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

Fri May 22 05:12:41 EDT 2015

My reading of WSIS is that the original intention was to explore how the benefits of this marvellous new technology might be shared globally and particularly through the application of ICTs to the issues/opportunities for economic and social development particularly in Less Developed Countries. The linking of the governance aspects with the developmental/social justice aspects was to ensure that however the Internet was to be “governed” it would be such as to ensure the means for the widest possible dispersal of benefits.

There was however a splitting of emphases in WSIS with an ultimate emphasis on “governance” at the expense of “development” as was strongly promoted by the Developed Countries (and those elements of Civil Society which chose to focus on a free speech agenda rather than a social justice agenda). This ensured that the original objectives for “governance” of the Internet would be lost to be replaced initially by essentially technical issues related to “governance” on the one side and ICT for Development initiatives undertaken (and thus doomed) by proceeding without an integration into a broad based and supportive policy framework, on the other.  The failure of the UN (and development agencies and others) to support a role for grassroots users and ICT practitioners in the WSIS process significantly reduced the leverage which the “developmental (and social justice) agenda” might have had and directly contributed to this unfortunate result.

The subsequent development of parallel but highly unequal tracks for “governance” and for “development/social justice” has allowed the “development” agenda to slip more or less off the radar for the multilaterals and the bilaterals even while the opportunities and risks for the “development” agenda have been accelerating.  The trivial way in which “development” is addressed at the IGF is one manifestation of this as is the formulaic and ritualistic (and essentially out of touch) way in which the “developmental” side has been dealt with in the various UNESCO and ITU and other UN forums up to and including the WSIS +10 process and the somewhat bizarre focussing on the “Data Revolution” (the “revolution” is of course about a lot more than simply “data”) in the MDG/SDG processes.

So to answer your question Bertrand if I had my druthers (and to be a bit more inclusive of what I would like to “unite”)  I would like to see a WSIS +10 which dealt with the reality of ICTs/the Internet in the context of social justice and here I would include not simply LDC’s but the increasing numbers of those being “excluded” in Developed Countries as well—specifically I would have it (and with the active involvement and promotion by CS) address issues of growing ICT/Internet based economic inequality, social exclusion, rural de-stabilization, youth unemployment and precarious work, linguistic and cultural homogenization, ICT induced job destruction, and mass surveillance among others.  I would want to see the WSIS +10 process reintegrate the governance and development/social justice elements to work towards democratic and decentralized global (Internet) governance and policy mechanisms sufficient to address these issues.

Mike

From: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] 
Sent: May 21, 2015 4:41 PM
To: parminder
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
Subject: Re: [governance] On WSIS+10 (was Re: Why?)

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 CHAPELLE

Internet & Jurisdiction Project | Director

email  <mailto:bdelachapelle at internetjurisdiction.net> bdelachapelle at internetjurisdiction.net

email  <mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com> bdelachapelle at gmail.com

twitter  <https://twitter.com/IJurisdiction> @IJurisdiction |  <https://twitter.com/bdelachapelle> @bdelachapelle

mobile +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

 <http://www.internetjurisdiction.net> www.internetjurisdiction.net

On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 2:50 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto: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 major 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 <mailto: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> 
[mailto: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 <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> ; parminder; David Cake
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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/20150522/b1ead4a6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1415 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150522/b1ead4a6/attachment.jpg>
-------------- 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