[WSIS CS-Plenary] Canada's proposal on IG forum - its COMPLETELY UNACCE

[lissjeffrey at sympatico.ca]

With our 6 hour delay, this may be moot, but here goes:
>_______________________________________

Important developments, thanks all for keeping the extended CS 'net 
community alerted. With respect to my friend and colleague Marc Raboy's 
point ( he has been observing Wsis closely for longer than I and many 
others, a fact of record), I do not share his interpretation.

As a CS member of the Canadian government delegation for 2003, it is my take 
that Canada seemed committed to the principle of multi-stakerholder 
engagement. Thus I would have expected (and believe it may still be possible 
to encourage) stronger language on the Forum and inclusion of CS and 
*meaningful* participation of developing world, instead of the wek and vague 
'capacity building'.

But Canada and many other countries and stakeholders are not persuaded about 
the workability of any Internet governance system that will result in 
sovereign states (like China, Cuba, whomever, Tunisia...)  being able to 
leverage or stalemate the IG process so as to accomplish their own political 
objectives (national intranets, not a global internet). This may be 
contentious, and I am sorry if so, but I heard this in my recent trip to 
Mexico, have heard this from many quarters, and have reason to conclude that 
Canada is not alone in this view.

It is one thing to argue that the US should not dominate the Internet 
governance; it is quite another to agree on the replacement - and that is 
not news to any on this list!

A counter interpretation is possible: I  believe what we are seeing is NOT a 
continuation of an ICT4D top down approach (respectfully I think this 
reproach trivializes and distorts Canada's Wsis position by reduing it to 
uni-dimension, which is not borne out by the evidence IMHO) ; but instead 
Canada's proposal seems  a continuation of Canada's role in 2003 summit in 
avoiding a blow up by successfully putting governance to the side, calling 
for a committee ( behold WGIG), and keeping the Wsis 2003 going. (Of course, 
Canada could not and did not do this alone, but was there in a compromise 
position at key points, put in a key paper, made significant interventions, 
and did take this issue very seriously at high levels). That was a 
contribution of Canada and is consistent with our traditional  compromise 
approach at home and abroad.

In this case, 2005, IG cannot be sidelined, so the Canada proposal seems to 
aim at trying to keep the US Europe and other big players on the same 
screen.

This means the gambit is to get a compromise compromise resolution. The US 
needs to give, but is unwilling to do so; others hold positions that are 
unacceptable for various reasons. Think for a moment: 'capacity building' 
seems like condescension from the developed to developing world, but it can 
also mean on the ground building human and technical infrastructure so that 
questions like "what is this thing called rule of law?" or how about human 
and civil rights for internet activists can be more readily addressed. I 
recall my sense of incredulity as this question was asked at Wsis 2003.

Please do not tell me that internet governance in the Wsis 2005 context is 
only about name servers. That just does not hold anymore, IMHO.

BUT the language of this Canada proposal is I agree unacceptable and MUST be 
changed, in this way:
the proposed Forum must be stronger, so it does not sound like some 
afterthought that can be easily ignored;
ensure inclusion of CS -- but this had better be specified more precisely (I 
defer to those more closely involved, like Bill Drake who has been very 
cogent in this discussion);
and state clearly the requirement for *meaningful participation* of reps 
from developing countries (instead of the unfortunate and insulting 
'capacity building')
but link back to principles, including human rights, and gender, so that we 
do not slide back into the fragmentation of the Internet as envisioned in 
some States'  positions.

I can assure the list that those Canadians in CS organizations who are not 
at PrepCom 3, and who are active on the ground in CS here will watch the 
outcome of this one very closely. Once this 'oversigh' is made clear and 
public, diplomatically if necessary, It is not at all clear who in Canada 
would endorse the orignal position on weakening of Forum, lack of full 
inclusion of CS and other stakeholders, and weak inclusion of developing 
countries.

What do the proposed Canadian summit speakers say about these matters I 
wonder? Do they know about this, or have positions? Is CS working closely 
with the Canadian delegation CS members? I recall the wonderful and 
effective lobbying efforts at Wsis 2003 Prep Com 3, and hope that the pace 
continues now.

Well 6 hours behind, so this may all be over, so just another Canadian 
view....

Please continue to keep us informed.

Liss Jeffrey, PhD
McLuhan global research network
electronic commons/agora electronique
byDesign eLab

www.ecommons.net
wsis.ecommons.ca

PS
Our Canadian CS site c2c wsis.ecommons.ca is not covering the daily 
breathless events in PrepCom 3, but we plan analysis leading to Tunis, and 
follow up after the talk is done, the digital dust settles, and the outcome 
is clearer.

>
>Bill is right about the background: Canada's position on WSIS since the 
>beginning is consistently and strictly ICT4D, and, I might add, top-down 
>ICT4D. Furthermore, the position below seems to be a step back from the 
>initial Canadian response to the WGIG Report, which stated: "In principle, 
>Canada supports the idea of creating a multi-stakeholder forum to discuss a 
>broad range of public policy issues related to the Internet. We believe it 
>is desirable to build upon the dialogue established by the WGIG and its 
>public consultations."
>
>That said, the Canadian delegation can possibly be slightly swayed and 
>brought closer by CS arguments.
>
>For more Canada background, see http://www.wsis-smsi.gc.ca.
>
>Have a good end of prepcom!
>
>Marc
>
>
>
>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] De la 
>part de William Drake
>Envoyé : 30 septembre, 2005 03:55
>À : plenary at wsis-cs.org
>Objet : RE: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Canada's proposal on IG forum - its 
>COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE
>
>[Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire list. 
>Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific people]
>
>Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic translation of 
>this message!
>_______________________________________
>
>Hi,
>
>Parminder is right.  Upon inspection, it is entirely an ICT4D proposal,
>building on programs and approaches Canada/IDRC have supported
>previously---generally useful but not at all what WGIG or CS previously had
>in mind.  All capacity building for developing countries, seemingly to fit
>in to the topography of existing IG mechanisms, not dialogue, analysis,
>trend monitoring, soft law making as necessary with an eye toward improving
>them.  Capacity building is of course critically important, but the other
>functions are needed.  The caucus statement is much better that the
>Canadian, which makes no mention of the functions and foci we specified,
>listed below.
>
>If we get the chance to take the floor today, I hope the caucus will
>reiterate support for its own position and diplomatically note the
>comparative limitations of the Canadian one, which many parties do seem to
>be flocking toward, perhaps because it is the most detailed language from a
>government.  They should read CS language too...
>
>Bill
>
>--------
>IG Caucus List of Forum Functions
>
>a.	inclusive dialogue, with a differentiated architecture allowing for
>peer-level interaction where appropriate, for example in Birds of a 
>Feather,
>working groups, study groups, plenaries, etc.
>
>b.	comparative, cross-sectoral analysis of governance mechanisms, with an
>eye toward "lessons learned" and best practices that could inform 
>individual
>and collective institutional improvements
>
>c.	assessment and monitoring of horizontal issues applicable to all 
>Internet
>governance arrangements, e.g. the promotion of transparency, 
>accountability,
>inclusion, and other guidelines for "good governance," such as the WSIS
>principles;
>
>d.	identification of weaknesses and gaps in the governance architecture,
>i.e. "orphaned" or multidimensional issues that do not fall neatly within
>the ambit of any existing body;
>
>e.	identification of potential tensions between separately developed
>mechanisms, and possibly efforts to promote enhanced coordination among
>them;
>
>f.	promotion of decentralized convergence among positions and initiatives,
>where possible;
>
>g.	pre-decision agenda setting that could, inter alia, feed into the work 
>of
>other bodies;
>
>h.	provide a clearing house for coordination, resource mobilization,
>identification of new needs and gaps, in relation to supporting meaningful
>developing country participation and capacity building
>
>i.	promote the usage of ICTs to allow remote participation in Internet
>governance processes;
>
>j.	release recommendations, best practices, proposals and other documents 
>on
>the various Internet governance issues.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org]On
> > Behalf Of Parminder
> > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 11:06 PM
> > To: plenary at wsis-cs.org
> > Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Canada's proposal on IG forum - its
> > COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I am sorry to use the the already crowded plenary list to state
> > these views on
> > matters in front of sub-committee A , but I am not subscribed on
> > the IG CS
> > list and I really wanted to share this with all.
> >
> > I found a lot of enthusiasm in CS content and themes meeting on
> > the Canadian
> > proposal on the forum. Most of the support came because canadian 
>proposal
> > seems strong on the MSP priciple. That's great, but we need the
> > 'substance'
> > too - perhaps that may be more important.
> >
> > And if we look at the canadian proposal on the forum from 'substance'
> > or 'content;' angle, it is abysmal (excuse my use of strong language).
> >
> > It completely transforms the very purpose and agenda of the
> > 'forum' as was
> > nicely laid out by WGIG reports points 43 to 47  - it was
> > supposed to be a
> > global IG policy deliberation space. But the canada proposal
> > makes it into a
> > capacity building body for developing countires etc- badly
> > reeking of WIPO's
> > technical assistence programs which suppose that 'they' know
> > everything and
> > the those with poor capacities (read, developing counteries)need to
> > be 'taught' what the right frameworks and concepts are.
> >
> > The canadian proposal (cut-pasted at the end of the email) opens in this
> > fashion --
> >
> > >>>We commit to establishing a new forum mechanism, dedicated to
> > >>>enhancing the
> > capacity of all stakeholders, particularly those from developing
> > countries, to
> > participate fully and effectively in all forums relevant to Internet
> > governance.  >>>
> >
> > Were we looking for a forum for this purpose, I thought we wanted it for
> > policy deliberation, advise, taking new issues (see WGIG report,
> > pt.s 43 to
> > 47).... Capacity building is only one of the functions of the
> > forum, and it
> > comes way down on the list.......
> >
> > Why is there an attempt to cut out such needed global policy
> > spaces by subtly
> > substituting them with 'capacity building' bodies. And why should
> > the CS be in
> > a hurry to accept that - do we have such aversion to global public 
>policy
> > deliberations and policy development.
> >
> > This is a very status quo-ist view..... Things are fine as they
> > are..... And
> > lets obfuscate and confuse substantial policy issues, since developing
> > countires in any case have poor capacities, and are liable to miss the
> > subterfuge.
> >
> > CS need not be enthused about it just because MSP principle is
> > promised - MSP
> > for what.......
> >
> > I thought CS always wanted a forum as proposed by WGIG - the
> > canadian proposal
> > is NOT about the same 'forum'. And if anyone has some doubt, see
> > the fact that
> > canada has even proposed to move the 'forum' section to the part 4 of 
>the
> > working document. This section deals with development aspects of
> > Internet. So
> > the forum is now about building capapcity of developing countires
> > - on issues
> > already decided and firmly established..... It is about
> > development (building
> > capacities of developing countires to adopt to dominant paradigms)and 
>not
> > about the the 'way forward' (which would put the 'forum' in part
> > 5 on the 'way
> > forward'). Pl see canadian proposal below...
> >
> > In stating the above, I don't mean dis-respect for any one's
> > views. This is
> > how I see the whole thing..... I may not have followed the IG
> > debate well, And
> > I will be glad to be corrected on the issues I have put here......
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Parminder
> > _____________________________________________
> >
> > Canada's proposal
> >
> > Proposed Terms of Reference for Forum on Internet Governance To
> > be inserted
> > either in section 4 (Development), or section 5 (The Way Forward)
> >
> > ================
> > NEW PARAGRAPH (# to be determined)
> >
> > We commit to establishing a new forum mechanism, dedicated to
> > enhancing the
> > capacity of all stakeholders, particularly those from developing
> > countries, to
> > participate fully and effectively in all forums relevant to Internet
> > governance.  Recognizing the rapid development of technology and
> > institutions,
> > we propose that the forum mechanism periodically be reviewed to
> > determine the
> > need for its continuation.  Further, we propose that it be
> > constituted as a
> > neutral, non-duplicative and non-binding process chiefly to
> > facilitate the
> > exchange of information and best practices and to identify issues
> > that are not
> > otherwise being adequately addressed.
> > The forum mechanism should be viewed as a continuation of
> > the "multistakeholder" approach of the WSIS, building on the
> > valuable lessons
> > learned in the WSIS and WGIG processes, in particular I the open WGIG
> > consultations.
> >
> > We call upon all stakeholders to engage in and fully support this
> > important
> > new mechanism.  The forum mechanism should be established in a
> > timely fashion
> > to:
> > .      Strengthen and enhance stakeholders' engagement in existing
> > and future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly for those from
> > developing countries;
> > .      Develop capacity to participate in discussions and decisions
> > on pertinent topics under consideration in relevant institutions;
> > .      Encourage the full involvement and participation of all
> > stakeholders and experts engaged in Internet governance to
> > benefit from their
> > expertise, including those of the academic and scientific communities, 
>to
> > facilitate coordination and collaboration, and to avoid duplication;
> > .      Make full use of the tools of the information society to
> > conduct capacity building activities, minimizing the need for
> > conferences and
> > face-to-face meetings; and
> > .      Establish ongoing electronic forums on pertinent topics and,
> > when appropriate, create a permanent on-line record for future
> > use in capacity
> > development activities, and to continue to add value over time.
> >
> >
> > -
> >
> > Parminder
> >
> > www.ITforChange.net
> > IT for Change
> > Bridging Developmental Realities and Technological Possibilities
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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