIS level openness and
participativeness as the baseline, which we would certainly have
improved upon through on the floor tactics, as were employed during the
WSIS - 2014 being much different from 2003-5
However, for the last two years, US and its allies have been resisting
tooth and nail the demand for a WSIS 10 review that is of the scale and
pattern of the original WSIS, with its very open prepcoms. And civil
society groups have either directly, or indirectly, supported the US and
its allies in this. This is the reason we have a truncated review
process, with truncated participatory processes, and in NY rather than
Geneva, which venue has developed better participatory processes.
Now, if civil society groups really wanted a participatory and open WSIS
plus 10, the simple expedient would have been to support the G 77's
efforts in this direction... But would that not been to do the
unmentionable! And obviously, not a single word got said by civil
society, much less a letter, to support G 77 demand for full scale WSIS
plus 10 with prepcoms.... When over the many months, to do this was the
right imperative, we heard all kinds of voices - including from civil
society - that WSIS 10 should be merged with SDG review - also US's
demand - which even a child can make out is nothing other than to make
sure that political issues like those related to global IG do not become
prominent enough. This was plain disingenuous.
(I am of course completely cognisant to the elements within G 77 who do
not want open participatory processes. However, the case is not helped
by civil society, business and technical community engagements, which
simply *do not* want any real UN based reviews or other IG processes.
That kind of attitude simple makes those within G 77 opposed to
participatory processes feel more self -justified, and justified to
others within G 77 who otherwise are more open to participatory processes.)
Such a role having been played by most non state actors involved in the
process for the past many months, now to rue that we have a push back
from even the WSIS level of participation I think needs to be seen
through a critical, if not out-rightly doubtful, eyes... We got it upon
ourselves, because of our eagerness to side with the US and its allies
to hamstring any worthwhile UN based global IG processes, either
directly, or through entirely unsustainable demands that actual
developments of what would be summit level binding documents be done on
an equal-footing, where inter alia, big business has a veto... A process
that is followed nowhere, not in the developed countries, and not in
OECD and Council of Europe's Internet policy development processes. It
is simply impossible to follow it, becuase it is simply unconstitutional
for almost all policy forums including the ones mentioned... But
somehow, UN should follow it, and it is a villain if it does not, hell
be upon it.
parminder
>
> 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
> <mailto: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
>>>> <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
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140818/b79a8a04/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