<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p><font face="Verdana">Hi All</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">Let me share my views and assessment about
the WG on Enhanced Cooperation, of which I was nominated by
civil society to be a member.</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">First of all, the central issue of what has
been called as "enhanced cooperation" in Tunis Agenda is the
need for developing international Internet related public
policies. The central issue is not cooperation among whom - only
governments, or across stakeholders' this is a secondary and a
follow-up issue.</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">What we therefore need to agree first is
whether or not there is a need for developing international
Internet-related public policies; in the same way that WHO does
for health, UNESCO for education, UNEP for environment, UNDP for
development, and so on. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">Do note that these UN agencies do not
"control" the respective sectors worldwide, just because they
are UN agencies tasked with dealing with these sectors
internationally. I say this because the bogie of "control" of
the Internet gets raised immediately as one proposes a similar
UN body for looking into international public policy aspects for
the Internet. For instance, education is almost as sensitive a
sector, politically and culturally, as the Internet, but UNESCO
is universally acknowledged to have done very good and useful
work internationally in this sector - especially for developing
countries - without "controlling" education. <br>
</font></p>
<p>Now, if we agree that international Internet related public
policies indeed need to be developed -- then we can come to
question of who should do so. <br>
</p>
<p>Public policy is a specific political construct. Every policy is
not public policy - for instance, technical policies as developed
by technical bodies is not public policy unless they are so
designated by an authorised public body.<br>
</p>
<p>Public policies are definitionally developed by government, or
those who represent people or groups of people -- however
imperfect be the process of such representation. <br>
</p>
<p> The first para of the Wikipedia entry on "public policy" defines
it as</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"<b>Public policy</b> is the principled guide to action taken
by the administrative <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_%28government%29"
title="Executive (government)">executive branches</a> of the <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_%28polity%29"
title="State (polity)">state</a> with regard to a class of
issues, in a manner consistent with <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law" title="Law">law</a>
and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institution"
title="Institution">institutional customs</a>."</p>
</blockquote>
<p>and the second para as;</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"Other scholars define public policy as a system of "courses of
action, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation"
title="Regulation">regulatory</a> measures, <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law" title="Law">laws</a>,
and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding"
title="Funding">funding</a> priorities concerning a given
topic promulgated by a governmental entity or its
representatives."</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I hope we do not mean to redefine what is public policy. To get
to the core of this issue; corporations cannot sit with
governments on an equal footing to make public policy, which is
what many people actually advocate here. We need to make our
position clear on this one central issue, as civil society actors
associated with IG. It is time we come out clean on this, and
leave obfuscations behind. If we can agree on this one issue I am
sure we can agree on all. <br>
</p>
<p>Participation in public policy making, as inputting, advising,
developing its initial discourse (as with the IGF) is an entirely
different matter. That comes AFTER there comes into existence a
mechanism for public policy making. For instance, there would be
absolutely no point in developing an extensive public
consultation, inputting, policy discussions, etc around health
policies in a country if there existed no actual mechanism for
making any such policy. <br>
</p>
<p>That is the situation at the global level on Internet issues. We
have well-developed mechanism for public policy dialogue on
Internet issues in the form of the IGF, but have no place to
actually develop such public policies. This renders the policy
dialogue space itself increasingly less and less useful, as has
been happening with the IGF. <br>
</p>
<p>It was the express intent of Tunis Agenda to create a
multistakeholder policy dialogue space (the IGF) and a
governmental policy making space (the proposed new mechanism for
"enhanced cooperation") as two distinct but conjoined
institutional mechanisms. Any mis-conception in this regard was
cleared by subsequent UN resolutions that expressly said that the
IGF and "enhanced cooperation" were distinct but complementing
spaces. The intended institutional design could not be clearer --
although I do admit that exactly how governments should develop
International Internet-related public policies remain a contested
issue. <br>
</p>
<p>But this contestation is made much worse by actors who - for
whatever reasons - keep confusing and conflating (1) pre- public
policy development processes of inputs, advice, dialogue, etc, and
(2) actual public policy development processes (where, as said,
one certainly can not have corporations sit on equal footing with
govs to make public policy).</p>
<p>One earnestly hopes that it is time that we get out of this
confusion/ conflation which has no basis in democratic political
theory. Public policy has a specific political meaning and we
cannot afford to use this term loosely. It is the very basis of
democratic thinking, in that public policy can only be made by
representatives of people, and groups of people. Corporations
certainly have no vote here. <br>
</p>
<p>On the other hand, everyone must be consulted, given a chance to
input and participate in pre public policy dialogues, which
happens at the IGF..<br>
</p>
<p>If we indeed agree to come out of this very problematic
confusion/ conflation, we can then actually discuss what would be
the best means to develop international Internet-related public
policies, the real and in fact the only pertinent question under
the "enhanced cooperation" related discussions. And this alone is
the subject matter for the consideration of the WG on Enhanced
Cooperation. <br>
</p>
<p>Having given the needed background, I will describe what is
happening at the WGEC in another email, in a short while. <br>
</p>
<p>parminder</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Monday 30 January 2017 09:07 PM,
WANGARI KABIRU wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1409939853.27071400.1485790654481@mail.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff;
font-family:garamond, new york, times, serif;font-size:16px">
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_179369"><span
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_179371"><font
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_179494" size="5">Many
thanks Anriette for the brief and the references are
clarifying!</font></span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_179369"><span><font
size="5"><br>
</font></span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_179369"><span
style="font-size: x-large;"
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_179591">Be blessed.</span><br>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_179379"><span><font
size="5"><br>
</font></span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_179382"><span
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_179381"><font
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_179498" size="5">Regards/Wangari</font></span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_179385"> </div>
<div class="signature"
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_179593">---<br>
<font style="font-weight:bold;font-family:verdana, helvetica,
sans-serif;" size="2"><span style="color:rgb(127, 0, 63);">Pray
God Bless. 2013Wangari circa - </span><span
style="color:rgb(127, 0, 63);">"Being of the Light, We are
Restored Through Faith in Mind, Body and Spirit; We
Manifest The Kingdom of God on Earth".</span></font><br>
</div>
<div class="qtdSeparateBR"><br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="yahoo_quoted" style="display: block;">
<div style="font-family: garamond, new york, times, serif;
font-size: 16px;">
<div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue,
Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, Sans-Serif; font-size:
16px;">
<div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial" size="2"> On Monday, 30
January 2017, 16:16, Anriette Esterhuysen
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:anriette@apc.org"><anriette@apc.org></a> wrote:<br>
</font></div>
<br>
<br>
<div class="y_msg_container">Dear Wangari<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Apologies for delay in responding.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
It is an interesting question, and it goes to the heart
of the enhanced<br clear="none">
cooperation debate, which in many ways is at the heart
of the internet<br clear="none">
governance debate that has been ongoing since 2003.<br
clear="none">
<br clear="none">
The term was first used in 2005 - and it means different
things to<br clear="none">
different people, and the text in the Tunis Agenda where
it is first<br clear="none">
references in a formal UN agreement, can also be
interpreted in<br clear="none">
different ways.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
For the last decade it has been used as a political
football.. in one of<br clear="none">
those matches in which it is not clear if anyone
actually scores any<br clear="none">
goals. In fact, for some of the players, the objective
of the match has<br clear="none">
been to avoid anyone scoring any goals :)<br
clear="none">
<br clear="none">
This is a good recent piece by David Souter:<br
clear="none">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" shape="rect"
href="https://www.apc.org/en/blog/inside-information-society-enhanced-cooperation-en"
target="_blank">https://www.apc.org/en/blog/inside-information-society-enhanced-cooperation-en</a><br
clear="none">
<br clear="none">
I quote from it:<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
"‘Enhanced cooperation’, like the Internet Governance
Forum (IGF), was<br clear="none">
part of the compromise on the future of the Internet at
WSIS in 2005.<br clear="none">
Agreement could not be reached on the governance of
critical Internet<br clear="none">
resources, including the domain name system. ICANN (the
Internet<br clear="none">
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), for some
governments, was<br clear="none">
little more than an adjunct of the United States. Some
wanted the<br clear="none">
Internet brought within the ambit of an
intergovernmental (or<br clear="none">
multilateral) agency such as the International
Telecommunication Union<br clear="none">
(ITU). Others were, as they remain, determined to keep
the Internet free<br clear="none">
from intergovernmental oversight. As well as dividing
governments, this<br clear="none">
was (and is) therefore a tussle between multilateral and<br
clear="none">
multistakeholder approaches to the Internet.<br
clear="none">
<br clear="none">
The term worked at the time because of its creative
ambiguity: like many<br clear="none">
UN outcomes it meant different things to different
folks. But the<br clear="none">
contests that it overlay were, and still are,
unresolved. Several UN<br clear="none">
initiatives and working groups have failed to reach
consensus on it<br clear="none">
since the Summit. Some governments (and civil society
activists) claim<br clear="none">
that nothing’s changed since WSIS: that governments,
particularly<br clear="none">
developing country governments, can’t play a substantive
role in<br clear="none">
Internet decisions because there is no proper
intergovernmental forum.<br clear="none">
Others suggest that diverse multistakeholder initiatives
represent a lot<br clear="none">
of ‘enhanced cooperation’ that’s already taking place."<br
clear="none">
<br clear="none">
So in response to your question, it is not a new thing
that for several<br clear="none">
governments, the meaning of enhanced cooperation is
"cooperation between<br clear="none">
governments". And the term 'equal footing' means that
all governments<br clear="none">
should have equal access and voice in these processes.<br
clear="none">
<br clear="none">
They generally quote paragraph 69 of the Tunis Agenda:<br
clear="none">
<br clear="none">
"69. We further recognize the need for enhanced
cooperation in the<br clear="none">
future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to
carry out their<br clear="none">
roles and responsibilities, in international public
policy issues<br clear="none">
pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day
technical and<br clear="none">
operational matters, that do not impact on international
public policy<br clear="none">
issues."<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
And their position is that the IGF has nothing to do
with this type of<br clear="none">
cooperation.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Personally, I think this is misinterpreting the Tunis
Agenda. If you<br clear="none">
read the two previous paragraphs, 67 and 68, there is a
clear reference<br clear="none">
to the IGF (referred to in the Tunis Agenda as "the
forum for<br clear="none">
multi-stakeholder policy dialogue". I quote:<br
clear="none">
<br clear="none">
"67. We agree, inter alia, to invite the UN
Secretary-General to convene<br clear="none">
a new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue.<br
clear="none">
<br clear="none">
68. We recognize that all governments should have an
equal role and<br clear="none">
responsibility for international Internet governance and
for ensuring<br clear="none">
the stability, security and continuity of the Internet.
We also<br clear="none">
recognize the need for development of public policy by
governments in<br clear="none">
consultation with all stakeholders.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
69. We further recognize the need for enhanced
cooperation in the<br clear="none">
future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to
carry out their<br clear="none">
roles and responsibilities, in international public
policy issues<br clear="none">
pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day
technical and<br clear="none">
operational matters, that do not impact on international
public policy<br clear="none">
issues."<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
My interpretation would be that these paragraphs talks
about the forum,<br clear="none">
about involvement of all stakeholders, and about the
need for<br clear="none">
governments to be able to play their role in
international public policy.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
These area all important and legitimate and they don't
need to be<br clear="none">
mutually exclusive.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
But there are different views, and there was a General
Assembly<br clear="none">
resolution in 2011 or 2012 which stated that the IGF and
enhanced<br clear="none">
cooperation are two separate processes.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
I do think governments have a legitimate point in saying
that they need<br clear="none">
a space where they can talk about 'cross cutting'
internet-related<br clear="none">
public policy issues. Specific issues are being
addressed in places like<br clear="none">
the Human Rights Council (for internet and human rights
issues) or in<br clear="none">
WIPO (for copyright related issues, for example).<br
clear="none">
<br clear="none">
And I also think that developing countries are not
sufficiently<br clear="none">
empowered or influential in most internet-related policy
discussions.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
I just don't believe that setting up a new
intergovernmental mechanism<br clear="none">
is the right solution to this problem. And it is one
that is high risk<br clear="none">
for civil society.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
But others in the WGEC have different views.<br
clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Warm greetings and thanks for following the meeting!<br
clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Anriette<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
<div class="yqt2301429610" id="yqtfd28248"><br
clear="none">
On 27/01/2017 19:38, WANGARI KABIRU wrote:<br
clear="none">
> Warm greetings Anriette,<br clear="none">
> <br clear="none">
> In the morning there was reference in the
semblance that enhanced<br clear="none">
> cooperation is a government area not for the
IGF...MAG.<br clear="none">
> Would you kindly shed light. <br clear="none">
> <br clear="none">
> <br clear="none">
> The comments;<br clear="none">
> - that statistics in developing countries are a
result of tradeoffs and<br clear="none">
> thus not (necessarily) reliable<br clear="none">
> - how an entity is considered multi-stakeholder
in one forum and in<br clear="none">
> other spheres not viewed as such. Taking into
account<br clear="none">
> multi-stakholderism is a key tenet in Internet
Governance<br clear="none">
> <br clear="none">
> Many thanks for the briefs.<br clear="none">
> <br clear="none">
> Be blessed.<br clear="none">
> <br clear="none">
> Regards/Wangari<br clear="none">
> <br clear="none">
> ---<br clear="none">
> Pray God Bless. 2013Wangari circa - "Being of the
Light, We are Restored<br clear="none">
> Through Faith in Mind, Body and Spirit; We
Manifest The Kingdom of God<br clear="none">
> on Earth".<br clear="none">
> <br clear="none">
> <br clear="none">
> <br clear="none">
-- <br clear="none">
-----------------------------------------<br
clear="none">
Anriette Esterhuysen<br clear="none">
Executive Director<br clear="none">
Association for Progressive Communications<br
clear="none">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" shape="rect"
ymailto="mailto:anriette@apc.org"
href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a><br
clear="none">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.apc.org">www.apc.org</a><br clear="none">
IM: ae_apc<br clear="none">
</div>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>