<div dir="ltr"><span style="font-size:12.8px">Dear Anriette, all,</span><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style="font-size:12.8px">(I'm writing here in my capacity as another CS-selected member of the WGEC who participated in last week's proceedings)<div><br></div><div>This really is a great summary of the current debate - thank you for sharing it on the lists and for sharing David's blog post. </div><div><br></div><div>I'm interested in understanding better two points you raise towards the end of your post (and which summarise how some stakeholders are framing the problem): </div></div><blockquote style="font-size:12.8px;margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div>1) lack of space for governments to discuss cross-cutting internet-related pp issues and; </div><div>2) lack of sufficient empowerment/ influence in most internet-related policy discussions by developing country governments. </div></blockquote><div style="font-size:12.8px"><div><br></div>The problem could of course be framed in different ways, depending on one's starting position and definition of EC. I just saw Parminder's email to that effect which is very thoughtful and can serve as a starting point for further discussion. But leaving that aside for the moment, I am interested in understanding better the two points identified above. This is because I've seen these arguments emerge in last week's discussions and would like to be able to engage with them 'on an equal footing' :).<br><br>On the first point, and apologies if this comes off as naive, but what is behind the position that governments need a space where they can talk about 'cross cutting' internet-related public policy issues? What's driving it? I know for some governments it's partly (geo)political posturing, but beyond that, and especially for developing country governments - where should one look to better understand the substantive argument that supports this position?</div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style="font-size:12.8px">On the second point, which I've heard raised many times, I'd be interested to hear whether people think this is changing due to the proliferation of internet related pp issues <span style="font-size:12.8px">across the international policy landscape (UNGA, HRC, AU, ITU, ASEAN...)</span><span style="font-size:12.8px">. True, in some processes this may indeed be the case (e.g. OECD, London Process?), but there are many others that increasingly deal with internet related PP where the voices of developing country governments are anything but powerless. In fact, in the three UNGA committees which deal with issues such as cybersecurity (1st committee), WSIS (2nd committee), and privacy (3rd committee), the G77 hold the majority vote. The situation is not much different in the ITU and a number of other bodies. Is this problem likely to loose its grounding or even relevance with the changing nature of the landscape? </span></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style="font-size:12.8px">Thanks in advance for the openness in reading these questions. They are addressed to anyone who can shine light on them, and raised in the spirit of encouraging an informed debate on these issues. </div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style="font-size:12.8px">On a general note - I would really encourage people to engage in this debate if they are interested. Governments on the WGEC seem to hold rather polarising positions, and I think this opens the opportunity for civil society to play a bridging role in shaping the group's outcomes. With modalities allowing observers to actively participate in the meetings, you can engage directly or channel your views via others. </div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style="font-size:12.8px">In any case, looking forward to people's views and comments.</div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style="font-size:12.8px">Best wishes,</div><div style="font-size:12.8px">Lea</div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style="font-size:12.8px">ps - I'm not on the IGC/APC lists so my posts don't go through there, but feel free to loop the lists back in for those who are on them</div><div class="gmail_extra">
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 3:33 PM, matthew shears <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mshears@cdt.org" target="_blank">mshears@cdt.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>+ 1 Anriette - very nicely summarized.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="gmail-m_8776412099288405097moz-cite-prefix">On 30/01/2017 14:16, Anriette
Esterhuysen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Dear Wangari
Apologies for delay in responding.
It is an interesting question, and it goes to the heart of the enhanced
cooperation debate, which in many ways is at the heart of the internet
governance debate that has been ongoing since 2003.
The term was first used in 2005 - and it means different things to
different people, and the text in the Tunis Agenda where it is first
references in a formal UN agreement, can also be interpreted in
different ways.
For the last decade it has been used as a political football.. in one of
those matches in which it is not clear if anyone actually scores any
goals. In fact, for some of the players, the objective of the match has
been to avoid anyone scoring any goals :)
This is a good recent piece by David Souter:
<a class="gmail-m_8776412099288405097moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.apc.org/en/blog/inside-information-society-enhanced-cooperation-en" target="_blank">https://www.apc.org/en/blog/<wbr>inside-information-society-<wbr>enhanced-cooperation-en</a>
I quote from it:
"‘Enhanced cooperation’, like the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), was
part of the compromise on the future of the Internet at WSIS in 2005.
Agreement could not be reached on the governance of critical Internet
resources, including the domain name system. ICANN (the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), for some governments, was
little more than an adjunct of the United States. Some wanted the
Internet brought within the ambit of an intergovernmental (or
multilateral) agency such as the International Telecommunication Union
(ITU). Others were, as they remain, determined to keep the Internet free
from intergovernmental oversight. As well as dividing governments, this
was (and is) therefore a tussle between multilateral and
multistakeholder approaches to the Internet.
The term worked at the time because of its creative ambiguity: like many
UN outcomes it meant different things to different folks. But the
contests that it overlay were, and still are, unresolved. Several UN
initiatives and working groups have failed to reach consensus on it
since the Summit. Some governments (and civil society activists) claim
that nothing’s changed since WSIS: that governments, particularly
developing country governments, can’t play a substantive role in
Internet decisions because there is no proper intergovernmental forum.
Others suggest that diverse multistakeholder initiatives represent a lot
of ‘enhanced cooperation’ that’s already taking place."
So in response to your question, it is not a new thing that for several
governments, the meaning of enhanced cooperation is "cooperation between
governments". And the term 'equal footing' means that all governments
should have equal access and voice in these processes.
They generally quote paragraph 69 of the Tunis Agenda:
"69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the
future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their
roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues
pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and
operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy
issues."
And their position is that the IGF has nothing to do with this type of
cooperation.
Personally, I think this is misinterpreting the Tunis Agenda. If you
read the two previous paragraphs, 67 and 68, there is a clear reference
to the IGF (referred to in the Tunis Agenda as "the forum for
multi-stakeholder policy dialogue". I quote:
"67. We agree, inter alia, to invite the UN Secretary-General to convene
a new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue.
68. We recognize that all governments should have an equal role and
responsibility for international Internet governance and for ensuring
the stability, security and continuity of the Internet. We also
recognize the need for development of public policy by governments in
consultation with all stakeholders.
69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the
future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their
roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues
pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and
operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy
issues."
My interpretation would be that these paragraphs talks about the forum,
about involvement of all stakeholders, and about the need for
governments to be able to play their role in international public policy.
These area all important and legitimate and they don't need to be
mutually exclusive.
But there are different views, and there was a General Assembly
resolution in 2011 or 2012 which stated that the IGF and enhanced
cooperation are two separate processes.
I do think governments have a legitimate point in saying that they need
a space where they can talk about 'cross cutting' internet-related
public policy issues. Specific issues are being addressed in places like
the Human Rights Council (for internet and human rights issues) or in
WIPO (for copyright related issues, for example).
And I also think that developing countries are not sufficiently
empowered or influential in most internet-related policy discussions.
I just don't believe that setting up a new intergovernmental mechanism
is the right solution to this problem. And it is one that is high risk
for civil society.
But others in the WGEC have different views.
Warm greetings and thanks for following the meeting!
Anriette
On 27/01/2017 19:38, WANGARI KABIRU wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Warm greetings Anriette,
In the morning there was reference in the semblance that enhanced
cooperation is a government area not for the IGF...MAG.
Would you kindly shed light.
The comments;
- that statistics in developing countries are a result of tradeoffs and
thus not (necessarily) reliable
- how an entity is considered multi-stakeholder in one forum and in
other spheres not viewed as such. Taking into account
multi-stakholderism is a key tenet in Internet Governance
Many thanks for the briefs.
Be blessed.
Regards/Wangari
---
Pray God Bless. 2013Wangari circa - "Being of the Light, We are Restored
Through Faith in Mind, Body and Spirit; We Manifest The Kingdom of God
on Earth".
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="gmail-m_8776412099288405097mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>______________________________<wbr>______________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="gmail-m_8776412099288405097moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<a class="gmail-m_8776412099288405097moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/<wbr>unsubscribing</a>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<a class="gmail-m_8776412099288405097moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/<wbr>info/governance</a>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<a class="gmail-m_8776412099288405097moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
Translate this email: <a class="gmail-m_8776412099288405097moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/<wbr>translate_t</a><span class="gmail-HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
</font></span></pre><span class="gmail-HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
</font></span></blockquote><span class="gmail-HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
</font></span></blockquote><span class="gmail-HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<br>
<pre class="gmail-m_8776412099288405097moz-signature" cols="72">--
------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
<a href="tel:+44%207712%20472987" value="+447712472987" target="_blank">+ 44 771 2472987</a></pre>
</font></span></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>______________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.<br>
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:<br>
<a href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/<wbr>info/bestbits</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>