<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hi Jeremy,<div><br></div><div><div><div>On Oct 25, 2010, at 10:35 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Our IGC, ICC and ISOC letter objecting to the limited scope for non-governmental participation in the 14 December Enhanced Cooperation consultations will be sent today, and a similar letter has independently been written by ICANN. So, that matter is in hand.<div><br></div><div>Next, we need to sort out what we need to say for that consultation (whether or not it is opened up to more participation in person).</div><div><br></div><div>In a nutshell, enhanced cooperation (EC) was put forward in Tunis as a middle ground between the US demands to maintain a private-sector led Internet, and the insistence of most other governments that public policy development remained their sovereign right and responsibility.</div><div><br></div><div>The compromise was that there would be no major regime change in Internet governance, but that governments should from now on take a stronger role in development of the underlying public policy principles, subject to consultation with all other stakeholders in their respective roles.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Well, as you know, that's just one reading of EC. As many previous discussions here have indicated, others of us read the TA and recall the debates over its drafting differently. Again, "enhanced cooperation to enable governments to carry out their roles and responsibilities" doesn't necessarily mean a "stronger" government role, "involve all stakeholders" doesn't necessarily mean just being consulted with by governments (which wouldn't map with the actually existing governance of CIR), and so on. Don't mean to reopen a can of worms, just think we should not commence from a contested starting point…we don't have to agree on one or another interpretation to proceed, a neutral formulation is possible.</div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><br></div><div>Here are some of the most obvious issues that our statement should address:</div><div><br></div><div>* Is EC a totally decentralised process which each organisation undertakes independently according to its own criteria? This has been the UNSG's approach (in development of the 2009 report at <a href="http://mini.me.my/i">http://mini.me.my/i</a>). However, ECOSOC (via the CSTD) has re-opened this question (resolution 2010/2).</div><div><br></div><div>* Alternatively, does EC require a new institutional framework, however loose, for coordinating the cooperation of the stakeholders?</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Interesting question. From a CS standpoint, is the main concern a lack of inter-institutional coordination per se? There's pretty elaborate coordination now in key parts of the institutional architecture (e.g. N&N) and other pieces where it's looser, which may or may not be a bad thing, depending (would we want tighter coordination as envisioned in the ITU "cybersecurity agenda"?).</div><div><br></div><div>Experience to date is that it can be rather hard to force organizations to coordinate more. But by aggregating, assessing, sharing info and good/bad practices to make clear to all any gaps/synergies/conflicts etc you may be able to alter incentives and encourage movement where it's really needed. That's part of what we had in mind in the Geneva 12/03 CS declaration's call for a "multistakeholder observatory committee to: (1) map and track the most pressing current developments in ICT global governance decision-making; (2) assess and solicit stakeholder input on the conformity of such decision-making with the stated objectives of the WSIS agenda; and (3) report to all stakeholders in the WSIS process on a periodic basis;" some of us have written about this approach elsewhere as well. A lighter, more flexible approach than expecting some sort of fixed meta-framework...<br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><br></div><div>* If so, where should this be located? The ITU? (Well, obviously we will answer no - but we must address the point.) An expanded IGF MAG? An expanded GAC? An existing UN intergovernmental body? A brand new multi-stakeholder body?</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div>I'd argue for a MS observatory process convened under the auspices of the IGF, consistent with all the relevant mandate elements.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div><br></div><div>BIll</div><div><br><div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">***********************************************************<br>William J. Drake<br>Senior Associate<br>Centre for International Governance<br>Graduate Institute of International and<br> Development Studies<br>Geneva, Switzerland</div><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><a href="mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch">william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch</a><br>www.williamdrake.org<br></div><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">***********************************************************<br><br></div></span></div></span></div></span></span>
</div>
<br></div></body></html>