[governance] [Internet Policy] The Wuzhen Initiative & Fadi
Nick Ashton-Hart
nashton at consensus.pro
Mon Dec 21 15:31:00 EST 2015
Dear Michael,
The WSIS+10 documents very definitely includes that concept, as did dozens of the speeches made by countries at the conference itself endorsing the outcome document.
> On 21 Dec 2015, at 21:28, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for this most interesting and useful document Wolfgang.
>
> However, I read it and even reread it looking for any reference to
> "democracy" as a principle for Internet Governance (if only aspirational),
> perhaps in tandem with "human rights" which the events (and you) seem to
> have covered quite effectively.
>
> Was the notion of democratic governance never discussed in any of these
> three events and if not, surely you as a scholar in the area of Global
> Governance might be expected to note this as an absence worthy of comment.
>
> Tks,
>
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: InternetPolicy [mailto:internetpolicy-bounces at elists.isoc.org] On
> Behalf Of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
> Sent: December 21, 2015 11:07 AM
> To: Frank, Carl <CFrank at wileyrein.com>; Nick Ashton-Hart
> <nashton at consensus.pro>
> Cc: internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org
> Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] The Wuzhen Initiative & Fadi
>
> Hi
>
> FYI, here is hiw I see Wuzhen:
> http://www.circleid.com/members/5851/
>
> Wolfgang
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: InternetPolicy im Auftrag von Frank, Carl
> Gesendet: Mo 21.12.2015 09:09
> An: Nick Ashton-Hart
> Cc: internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org
> Betreff: Re: [Internet Policy] The Wuzhen Initiative & Fadi
>
> Nick: +1
>
> Carl R. Frank
> 1776 K St NW
> Washington DC 20006
> USA
> O + 1 202 719-7269
> F + 1 202 719-7049
>
>
>> On Dec 21, 2015, at 3:04 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro>
> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Paul,
>>
>> Thanks for your time in replying.
>>
>> Let me start by saying that I understand the various caveats that you
> outline below related to the language in the document associated with the
> conference.
>>
>> Secondly, it is your view that it is false to suggest that agreeing to be
> involved in the outcome process of Wuzhen has no connection to the language
> the hosts have proposed for the initiative. Of course it is your prerogative
> to do that, but I simply don't believe that's true: that language is clearly
> stated as being proposed as the underpinnings of the initiative itself.
> Those of you who participate in it MAY be able to change it over the course
> of time, but we have to accept that the starting place is what is stated in
> the text, very clearly.
>>
>> If you are agreeing to be a part of a process which has a proposed
> foundation, which is the case for Fadi here (and the others presumably) then
> the reality is that you can expect the outside world to see you as
> identified with that process, and the process identified with the starting
> language.
>>
>> Let me be clear. The language in that document - and in specific the lack
> of the term 'multistakeholder' - is exactly what countries like China,
> Russia, and others (you can fill in the blanks) were pushing very hard for
> in the WSIS negotiations. It was an extreme effort into the early hours to
> keep that language out and end up with the balanced paragraphs we have now..
> The language on state sovereignty in the Wuzhen document is also in the same
> category: a very heavy lift by a lot of people to prevent that really
> harmful construction from remaining in the WSIS outcome.
>>
>> Fadi - and anyone else who chose to be a part of the outcome process of
> Wuzhen - could have chosen to say that they would be a part of a process
> which would come up with a document with the elements in the declaration.
> However, instead, they climbed aboard the Wuzhen process despite it starting
> from a terrible, terrible place.
>>
>> I'm sorry, I respect the hell out of you Paul, but on this whole business
> we must agree to disagree. I believe it is entirely reasonable for the
> initiative to be associated with a document whose language is clearly
> intended by the hosts for that association to be made. I also believe that
> it was entirely inappropriate for Fadi to fly directly from New York to
> Wuzhen and so visibly be connected with an initiative that is itself so
> connected to such toxic language. He is extremely well-aware of how toxic
> the language in that text is and of what it took to keep it out of WSIS as
> Veni was on delegation to the negotiations, as was I. Saying that he'll be
> involved only in his personal capacity when he was clearly invited to speak
> at Wuzhen solely because he's ICANN CEO only makes the situation worse.
>>
>> Finally, I find it hard to believe that the timing of the Wuzhen summit
> was accidental in entirely overlapping with WSIS+10 in New York, given that
> Wuzhen was organised after the WSIS+10 dates were announced. I find it
> simply impossible to believe that the fact that the language presented in
> the Wuzhen outcome accidentally contained the very same toxic linguistic
> constructions that we have all fought so hard to get away from for a decade
> or longer.
>>
>> I think everyone here understands what China's view of open networks, and
> all that goes along with it, really is: it isn't as if they're not pretty
> open about it. If you believe that you can help to change their view by
> participating in Wuzhen, that's great! Engagement is important. However,
> lets all do it with our eyes open as to what that government's current
> motivations really are - and it isn't a multistakeholder, human-rights and
> people-centred Internet. Its an Orwellian one.
>>
>>
>>> On 21 Dec 2015, at 03:18, Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> With respect Nick, this is a serious misunderstanding and
> misrepresentation of what happened.
>>>
>>> The "Wuzhen initiative" is a statement by the WIC Secretariat, and not an
> outcome of the conference in any way. It was not presented to the
> conference, or even announced during the conference; it was released
> afterwards. And I don't think anyone is claiming otherwise, except
> mistakenly or with malice.
>>>
>>> The "High-level Advisory Committee" (HAC) did not produce the document.
> We were called to a meeting where the document was presented to us, and we
> gave our advice. The result of that discussion was positive: ensuring that
> the document was not presented as a result of the conference, or as any kind
> of "declaration" (which was on the cards initially), but rather as an
> initiative of the Secretariat.
>>>
>>> There was limited discussion with the HAC on the content of the
> document.. Of a few contributions in the time available, I made a strong
> but unsuccessful case that the "multistakeholder" should replace
> "multilateral" in the 5th clause; the counterargument was that the words
> used came from WSIS and are therefore acceptable, while at the same time the
> document does recognise the full range of stakeholders. (To be clear: the
> WSIS+10 documentation was not available at the time of this discussion; but
> we do now have a good precedent to bring in the WSIS+10 result at the next
> opportunity.)
>>>
>>> Finally, it's completely false, and quite outrageous frankly, to claim
> that Fadi endorsed any language in the WIC meeting; when as I said the
> document was not even released until after the meeting. As for claims of
> abuse and personal benefits, those are unjustified and completely unfair.
>>>
>>> This is not a good time to be subscribing to rumours and spinning up
> false stories, so I hope we can return to a rational discussion of Wuzhen
> and put it in a proper perspective.
>>>
>>> Paul.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 20 Dec 2015, at 18:28, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear Joly, and others,
>>>>
>>>> From my perspective, Fadi went from the WSIS+10 Summit - where
> negotiators spent three nights until 0300 fighting to ensure
> multistakeholderism wasn't downgraded - to Wuzhen and endorsed the exact
> language we all fought so hard to get rid of in front of hundreds of
> millions of Chinese.
>>>>
>>>> What he did is frankly shameful and undermines what so many of us in
> the WSIS process have fought so hard for. The idea that he's doing this in
> his personal capacity is risible; he'd never have been offered a speaking
> slot in that capacity, only as ICANN's CEO.
>>>>
>>>> What he did is an abuse of his position and as far as I can tell
> entirely to benefit himself. It certainly doesn't benefit the Internet he
> claims to care so much about.
>>>>
>>>>> On 20 Dec 2015, at 00:12, Joly MacFie <joly at punkcast.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Was there mention of anything approaching multistakeholderism? What
> issues were to the fore?
>>>>>
>>>>> j
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 6:04 PM, TH Schee <schee at fertta.com
> <mailto:schee at fertta.com>> wrote:
>>>>> The initiative has been particularly powerful in China with regard to
> introducing of the whole idea around internet governance, given the Summit
> has been broadcasted all over CCTVs last week. The Wuzhen Initiative has
> effectively serve as the cornerstone of understanding for, say, if not a
> billion, hundreds of millions of people.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 6:56 AM, Joly MacFie <joly at punkcast.com
> <mailto:joly at punkcast.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/12/18/ex_icann_ceo_will_work_with_china/
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/12/18/ex_icann_ceo_will_work_with_china/>
>>>>> The official outline for the Wuzhen Initiative - designed by the
> High-Level Advisory Committee (HAC) that Chehade now co-chairs - appears
> harmless enough but contains what internet governance experts will
> immediately recognize as troubling efforts to legitimize online censorship.
>>>>>
>>>>> The second point of five guiding principles is "Fostering cultural
> diversity in the cyberspace." The fourth is "Ensuring peace and security in
> cyberspace," and the last is "Improving the global Internet governance."
>>>>>
>>>>> The document <http://www.wuzhenwic.org/2015-12/18/c_48241.htm> notes
> the "importance of respect for nations' sovereignty in cyberspace" and
> specifically fails to use the term "multi-stakeholder" in the context of
> internet governance, instead opting for the loaded term "multilateral,"
> which is code for putting governments in overall control.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 <tel:218%20565%209365> Skype:punkcast
>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> -
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe,
>>>>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal:
>>>>> https://portal.isoc.org/ <https://portal.isoc.org/>
>>>>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> TH Schee | M: +1-646-820-0002 <tel:%2B1-646-820-0002> | @scheeinfo
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> -
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe,
>>>>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal:
>>>>> https://portal.isoc.org/
>>>>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe,
>>>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal:
>>>> https://portal.isoc.org/
>>>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.
>>>
>>> ________________________________________________________________________
>>> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net
>>> http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe,
>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal:
>> https://portal.isoc.org/
>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.
>
> _______________________________________________
> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe,
> please log into the ISOC Member Portal:
> https://portal.isoc.org/
> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151221/55dbacfa/attachment.sig>
-------------- 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