<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div>Dear All,<br><br></div>Are the transcripts from the 2nd Meeting of WGEC archived online?<br></div>A link would be really helpful.<br><br></div>Thank you.<br><br>Regards,<br>Snehashish<br></div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 7:12 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ca@cafonso.ca" target="_blank">ca@cafonso.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Dear people,<br>
<br>
Here are my *personal* views and a short report as a participant in the<br>
Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (UNWGEC) -- its second meeting<br>
just happened in Geneva (6-8 of November). It just follows the latest<br>
edition of the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) held last October in<br>
Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia.<br>
<br>
In the discussion of enhanced cooperation among nations for the<br>
advancement of the information society and knowledge (and with this<br>
phrase I try to synthesize my view of the subject), the IGF is always<br>
taken into account, both to highlight its (relative) relevance and to<br>
suggest the way forward for international governance of the Internet.<br>
<br>
Several governments also insist that the 2005 Tunis Agenda (attached in<br>
PDF), a non-binding commitment among governments, should not be changed<br>
-- some even hail the Agenda as a "bible" to be followed, even if it has<br>
not been followed by some of the very governments which view it as such,<br>
and even if the dynamics of rapid worldwide development of the Internet<br>
requires periodic revisions.<br>
<br>
The Tunis Agenda contains a lengthy specification of the mandate the IGF<br>
should follow, as described in its paragraph 72:<br>
<br>
------<br>
72. We ask the UN Secretary-General, in an open and inclusive process,<br>
to convene, by the second quarter of 2006, a meeting of the new forum<br>
for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance<br>
Forum (IGF). The mandate of the Forum is to:<br>
<br>
a) Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet<br>
governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security,<br>
stability and development of the Internet.<br>
<br>
b) Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different<br>
cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and<br>
discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body.<br>
<br>
c) Interface with appropriate intergovernmental organizations and other<br>
institutions on matters under their purview.<br>
<br>
d) Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, and in<br>
this regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific<br>
and technical communities.<br>
<br>
e) Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the<br>
availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world.<br>
<br>
f) Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing<br>
and/or future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from<br>
developing countries.<br>
<br>
g) Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant<br>
bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations.<br>
<br>
h) Contribute to capacity building for Internet governance in developing<br>
countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise.<br>
<br>
i) Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS<br>
principles in Internet governance processes.<br>
<br>
j) Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources.<br>
<br>
k) Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse<br>
of the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users.<br>
<br>
l) Publish its proceedings.<br>
------<br>
<br>
It is clear that this broad mandate is not being fulfilled by the IGF.<br>
First of all, these items show that the IGF should be a process-oriented<br>
forum, not merely a sequence of events.<br>
<br>
Secondly, there are clear references to recommendations that should be<br>
generated by the IGF -- for example items e, g , h , and i --, which<br>
have been basically ignored by the UN.<br>
<br>
The fact is that the IGF is leaving aside significant components of its<br>
mandate, and even governments which swear fidelity to the Tunis Agenda<br>
have not given importance to these shortcomings. Further, the MAG (which<br>
is dedicated only to organize each yearly event ) is composed basically<br>
on UN-filtered sectorial representation but not the necessarily on the<br>
expertises needed to carry out this challenge .<br>
<br>
It is therefore necessary to rethink the IGF if it is deemed to be (or<br>
might become) a central instance of enhanced cooperation. Otherwise it<br>
might be replaced in favor of other ways to advance this process.<br>
<br>
As for WGEC , whose goal is to deliver recommendations on enhanced<br>
cooperation to the Commission on Science and Technology for Development<br>
(UN UNCSTD) in the first half of 2014, which will be brought to the UN<br>
General Assembly in September of the same year, the work so far has<br>
revealed some worrying weaknesses .<br>
<br>
The central result of the first meeting of WGEC, in June 2013, was the<br>
production of a questionnaire that was answered by all sectors. There<br>
were 69 responses , thus distributed: 29 from governments, 23 from civil<br>
society, 11 from the "technical-academic" sector, and eight from the<br>
business sector. More than half of the responses came from developing<br>
countries.<br>
<br>
It produced a consolidation of the results with some flaws (including<br>
the mistakenly taking responses from the Best Bits group of NGOs for the<br>
APC responses), but even so the consolidation gave a reasonable idea of<br>
the various views of the working group in relation to themes of<br>
cooperation and improved governance of the Internet. [summary is<br>
attached in PDF]<br>
<br>
The summary and procedures in the second meeting (6-8 November) reveal<br>
the risk of retracing the path already followed for building the Tunis<br>
Agenda, as well as the efforts of the Working Group on Internet<br>
Governance (WGIG , which met November 2004 to June 2005). Effectively,<br>
significant time was consumed in preparing a list of over 300 topics<br>
possibly related to Internet governance and enhanced cooperation. Group<br>
difficulties in dealing with such a number of issues in order to try to<br>
group them into key issues was such that we constituted a specific group<br>
("correspondence group") to come up with a short list of topics. The<br>
perception of "déjà-vu" for the old-timers who participated in the WGIG<br>
and the WSIS process is inevitable .<br>
<br>
One of the problems of a working group like this is that participants<br>
are defined in terms of their sectoral representations and not<br>
necessarily because of their expertise on the issues (something similar<br>
to what occurs with MAG). This creates an additional difficulty for both<br>
the consolidation of the issues and the drafting of a qualified report.<br>
<br>
Faced with the lack of time and the uncertainties generated by this<br>
process, some sectors have presented concrete proposals, which I relate<br>
below.<br>
<br>
A group of civil society organizations and individuals presented an<br>
interesting list of possible recommendations to be evaluated and<br>
possibly adopted in the final report WGEC (I added the numbering for<br>
easy future reference). I have reservations about the effectiveness of<br>
the role of IGF so far, but overall I agree with the approach and<br>
consider a contribution to guiding the future WGEC report. Their<br>
suggestions:<br>
<br>
------<br>
Draft recommendations bullets prepared by a group of WGEC Members and<br>
Observers<br>
<br>
1- Acknowledges that the Tunis Agenda, if it is to continue as a<br>
reference point for all stakeholders, should be considered as a living<br>
document which needs to be updated to reflect the roles and<br>
responsibilities of all participants;<br>
<br>
2- Encourages the rethinking of the stakeholder roles that were defined<br>
by governments unilaterally in the Tunis Agenda, noting that these roles<br>
were originally defined by governments in December 2003, Geneva<br>
Declaration of Principles;<br>
<br>
3- Affirms that the internet belongs to everyone: everyone can use it<br>
and everyone can improve it: this also applies to its governance;<br>
<br>
4- Acknowledges that Enhanced Cooperation is well underway as intended<br>
in Tunis Agenda paragraphs 67 through 75;<br>
<br>
5- Concludes that no new multilateral arrangements, are required for<br>
Enhanced Cooperation;<br>
<br>
6- Acknowledges that new mechanisms spring into existence organically<br>
as they are needed and that there is no need to create new mechanisms<br>
in a top down manner;<br>
<br>
7- Acknowledges the efforts of various existing mechanisms to understand<br>
internet governance and to make public policy in light of, and taking<br>
into account, its multi-stakeholder nature;<br>
<br>
8- Congratulates the IGF for its work in meeting its Tunis Agenda<br>
defined role in fostering Enhanced Cooperation;<br>
<br>
9- Encourages the IGF to cover all issues of Internet governance that<br>
are of concern to stakeholders and to form ongoing Issue Discussion<br>
Groups within the IGF to make recommendations on these issues to the<br>
larger IGF community;<br>
<br>
10- Encourages the IGF to follow the recommendations of the CSTD WG on<br>
IGF Improvements including its mandate to give advice to the functional<br>
Internet governance and management organizations;<br>
<br>
11- Encourages those making public policy to engage more fully in the<br>
IGF and to bring to the IGF their questions on internet related matters<br>
within their mandates;<br>
<br>
12- Encourages all governments to commit to the IGF, and to use the IGF<br>
process as an opportunity not just to engage with all other<br>
stakeholders, but as an opportunity to work with each other on an equal<br>
footing;<br>
<br>
13- Invites all Internet governance and management organizations to<br>
participate in the IGF.<br>
<br>
14- Reinforces the multistakeholder approach and encourages all<br>
stakeholders to engage more in and work with existing organisations and<br>
to explore ways in which stakeholder engagement can be enhanced.<br>
------<br>
<br>
In summary , the path is to focus , focus , focus on a small but<br>
essential set of topics and try to build proposals for enhanced<br>
cooperation among nations (rather than just among governments) around<br>
these themes (and this points to the requirement of pluriparticipative<br>
processes all along). Otherwise, the WGEC will end up replaying the<br>
generalities of much of the Tunis Agenda and will barely advance.<br>
<br>
On the side of governments, suggested guidelines came from the<br>
governments of Brazil, Mexico, the UK and Sweden:<br>
<br>
------<br>
- Members [of the UN] should explore ways to strenghten participation of<br>
all stakeholders from developing countries in existing global internet<br>
governance fora including through funding mechanisms and alternative<br>
working methods such as remote participation.<br>
<br>
- Members should increase efforts to empower stakeholders to particpate<br>
through capactity building, including but not limited to, training<br>
programs, awarness raising, best practice sharing.<br>
<br>
- Members should work with developing countries to create a fair and<br>
consistent domestic framework that stimulates competition and creates<br>
affordable access for all stakeholders.<br>
<br>
- The role of governments should include, but not be limited to, to<br>
empower internet users, ensure a fair and consistent legal framework<br>
that is transparent accountable and equitable and protect human rights<br>
online, to foster a robust global internet infrastructure and support<br>
mulitstakeholder processes and partnerships.<br>
------<br>
<br>
At this point , I believe the proper junction of the two proposals can<br>
help speed up the process towards the final report of the WGEC.<br>
<br>
fraternal regards<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
--c.a.<br>
</font></span><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></div>