<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Hi All<br>
<br>
Oversight of tech coordination functions is one part of what has been
called as 'enhanced cooperation' (EC). The other part, which I consider
as much more important, but generally neglected in the EC discussions,
concerns other or general Internet related public policy issues. The
best way to understand these sets of functions is to look at the work
of OECD's Committee on Information, Communications and Computers Policy
(CCICP), and also at Council of Europe's Internet policy mechanisms.
These Internet policy mechanisms do not 'directly' deal with issues
under the ambit of the bodies managing Internet's critical
infrastructure (the ICANN + system).<br>
<br>
These internet policy mechanisms have come up policy frameworks and
guidelines like Principles for Internet related Policies, Intermediary
guidelines, are also looking into search engine guidelines, and social
network guidelines, and so on....... These bodies also facilitate
treaties on Internet related issues among the member countries (OECD's
ACTA, CoE's cybersecurity treaty, etc).....<br>
<br>
So, after looking at the 'oversight' issue, as we did on this list for
the last few weeks, the second key point of the 'enhanced cooperation'
discussion is how to institutionally deal with <i>*general Internet
related public policy issues</i>* (to demarcate them from those
directly connecting to CIR management). These 'global' policy issues
are today being undemocratically dealt by bodies whose membership is
limited to a few richest countries. <br>
<br>
Why should these </font><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><i>*general
Internet related public policy issues</i>* (GPPIs)</font><font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"> not be considered by institutions
and bodies that have representation of all countries, rich and
developing ones. Civil Society, and IGC, need to answer this question.<br>
<br>
Remove the oversight function of India's proposed UN Committee on
Internet Related Policies (something I think India, and other CIRP
backers, may be willing to consider) and we have almost the exact
function and structure as of OECD's CCICP, but with all countries being
present rather than just the rich ones. (and a more expansive
participation model than the CCICP).<br>
<br>
On what basis can we be opposed to such an institutional structure,
as one way of taking forward 'enhanced cooperation'? This is an
important part of the enhanced cooperation discussion. Especially, for
civil society, which is perhaps more concerned with social, economic,
cultural and political issues rather than security, technical etc
issues which more centrally implicated on the 'oversight' side of
enhanced cooperation.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
</body>
</html>