[governance] On WSIS+10 (was Re: Why?)

Thu May 21 11:40:48 EDT 2015

Dear Parminder,

I can agree with several of the points you make and your description of the
sequence of events is quite accurate. Some comments however and a
question/proposal in the end that is the most important in my view.

*Comments*

I personally would not have been opposed to a full-fledged WSIS review
(including potentially a summit level), provided however that it would have
implemented additional improvement to the participation scheme achieved ten
years ago.

Actually, the preparatory meetings organized by Unesco in 2013 and ITU in
2014 were interesting experiments in terms of more participatory processes
and drafting. But it did not seem to have impacted the minds of the New
York representatives.

As you rightly point out, in the discussions last year at the UNGA, the
positions among governments were roughly:
- on the one hand those who put the emphasis on multi-stakeholder
participation and traditionally did not want a heads of state type of event
nor a long preparatory process (for both good and bad reasons), who also
favored a meeting in Geneva
- on the other hand, as you said, "the more authoritarian countries among
the G 77 also preferred it to move to New York, with much less multi
stakeholder participation than what would have happened in Geneva, [and]
wanted it to be summit level meeting"

I have not seen the position of the G77 that you mention and confess I did
not follow this very closely. But as could be expected in pure
intergovernmental discussions (as is the case in the UNGA) in the absence
of a strong desire by all to reach an agreement, this divergence of views
was only overcome with the sort of half-baked solution that we are now
seeing (bits and pieces of each position).

I do agree that it deprives everyone of an opportunity to have a serious
review and that was the initial gist of my post to Michael: I do not expect
much from a mere resolution adopted in a two-day meeting in New York with
little if any involvement of non-governmental actors in the preparation. At
best it will reconduct the IGF with little if any improvements.

Having participated for four years in the CSTD exercise every year, I can
testify that none of the resolutions that we so painstakingly drafted in
late night sessions contained anything more than copy and paste of the
favorite sections of the various WSIS documents. I did not expect the
intergovernmental discussions in New York about the WSIS+10 to produce
anything significant - and I unfortunately was right.

But isn't it unfair to put the blame on civil society (or part of it) for
this outcome, as you seem to imply? After all, it did not have a say in the
process. I suppose in addition that it was itself split on the right thing
to do, which would have made it hard to launch a structured and strong
campaign.

It is a bit the same as the debate on who has weakened the IGF? Is it the
western countries that strongly refused to move towards recommendations (in
part true - although they provided 100% of its funding)? Is it the more
radical developing countries governments who somehow progressively stopped
coming as a way to reduce its legitimacy (also true). Or is it the
throttling by UN DESA which made it hard to receive funds, did not replace
the Chair and maintained just a skeleton of a secretariat that prevented
anything more than the organization of the annual even to be done (very
much so).

In the case of the WSIS+10, the governments in the UNGA - not civil society
- are the ones to blame for being unable to agree on anything coherent
regarding the mere format to discuss these very important issues. And this
does not bode well for any likelihood of progress on substance, hence the
legitimate caution by many regarding the role that the UN can play in that
regard. An unfortunate self-reinforcing feedback loop.

We'll see what happens.

*Question/proposal*

*To end on a positive and more forward-looking note, what would be YOUR
hopes for the WSIS+10 Review meeting and resolution? What do you think it
can achieve? What could be civil society contribution to the shaping of the
agenda and document? Suggestions welcome, as it might be a useful thread on
this list - provided we focus on what unites rather than what divides.*

Best

Bertrand

*PS*: As a matter of clarification, I do not sit on the ICANN Board since
the end of 2013 (the Buenos Aires meeting) and therefore have no
association with the positions that it has taken since then on the issues
at stake here.

"*Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes*", Antoine de
Saint Exupéry
("*There is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans*")BERTRAND DE
LA CHAPELLEInternet & Jurisdiction Project | Directoremail
bdelachapelle at internetjurisdiction.netemail bdelachapelle at gmail.comtwitter
@IJurisdiction <https://twitter.com/IJurisdiction> | @bdelachapelle
<https://twitter.com/bdelachapelle>mobile +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32
www.internetjurisdiction.net[image: A GLOBAL MULTI-STAKEHOLDER DIALOGUE
PROCESS]

On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 2:50 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
wrote:

>
>
> On Tuesday 19 May 2015 11:57 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
>
> Michael,
>
>  I am not sure I see what you mean below by "working to undermine and
> diminish the significance of the WSIS+10"?
>
>  What surely could undermine the WSIS+10 process is that it will most
> likely be less open to non-state actors - and civil society in particular -
> than the WSIS itself 10 years ago. Unless things have changed, and
> according to the excellent summary by APC
> <https://www.apc.org/en/news/everything-you-need-know-about-wsis10-review>
> :
>
>  *the review is going to be "a two-day high-level meeting of the General
> Assembly". The document will be prepared by "an intergovernmental
> negotiation process, which will include preparatory meetings, resulting in
> an intergovernmentally agreed outcome document, for adoption at the
> high-level meeting of the General Assembly".*
>
>
>
>
> *Bertrand What Michael says above relates to how we reached the state of
> affair described in the cited section* from APC's summary.
>
> I am sure you know how we reached the situation whereby
>
> "
>
>
>
> *the review is going to be "a two-day high-level meeting of the General
> Assembly". The document will be prepared by "an intergovernmental
> negotiation process, which will include preparatory meetings, resulting in
> an intergovernmentally agreed outcome document, for adoption at the
> high-level meeting of the General Assembly".  " *
>
> *Over many months last year, and the year before, G 77 sought a full
> fledged WSIS plus 10 summit on the same style as the original WSIS, the
> extended preparatory meetings and all.... Developed countries, under the
> customary US leadership, simply refused. Some m*ajor NGOs that otherwise
> follow this process closely were either silent or actually supporting the
> developed country position in this stand off, and to that extent opposing
> the position of a full fledged WSIS summit, original WSIS style (which
> would have then taken place in Geneva, with multistakeholder participation
> at least at the same level as was in the original WSIS). When this was
> happening, I raised the issue a few times on these list but got no
> response. It is really strange in the circumstances to now rue that this
> has happened.
>
> It is a fact that the more authoritarian countries among the G 77 also
> preferred it to move to New York, with much less multi stakeholder
> participation than what would have happened in Geneva, even though they
> wanted it to be summit level meeting. *However, G 77 as a group was ready
> to do it fully original WSIS style*, with the leadership for this
> position taken by the more democratic developing countries. However, this
> position found no support from civil society and tech groups (ISOC) who
> otherwise were closely following the process, and there were in fact
> positions articulated that expressed some kinds of 'fear' about a possible
> full-fledged summit, with these positions largely aligning with developed
> country positions.
>
> That is what brought us were we are. Lets not escape the responsibility.
>
> Further, as I said in my earlier email, the CEO of ICANN - an organisation
> on whose board both you and Wolfgang sit - openly touted Net Mundial
> Initiative as something needed to stop governments from doing what they
> would in default (of NMI)  do through the WSIS and its preparatory process.
> With this kind of sentiment, publicly expressed, it is clear what ICANN and
> others of the dominant IG cohort think of the WSIS process....
>
> Quoting Fadi  on why Net Mundial is needed -
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/12/im_begging_you_to_join_netmundial_initiative_gets_desperate/?page=2
>
> "We need to make sure that next June (referring to the start of WSIS prep
> process) we don't have delegation after delegation going to UNGA [the
> United Nations General Assembly] saying there are no solutions to these
> issues.
>
> And then now to express regret about the health of the WSIS process !?
>
>
>  For sure, modalities for consultation of relevant WSIS stakeholders are
> supposed to be put in place, but there is a big question mark in that
> regard at the moment, isn't it?
>
>  In that context, maybe the motto should be: the real WSIS+10 is the IGF
> 2015. Why don't we make it so?
>
>
> Yes, that kind of sentiment is and was precisely the problem which led to
> where we stand today. But then lets not try to have our cake and eat it
> too ...
>
> parminder
>
>
>  Best
>
>  Bertrand
>
>
>   "*Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes*", Antoine de
> Saint Exupéry
> ("*There is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans*")
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Wolfgang, I must say that I find your statement below exceedingly odd in
>> that you seem to have ignored the manner in which a number of the leading
>> "civil society" organizations have been working alongside their USG and
>> UKG
>> (and other) allies to undermine and diminish the significance of the WSIS
>> +10 process.
>>
>> M
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of
>> "Kleinwächter,
>> Wolfgang"
>> Sent: May 19, 2015 3:01 PM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder; David Cake
>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; BestBitsList; Forum at Justnetcoalition.
>> Org
>>  Subject: [governance] Why?
>>
>> Sorry for intervening: It is really a pitty that the discussion on this
>> list
>> is occupied by hairsplitting, "I told you but you do not listen" and "I am
>> right and you are wrong". Why this civil society network, which once
>> played
>> an important role in policy development in the WSIS process, is unable to
>> look forward where the real challenges are with the forthcoming WSIS 10+
>> processes and concentrate on substance and how to reach rough consensus?
>> Why
>> people do not respect anymore what Jon Postel has told us a quarter of a
>> century ago in his robustness princple: "Be conservative in what you send,
>> be liberal in what you accept". Why they do not remember the language of
>> the
>> CS WSIS Geneva Declaration from 2003?
>>
>> The Bali split (2013) has obviously long shadows and old warriors have
>> overtaken the discussion.
>>
>> My hope is that the WSIS 10++ perspective will encourage a new generation
>> of
>> younger civil society people who feel more committed to the substance of
>> real civil society activities and do not waste the limited resources and
>> energies for infighting. And do not forget: The WGIG proposal for a
>> multistakeholder approach in Internet Governance (2005) was a compromise
>> between "governmental leadership" (China) and private sector leadership
>> (USA)and it opened the door for civil society to become an inclusive part
>> of
>> the process. This was a boig achievement of that time and an opportunity.
>> It
>> is now up to the next generation of civil society activists to build on
>> this
>> oppportunity. It would be a big shame if this would be destroyed.
>>
>> Wolfgang
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150521/f2531f70/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