BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Provides autonomy for developing countries

Rwanda has been trying to increase the size of remittances in order to increase its autonomy. The President Paul Kagame has said “aid is never enough and we need to complement it with homegrown schemes to accelerate growth.” He wants “a higher level of direct ownership in the nation’s projects” and wants it because western donors had suspended aid.[1] A change to remittances would reduce this vulnerability; it would be much more difficult for ‘donors’ to suspend the tax breaks they provide for remittances to individual countries than it is to cut aid. Indeed remittances are noticeably stable with money still being sent home during recessions and can even be countercyclical as migrants will send more if they know things are bad back home.[2] This then takes the issue out of the hands of the politicians and puts it into the hands of the people. [1] Procost, Claire, ‘Rwanda seeks diaspora investment to cut reliance on foreign aid’, global development guardian.co.uk, 11 October 2012 [2] Ratha, Dilip, ‘Remittances: Funds for the Folks Back Home’, International Monetary Fund
Europe needs to prevent Russian influence in Ukraine

Russian influence in Ukraine is not a real concern. Given the possibility of joining the European Union or a Russian lead customs union any Ukrainian government even one lead by a pro-Russian such as Yanukovych would choose Europe. The Ukrainians know that the Russian’s price is likely to be high and so will continue to try to balance between their two larger neighbouring blocks. As a result any boycott will not seriously affect long term relations.[1] [1] ‘Call foul, Viktor Yanukovych’s thuggish autocracy is heading in a dangerous direction’, the Economist, 5 May 2012.
Europe must not give approval to this regime.

Viktor Yanukovych fairly came to power in 2010 however since then he has set about attacking the country’s fragile democracy. There are numerous cases showing this democratic decline. For example changes to the constitution that occurred after the Orange revolution have been rolled back to give more power to the presidency.[1] Most visibly opponents of the regime such as Yulia Timoshenko have been jailed in politically motivated trials. At the same time there have been attacks on the freedom of the media and Ukraine has fallen down rankings of press freedom in 2010-11 with its score from freedom house falling from 56 to 59 with its ranking falling to 130th.[2] Ukraine, like its neighbours Russia and Belarus, has become a ‘virtual mafia state’ where the SBU (Ukraine’s successor to the KGB) is all powerful and the elite are unaccountable.[3] It is becoming more and more corrupt as is shown by its fall down the Corruption Perceptions Index from 118th in 2007 to 152nd in 2011.[4] Ukraine is clearly going in the wrong direction and European leaders need to stand up and show that the will not allow this to continue. [1] Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, ‘2010 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices Report’, U.S. Department of State, 8 April 2011. [2] Karlekar, Karin Deutsch and Dunham, Jennifer, ‘Press Freedom in 2011: Breakthroughs and Pushback in the Middle East’, Freedom House, 2012, pp.7, 16. [3] Luzio, Taras, ‘Ukraine, Like Russia, Is Becoming a ‘Virtual Mafia State’’, Atlantic Council, 1 March 2012. [4] Transparency International, Corruption Perceptions Index 2011, Transparency International, Corruption Perceptions Index 2007.
Boycotting Euro 2012 will highlight Ukraine’s backsliding on human rights

European leaders must take a stand on human rights in their own back yard if they are to be taken seriously on the issue anywhere in the world. There are numerous human rights abuses in Ukraine; migrants "risk abusive treatment and arbitrary detention", Roma and people with dark skin in particular face governmental and societal discrimination and some xenophobic attacks and may be prosecuted for acting in self defense.[1] Amnesty International has highlighted abuse of power by the police “numerous cases in Euro 2012 host cities in which police have tortured people in an attempt to extort money, extract a confession, or simply because of the victims’ sexuality or ethnic origin”.[2] If Europe turns a blind eye to these kinds of abuses in neighbouring states without even a minor diplomatic snub it will not have the moral authority to confront worse abuses elsewhere in the world. States that are abusing their own citizens would shrug off criticism believing that European states will not back their criticism up with any action. [1] Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, ‘2010 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices Report’, U.S. Department of State, 8 April 2011. [2] ‘Ukraine: Euro 2012 jeopardised by criminal police force – New Amnesty report’, Amnesty.org.uk, 2 May 2012.
Boycotting Euro 2012 is proportional

Diplomacy is necessary with any regime almost no matter how oppressive they are however that does not show approval of a regime to the world in the way that high profile visits and events can. Just as the Beijing Olympics were the People’s Republic of China’s coming out party so Euro 2012 is an ideal chance for Ukraine to show itself off to Europe and the rest of the world. If there was not a boycott this would implicitly show that Europe approves of Ukraine and the actions of its government. In a list of possible diplomatic responses that range from verbal diplomatic complaints right up to sanctions a boycott represents a mid-point. A boycott is perhaps the best action that the European Union leaders could take is it takes away the shine that the event would otherwise give the Yanukovych. It will be denying him the political benefits of the Euros while highlighting rights concerns. A boycott is also proportional because it gives Ukraine’s leaders a chance to reform before beginning any further measures that would have a much deeper effect on diplomatic relations.
This is a sports event not a political event

Sport and politics are separate and should be kept separate. This is the position of the organisers “Uefa has no position and will not take any regarding the political situation in Ukraine, and will not interfere with internal government matters.”[1] Euro 2012 is a football tournament that is about entertainment and bringing nations together in a common love of a game in a non-political sphere. Even pro-democracy activists such as Vatali Klitschko are “against the politicization of sports”.[2] Politicization would be exactly what politicians are doing by engaging in cheap political stunts, such as a boycott, to promote their own human rights agendas. [1] Scott, Matt, ‘Sports minister Hugh Robertson could boycott Ukraine during Euro 2012’, The Telegraph, 2 May 2012. [2] Keating, Joshua, ‘European leaders consider Euro Cup boycott over Tymoshenko’, Passport Foreignpolicy.com, 1 May 2012.
A boycott won’t help resolve the issues at question

European leaders need to consider whether their methods are likely to achieve the result they want. What Europe’s leaders want is first of all Yulia Timoshenko released and secondly improvements in Ukrainian human rights. Timoshenko is unlikely to be released as she has been convicted on charges of abuse of office and sentenced to seven years in prison; the best that could be hoped for is an improvement in her treatment. Similarly the result is not likely to be positive for human rights and democracy. There might be an improvement during the games while the eyes of the world are on Ukraine but long term there will be no impact unless Yanukovych is persuaded that improvements are in his benefit. This would require more concrete and long term actions than one off boycotts. Past boycotts have demonstrated a lack of success in changing the situation on the ground. In the 1980 Olympics held in Moscow during the Cold War the USA boycotted in response to the 1979 invasion by the USSR of Afghanistan. The result was that the Soviet Union stayed in Afghanistan, won most medals in the Olympics and retaliated by boycotting the 1984 games held in Los Angeles.[1] [1] Gera, Vanessa, ‘Boycott of Ukraine During Euro 2012 Carries Risk’, Associated Press, 11 May 2012.
The boycott would affect Poland and the Ukrainian people as well as Yanukovych

A boycott of Euro 2012 even if it was meant to be limited to Ukraine would negatively impact on the whole tournament. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tust argued "It is in Poland's undisputed interest to hold the games in Poland and Ukraine without a hitch and to prevent politics from ruining the great effort",[1] any boycott would unnecessarily move the attention away from the games itself towards politics. It should also be remembered that Viktor Yanukovych does not represent the whole of Ukraine and only won by a narrow margin with 48.95% of the vote compared to Yulia Timoshenko’s 45.47% in the second round.[2] Arseniy Yatsenyuk leader of the Front for Change has urged leaders not to boycott "The best scenario would be if the European leaders attended the championship, but did not meet President Yanukovych. It's supposed to be a visit to Ukrainians, not to Yanukovych".[3] This would show that European countries support the Ukrainian people and their democratic aspirations and even hope they may be eventually will join the European Union while showing displeasure at Yanukovych’s policies and lack of support for democracy. [1] ‘Poland slams calls for Ukraine Euro 2012 boycott’, The Warsaw Voice online, 4 May 2012. [2] Nesterov, Andrei, ‘How the News is Reported in Russia’, School of Russian and Asian, 19 February 2010. [3] Dorosh, Svitlana, ‘Ukraine fights Euro 2012 boycott’, BBC Ukrainian, 9 May 2012.
Boycotts did not take place for the 2008 Olympics despite the far worst human rights background

It would be hypocritical for European leaders to boycott the Euro 2012 finals because of Ukraine’s recent human rights record. It an absurd overreaction when the focus is on the poor treatment of one woman, Timoshenko. Countries with poor human rights records have hosted major sporting events before without there being boycotts. President Bush was urged by some in the US such as former president Clinton to boycott the Beijing Olympics and only a few countries boycotted on human rights grounds. This was despite China having a considerably worse human rights record than Ukraine and engaged in a violent crackdown in Tibet in the run up to the games.[1] Similarly Russia will be hosting the next Winter Olympics in 2014 should leaders essentially commit to boycotting these games too? [1] ‘Bush will attend opening of Beijing Olympics’ CNN, 3 July 2008.
Europe needs to prevent Russian influence in Ukraine

If Europe shuns Ukraine then Yanukovych has an obvious alternative he can turn to; Russia. Putin, the newly re-elected President of Russia, is holding out the option of a customs union with Ukraine which Yanukovych despite initially rejecting[1] is now showing more interest in joining.[2] Only a few years ago Ukraine was being touted for possible NATO membership and Vice President Biden called Ukraine a “European country where democracy rules”.[3] A turn towards Russia therefore represents a failure of the European Union and NATO’s policy towards its eastern neighbours where the aim is to promote democracy and human rights. [1] Interfax-Ukraine, ‘Putin: Yanukovych statement Ukraine will not join Customs Union conveys political emotions’, Kyiv Post, 16 September 2011. [2] Interfax-Ukraine, ‘Official: Ukraine shows keen interest in Customs Union’, Kyiv Post, 15 March 2012. [3] ‘Biden: U.S. supports Ukraine’s NATO bid’, USA Today, 21 July 2009.
Boycotting Euro 2012 will highlight Ukraine’s backsliding on human rights

Boycotting the football will not highlight Ukraine’s human rights abuses any more than they already have been by the international press as a result of the calls to boycott. Whether leaders boycott or not the human rights abuses have been highlighted. Choosing to attend will not show that leaders are unwilling to take action simply that this is not the way for them to take action. Leaders could attend the matches and still diplomatically rebuke Ukraine’s leader.
This is a sports event not a political event

Sports and politics have always been intertwined and so can’t be separated. That political leaders were thinking of attending in anything beyond a private capacity proves the linking of international football and politics. Yanukovych himself no doubt hoped for a political payoff and has opened the new stadia such as the Olympic Stadium declaring “The successful reconstruction of the NSC Olympiyskiy has become the most telling project for Ukraine's image.”[1] [1] Buga, Bogdan, ‘Olympic Stadium opens in Kyiv’, uefa.com, 8 October 2011.
The status quo has been very successful; don’t fix something that is not broken.

ICANN has not been very supportive of growth in the developing world, as is to be expected of a body that is dominated by rich world governments and corporations. Sub-Saharan Africa for example only has three accredited registrars that provision domain names compared to the four that Denmark alone has.[1] Changing to CIRP would help rebalance the control of the internet to the global south where the majority of future growth is bound to occur. Even if ICANN has been successful in managing the growth of the internet as it spread through the developed world it is not in a good position to be as successful in the future. Moreover as the internet becomes more ubiquitous politics will inevitably intrude regardless of whether those controlling the internet want it to or not. Creating new top level domain names is inherently political. Saudi Arabia for example objected to a number of proposed domain names such as .gay, .bar, .islam, and .baby,[2] it is clear that in cases like this governments need to decide in order to avoid there being domain names that are offensive to some users of the internet. [1] ‘The Accredited Registrar Directory’, InterNIC. [2] Kelly, Heather, ‘Saudi Arabia objects to .gay and .islam domain names’, CNN, 15 August 2012.
The status quo has been very successful; don’t fix something that is not broken.

The current system for control of the internet has been successful in managing phenomenal growth in the internet with very few problems. ICANN has been a success precisely because it does not focus on politics but on making the internet as efficient as possible, in contrast the telecommunications sector remained static and costly for a long time as a result of government interference.[1] Experts such as Rajnesh Singh argue ICANN’s “multi-stakeholder approach has proven to be nimble and effective in ensuring the stability, security, and availability of the global infrastructure, while still giving sovereign nations the flexibility to enact and enforce relevant Internet legislation within their borders… This model has been a key contributor to the breathtaking evolution and expansion of the Internet worldwide.”[2] It is this openness that has contributed to the internet generating 10% of GDP growth in the rich world over the last fifteen years.[3] The change to CIRP would cause a lot of disruption; it would mean changing the current bottom up model of regulation to a top down model such as that used by the ITU.[4] The White House has highlighted the likely effect this would have on the internet; “Centralized control over the Internet through a top-down government approach would put political dealmakers, rather than innovators and experts, in charge of the future of the Internet.  This would slow the pace of innovation, hamper global economic development, and lead to an era of unprecedented control over what people can say and do online.”[5] [1] ‘America rules OK’, The Economist, 6th October 2005. [2] Kwang, Kevin, ‘’Multi-stakeholder’ management of Internet should stay’, ZDNet, 15 June 2012. [3] ‘In praise of chaos’, The Economist, 1 October 2011. [4] ‘OECD input to the United Nations Working Group on Internet Governance’, OECD. [5] Strickling, Lawrence, Verveer, Philip, and Weitzner, Daniel, ‘Ensuring an Open Internet’, Office of Science and Technology Policy, 2 May 2012.
Internet governance must be multinational

While the US government may have more influence over ICANN than other governments it does not control ICANN. This lack of control is demonstrated by the organisation being willing to do things that the United States is opposed to. For example ICANN the rolled out of the new top level domain names which both the United States and European Union were opposed to, and was incidentally were supported by developing countries.[1] [1] Mackinnon, Rebecca, ‘The United Nations and the Internet: It’s Complicated’, Foreign Policy, 8 August 2012.
Internet governance must be multinational

The internet is global, things on the internet do not just affect one country, indeed they often don’t just affect a small group of countries but affect every country. This is especially true of issues of internet governance as setting the rules for the internet and the architecture has to be for the whole internet not isolated bits of it. The function that ICANN currently performs is one that should rightfully be done internationally in the interests of all the nations. This is not the case at the moment as the United States has essentially has a monopoly on internet governance. While ICANN is an independent non-profit body it is under contract from the U.S. department of Commerce and is subject to U.S. laws.[1] The United States already abuses its control over the internet. It has become commonplace for the U.S. to seize domains, as it did with Bodog.com, regardless of where their domain name registrar, or the owner of the website, is based. It can do this easily because the companies that have the contract to manage the generic top level names such as .com and .org are based within the United States. As it is U.S. based the company with these top level domains has to comply with U.S. law so when it is asked to shut down a site even if it is a foreign site with a foreign registrar it will do so.[2] Actions like this show that the United States is only interested in its own power over the internet. It is not interested in the rights of other countries and owners of websites that are registered in those countries highlighting a need to a change to a more multinational system. [1] Singh, Parminder Jeet, ‘India’s proposal will help take the web out of U.S. control’, The Hindu, 17 May 2012. [2] Kravets, David, ‘Uncle Sam: If It Ends in .Com, It’s .Seizable’, Wired, 6th March 2012.
Governments not ‘civil society’ must be in control of internet governance

It is wrong that civil society should have reduced influence over the governance of the internet with governments making all the key decisions. Many governments around the world are not democratic and so cannot be said to represent their people while even those that are democratic are prone to advancing the interests of minorities of their constituents as shown by treaties and legislation such as SOPA and ACTA. Governments of all stripes whether authoritarian or democratic do not have a good record of transparency; ICANN on the other hand does.[1] ICANN works on a "bottom-up, consensus-driven, multi-stakeholder model" meaning that ICANN is very inclusive bringing together governments, experts, private companies and ngos, potentially even individuals can get involved and have their say.[2] [1] ‘ICANN Accountability & Transparency’, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. [2] ‘About Us’, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.
Governments not ‘civil society’ must be in control of internet governance

It is governments who are in charge of setting public policy within countries so it makes sense that these same governments should set public policy in the international sphere;[1] this is why international organisations have been set up and why it is governments that are represented in them. Internet governance should also be the purview of governments on account of the wide range of issues it covers. These include who gets access to the technical resources of the internet, intellectual property, participation in the online economy (which now has an immense impact on the physical economy as well - just consider how the financial markets around the world are interconnected in part as a result of the internet), freedom of expression, and security which ultimately can affect national security and the high politics if balance of power.[2] Private companies and civil society will inevitably only represent a minority of opinions within these countries and cannot be said to truly represent their country, the right place for them is in providing advice to their governments rather than through direct control such as that currently held by ICANN. [1] Al-Darrab, Abdullah A., ‘The Need for International Internet Governance Oversight’, Internet Governance Forum. [2] ‘About’, Internet Governance Project Syracuse University.
Simplicity

The United States is unlikely to give up control and no one can force it to do, the ITU itself has accepted that it could not do so,[1] so creating CIRP would really be a pointless increase in bureaucracy. There is already government involvement in ICANN through the Governmental Advisory Committee[2] so there is little need for another body giving governments more control over the internet. If the United States does not give up control voluntarily then there is likely to be added problems arising from conflicts between the ICANN and CIRP. [1] Kelion, Leo, ‘US resists control of internet passing to UN agency’, BBC News, 3 August 2012. [2] ‘About the GAC’, ICANN GAC.
Simplicity

One of the best things about the proposal to create CIRP is that it simply brings the internet into line with other areas of international communication and the global economy by bringing the internet into the United Nations system. The International Telecommunications Union (ITU) for example is the body that allocates radio spectrums and satellite orbits, in other words it does for telecommunications what ICANN does for the internet, and it is a United Nations agency.[1] The ITU has 193 countries as members but is also open to the private sector and academia, just as CIRP would be.[2] Having internet governance working through the United Nations would therefore mean using a tried and tested method of governance. [1] ‘About ITU’, International Telecommunication Union. [2] ‘Membership’, International Telecommunication Union
The internet should be governed in the interests of freedom

While this might be a valid argument if the United Nations Committee for Internet Related Policies means handing over governance to an individual state it is difficult to question that collectively through the United Nations system states have generally worked to improve citizens quality of life and human rights. CIRP will be just such a multilateral institution so will not be a threat to freedom on the internet. It is even suggested that the mandate for the new organisation include “the promotion and protection of all human rights, namely, civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights, including the Right to Development”. Even those who don’t want governmental control accept that there is a need for some form of constitution with a bill of rights and some kind of board for review[1] – thus showing that under ICANN the internet is not governed in the interests of the users. [1] ‘A plaything of powerful nations’, The Economist, 1 October 2011.