<div class="gmail_quote" style>Dear all, </div><div class="gmail_quote" style><br></div><div class="gmail_quote" style>Please find below (and attached in word format) the main points I raised in my intervention in the CSTD last friday. I hope they will help in the discussions this week that I cannot attend. </div>
<div class="gmail_quote" style><br></div><div class="gmail_quote" style>Best</div><div class="gmail_quote" style><br></div><div class="gmail_quote" style>Bertrand</div><p style></p><p class="MsoNormal" style><span style="font-size:16pt"><br>
</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style><span style="font-size:16pt">ON “ENHANCED COOPERATION” AND THE OPPORTUNITY OF A WORKING GROUP</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style><span lang="EN-US">Contribution for the discussions in the CSTD </span>(<i>Comments made in a personal capacity, based on the intervention on May 18)</i>)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style><br></p><p class="MsoNormal" style><br></p><p class="MsoNormal" style><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style><b><span lang="EN-US">Benefits and limits of wording ambiguity</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt">The formulations around “Enhanced Cooperation” in the Tunis Agenda were purposefully ambiguous enough to enable diverging interpretations. It was a traditional diplomatic situation enabling closure in Tunis in the absence of real consensus.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt">The same ambiguity was present at the end of the first phase of WSIS in 2003, around the term “Internet Governance” (IG). Two main questions divided participants:</span></p>
<p style></p><ul style><li style="margin-left:15px"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt">is “Internet Governance” limited to infrastructure and critical Internet resources (naming and addressing) or does it also cover issues like freedom of expression, privacy, cybercrime, etc ?</span></li>
<li style="margin-left:15px"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt">should IG remain the province of the technical/business community, or should it become the exclusive responsibility of governments, given the importance the network now plays in all domains of human activity?</span></li>
</ul><p style></p><p class="MsoNormal" style><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt"> </span><span style="font-size:11pt">The creation of the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) helped address these issues and the definition of IG that it produced clarified that:</span></p>
<p style></p><ul style><li style="margin-left:15px"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt">Internet Governance does cover both Governance OF the Internet and Governance ON the Internet (as the Tunis definition addresses “the evolution and use of the Internet”</span></li>
<li style="margin-left:15px"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt">Internet Governance is neither purely private nor purely intergovernmental, but “multi-stakeholder”, involving all categories of stakeholders, with the important caveat of the now famous “in their respective roles”</span></li>
</ul><p style></p><p class="MsoNormal" style><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style><b><span lang="EN-US">Key underlying questions</span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt">On “Enhanced Cooperation”, parties to the discussion can continue to reaffirm their divergent interpretations as they have done for the last seven years. But peremptory arguments are disingenuous at best. Fundamentally, the debate about “Enhanced Cooperation” is nothing else than exploring how to operationalize the definition of Internet Governance, and in particular clarify the question of the “respective roles” of the different stakeholders. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt">Time has come to dig deeper and have the courage to address head on some of the key questions:</span></p>
<p style></p><ul style><li style="margin-left:15px"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt">what is the scope of Enhanced Cooperation: all of Internet Governance, or only some of it ?</span></li><li style="margin-left:15px">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt">are we talking of Enhanced Cooperation as a single process or structure or rather thinking of Enhanced Cooperation<b><u>s</u></b> in the plural, to address a diversity of issues with different mechanisms?</span></li>
<li style="margin-left:15px"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt">are the respective roles of the different stakeholders set once and for all, or do they vary, for instance according to the issue, the venue and the stage of the discussion?</span></li>
</ul><p style></p><p class="MsoNormal" style><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style><b><span lang="EN-US">Moving forward</span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt">Such questions – and other – could contribute to a useful framing of the debate, but how to move forward? Some actors have proposed the creation of a working group, worried that annual sessions such as this year merely produce a succession of repetitive statements and no real interaction. Others have deep concern that a working group will be a waste of time and resources if it is not set up in an appropriate manner and with a clear willingness of all parties to move forward.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style><b><span lang="EN-US"><br></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style><b><span lang="EN-US">Two preliminary conditions</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt">Without taking sides, I would like to highlight two elements to feed into the CSTD discussions this week on the possible formation of a working group:</span></p>
<p style></p><ul style><li style="margin-left:15px"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt">experience teaches us that working groups are not efficient without the participation of all actors and article 71 of the Tunis Agenda requires it for legitimacy on the EC issue; to build on the successful precedent of the WSIS, the format of the WGIG should be the reference here, with its balanced composition and equal footing of the participants</span></li>
<li style="margin-left:15px"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt">secondly, it is essential that appropriate funding is available, without which the involvement of participants from developing countries cannot be ensured; but the same funders cannot be always called to task: the proponents of setting up a group should therefore be able to lead by example and put their money where their mouth is; it would be ironic otherwise to expect such funding only from countries or actors who do not particularly want the setting up of such an effort.</span></li>
</ul><p style></p><p class="MsoNormal" style><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt"> </span><span style="font-size:11pt">These two elements – a WGIG format and appropriate funding – are likely to be prerequisites for any discussion on setting up a Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC ?).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style><b><span lang="EN-US"><br></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style><b><span lang="EN-US">Further points to address</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt">Should those conditions be agreed upon and the CSTD willing to go in the direction of setting up such a group, other questions to be explored include:</span></p>
<p style></p><ul style><li style="margin-left:15px"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt">what should be the scope/mandate of such a group? useful suggestions heard in the open consultation on May 18 included:</span></li>
<ul><li style="margin-left:15px"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt">elaborating a better shared understanding of the concept of Enhanced Cooperation and the issues it covers</span></li><li style="margin-left:15px">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt">a mapping exercise of existing instances of Enhanced Cooperation</span></li><li style="margin-left:15px"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt">an identification of possible principles guiding the setting up of Enhanced Cooperation Frameworks</span></li>
</ul><li style="margin-left:15px"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt">how open such a WG will be and in particular how it will solicit inputs from non-members and inform them of its process?</span></li><li style="margin-left:15px">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt">where such a working group would be attached (proposals include: the Chair of the CSTD, the IGF, the UN SG) and who would chair it?</span></li><li style="margin-left:15px"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt">how such an exercise should leverage/interact with the IGF?</span></li>
<li style="margin-left:15px"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt">how and to whom it should report to, and in what form?</span></li></ul><p style></p><p class="MsoNormal" style><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt"> </span><span style="font-size:11pt">To avoid future misunderstanding, any draft resolution discussed in Geneva this week needs to address these issues as clearly as possible.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style><b><span lang="EN-US"><br></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style><b><span lang="EN-US">About good faith</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt">If an agreement is reached on the creation of a working group and its modus operandi, an essential trust-building element is that the governments participating in preparing the draft resolution abide later on, in ECOSOC and the UNGA, by whatever compromise will have been reached in Geneva. Previous instances of reopening painfully agreed upon terms have sapped confidence: the word of one government in Geneva should not be different from its word in New York.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt">Switzerland remarks during the open consultations also need to be kept in mind. The price we have all paid for not moving beyond the ambiguous formulations of Tunis is that discussion on a process to discuss process (!) has prevented actually addressing pressing issues. It is now time to move from parallel statements to actual interaction. But the setting up of a working group on this topic will only be useful if its modalities are right and the participants engage in good faith, fully assuming their responsibilities.</span></p>
<div style><br></div><div style>Hoping this helps.</div><div><br></div>-- <br>____________________<br>Bertrand de La Chapelle<div>Program Director, International Diplomatic Academy</div><div>Member, ICANN Board of Directors <br>
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32<br><br>"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry<br>("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")</div><br>