[WSIS CS-Plenary] YJ's objection and the CS-PS statement

[YJ Park]

Dear Lisa,

Thank you!

I was struggling to explain your second point at yesterday's CT
meeting and I failed to articulate danger of "multi-stakeholder"
approach as you did successfully here.

You well described another face of "multi-stakeholder" approach
and this can lead to another question. Why governments in general
who strongly support civil society participation in WSIS don't allow
meaningful civil society participation in IMF, and WTO?

So, governments in control of global decision-making process can
actually decide when they can take advantage of civil society.

YJ

> My response will associate two issues:
>
> First, thank you YJ for your candid and very important critique of
> the adoption of the CS Internet Governance caucus's position as *the*
> WSIS CS position. I'm not surprised by your response, as you've
> always been a most discerning individual and necessary critical voice
> during these WSIS preparations.
>
> In what follows, I'm not suggesting that YJ necessarily shares my
> opinion. But I'd put forward that what is being addressed here,
> broadly speaking, is that "civil society" exists as a false unity (it
> always has, if one studies the history of the term). To connect this
> to the second issue, however, which is the development of a joint
> CS-PS statement, I would ask that this not be presented as *the* CS
> position. CS and the PS have not been similarly excluded from the
> much touted WSIS "multi-stakeholder" process, and the CCBI's stance
> is similar to the "pitiful giant" one of the US government and
> corporate sector during the NWICO debates (I know that there's been a
> great deal of effort to disassociate WSIS from this "event" but one
> honestly cannot do so; of course, by now, CS might be composed of a
> variety of "youngsters" who've never heard of NWICO:). CCBI/ICC has
> direct access to the US state department and a variety of UN
> agencies, and more influence over US/UN IT policy than CS could ever
> dream of. Which is to say that the PS has no reason to show up in
> large numbers; they are behind the scenes players, an arrangement
> that works well in order to disguise the pervasiveness of the
> neoliberal agenda. In fact, it could be said that the WSIS opened the
> door to the PS in a way that is unprecedented but which does indicate
> the extent to which the UN (along with some CS groups) has become
> instrumentalized by the corporate sector.
>
> For now, let me just ask that signatures be gathered in support of
> this draft document and any document having to do with a "global
> alliance" that is supposed to replace the already questionable UN ICT
> Task Force. Neither me nor my organization will be signatories to
> such documents. But please allow us and others the privilege of *not*
> being represented de facto by such documents and statements that
> purportedly represent the position of CS. To do otherwise is to
> suggest that dissenters are not welcomed within CS.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lisa McLaughlin
> Union for Democratic Communications
>
>
>
>
>
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "YJ Park" <yjpark at myepark.com>
> >To: "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wz-berlin.de>;
<adinafulgaradi at yahoo.com>;
> ><ct at wsis-cs.org>; "WSIS Internet Governance Caucus"
> ><governance at lists.cpsr.org>; "karen banks" <karenb at gn.apc.org>; "Adam
Peake"
> ><ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
> >Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 9:09 AM
> >Subject: Background of my objection on final statement of Internet
> >Governance Caucus
> >
> >
> >>  Dear all,
> >>
> >>  I decided not to participate in this distorted Internet Governance
forum
> >>  in early 2004. While I attend PrepCom II of the second phase, I felt
> >>  obligation to make intervention to bring another voice to this forum.
> >>
> >>  As I addressed my concerns at "Contents and Themes Group" meeting
> >>  yesterday, the position presented by WSIS CS Internet Governance
> >>  caucus should have not been adopted as WSIS CS position.
> >>
> >>  I am speaking here as co-founder of WSIS CS Internet Governance
> >>  causcus back in Feb 2003 and also as someone who does come from
> >>  Neither USA Nor Europe Nor Japan.
> >>
> >>  This caucus has historically been dominated by actors from USA,
> >>  Europe and Japan especially those who have "INSIDE" connections
> >>  with the current Internet Governance body, ICANN.
> >>
> >>  These actors has made their best efforts to distract this caucus to
focus
> >>  on some other issues like WIPO, WTO, other internatonal organizations
> >>  and even changed the caucus name into Global ICT Governance.
> >>
> >>  When 2003 Summit declaration decideed to handle Internet Governance,
> >>  the group dominated then Global ICT Governance caucus finally
> >>  unwillingly started to deal with ICANN in a minimalist manner and
> >  > changed its name again back to Internet Governance caucus in order to
> >>  support ICANN as much as possible.
> >>
> >>  Not surprisingly I have seen comments made by members of opinion
> >>  leaders of this caucus publicly stated "CONSENSUS" of this caucus
> >>  is to side with ICANN even though they are not happy with the current
> >>  ICANN.
> >>
> >>  Internet Governance has historically referred to Internet address
> >>  management and therefore governments have been focusing on
> >>  ICANN at World Summit on Information Society. Interestingly,
> >>  WSIS CS has been reluctant to make direct comments on ICANN.
> >>
> >>  The following statement presented by Internet Governance caucus
> >>  shows exactly where the current Internet Governance caucus stands
> >>  regarding ICANN issues
> >>
> >>  That statement generally promoted the following principles and
> >>  it never specifically touched ICANN even though many people
> >>  publicly expressed their concerns in ICANN in the list.
> >>
> >>  1. Multi-stakeholder
> >>  2. Human Rights (freedom of expression and privacy)
> >>  3. Civil Society participation in the WSIS process
> >>  4. This paragraph seems to describe the ICANN in principle.
> >>
> >>  ICANN in principle calims it includes decisions by individual users,
> >>  it consists of a series of private agreements including its MoU US
> >>  Department of Commerce. ICANN also claims it respects national
> >>  policies, and it is indeed an international and transnational body in
> >>  appearance at least it could succeed in reaching out Europe.
> >>
> >>  5. General issues in Internet Governance.
> >>
> >>  > Unilateral control of the root zone file and its effects for the
name
> >>  > space
> >>
> >>  > The crucial role of technical standards in the preservation of an
> >>  > interoperable global Internet
> >>
> >>  Two issues associated with ICANN were listed at Internet Governance
> >>  caucus statement but interestingly those who drafted made not comments
> >>  on whether the curent system is acceptable or not.
> >>
> >>  Instead, they asked WGIG to evaluate these two.
> >>
> >>  This argument has been around since 1999. So far "technical stability"
> >>  logic always has won over "diversified technical management system".
> >>  Those who drafted this statement must have already known this.
> >>
> >>  Those who listened to today's plenary on Internet Governance would
> >>  understand this whole debate at World Summit on Information Society
> >>  is "control" issue. "WHO CONTROLS the INTERNET?"
> >>
> >>  Since ICANN was set up back in 1998, the control has been exercised
> >>  by "ONE Government" and that raises concerns from most parts of the
> >>  world. Some governments at today's plenary were willing to take risk
to
> >>  stand up against the US government more diplomatically despite
potential
> >>  accusation of axis of evils. Some governments think they can endure
the
> >>  current system as long as they have agreeable dialogue with US Gov't.
> >>
> >>  If WSIS Civil Society is willing to contribute to this debate as
> >substantial
> >>  equal partners to other stakeholders as it has been advocating, CS
should
> >>  also have made comments on why CS has serious concerns in the current
> >>  Root-server zone file management system, global ccTLD governance
> >>  mechanism, and creation of multilingual top level domain names and
asks
> >>  for more internationalized oversight function of Internet address
> >>  management.
> >>
> >>  I could not see any of these issues cleary in the following statement
and
> >>  therefore I "objected" to this statement as Civil Society position.
This
> >>  position could have been recorded as a small group of clique who have
> >>  some vested interests in this process. But it was unacceptable to
> >recognize
> >>  this as civil society position.
> >>
> >>  Sorry for long-length post to explain why I objected to this statement
> >>  at yesterday's CS Content and Themes Group.
> >>
> >>  I hope to see WSIS CS is engaged with this debate down this road
> >>  as substantial stakeholders instead of being those who promote ICANN
> >>  that expedites global standards among like-minded groups without
enough
> >>  consultation from those who don't belong to the like-minded group.
> >>
> >>  Thank you,
> >>  YJ
> >>
> >>  > Hi, everyone, this is the final version of the IG caucus' statement
that
> >>  > will be presented at tomorrow's plenary meeting. Other caucuses have
> >  > > contributed significantly. Details can be found in the document
itself.
> >>  >
> >>  > I hope we have managed to reach an acceptable compromise between at
> >>  > times conflicting criteria like length,
> >>  > inclusiveness and all-embracing political awareness....
> >>  > Adina, an rtf version for translation and printout is attached.
> >>  >
> >>  >
> >>  > Statement by the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus,
> >>  > the Gender, Human Rights, Privacy and Media Caucuses
> >>  > on behalf of the Civil Society Content and Themes Group,
> >>  > 23 February 2005, Geneva
> >>  >
> >>  >
> >>  > 1. We commend the Secretary General of the United Nations on the
> >>  > establishment of the Working Group on Internet Governance.
> >>  >
> >>  > We express our support for the WGIG's multi stakeholder approach,
and
> >>  > wish to stress that there is a fundamental difference between
> >>  > multilateral and multi stakeholder processes, and that the Summit
> >>  > documents were explicit in calling for the balanced participation of
all
> >>  > stakeholders. Legitimate and successful Internet Governance can only
be
> >>  > achieved if all concerned or affected groups have an opportunity to
> >>  > influence the outcome. Gender balanced representation in all aspects
of
> >>  > Internet Governance is vital for the process and its outcomes to
have
> >>  > legitimacy.
> >>  >
> >>  > We believe the WGIG is becoming a working model for
multi-stakeholder
> >>  > collaboration, with all sectors providing expertise and
contributions.
> >>  > The governments that agreed to this new global practice should now
take
> >>  > positive steps to ensure its full implementation.
> >>  >
> >>  > As a first step, conformity with this evolving norm should be
carefully
> >>  > assessed with respect to existing arrangements at intergovernmental
> >>  > level, like the ITU, WIPO, UNESCO, other organizations such as OECD
and
> >>  > WTO, private sector arrangements like ICANN and the IETF, and to
> >>  > emerging mechanisms.
> >>  >
> >>  > 2. The WGIG should ground its work within a human rights and
development
> >>  > framework. The rights to freedom of expression and privacy are of
> >>  > special importance in this context as is the need for a greater
emphasis
> >>  > on the principles of openness and transparency.
> >>  >
> >>  > The caucus believes that two outcomes of the WGIG that will add
> >>  > significant value are:
> >>  >
> >>  > 1. An understanding of how governance mechanisms can further these
basic
> >>  > rights and principles,
> >>  > 2. An elaboration of the concept of democratic internet governance
which
> >>  > fosters the goals of creativity, innovation and cultural and
linguistic
> >>  > diversity
> >>  >
> >>  > 3. The extent of participation from those who do not yet have access
to
> >>  > the Internet is still far from sufficient. This is especially true
for
> >>  > civil society actors. The stakeholders present during this WSIS
process
> >>  > have been, in the main, economically privileged and predominately
male.
> >>  > We would like the WGIG to make appropriate recommendations to ensure
the
> >>  > effective participation of ALL people from all regions of the world.
For
> >>  > governance mechanisms to be all-inclusive and transparent, even
women
> >>  > and men who are not yet connected by any communication technologies
> >>  > should be represented and heard.
> >>  >
> >>  > 4. All stakeholders should recognize the diversity of processes and
> >>  > mechanisms involved in Internet governance, including:
> >>  > * decisions by individual users
> >>  > * private agreements
> >>  > * national policies, and,
> >>  > * international and transnational bodies.
> >>  >
> >>  > This diversity of perspectives, opinions and values should be
reflected
> >>  > in the final report and any further outcomes of the WGIG. While we
> >>  > support WGIG's efforts to establish consensus on various issues, the
> >>  > report should go beyond consensual matters and find ways to reflect
> >>  > diversity.
> >>  >
> >>  > 5. Although Prepcom 2 is early for substantive progress on issues
and
> >>  > definitions, we wish to emphasize those that the WGIG must consider
in
> >>  > its next phase of work:
> >>  >
> >>  > * Unilateral control of the root zone file and its effects for the
name
> >>  > space
> >>  > * The crucial role of technical standards in the preservation of an
> >  > > interoperable global Internet
> >>  > * The impact of Internet Governance on freedom of expression and
privacy
> >
> >>  > * The different implications of Internet Governance for women and
men
> >>  > * The impact of Internet Governance on consumer protection
> >>  > * International Intellectual property and trade rules where they
> >>  > intersect with Internet Governance
> >>  > * Access to knowledge as global commons
> >>  >
> >>  > In addition we wish the WGIG luck in coming to closure on a coherent
and
> >>  > meaningful definition on Internet governance.
> >>  >
> >>  > The relevance of the WGIG report lies in advancing a global
> >>  > understanding of these issues. Such an understanding constitutes the
> >>  > basis of informed, inclusive and democratic approaches to Internet
> >>  > governance. We look forward to progress being made on these issues
and
> >>  > the opportunity to contribute further to WGIG's work.
> >>  >
> >>  > Regarding follow up of WGIG's final report, negotiations must be
> >>  > conducted "in an open and inclusive process that ensures a mechanism
for
> >>  > the full and active participation of governments, the private sector
and
> >>  > civil society from both developing and developed countries" as
stated in
> >>  > the Geneva declaration of principles. The final negotiated document
MUST
> >>  > reflect and honour the multi-stakeholder process that produced it.
> >>  >
> >>  > ---------------
> >>  >
> >>  > best regards, jeanette
> >>  >
> >>
> >>
>
>  -------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> >--
> >>  ----
> >>
> >>
> >>  > _______________________________________________
> >>  > governance mailing list
> >>  > governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >>  > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> >>  >
> >>
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Plenary mailing list
> >Plenary at wsis-cs.org
> >http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>
> _______________________________________________
> Plenary mailing list
> Plenary at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>