|
|
COMMUNICATION
No Turning Back on Civil Society Participation
By Marcelo Jelen
MONTEVIDEO, Nov 2, 2005 (IPS) - The most important advance made by the World
Summit on the Information Society is having conceived a model of Internet
governance in which governments, civil society and the private sector all
participate on an equal footing, according to Uruguayan expert Raúl
Echeberría.
This multi-stakeholder format could now be extended to other international
spheres, such as human rights and the environment, said Echeberría,
executive director of the Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses
Registry (LACNIC), in an interview with IPS.
Nevertheless, negotiations to fully establish this model are currently at a
stalemate. The United States is striving to maintain the status quo, in
which it wields considerable power, while the countries of the developing
South are pushing for more active participation by other governments in the
administration and control of the so-called worldwide web.
In Latin America, the Mercosur (Southern Common Market) trade bloc and its
associate members have not coordinated common positions for the World Summit
on the Information Society (WSIS), whose second phase will take place this
December in Tunisia, noted Echeberría.
Mercosur is made up of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay, but its
associate members encompass most of the rest of South America.
Brazil and other developing countries are proposing that civil society be
given an advisory, rather than a decisive role in Internet governance,
commented Echeberría, one of the 40 experts in the Working Group on Internet
Governance (WGIG) set up by United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan.
But "sooner rather than later," the current subordination of the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to the United States must
come to an end, he maintained.
IPS: Is there any coordination or common position among the Mercosur
countries, Chile and Bolivia with regard to Internet governance?
RAÚL ECHEBERRÍA: There has been no formal coordination as far as I know.
Argentina, Chile and Uruguay have expressed similar positions, shared by a
number of other Latin American countries, like Ecuador and Peru, but to say
that they are totally identical would be too absolutist. Brazil has taken a
different position.
IPS: And what is that?
RE: Brazil forms part of the "like-minded group" of countries along with
China, India, South Africa, Saudi Arabia and Iran, among others, who are
backed by several Latin American nations, like Cuba and Venezuela. Their
idea, in general, is to promote an intergovernmental body, which they call
the Global Internet Council, with broad powers to oversee governance of the
Internet. Civil society organisations and the private sector would
participate in the Council as advisors or observers, without voting rights.
IPS: Civil society would be left out of Internet governance in this case?
RE: It would participate, but unfortunately, this participation would be
limited, despite the fact that the most important result of this whole
discussion process over the years has been the emergence of a new model of
governance that could be applied to a variety of areas. Namely, the
"multi-stakeholder" model, in which all of the actors involved in a specific
issue participate on an equal footing.
In this case it applies to Internet governance, but it could also work for
human rights or the environment. It's a veritable turning point in the
evolution of governance systems.
IPS: Brazil's position clashes with the Declaration of Principles adopted at
the first phase of the World Summit on the Information Society in Geneva,
which called for "multilateral, transparent and democratic" international
management of the Internet, with "the full involvement of governments, the
private sector, civil society and international organisations."
RE: The text adopted in December 2003 isn't sufficiently clear. And since
there is also talk about the creation of a new forum for dialogue among all
stakeholders on an equal footing on all Internet governance-related issues,
an idea that will largely meet with consensus, it could be argued that civil
society will be fully involved. It all depends on how you look at it.
IPS: How would you characterise the position of Argentina, Chile and
Uruguay?
RE: These countries, and others, are frightened by the complexity of the
Global Council. There hasn't been enough time to establish the mechanisms
for participation by the governments, the kinds of decisions it would adopt,
and how it would adopt them.
Some of the fear is related to the cost of new bodies, because international
bureaucracy is very costly, and countries would have to devote significant
resources in order to participate effectively. Only the most powerful
nations are in a position to successfully participate in all international
bodies and areas of negotiation.
Some decisions seem impossible to adopt with the participation of all
governments. An executive committee could be established, and that is also a
source of concern: disputes would start to erupt over filling these
positions. There are some who will always want to be in limited groups where
the decisions are made, and this could lead to a repeat of scenarios like
the Security Council.
The position of Argentina, Ecuador, Mexico and Uruguay is that governments
should have more participation, but without the creation of new bodies.
These countries already view the creation of the forum as a very important
change, which would minimise the need for new bodies.
IPS: Under this point of view, ICANN would continue to exist.
RE: There would have to be a way of guaranteeing greater participation by
governments.
IPS: What kind of reform would you prefer?
RE: There is a good deal of agreement that the subordination of ICANN to the
U.S. government has to come to an end sooner rather than later, that there
should be greater international involvement. The Government Advisory
Committee, which currently plays an advisory roll, should have more
influence on ICANN decision-making.
But no matter how much we all agree that governments should have a stronger
role in ICANN, it is going to be very difficult for them to come to an
agreement on the degree of influence they would like. Some governments have
a more liberal view and want less participation, while others want more.
IPS: Do you think the United States is prepared to give up control?
Although, in reality, Washington has never exercised direct pressure on
ICANN.
RE: That's true. This control has never been abused. I don't think they want
to hold on to it forever. The United States has allowed some evolution of
the system, like the creation of the forum and the legitimate concerns of
governments over issues of sovereignty related to country codes.
Although it comes across as very determined to maintain the status quo, the
United States is willing to budge somewhat. It is not going to have any
choice but to accept an evolutionary process with international support, as
long as it attends to its concerns over security and stability. I think the
prospects are good.
IPS: How can the United States' concerns be attended to?
RE: The multi-stakeholder model itself, which entails a high degree of
social control, works in favour of stability and security. I do not think it
would be a good idea to place absolute control in the hands of governments,
which could then hypothetically be exercised by a subgroup of the world's
governments.
IPS: What future do you see for civil society participation in Internet
governance?
RE: The struggle waged by civil society and the private sector for greater
participation and influence in decision-making and international policies
will continue in the long term. In this process in particular there have
already been advances made, enormous and very positive ones.
It's likely that the resolutions reached won't be fully satisfactory for
everyone. There will still be work to be done. But the multi-stakeholder
model of governance is a one-way road. Once civil society and the private
sector have had a good degree of participation in this process, I can't
imagine why they wouldn't demand it in other areas.
The final discussions on Internet governance will be taking place in Tunis
in the days prior to the Summit, and some limitations have been announced
for the participation of civil society and the private sector for reasons of
space or geography.
IPS: What are the chances of an agreement being reached?
RE: The worst-case scenario is that there won't be an agreement. There are
diverging positions regarding the kind of control that governance
institutions will have. The attempt to reconcile bottom-up and top-down down
models is going to generate conflicts.
Everything will depend on whether the participants are more concerned with
strengthening their own positions or reaching agreements. And the only way
of reaching agreements in a summit where there should be no objections
raised by individual countries is by working on the basis of common
positions, not the middle ground.
(END)
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
What is RSS?
