[governance] [Internet Policy] The Wuzhen Initiative & Fadi
Michael Gurstein
gurstein at gmail.com
Thu Dec 24 19:04:23 EST 2015
Yes, of course, as David Allen has already pointed out... I'm sure there
were no end of rhetorical flourishes referencing "democracy" from every
corner. But what was interesting and significant about Wolfgang's summary
was how little concern appears to have bubbled up to go beyond the rhetoric
to the rather much more difficult but absolutely essential reality of how to
achieve democratic governance of the Internet.
Clearly there is little interest in democratic governance coming from the
Wuzhen Initiative and if the same can be said for the multistakeholder
friendly IGF (where practical discussions of democratic Internet Governance
are noticeable by their effectively total absence) or from the Developing
Country (SDG) focused WSIS +10 initiative then the role for democratic
governance in an Internet dominated 21st century would appear to be a truly
bleak one.
The various science fiction dystopias which have fueled much of the more
interesting thinking around the Internet and it's future which for whatever
reason have largely focused in on neo-feudal structures as our likely
collective future (Star Wars?) would appear to be moving into position at an
even more rapid pace than even the most pessimistic have predicted.
Best of the season to one and all,
M
-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Ashton-Hart [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro]
Sent: December 21, 2015 12:31 PM
To: Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Cc: Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>;
Frank, Carl <CFrank at wileyrein.com>; internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org;
governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] The Wuzhen Initiative & Fadi
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
> WSIS+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_ch
> ina/
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/12/18/ex_icann_ceo_will_work_with_c
> hina/>
>>>>> 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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
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