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

[Meryem Marzouki]

Le vendredi, 25 fév 2005, à 12:56 Europe/Paris, YJ Park a écrit :

>> Moreover, as one of the few persons having kept raising deep concerns
>> since early steps of WSIS regarding "multistakeholder partnership", I
>> feel rather comfortable with the fact that the Internet governance
>> caucus statement has been agreed upon by many caucuses, including the
>> HR caucus, in a very inclusive and open process during internet
>> governance caucus meeting and, later, during the C&T meeting session.
>> The reasons are that:
>> (1) one has to acknowledge that the vast majority of CS organizations
>> are favoring the multistakeholder approach, and even though my own
>> organization is against that (and I know that many HR caucus members
>> also are), one cannot fairly object to the current reality at WSIS,
>
> Then why did you approve multi-stakeholder approach?

I haven't, and the HR caucus haven't, approved it. As I've tried to 
explain in my former message, we have found it fair to not object to 
the reality of CS @ WSIS, taking into account that this statement is 
made on behalf of the IG caucus, that it also contains other points 
which are quite good, that the whole process of elaborating the IG 
caucus document has been quite fair and open, and, above all, that we 
commonly decided to have other statements from other caucuses 
expressing/detailing other visions.

[...]

> So are you suggesting people have specific concerns in Internet 
> Governance
> should form another caucus to address Internet governance issues 
> properly
> at WSIS?

First of all and generally speaking, any group is free to set up a 
caucus or a working group on its own to express its own vision of any 
issue. This, I think, has been the rule since the begining. I don't 
know if another caucus would express IG issues "properly", but I'm sure 
it will do this _differently_, and I have nothing against that. As a 
matter of fact, I wouldn't qualify as "proper" the way any caucus 
addresses any issue. I can simply tell you, if you're interested, which 
caucus addresses which issue in a way that I agree with, but this 
doesn't mean it is a "proper" way.

But the point is that the IG caucus should never have been a caucus, 
but a working group. In my opinion, a caucus expresses a commonly 
shared vision, while a working group is addressing an issue with no 
necessarily elaborated vision (the issue addressed may simply be not 
mature enough) and in any case not necessarily shared by all members.

I think we already tried to address this distinction between caucuses 
and working groups, and this discussion is still open among CS 
participants.

>> Finally, I'd be very grateful if you refreign from inappropriate
>> comparisons between the HR situation in Tunisia and in some other
>> countries (specially when you only express concerns on collection of
>> finger prints and eye inspection whenever people from other countries
>> enter the USA, while this country should be accused of far more 
>> drastic
>> HR violations, including violations of human integrity and dignity), 
>> if
>> only for the minimal respect due to the situation of HR defenders in
>> Tunisia. I'd also be very grateful if you refreign from joining the
>> global south instrumentalization game here : frankly, I had enough of
>> this from the official Tunisians themselves during this last two 
>> weeks.
>> Many thanks in advance for that.
>
> I believe political regulation depends on rulers' faith in their own 
> power.
> You probably must have heard USG did indeed the very same thing
> after 911 against those who looked like Arabs and indeed many
> people including non-Arabs moved to countries like Canana.

YJ, I really don't find this comment fair and honnest. I've myself 
mentioned violations of human integrity and dignity by the USA. And it 
seems that you've clearly understood what it means, from Guantanamo to 
Iraq, not to mention what happened inside the US.

> You have not heard of such stories? I have not heard any strong
> objections put forwarded by human activists' voices regarding this
> matter?

Oh really ?

> But you maybe right if we compare those two countries with the
> same criteria. But to compare those two different nations who are
> in different economic and political situation would not be quite fair.
>
> Those countries who have unacceptable regulations on human rights
> would have better system if they themselves believe they have stable
> political power based on independently well-established economic
> system.

Interesting how HR violations can be accepted/balanced with some 
strange, though old and well known, "arguments" (and to see the point 
that can be reached in a whole discussion started on ICANN being in the 
hands of the US government). Respecting HR is neither a matter of 
economic development, nor a matter of culture, but, OK, let's compare 
comparable countries: what about comparing Tunisia to other North 
African/Arab/African countries? what about considering that countries 
with lower income and less developed economy may show better respect 
for HR ? and, finally, what would you think if I show you how in 
Tunisia, HR violations negatively impact ICT economy and services ? I 
can propose you to have a look, as a start, at the notes of my 
presentation at a press conference entitled "WSIS in Tunis: An 
Information Summit under Repression?" held in Geneva. They are at: 
http://www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/hr-wsis/confpresse-ai-mm-en.html

Meryem