[WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [governance] Re: [WSIS-CT] Background of my objection on final statement of Internet Governance Caucus

[Jeanette Hofmann]

I find it difficult to respond to these accusations since I cannot even 
sure that you mean me, YJ, as you don't mention names but prefer to 
speak rather abstractly about opinion leaders.

I certainly don't have what you call "inside connections with ICANN", 
and I defenitely never said or believed that "control of the
Internet by US government will guarantee stable and reliable connections
but it would be "awful" if such control is attempted by
"intergovernmental body".

If I read your email correctly, you blame the caucus for defining
Internet Governance rather broadly and thus not paying enough attention
to ICANN matters. As far as I am concerned, this is indeed true.

However, the reason why I wouldn't want to focus solely on ICANN is not,
as you suggest, because I want to protect ICANN but rather because I have
learned a lot thanks to WSIS. I very much believe what I said today at
the plenary: "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 fact that I support a broader understanding of Internet Governance
than I used to doesn't mean that I have a hidden agenda. Also, the
IG caucus is open and diverse enough to accommodate a broad variety of
opinions, including yours. I would even say that it is the diversity of
the IG caucus that accounts for its rather general statements, which
lack the specific issues and strong opinions you are asking for.

I would very much prefer if you expressed you views on the
caucus list instead of getting everybody else involved, if you addressed
people directly instead of talking about opinion leaders, and if you
gave proof when you make far-reaching reproaches such as that you have
been treated differently than other members.

jeanette

> As I said clearly in my previous message, I cannot endorse the current
> Internet Governance caucus as a legitimate civil society forum to address
> issues associated with Internet Governance properly. If necessary,
> "intent to create new caucus" will be submitted to contents and theme G.
> 
> This caucus has placed too much emphasis on tensions between civil
> society and governments more specifically governments from the South
> and civil society in general.
> 
> Somehow opinion leaders of this caucus strongly believe control of the
> Internet by US government will guarantee stable and reliable connections
> but it would be "awful" if such control is attempted by "intergovernmental
> body".
> 
> WSIS CS is willing to pick up human rights issues of Tunisian gov't
> practice but have no guts to talk about collection of finger prints and
> eye inspection whenever people from other countries enter the USA.
> 
> Where are human rights activists who address this issue at WSIS?
> How can CS at WSIS be so sensitive to human rights issues of South
> Gov't and numb to that of governments from the North?
> 
> 
>>Just to clarify, this statement was not delivered as "civil society's"
>>position on Internet Governance, which would be difficult to support.
>>It represented the position reached within the Content and Themes
>>meeting, which had wide participation of several caucuses and working
>>groups.  It was presented as the statement of the IG caucus, after wide
>>consultation of several caucuses, and the endorsement of the content
>>and themes group.  Which I think is a great achievement in an
>>increasingly fragmented and divisive civil society population.
> 
> 
> I don't think I have to explain again why on this matter. A like-minded
> group consistently rejected incorporating different positions.
> 
> 
>>The decision to accept the IG caucus statement was taken while YJ was
>>out of the room. When she entered the room, she sought to reverse the
>>decision even though we were moving on to another point in the agenda.
> 
> 
> That was intended to raise awareness of real face of Internet Governance
> caucus in the CS. I am gald we can start this discussion and can get CS
> at WSIS have chances to have broader perspective on this issue. I wonder
> how many CS in that room who applaused on such a statement knew the
> statement they just endorsed would expedite "Colonization" in cyber space.
> 
> 
>>In my own view, in light of the word "civil," we should try as much as
>>possible to respect decisions of groups to which we have not been
>>present for.  To try and reverse a decision that was taken after wide
>>consultation and with general agreement after it has been taken can
>>only be called hijacking.
> 
> 
> Please, do things in civil manner. I have unfortunately experienced so
> many "uncivil" behaviors from so many actors through this whole
> Internet Governance debate since 1999.
> 
> 
>>I have respect for YJ's expertise and her passion for her views.  But I
>>can not accept her disregard for our processes because her own views
>>were not taken up by the caucus and content and themes.
> 
> 
> Sometimes I wonder where my passion comes from... I think my passion
> is originated a number of memories of uncivil incidents perpetrated by
> those who still dominate Internet governance caucus.
> 
> I think I have been in this debate. But in many occasions I was treated
> as "second-citizens" or opinion leaders at this caucus pretended I don't
> even exist.
> 
> I can describe things more specifically as you just did in the public list
> but
> I will reserve such description of my previous uncivil experiences at
> WSIS or even back in ICANN period with some of opinion leaders
> of this caucus in a civil manner.
> 
> Whenever I had such uncivil experiences with opinon leaders of this
> caucus in many occasions I always wonder how could this happen in
> civil society.
> 
> Where is gender caucus? Where is human rights caucus? Can emphasis
> on human rights and gender be applied to certain races who have blue
> or green eyes but not for me?
> 
> As a woman from a marginalized world in Internet governance debate
> since 1999, I sincerely seek your understanding that I am also a human
> being who have limited patience on uncivil behaviors.
> 
> Sincerely,
> YJ
> 
> 
> 
>>Respectfully,
>>
>>Rik Panganiban
>>
>>On Feb 24, 2005, at 9:09 AM, YJ Park wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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
>>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Ct mailing list
>>>Ct at wsis-cs.org
>>>http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/ct
>>>Civil Society Plenary: http://www.wsis-cs.org/
>>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Ct mailing list
>>Ct at wsis-cs.org
>>http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/ct
>>Civil Society Plenary: http://www.wsis-cs.org/
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance