Fwd: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [WSIS-CT] Comments on the draft CS document

[Meryem Marzouki <marzouki@ras.eu.org>]

Another reaction.

Début du message réexpédié :

> De: Adam Peake <ajp@glocom.ac.jp>
> Date: Sam 12 juil 2003  16:05:14 Europe/Paris
> À: plenary@wsis-cs.org, ct@wsis-cs.org, hr-wsis@iris.sgdg.org,  
> "MeryemMarzouki" <marzouki@ras.eu.org>
> Objet: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [WSIS-CT] Comments on the draft CS  
> document
>
> No time to reply on all of this.
>
> I was pretty happy with the language as appeared in the first draft  
> (i.e. Woflgang ver. 1.)  Though Meryem's quite right that the 2nd para  
> (content regulation, free speech, etc.) needs cleaning up.  My  
> understanding is that it was intended to define what was meant by  
> "Internet Governance" (i.e. not just naming and addressing.) I think  
> it may be better not to use Internet + Governance.  Perhaps "Global  
> ICT Governance" instead?  Global ICT Governance as an area of  
> study/discipline.
>
> But with the rest of the comments (and also many of the other long  
> contributions coming in) it's very difficult to endorse a document  
> when significant changes look like they may be introduced.
>
>  "multiple root servers", "strict international regulation" -- sorry,  
> no way!  And new text on issues not previously discussed  
> (protocols/standards and compatibility with international human rights  
> standards) need to be clarified and implications understood (at this  
> time I cannot support.)
>
> Think we must try to limited changes to a minimum and to issues that  
> we have had some discussion about previously.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Adam
>
>
> At 10:28 AM +0200 7/12/03, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:
>> Hi Meryem,
>>
>> I (wolfgang) am the main responsible person for the final language of  
>> the governance paragraph. I tried to bring all discussed positions on  
>> a extrem complex issue into some simple key points. This  
>> simplification opens unfortunately the door for misinterpretation.  
>> The points you have raised are not in contradiction with the proposed  
>> language and I see no basic problem, to harmonize the two approaches.  
>> (see my comments below)
>>
>> First of all, the second paragraph of this section (on the definition
>>>  of a "Global Internet Governance") is completely contradictory with  
>>> the
>>>  whole CS vision reflected not only in this draft document, but also  
>>> in
>>>  all the CS document endorsed by a wide number of organizations since
>>>  the beginning of the WSIS process. As it is, this paragraph means  
>>> that
>>>  the undersigned organizations are in favor of establishing special
>>>  rules for a "cyberspace" (what the hell could this be?!), different
>>>  from the common rule of law.
>>
>> The proposed paragraph does NOT say that the rules should be  
>> different from "common rule of law". In contrary, it says that CS  
>> should be in favour of "the common rules of law" for the cyberspace.  
>> And even more, in cases, where new or revised or enlarged rules are  
>> needed (eCommerce, IPR, InfoSec/Privacy etc.), citizens should be  
>> involved directly in the policy development and the rule making.
>>
>> This is in particular contradictory with
>>>  the priorities set by the Human Rights caucus. What is proposed in  
>>> this
>>  > paragraph is to establish and/or follow special rules and  
>> regulation in
>>  > the "cyberspace".
>>  > This is unacceptable because this would open the door to non  
>> democratic
>>  > process, or open it more than it is already, "thanks to" entities  
>> like
>>  > ITU, ICANN, WTO, WIPO, etc.
>>
>> This is a misinterpretation. The proposed language is in favour of  
>> "multi-stakeholder" approach, that is the inclusion of civil society  
>> (as one main stakeholder) into global communication negotiations.  
>> With other words, the proposed paragraph critisizes ITU, WTO, WIPO  
>> and also ICANN, because these are organisations, where NGOs and CSOs  
>> and ALMs play so far only a limited or no role. It invites WTO etc.  
>> to open the doors for CS groups and to offer them a seat on the  
>> negotiation table.
>>
>>
>>  > "Content regulation, free speech, access, privacy, information
>>>  security, data protection, e-commerce, intellectual property rights,
>>>  information infrastructure development etc." should by no mean be
>>>  governed in such thing as a "global internet governance" framework  
>>> but,
>>>  on the contrary, should be dealt with, taking into account the
>>>  peculiarities of such issues, in the framework of national and
>>  > international common rule of law and specially in reference to UN
>>>  International Covenant on both civil and political rights and  
>>> economic,
>>>  social and cultural rights.
>>
>> Here I fully agree. This is a "friendly amendment" and I would fully  
>> endorse the references both to the Universal Declaration on Human  
>> Rights (1948) and the two covenants (1966).
>>
>>>  Therefore, I'm asking for the complete withdrawal of this paragraph
>>>  from the "Global governance" section.
>>>
>>>  Secondly, I have never seen - and certainly not on the governance
>>>  working group list - any consensus to affirm that "global  
>>> governance in
>>  > information societies should be based on a multistakeholder  
>> bottom-up
>>>  policy development process (buPDP)" [first paragraph of this  
>>> section],
>>>  specially since this "global governance" goes far beyond the sole  
>>> issue
>>>  of Internet names, numbers and protocols. Moreover, what does  
>>> "(buPDP)
>>>  should be open in particular to stakeholders most closely concerned  
>>> by
>>>  a certain policy" mean? Is it a call for global governance (not only
>>>  Internet governance) made by groups of lobbyists promoting their
>>>  particular interests?
>>
>> Multi-stakeholder approach within the WSIS process means a  
>> "tripartite approach", that is governments, civil society and private  
>> industry. I would CS organisations not describe as "lobby groups",  
>> but there are certainly "lobby groups" among the three stakeholders. 
>>
>> lI thought there was, on the contrary, a CS
>>>  consensus on democratic, inclusive, transparent, and publicly
>>>  accountable process. This is not at all what is meant by this  
>>> paragraph.
>>
>> Here I also agree with the amendments. "Democratic, transparent,  
>> inclusive etc." can be easily added and does not contradict the  
>> proposed text. 
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>  Although I share Bill Drake's concern to deal in this document not  
>>> only
>>>  with Internet governance but also with global governance, it is  
>>> obvious
>>>  that, as it is written, the "global governance" section raises  
>>> strong
>>>  objections and doesn't not even correspond to Bill's suggestion  
>>> made on
>>>  the governance list. Since we obviously don't have the time now to
>>>  discuss such complex issues as global governance, it is then  
>>> preferable
>>>  to concentrate this section only on Internet governance, and to  
>>> rewrite
>>>  it in a way that would allow wide consensus.
>>
>> My understanding form the discussion was, that the reduction /  
>> concentration of "Internet Governance" in the sense of "Governance of  
>> Internet identifiers" (that is ICANN) would be too limited and shuld  
>> be broadend. And in fact, while ICANN (fortunately) has rejected to  
>> deal with public policy related aspects of Internet Governance, there  
>> are at the moment only established inter-governmental organisations  
>> (like the ITU) or industry groups (likle the GBDe) which claim to  
>> overtake the "leading" or "central" role in policy development. The  
>> propoised paragraph calls for a broader approach, that is the  
>> inclusion of civil society in policy develoment and decision kaing on  
>> public policy issues, which are related to the further development of  
>> the Internet and its various applications.
>>
>>
>> Here is an alternative
>>>  proposal for that:
>>>
>>>  ==========
>>>  "Internet governance
>>>
>>>  An information and communication society good governance must be  
>>> based
>>>  on the values of participation, transparency, accountability and the
>>>  rule of law. This particularly implies the democratic management of
>>>  international bodies dealing with ICTs. Given the borderless
>>>  characteristics of ICTs, decision making bodies should ensure the
>>>  respect of principles of democracy and openness, as well as of  
>>> legality
>>>  and sovereignty.
>>>
>>>  In particular, the management of the core resources of the Internet,
>>>  that are the Internet protocols, standards and identifiers such as
>>>  domain names and IP addresses, must serve the public interest at the
>>>  global, national and local levels.
>>>
>>>  To this end, the current management of Internet names and numbers
>>>  should specially be revised, taking into account the possibility of  
>>> the
>>>  coexistence of multiple root servers, provided that a strict
>>>  international regulation be defined and enforced for their good
>>  > articulation and global consistency.
>>
>> I have my doubts whether it makes sense to call for a "revision" of  
>> the current system of names and numbers management. The risk here is  
>> that you will get support from "false friends" :-(
>>
>> Furthermore, any decision made on
>>>  protocols and standards should be compatible with international  
>>> human
>>  > rights standards, and specially the rights to freedom of  
>> expression, to
>>>  privacy, and the principle of non discrimination. Such decisions  
>>> should
>>>  also allow a better balanced flow of information."
>>
>> Here I agree again 100 pro :-)
>>
>> Best
>>
>> wolfgang
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________________ 
>> ________
>> Werden Sie kreativ! Jetzt HTML-Mails nicht nur schreiben - nein -
>> GESTALTEN, bei WEB.DE FreeMail!  
>> http://freemail.web.de/features/?mc=021141
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Plenary mailing list
>> Plenary@wsis-cs.org
>> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>
>
> -- 
> _______________________________________________
> Ct mailing list
> Ct@wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/ct
> Civil Society Plenary: http://www.wsis-cs.org/
> Content & Themes Documents:  
> http://bscw.fit.fraunhofer.de/pub/bscw.cgi/0/42953798
>