[governance] Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

I will partially agree with you when you say that a viable alternative
should be provided - including for existing and working multistakeholder
processes that civil society sometimes criticizes as not being particularly
open.

HOWEVER, article 35 is a dangerous lever in the hands of those governments
whose stand has not perceptibly changed in the past ten years, and who
continue to oppose multistakeholderism of any form, in favour of
multilateral governance, with business and/or civil society only providing
ancillary, enabling roles rather than having a true stake at the table.

I fully support the call that this endorsement be repudiated.

-srs

> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-
> request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow
> Sent: Friday, May 2, 2014 7:13 PM
> To: Adam Peake
> Cc: parminder; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net;
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org IGC
> Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD
> working group on enhanced cooperation
> 
> TA art. 35 is very very imperfect for a variety of reasons.
> 
> It also was dangerous ten years ago in ways which are not a real danger
> today.
> 
> Today it is IMO an immediate and concrete danger that carelessly designed
> (and thereby non-democratic) multistakeholder public policy processes
could
> give big business the power to effectively undermine the human right of
the
> peoples to democratic self-determination.
> 
> In the relevant international human rights treaty, the ICCPR, the legal
> construct through which this human right is established is via the public
> policy role of states: First it is declared that the peoples have a right
to
> self-determination, and later in the document the right to democratic
> processes is established.
> 
> I am not asserting that this state-based model is the only possible model
of
> democracy, but it is what we have. I certainly don't want to forsake it
> before a proven alternative is available.
> 
> Until then I will support TA art. 35 with its privileging of states.
> From my perspective there is no need for Parminder to retract anything.
> 
> I agree of course that there are currently very real problems almost every
> time that states try to get involved in a privileged role as states in
> Internet governance. And I'm not talking just about the various examples
of
> totally non-democratic states here.
> 
> I propose to address these problems by means of measures such as those
> proposed on http://wisdomtaskforce.org/
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 
> 
> Am Fri, 2 May 2014 21:58:47 +0900
> schrieb Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>:
> 
> > Dear Parminder,
> >
> > To the best of my knowledge, no civil society entity has supported
> > paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 49 Geneva Declaration of
> > Principles.)  It was the position of the Civil Society Plenary in
> > Tunis that this language was unacceptable.  To the best of my
> > knowledge this position has not changed.  As recently as last week in
> > Sao Paulo it was a matter that unified civil society: clearly we
> > oppose paragraph 35.
> >
> > So it was very surprising to read that you, as a representative of
> > civil society on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation should
> > support this language, and in doing so associate yourself with
> > business, Iran, Saudi Arabia, among others.
> >
> > Please retract your comment supporting the Tunis Agenda text on roles
> > and responsibilities as copied below from the transcript.  You have
> > time to do so before the WG finishes its meeting later today.
> > Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda also below.
> >
> > Please act immediately.
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Adam
> >
> >
> > >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY COMMENTS GO IN THE SAME
> > >>DIRECTION AS THE SPEAKER PREVIOUS TO ME, MARILYN, THAT IT SHOULD BE
> > >>RETAINED, THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE OF OUR RESPECTIVE ROLES AND
> > >>RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO JUSTIFY IT, I MAY ADD THAT THE TUNIS AGENDA
> > >>TALKS ABOUT THESE ROLES SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC POLICY
> > >>MAKING AND NOT GENERALLY IN VARIOUS OTHER SOCIAL ENTERPRISES AND
> > >>ACTIVITIES ALL OF US GET INVOLVED IN. AND THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO ENDS
> > >>IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED COOPERATION WHICH IN MY AND MANY
> > >>PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING IS SPECIFICALLY ONLY ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY
> > >>MAKING.
> > IT IS IN THIS REGARD, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I HAVE CLARITY ABOUT WHAT
> > IS THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS BEING QUITE DIFFERENT TO ONE
> > ANOTHER AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS WOULD HAVE
> > THE SAME ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING MAKING THAN GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS. THAT
> > SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AT A GLOBAL LEVEL. THERE IS A REASON FOR US
> > TO INSIST ON IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER IN THE SECOND MEETING, I
> > SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT PEOPLE ASKING FOR EQUAL ROLES
> > AND ASKED WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE SEEKING AN EQUAL ROLE IN PUBLIC
> > POLICY MAKING. I ASKED IT FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR REPRESENTATIVE WHO
> > THEN RESPONDED TO SAID I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND
> > THEY SAY, YES, WE WANT TO AN EQUAL FOOTING OF DECISION-MAKING. THIS IS
> > PART OF THE MEETING. IT IS THIS PART OF DEMOCRACY WHICH HAS ACUTELY
> > BOTHERED US. I HAVE SAID THIS EARLIER.
> > BUT I INSIST TO SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE ARES INENCE ON -- THEIR
> > INSISTENCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES COMES BACK AND AGAIN. FOR ME
> > THAT IS IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD LIKE THAT PHRASE TO BE RETAINED. THANK
> > YOU.
> > >>CHAIR MAJOR: THANK YOU, PARMINDER.
> >
> > Tunis Agenda
> >
> > 35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both
> > technical and public policy issues and should involve all stakeholders
> > and relevant intergovernmental and international organizations. In
> > this respect it is recognized that: a) Policy authority for
> > Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of
> > States. They have rights and responsibilities for international
> > Internet-related public policy issues. b) The private sector has had,
> > and should continue to have, an important role in the development of
> > the Internet, both in the technical and economic fields. c) Civil
> > society has also played an important role on Internet matters,
> > especially at community level, and should continue to play such a
> > role. d) Intergovernmental organizations have had, and should continue
> > to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of Internet-related
> > public policy issues. e) International organizations have also had and
> > should continue to have an important role in the development of
> > Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies.
> >
> >
> 



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