<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p><font face="Verdana">In the first meeting of the WGEC, in Sept
2016, the group simply came up with two questions, one was about
what are the high level characteristics of "enhanced
cooperation" and second asking what kind of recommendations the
group can come up with. The second meeting last week looked into
the responses and discussed them. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">The responses about the kind of
recommendations that WGEC can come up with ranged from (1)
seeking a new UN based mechanism/ body for developing Internet
related public policies, to (2) hinting on some looser
coordination mechanisms among many agencies that deal with some
Internet related public policies issues, to (3) arguing that all
that is needed is to develop some required qualities, like
transparency, accountability, etc for bodies which already do
various kinds of policy work in this area. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">Hopefully, as argued in my previous email,
if we can indeed pull ourselves out of many age old confusions
and inappropriate conflations in this area, this above takes us
to the core of the issue. I understand that there a few possible
positions different actors can take on this matter, but one
should if possible commit to one or the other, and come out with
clear institutional mechanism corresponding to that position
(unless of course none is intended, which should be clearly
stated). We have spent too much time in this morass, and going
forward with greater clarity and responsibility would be highly
desirable. We owe it to the world, which is being deeply
impacted by the Internet phenomenon, which keep raising
important and urgent public policy issues that beg to be
addressed. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">I see the following possible positions in
this matter.</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">1. No international Internet related public
policies are required.</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">2. Even if they are required, different
global bodies are already dealing with then adequately. In this
regard either nothing more needs to be done, or, the WGEC can
simply develop a series of desirable qualities or
characteristics that all such institution/ processes must
posses. Those holding such a view should, at this stage, come up
with a precise method or mechanism they will like to follow to
ensure that existing mechanisms/ processes do show such desired
qualities, or at least how to persuade them to move in such a
direction. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">3. What is needed is some kind of a
relatively loose coordination mechanism among the existing
bodies etc dealing with Internet related international public
policies. Those with such a view should come up with the precise
mechanism that they have in mind for such coordination -- how
does it work, where is it located, and so on. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">4. A new committed institutional mechanism -
in form of a new body/ agency - is needed for international
internet-related public policies. Those with this view should
give clear and precise proposals in this regard, where would
such body be located, would it be a new one or a modified
existing one, what would be its processes of taking in public inputs/
advices etc, what would be its relationship with the IGF, and so
on.</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">What I am tying to stress is that we need to
be clear that this stage about what kind of global IG
institutional architecture we want to see, especially in terms
of international public policy processes, and come up with clear
and precise institutional recommendations in this regard, with
all the needed details. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">The above are some general categories with
regard to possible positions on EC (enhanced cooperation). But
we have seen some more specific proposals, or more appropriately
hints or outlines of them. I would encourage those who have
mentioned them to detail out what exactly is that they have in
mind, how would it work etc. for instance, many have said here
that an EC mechanism could be an extension of, under the umbrella
of, or laterally conjoined with, the IGF process, taking place
along with it. It will be useful to make a fully develop
proposal ut of it, complete with the essential details. Some
others hinted on the possibility of an EC mechanism under the
Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD).
Similar elaboration would be useful in this case. Those who want
a whole new relatively independent mechanism should similarly
detail it out, as for instance my organisation has been doing
for quite some time now. We again <a
href="http://unctad.org/meetings/en/Contribution/WGEC2016_m2_c15_en.pdf">submitted
it</a> to the WGEC in response to the questionnaire. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">parminder <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana"></font><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Monday 30 January 2017 10:16 PM,
parminder wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:885d58c9-a888-20aa-6ad1-3c91bc64b10f@itforchange.net"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_%28government%29"
title="Executive (government)">executive branches</a> of the
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law" title="Law">law</a>
and <a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation"
title="Regulation">regulatory</a> measures, <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law" title="Law">laws</a>,
and <a moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:anriette@apc.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:anriette@apc.org"><anriette@apc.org></a></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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<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:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>