<html><head></head><body><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_370445" dir="ltr"><font id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_370664" size="5"><span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_370533">Warm greetings </span><span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_370499">Wolfgang,</span></font></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_370445" dir="ltr"><font size="5"><br></font></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_370445" dir="ltr"><span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_370523"><font size="5" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_370734">Thank you for this piece of your writing in 2013.</font></span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_370445" dir="ltr"><span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_370975"><font size="5" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_370973"><i id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_370982"><br id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_370972"></i></font></span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_370445" dir="ltr"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 15.002px;" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_370858"><i id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_370985">"After seven years of endless discussion — including several UN reports and consultations in New York and Geneva - the 67th UN General Assembly decided to establish another "Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation" (WGEC) to find out, what could and should be done to implement the Tunis Agenda. The WGEC operates under the UNCSTD. It has about 40 members with 15 coming from the private sector, technical community and civil society. It started its work in May 2013. As a first step it did send out a questionnaire with 18 questions."</i></span><font size="5"><br></font></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_370445" dir="ltr"><font size="5"><br></font></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_370445" dir="ltr"><font size="5" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_371069">There was commentary in this thread in line of interest in a UN body for the Internet (semblance to UNESCO for Education) - might this be the language that Governments are used to/understand considering what is public policy/administration today.</font></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_370445" dir="ltr"><font size="5" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_371140">Yet on the other hand, the Internet Governance drives for multistakeholderism - like WGEC membership.</font></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_370445" dir="ltr"><font size="5"><br></font></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_370445" dir="ltr"><span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_370528"><font id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_370642" size="5">Blessed day.</font></span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_370445" dir="ltr"><font size="5"><br></font></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_370445" dir="ltr"><span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_370525"><font id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_370667" size="5">Regards/Wangari </font></span></div><div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_370444"> </div><div class="signature" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_370353">---<br><font style="font-weight:bold;font-family:verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;" size="2" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_370389"><span style="color:rgb(127, 0, 63);" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_370388">Pray God Bless. 2013Wangari circa - </span><span style="color:rgb(127, 0, 63);" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_370391">"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" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_370443"><br><br></div><div class="yahoo_quoted" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_370440" style="display: block;"> <div style="font-family: garamond, new york, times, serif; font-size: 16px;" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_370439"> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, Sans-Serif; font-size: 16px;" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_370438"> <div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_370437"><font size="2" face="Arial" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485764974240_370436"> On Monday, 30 January 2017, 19:49, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:<br></font></div> <br><br> <div class="y_msg_container">Hi Wangari Kabiro,<br><br>if you want to know the full background and the history of the language of "EC", here is an article I wrote a couple of years ago in CircleID:<br><a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20131112_enhanced_cooperation_in_internet_governance_mystery_to_clarity/" target="_blank">http://www.circleid.com/posts/20131112_enhanced_cooperation_in_internet_governance_mystery_to_clarity/</a><br><br>What we have now (after the IANA transition) is the "Status Quo Minus": All governments are now on "equal footing": In the GAC, in the UN General Assembly, in the ITU or in UNESCO. With other words: Para. 69 is implemented. This is good for the Internet. But it is not good for some governments who do not like their advisory role in ICANN and want to heve a full oversight over Internet related public polcy issues. But please tell me, which "technical issue" in the Internet does not have a "public policy component"?<br><br>Wolfgang<br><br> <br><br><br>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----<br>Von: WANGARI KABIRU [mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:wangarikabiru@yahoo.co.uk" href="mailto:wangarikabiru@yahoo.co.uk">wangarikabiru@yahoo.co.uk</a>]<br>Gesendet: Mo 30.01.2017 16:37<br>An: Anriette Esterhuysen; Nick Ashton-Hart; <a ymailto="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a> IGC; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang<br>Cc: Izumi AIZU; <<a ymailto="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>> <a ymailto="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>> APC Members<br>Betreff: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Second WGEC meeting26-27 January 2017, Geneva<br> <br>Many thanks Anriette for the brief and the references are clarifying!<br>Be blessed.<br><br>Regards/Wangari ---<br>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".<br> <br><br> On Monday, 30 January 2017, 16:16, Anriette Esterhuysen <<a ymailto="mailto:anriette@apc.org" href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a>> wrote:<br> <br><br> Dear Wangari<br><br>Apologies for delay in responding.<br><br>It is an interesting question, and it goes to the heart of the enhanced<br>cooperation debate, which in many ways is at the heart of the internet<br>governance debate that has been ongoing since 2003.<br><br>The term was first used in 2005 - and it means different things to<br>different people, and the text in the Tunis Agenda where it is first<br>references in a formal UN agreement, can also be interpreted in<br>different ways.<br><br>For the last decade it has been used as a political football.. in one of<br>those matches in which it is not clear if anyone actually scores any<br>goals. In fact, for some of the players, the objective of the match has<br>been to avoid anyone scoring any goals :)<br><br>This is a good recent piece by David Souter:<br><a 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><br>I quote from it:<br><br>"'Enhanced cooperation', like the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), was<br>part of the compromise on the future of the Internet at WSIS in 2005.<br>Agreement could not be reached on the governance of critical Internet<br>resources, including the domain name system. ICANN (the Internet<br>Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), for some governments, was<br>little more than an adjunct of the United States. Some wanted the<br>Internet brought within the ambit of an intergovernmental (or<br>multilateral) agency such as the International Telecommunication Union<br>(ITU). Others were, as they remain, determined to keep the Internet free<br>from intergovernmental oversight. As well as dividing governments, this<br>was (and is) therefore a tussle between multilateral and<br>multistakeholder approaches to the Internet.<br><br>The term worked at the time because of its creative ambiguity: like many<br>UN outcomes it meant different things to different folks. But the<br>contests that it overlay were, and still are, unresolved. Several UN<br>initiatives and working groups have failed to reach consensus on it<br>since the Summit. Some governments (and civil society activists) claim<br>that nothing's changed since WSIS: that governments, particularly<br>developing country governments, can't play a substantive role in<br>Internet decisions because there is no proper intergovernmental forum.<br>Others suggest that diverse multistakeholder initiatives represent a lot<br>of 'enhanced cooperation' that's already taking place."<br><br>So in response to your question, it is not a new thing that for several<br>governments, the meaning of enhanced cooperation is "cooperation between<br>governments". And the term 'equal footing' means that all governments<br>should have equal access and voice in these processes.<br><br>They generally quote paragraph 69 of the Tunis Agenda:<br><br>"69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the<br>future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their<br>roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues<br>pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and<br>operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy<br>issues."<br><br>And their position is that the IGF has nothing to do with this type of<br>cooperation.<br><br>Personally, I think this is misinterpreting the Tunis Agenda. If you<br>read the two previous paragraphs, 67 and 68, there is a clear reference<br>to the IGF (referred to in the Tunis Agenda as "the forum for<br>multi-stakeholder policy dialogue". I quote:<br><br>"67. We agree, inter alia, to invite the UN Secretary-General to convene<br>a new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue.<br><br>68. We recognize that all governments should have an equal role and<br>responsibility for international Internet governance and for ensuring<br>the stability, security and continuity of the Internet. We also<br>recognize the need for development of public policy by governments in<br>consultation with all stakeholders.<br><br>69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the<br>future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their<br>roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues<br>pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and<br>operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy<br>issues."<br><br>My interpretation would be that these paragraphs talks about the forum,<br>about involvement of all stakeholders, and about the need for<br>governments to be able to play their role in international public policy.<br><br>These area all important and legitimate and they don't need to be<br>mutually exclusive.<br><br>But there are different views, and there was a General Assembly<br>resolution in 2011 or 2012 which stated that the IGF and enhanced<br>cooperation are two separate processes.<br><br>I do think governments have a legitimate point in saying that they need<br>a space where they can talk about 'cross cutting' internet-related<br>public policy issues. Specific issues are being addressed in places like<br>the Human Rights Council (for internet and human rights issues) or in<br>WIPO (for copyright related issues, for example).<br><br>And I also think that developing countries are not sufficiently<br>empowered or influential in most internet-related policy discussions.<br><br>I just don't believe that setting up a new intergovernmental mechanism<br>is the right solution to this problem. And it is one that is high risk<br>for civil society.<br><br>But others in the WGEC have different views.<br><br>Warm greetings and thanks for following the meeting!<br><br>Anriette<br><br><br><br>On 27/01/2017 19:38, WANGARI KABIRU wrote:<br>> Warm greetings Anriette,<br>> <br>> In the morning there was reference in the semblance that enhanced<br>> cooperation is a government area not for the IGF...MAG.<br>> Would you kindly shed light. <br>> <br>> <br>> The comments;<br>> - that statistics in developing countries are a result of tradeoffs and<br>> thus not (necessarily) reliable<br>> - how an entity is considered multi-stakeholder in one forum and in<br>> other spheres not viewed as such. Taking into account<br>> multi-stakholderism is a key tenet in Internet Governance<br>> <br>> Many thanks for the briefs.<br>> <br>> Be blessed.<br>> <br>> Regards/Wangari<br>> <br>> ---<br>> Pray God Bless. 2013Wangari circa - "Being of the Light, We are Restored<br>> Through Faith in Mind, Body and Spirit; We Manifest The Kingdom of God<br>> on Earth".<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>-- <br>-----------------------------------------<br>Anriette Esterhuysen<br>Executive Director<br>Association for Progressive Communications<br><a ymailto="mailto:anriette@apc.org" href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a><br>www.apc.org<br>IM: ae_apc<br><br><br> <br><br><br></div> </div> </div> </div></div></body></html>