Wolfgang points to a useful angle:<div><br></div><div>- nobody should argue that the IGF <u>IS</u> enhanced cooperation</div><div>- but the IGF is clearly part of the <u>PROCESS</u> towards enhanced cooperation (ie a place where what EC should be can be discussed)</div>
<div><br></div><div>Is anybody proposing a workshop on Enhanced Cooperation in Baku? If not why?</div><div><br></div><div>Or alternatively, why not set up a pre- or parallel event? </div><div><br></div><div>The recent Geneva discussions were worthless: a mere repetition of divergent interpretations. More substantive discussions are needed. What role can IGC play in making the debate more useful?</div>
<div><br></div><div>B.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 11:04 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de" target="_blank">wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Here is the background for the IGF/EC confusion:<br>
<br>
It started within the WGIG (2004) where we had a mandate to define Internet Governance. After agreeing on the basics of the definition we soon realized that to "implement the definition" we have to take into consideration various functions. We ended up with a "forum function" (for policy development) and on "oversight function" (for decision making, mainly related to ICANN). The IGF was the proposal for the forum function. The "four models" for the oversight function (Status Quo-, Status Quo, Status Quo+, Status Quo++). With other words: We had consensus on the forum function but no consensus on the oversight function.<br>
<br>
The compromise in Tunis was to move from a "new cooperation MODEL" (as proposed by the EU/ this was status quo+ and included the establishment of an intergovernmental council for the level of "principle") to a "PROCESS of enhanced cooperation" (which postponed the decision on a new model). With other words, Tunis agreed on a "wait and see" approach for the "oversight function".<br>
<br>
It was very clear - and this was accepted already during the IGF 2007 in Rio by the MAG - that a "process" needs discussion, needs a forum. Insofar today IGF and EC are indeed interconencted as elements of a global Internet PDP. But they remain different with regard to decision making and institutionalization (oversight function).<br>
<br>
In my eyes, the multistakeholder review process, established under the AOC, is the most adequate oversight mechanism for ICANN. However the first round of the four reviews (not yet completed) have documented also some weaknesses in the process. This has to be improved. Energy should be invested to make the second round of reviews - which starts end of 2013/early 2014 - stronger, more efficient and more public. The innovation of the ICANNs AOC Review Mechanism (AREM) is, that this process is both multistakeholder and decentralized with a strong role for governments (also for governments from developing countries).<br>
<br>
BTW, I could imagine also an IGF Review Mechanism to make IGF Improvement on onging process.<br>
<br>
Anyhow, the future is open.<br>
<br>
Wolfgang<br>
<br>
________________________________<br>
<br>
Von: <a href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a> im Auftrag von Jeremy Malcolm<br>
Gesendet: Mo 28.05.2012 08:35<br>
An: <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>; Andrea Glorioso<br>
Betreff: Re: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation<br>
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
On 28/05/12 14:23, Andrea Glorioso wrote:<br>
<br>
both during the WSIS week in Geneva and recently on this mailing list I had the occasion to hear/read a number of persons claiming (rather forcefully) that the conclusions of the WSIS "clearly" meant the IGF to be the or at least an instrument to implement Enhanced Cooperation.<br>
<br>
Leaving aside for a moment the subsequent UNGA resolution on the matter (but noting that even though, strictly speaking, we are not talking about binding international law, the principle of "lex posterior" could apply) I would be curious to know your views on which passages of the WSIS texts could lead to such conclusion.<br>
<br>
<br>
Lazily, just copying and pasting from page 518 of my 2008 book on the IGF (<a href="http://books.google.com.my/books?id=G8ETBPD6jHIC" target="_blank">http://books.google.com.my/books?id=G8ETBPD6jHIC</a>):<br>
<br>
"...there is no clear division between the role of the IGF and the process of enhanced cooperation in the Tunis Agenda; rather the former is treated as an integral component of the latter.[341] What can be taken from this is that whilst governments will continue to maintain sovereignty over the authoritative statement of public policy principles in international and domestic law, those principles are to be developed in a multi-stakeholder forum, the IGF (from where they may equally find implementation through other, non-legal mechanisms of governance)."<br>
<br>
</div>[341] See WSIS, Tunis Agenda for the Information Society (as in n. 5 on page 2), paras 67-72, in<br>
<div class="im">which the middle paragraphs on enhanced cooperation are sandwiched by those calling for the<br>
establishment of the IGF.<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
<br>
<br>
Dr Jeremy Malcolm<br>
Senior Policy Officer<br>
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: <a href="tel:%2B60%203%207726%201599" value="+60377261599">+60 3 7726 1599</a><br>
<br>
</div>Follow @ConsumersInt <<a href="http://twitter.com/Consumers_Int" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/Consumers_Int</a>><br>
<br>
Like us at <a href="http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational" target="_blank">www.facebook.com/consumersinternational</a><br>
<br>
Read our email confidentiality notice <<a href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality" target="_blank">http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality</a>> . Don't print this email unless necessary.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><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>
</div>