<html>
<body>
<br>
Dear Jeremy,<br><br>
Actually, your document is clear, comprehensive, and matter of fact, but
I am afraid it is not neutral. The reason that is the case is that
currently the focus is on "enhanced cooperation", while it
should rather be on "public". <br><br>
A. To better understand my point, let us take the European
definition of "enhanced cooperation" per the Lisbon Treaty:
<a href="http://europa.eu/scadplus/glossary/enhanced_cooperation_en.htm">
http://europa.eu/scadplus/glossary/enhanced_cooperation_en.htm.<br><br>
</a>This definition (also mutually adopted by governments) definitely
conflicts with the Tunis Agenda. <br><br>
Merging them clarifies the issue: <br>
- The European definition states that some countries can enhance their
cooperation on a case by case basis<br>
- The Tunis definition states that governments are to be on equal
footing.<br><br>
This can only be conciliated if one only selects those cases where all
governments are on equal footing. <br><br>
1) Tunis identified two such areas: <br>
- your narrow issue of internationalizing the oversight of the Internet
naming and numbering functions<br>
- art. 71: to be responsive to innovation (i.e. supposedly identified
emerging enhancements).<br><br>
2) and it determined what an enhanced cooperation should bring to
governments in these areas: a better understanding and definition of
globally-applicable principles on public policy issues that are
associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet
resources (Art. 70).<br><br>
<br>
B. This shows that all of this was understandable in the Tunis
initial context but that it is meaningless because it is incoherent with
the desired innovation, i.e. the enhancement of the world digital
ecosystem that supports what is to be a societal evolution. <br>
- WSIS is about information society, and enhanced cooperation is about
its public issues (dynamic into the future) <br>
- What is defined hereinabove regards the Internet and governments
(stability from the past).<br><br>
The emergence of innovation that the IGF has more or less reported makes
"enhanced cooperation over the world digital ecosystem network
public issues" different from "governments' deeper views on the
Internet". This is why "enhanced cooperation must encompass all
Internet-related public policy issues" was fully acceptable in an
ICANN/ISOC/IETF pre-WSIS GAC meeting, but then becomes biased towards a
political and technological status quo in a today’s civil-society
statement.<br><br>
<br>
C. We, therefore, must start questioning every involved topic:
<br><br>
- what is the world digital ecosystem (WDE) that the WSIS has
enlightened?<br>
- what is the WDE network (WDEN)?<br>
- what are the WDEN related "public issues"? <br>
- from the identification of these "public issues", what are
the regalian digital functions?<br>
- how better can these regalian digital functions be cooperated?<br>
- how can this be applied to particular cases, such as the Internet? The
IETF mission is to influence those who design, use, and manage the
Internet for it to work better. How will a better cooperated regalian
digital function participate in the Internet enhancement? What is to be
the role that is to be acknowledged to civil society in this process? (I
note that in this particular Internet example, the non-Tunis identified
and the prevalent Internet users' community entered the IETF process
through a young but formalized and quite active IUCG [Internet Users
Contributing Group], and maintains a civil society related section
(http://iucg.org/wiki/Translating_Civil_Society_preocupations). <br><br>
<br>
D. The reason why I think this issue is a major one and must
seriously be addressed is that what is at stake is the replacement of the
"modern State" that we inherited from the book and that we now
adapt to the digital network context. In particular, experience shows
(GAC at ICANN) that enhanced cooperation has to be reached by specialized
points of enhanced cooperation, or enhanced cooperations (as
organizations) on specialized topics, in turn structurally completing the
thematic dynamic coalitions. <br><br>
The only existing one that we can observe is precisely the
ICANN/GAC/ISOC/IETF/IANA enhanced cooperation. The consideration of this
enhanced cooperation structure, which is not prepared to face the
emergence of innovation in the use of the Internet (naming, presentation
layer, addressing, IPv6, etc.), shows that the digital community requires
a better understanding of what the World Digital Ecosystem Network is and
what its critical resources truly are. This also questions the IGF as an
observatory of the emergence of digital evolution, and the lack of a
technical evolution matching process by a missing World Digital Ecosystem
Governance.<br><br>
This has to be clearly reported to the UN General Secretary for the
upcoming governmental UNDEP consultation on enhanced cooperation. IMHO,
this also calls for a third WSIS meeting, in a few years time, when
governments have, individually and in cooperation, assimilated and
validated the points described hereinabove.<br><br>
Regards.<br>
jfc<br><br>
<br>
At 14:31 02/11/2010, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">We haven't, by any means, had
enough discussion on the table yet to be close to settling a statement on
enhanced cooperation for the upcoming UNDEP consultation on that topic,
due this month. But since we made such noise about non-governmental
stakeholders being excluded from that consultation, it would be a shame
if in the end we had nothing to contribute.<br><br>
So, to stimulate a bit more discussion, I've drafted a very neutral,
uncontentious and short statement on enhanced cooperation that, based on
your feedback, can hopefully be beefed up into something worth submitting
on behalf of the IGC. Here it is:<br><br>
"The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) is pleased to
present its views on the process towards enhanced cooperation on
international public policy issues relating to the Internet. We do
not have any detailed prescription of the form which this process should
take, but rather we take this opportunity to make three simple points.
<br><br>
First is that enhanced cooperation must encompass all Internet-related
public policy issues, second that the existing arrangements of relevant
organisations (including the Internet Governance Forum) do not adequately
implement this ideal of enhanced cooperation, and finally that whatever
new arrangements may be put in place, civil society will play an integral
part in them.<br><br>
These points will be explained in turn:<br><br>
1. Although much of the discussion of enhanced cooperation at WSIS turned
around the narrow issue of internationalising the oversight of Internet
naming and numbering functions, the Tunis Agenda expresses this principle
far more broadly to encompass all existing Internet governance
arrangements (see particularly paras 58-60 and 69).<br><br>
2. The IGF in its present form is a very important part of that process,
in that its multi-stakeholder process can help to shape the decisions
that are taken on Internet related public policy issues in other
fora. However the full realisation of enhanced cooperation will
require a multi-stakeholder process to extend to those other fora
also.<br><br>
There are various options for enhancing multi-stakeholder cooperation
within and amongst all relevant organisations, ranging from a new
umbrella governance institution, to a more lightweight multi-stakeholder
observatory process perhaps hosted under the auspices of the IGF
(pursuant to its mandate in paragraph 72(i)).<br><br>
3. Paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda makes very clear that civil society
is an integral participant in the development of any process towards
enhanced cooperation. Therefore the IGC, in our capacity as members
of civil society, looks forward to contributing constructively in
transparent, accountable and democratic multi-stakeholder consultations
towards this end."<br><br>
-- <br><br>
<font size=2><b>Jeremy Malcolm<br>
Project Coordinator</b><br>
</font><font size=1 color="#808080">Consumers International<br>
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East<br>
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia<br>
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599<br>
</font><font size=2 color="#CC9900"><b>CI is 50<br>
</b></font><font size=1 color="#993366">Consumers International marks 50
years of the global consumer movement in 2010.<br>
Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer
rights around the world. <br>
<u><a href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/50">
http://www.consumersinternational.org/50</a></u><br>
</font><font size=2><br>
</font><font size=1 color="#999999">Read our
<a href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765">
email confidentiality notice</a>. Don't print this email unless
necessary.<br>
</font><br>
</blockquote></body>
</html>