FW: [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] [governance] Tweedledum and TweedledeeWAS Re: Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations

Mon Oct 27 09:35:35 EDT 2014

From: Richard Hill [mailto:rhill at hill-a.ch] 
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 3:57 AM
To: michael gurstein; 'David Cake'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; 'McTim'; 'JNC Forum'
Subject: RE: [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] [governance] Tweedledum and
TweedledeeWAS Re: Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITUPlenipot
joint recommendations

Michael: since I don't subscribe to the BestBits list, and since I am
mentioned by name in a post to that list, I would appreciate it if you would
forward this reply to that list, if you consider that appropriate.

I've been asked to explain why I'm so keen on the ITU taking over more
control over Internet governance.

Actually, I'm mostly keen to find ways to reduce the control over Internet
governance currently excercised by the US government and by dominant private
companies, most of which are US companies.  As an input to discussions, I
have indeed suggested that ITU could, for some specific issues, replace the
US government's current oversight with a weaker type of oversight.  But
that's just one of the many options that I think worth considering.

Regarding ITU, I find it incongrous that some people appear to think of it
as an foe of the Internet.  In reality, it was the ITU's 1988 ITRs that
first allowed unrestricted use of leased lines by private companies, which
was instrumental in facilitating the growth of the Internet.  The subsequent
GATT (now WTO) agreements reinforced that.  ITU-T Recommendation X.509,
first approved in 1988, provides the basis for secure Internet
communications.  More recently, ITU standards such as xDLS and compression
are important facilitators of Internet expansion, as are the agreements made
in ITU regarding the unlicensed frequencies used for WiFi.

Which is not to say that everything that ITU has done is good.  But I also
find it incongrous that people don't equally criticize other international
organizations whose impact on the Internet is significant, such as WIPO,
where copyright tends to be reinforced, rather than adapted as many think it
should (greater allowance for private copying and shortening the length of
copyright protection).  Or WTO, which was used to forge ACTA. Again, not
everything that those organizations do is bad.  Like many complex
organizations, including national goverments and private companies, those
organizations do things that I agree with and things that I don't agree
with.

My view is that states do have a role and responsiblity with respect to
public policy matters.  That's a mainstream view, because it is enunciated
in the Tunis Agenda and it was confirmed by Netmundial and by the WSIS+10
High Level Meeting.  The mechanisms that currently exist under which states
carry out their responsibilities are imperfect, both at the national level,
and at the international level, and those mechansims should be improved.

Greater multi-stakholder consultation is for sure a way to improve those
mechanisms.  But replacing those mechanisms with the so-called "equal
footing" multi-stakeholder model, which in effect gives veto power to
private companies, is not, in my view, an improvement.

Formal intergovernmental mechanisms are subject to parliamentary control,
and, in particular treaties are, in most countries, subject to ratification
by national parliaments.  It is harder to establsh democratic control over
informal mechanisms, contracts of adhesion, and restrictions imposed by code
(as in "code is law").

Returning to ITU again, in my experience, it can be a useful forum for
discussing certain issues, and even for reaching agreement at the
international level.  For example, to lower the price of mobile roaming,
and/or to foster greater transparency in wholesale and retail pricing.  I
find it incongrous that OECD countries appear to oppose such measures, and
that not all of civil society organizaitons support such pro-consumer
measures.

Further, I believe that the current provision in the ITU Constitution on
secrecy (meaning privacy) of international telecommunications could be
revised so as to make it clear that current mass surveillance practices are
unacceptable.  I'm surprised that those who oppose mass surveillance have
not picked up on that.

Best,

Richard

-----Original Message-----
From: Forum [mailto:forum-bounces at justnetcoalition.org]On Behalf Of michael
gurstein
Sent: dimanche, 26. octobre 2014 19:31
To: 'David Cake'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; 'McTim'; 'JNC Forum'
Subject: Re: [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] [governance] Tweedledum and
TweedledeeWAS Re: Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITUPlenipot
joint recommendations

David,

From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] 
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 2:35 AM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: McTim; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; JNC Forum
Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Tweedledum and Tweedledee WAS Re:
Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint
recommendations

On 26 Oct 2014, at 7:17 am, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

and yet the MS proponents such as the USG and its allies in CS and 
elsewhere want to remake the governance of the global (Internet) world in
its image.

NO, the opposite is true.  The internet is cooperatively coordinated by a
series of MS entities and processes. It is those who insist that gov't be in
charge that are trying to "remake the governance of the global (Internet)"
[MG>] well maybe those "who insist that gov't be in charge" believe whatever
it is you say they believe (you should ask them) but not sure what that has
to do with my comments...

            Well, you could always ask your JNC colleague Richard Hill about
why he was so keen on the ITU taking on more control over Internet
governance, I'm sure he will be happy to explain. 

            If you, or the JNC generally, believe that government led,
multi-lateral, fora such as the ITU, are also inappropriate for
transnational Internet government, I'm sure there are many who would
appreciate clarifying your position. 

[MG>] I have no specialized knowledge or expertise in the details of
transnational governance. My discussion was at the level of principles and
governance models the detailed application of which I would leave to those
(such as Richard Hill) with such specialized knowledge.  My own position
would be that such governance should take place in the form and in the
context most likely to reflect the broader democratic values.  I would not
either rule in or rule out any specific context prima facie simply because
it was or was not a UN agency for example (as seems to be the case for
MSists/anti-Democracy proponents). In any case my overall principle would be
how the venue and process would most clearly reflect democratic values and
processes and for many cases how these activities might further promote and
support democratic processes and values. I presume that
MSists/anti-Democracy proponents would adopt a similar position concerning
MSism i.e. how the particular venue (for example the proposed WEF as a
venue) would promote MSism i.e. governance by self-selected elites and
further undermining of traditional approaches to Democratic values and
governance processes. (BTW, I'm still waiting for the argument from our
distinguished CS colleagues towards the HK demonstrators on how MSism will
be a "evolutionary enhancement" of the democracy that they have so bravely
been advocating.

Maybe it is all being done in good faith and with the best of 
intentions (and I have a bridge in Brooklyn which you might want to 
buy-cheap) or maybe it is a calculated move by some and naivety by 
others to find a way of giving the global (primarily US based) 
corporates a governance model which formalizes and legitimizes their 
increasingly dominant position in the variety of areas of global 
governance of which the Internet is only one-

No, we just want to keep MSism as the dominant paradigm of IG, not of any
other area of governance.
[MG>] good for you... but you should take you nose out of the router box and
take a look at 
http://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/attachments/US%20Steer
com%20Reelection%20Letter%20-%20signed%20by%20J%206-12-14.pdf

            I find myself truly baffled as to what you find so sinister
about USG support of open government initiatives. Is this just circular
reasoning, whereby it is deemed to be bad because the USG is doing it, which
can then be taken as an example of the USGs sinister agenda?

            I know the open government folks in Australia, and they are
terrific, the open government movement is something I would have thought CS
was unreservedly in favour of, but apparently not....

[MG>] I was in this casual listing simply responding to McTim's quite
ill-informed comment that MSism is not being applied in any other area of
"governance" however I think my inclusion here of Open Government
initiatives in this listing was over-hasty.  In fact OG/OGD/OGP activities
differ quite significantly from IG MSism in that for OG the MS activities
are clearly confined to advisory and accountability processes and not
decision making.. A further difference is that, at least at the moment there
is no significant corporate involvement in the OGP MS processes (a source of
concern it should be said to certain of the governmental proponents of OGP).
(I have blogged quite extensively on OG activities
<http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2011/07/03/are-the-open-data-warriors-fightin
g-for-robin-hood-or-the-sheriff-some-reflections-on-okcon-2011-and-the-emerg
ing-data-divide/> .)

http://www.oecd.org/investment/mne/34304919.pdf
http://www.slideshare.net/OECD-DAF/kane-may2014
etc.etc.

            Yes, corporate investment in nations with weak governance raises
a host of policy questions, and the USG has a position on this. Are there
specific relevant points in regards to Internet governance, or transnational
governance in general, that you are trying to make here?

[MG>] no, this is simply a listing pointing to other areas where attempts
are being made to implant MSism as a mechanism for global governance. There
was a very extensive documentation recently on an attempt including through
very heavy corporate involvement, NGO greenwashing, policy log-rolling in
favour of corporate interests from various specific national governments,
and so on to derail (or rather reconstruct in a MS format) a series of
multi-lateral agreements and I believe treaty processes for controlling of
deforestation. The result was, rather than a treaty there was a toothless MS
governance framework which postponed effective action by at least a decade,
made a few NGO/consultants and their corporate clients rich and effectively
screwed the rest of us by preventing intervention into a highly destructive
(to the common good) lucrative (to the multinational logging companies)
status quo of forest cover destruction--(sound familiar at all).  (I can't
put my finger on the references at the moment but perhaps someone reading
this will pass along the relevant link.) 

They also overlook the extent to which attempts to improve these 
implementations have been fiercely resisted.  Do I even need to 
mention this?  Jean-Christophe says "MS has mainly kept the status 
quo, and will keep maintaining it if CS do not change their music" - 
how can it be said that civil society has been in favour of the status 
quo in multi-stakeholder Internet governance?

Because by and large CS is in favour of MSism.  We saw that from WSIS thru
NetMundial.

            CS is in favour of MSism, but that doesn't mean the status quo.
Look at, for example, the moves through NetMundial and within ICANN to bring
human rights explicitly into the policy processes of technical
organisations, largely led by CS (and resisted by the technical community).

[MG>] some of CS is in favour of MSism. Full-throated almost messianic
support for MSism within CS is (thankfully) only confined to the IG space at
the moment. The technical community may be resisting human rights in the IG
space because of their built in blinders and general policy narrow-mindedess
but the corporate folks have no problem with trading off support for HR as
in "freedom of expression" and "freedom of assembly" for CS support since it
costs them nothing and gains them a huge degree of credibility including
with their staff and major market demographics. (It also not coincidentally
fits quite well with their "open networks" business models and global
marketing strategies.)   Just see what happens with that support when, as is
conventionally promoted by CS, the inclusion of "social justice" as a Human
Right is promoted.  I'm still waiting for any of the conventional CS groups
in the IG space to come out with a strong position arguing for human rights
and social justice i.e. human rights not just for the white Developed
Country middle class folks but also as it benefits everyone else in the
world.

M

            Cheers

                        David

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20141027/9eb67f6a/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