<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 31 January 2017 12:06 AM,
Lea Kaspar wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJTVAjxDW9veQx-8YSPrHm+Y2x7zu=8ekQR1BZbZkr-zxCNifA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><span style="font-size:12.8px">Dear Anriette, all,</span>
<div style="font-size:12.8px"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-size:12.8px">(I'm writing here in my capacity
as another CS-selected member of the WGEC who participated in
last week's proceedings)
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This really is a great summary of the current debate -
thank you for sharing it on the lists and for sharing
David's blog post. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'm interested in understanding better two points you
raise towards the end of your post (and which summarise how
some stakeholders are framing the problem): </div>
</div>
<blockquote style="font-size:12.8px;margin:0px 0px 0px
40px;border:none;padding:0px">
<div>1) lack of space for governments to discuss cross-cutting
internet-related pp issues and; </div>
<div>2) lack of sufficient empowerment/ influence in most
internet-related policy discussions by developing country
governments. </div>
</blockquote>
<div style="font-size:12.8px">
<div><br>
</div>
The problem could of course be framed in different ways,
depending on one's starting position and definition of EC. I
just saw Parminder's email to that effect which is very
thoughtful and can serve as a starting point for further
discussion. But leaving that aside for the moment, I am
interested in understanding better the two points identified
above. This is because I've seen these arguments emerge in
last week's discussions and would like to be able to engage
with them 'on an equal footing' :).<br>
<br>
On the first point, and apologies if this comes off as naive,
but what is behind the position that governments need a space
where they can talk about 'cross cutting' internet-related
public policy issues? What's driving it? I know for some
governments it's partly (geo)political posturing, but beyond
that, and especially for developing country governments -
where should one look to better understand the substantive
argument that supports this position?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Lea, let me see if I can engage with some of these points.<br>
<br>
First of all, governments want a space where they can not only
"discuss" but also "develop" cross-cutting international
Internet-related public policies. As for what is driving such a
demand I think it should not be difficult to see knowing as most of
us do here that OECD countries develop "international" Internet
related public policies through OECD's Committee on Digital Economy
Policies. This committee was re-mandated with a new name and mandate
just a few years back. The process was in-putted into by civil
society actors, most of them present here, without asking the OECD
countires why do they need such an forum for Internet-related public
policy development, whether it is just geo-political posturing, and
so on. Why should these questions be addressed to developing
countries who would simply like such "international" policies to be
developed democratically with all countries participating equally
when these questions do not get asked from OECD countries doing
exactly the same work, in exactly the same inter-governmental
manner? Just because the latter are the rich and powerful countries?
(Pl do excuse the rhetoric.)<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJTVAjxDW9veQx-8YSPrHm+Y2x7zu=8ekQR1BZbZkr-zxCNifA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-size:12.8px"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-size:12.8px">On the second point, which I've
heard raised many times, I'd be interested to hear whether
people think this is changing due to the proliferation of
internet related pp issues <span style="font-size:12.8px">across
the international policy landscape (UNGA, HRC, AU, ITU,
ASEAN...)</span><span style="font-size:12.8px">. True, in
some processes this may indeed be the case (e.g. OECD,
London Process?), but there are many others that
increasingly deal with internet related PP where the voices
of developing country governments are anything but
powerless. In fact, in the three UNGA committees which deal
with issues such as cybersecurity (1st committee), WSIS (2nd
committee), and privacy (3rd committee), the G77 hold the
majority vote. The situation is not much different in the
ITU and a number of other bodies. Is this problem likely to
loose its grounding or even relevance with the changing
nature of the landscape? <br>
</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
You would notice that the processes that you mention as where
developing countries do get excluded are those which are
specifically committed to Internet-related policy issues, and those
that you mention where developing countries have equal voice are old
ones dealing with other general areas which may have some Internet
related aspects/ areas. (ITU is a different case to which I will
come presently.) So, the real question is, why rich countries need
and prefer to have committed mechanisms just for Internet-related
public policy issues but it is considered unnecessary to have such
forums - with same specific/ committed mandate exclusively for
internet policies - where developing countries can be equally
present? Why does the logic change just because developing countries
are added to the mix? And to deflect their demands, examples are
given of existing forums that are focussed on very different
matters, which though may have some Internet aspects (which today
almost everything has? OECD has about 45 or so other committees,
dealing with almost everything that can need dealing, and each of
these areas having some Internet aspects that too get dealt by them;
why did it then feel the need to have a committed Committee for
Digital Economy Policies, just a few years back?<br>
<br>
As for ITU, please do remember how most CS groups here fought to
keep Internet policy issues as far from ITU's work and mandate as
possible, and how WCIT crashed not only on inclusion of Internet in
the ITRs but even its inclusion as an appended resolution. So, when
at ITU people do not want ITU to deal with the Internet, but when
one asks for some other democratic body for the Internet, ITU is
given as one place where Internet issues are being addressed. It is
a bit unfair to be batting from both the sides. In any case, I do
not think ITU is the right place for Internet related public
policies, it is useful for many aspects of Internet related
technical policies along with ICANN and other such technical policy
bodies. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJTVAjxDW9veQx-8YSPrHm+Y2x7zu=8ekQR1BZbZkr-zxCNifA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-size:12.8px"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-size:12.8px">Thanks in advance for the openness
in reading these questions. They are addressed to anyone who
can shine light on them, and raised in the spirit of
encouraging an informed debate on these issues. <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes, I too am really interested in this debate. Thanks for your
openness, parminder<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJTVAjxDW9veQx-8YSPrHm+Y2x7zu=8ekQR1BZbZkr-zxCNifA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-size:12.8px"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-size:12.8px">On a general note - I would really
encourage people to engage in this debate if they are
interested. Governments on the WGEC seem to hold rather
polarising positions, and I think this opens the opportunity
for civil society to play a bridging role in shaping the
group's outcomes. With modalities allowing observers to
actively participate in the meetings, you can engage directly
or channel your views via others. </div>
<div style="font-size:12.8px"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-size:12.8px">In any case, looking forward to
people's views and comments.</div>
<div style="font-size:12.8px"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-size:12.8px">Best wishes,</div>
<div style="font-size:12.8px">Lea</div>
<div style="font-size:12.8px"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-size:12.8px">ps - I'm not on the IGC/APC lists
so my posts don't go through there, but feel free to loop the
lists back in for those who are on them</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 3:33 PM,
matthew shears <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:mshears@cdt.org"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mshears@cdt.org">mshears@cdt.org</a></a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>+ 1 Anriette - very nicely summarized.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="gmail-m_8776412099288405097moz-cite-prefix">On
30/01/2017 14:16, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Dear Wangari
Apologies for delay in responding.
It is an interesting question, and it goes to the heart of the enhanced
cooperation debate, which in many ways is at the heart of the internet
governance debate that has been ongoing since 2003.
The term was first used in 2005 - and it means different things to
different people, and the text in the Tunis Agenda where it is first
references in a formal UN agreement, can also be interpreted in
different ways.
For the last decade it has been used as a political football.. in one of
those matches in which it is not clear if anyone actually scores any
goals. In fact, for some of the players, the objective of the match has
been to avoid anyone scoring any goals :)
This is a good recent piece by David Souter:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="gmail-m_8776412099288405097moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.apc.org/en/blog/inside-information-society-enhanced-cooperation-en" target="_blank">https://www.apc.org/en/blog/<wbr>inside-information-society-<wbr>enhanced-cooperation-en</a>
I quote from it:
"‘Enhanced cooperation’, like the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), was
part of the compromise on the future of the Internet at WSIS in 2005.
Agreement could not be reached on the governance of critical Internet
resources, including the domain name system. ICANN (the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), for some governments, was
little more than an adjunct of the United States. Some wanted the
Internet brought within the ambit of an intergovernmental (or
multilateral) agency such as the International Telecommunication Union
(ITU). Others were, as they remain, determined to keep the Internet free
from intergovernmental oversight. As well as dividing governments, this
was (and is) therefore a tussle between multilateral and
multistakeholder approaches to the Internet.
The term worked at the time because of its creative ambiguity: like many
UN outcomes it meant different things to different folks. But the
contests that it overlay were, and still are, unresolved. Several UN
initiatives and working groups have failed to reach consensus on it
since the Summit. Some governments (and civil society activists) claim
that nothing’s changed since WSIS: that governments, particularly
developing country governments, can’t play a substantive role in
Internet decisions because there is no proper intergovernmental forum.
Others suggest that diverse multistakeholder initiatives represent a lot
of ‘enhanced cooperation’ that’s already taking place."
So in response to your question, it is not a new thing that for several
governments, the meaning of enhanced cooperation is "cooperation between
governments". And the term 'equal footing' means that all governments
should have equal access and voice in these processes.
They generally quote paragraph 69 of the Tunis Agenda:
"69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the
future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their
roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues
pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and
operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy
issues."
And their position is that the IGF has nothing to do with this type of
cooperation.
Personally, I think this is misinterpreting the Tunis Agenda. If you
read the two previous paragraphs, 67 and 68, there is a clear reference
to the IGF (referred to in the Tunis Agenda as "the forum for
multi-stakeholder policy dialogue". I quote:
"67. We agree, inter alia, to invite the UN Secretary-General to convene
a new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue.
68. We recognize that all governments should have an equal role and
responsibility for international Internet governance and for ensuring
the stability, security and continuity of the Internet. We also
recognize the need for development of public policy by governments in
consultation with all stakeholders.
69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the
future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their
roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues
pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and
operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy
issues."
My interpretation would be that these paragraphs talks about the forum,
about involvement of all stakeholders, and about the need for
governments to be able to play their role in international public policy.
These area all important and legitimate and they don't need to be
mutually exclusive.
But there are different views, and there was a General Assembly
resolution in 2011 or 2012 which stated that the IGF and enhanced
cooperation are two separate processes.
I do think governments have a legitimate point in saying that they need
a space where they can talk about 'cross cutting' internet-related
public policy issues. Specific issues are being addressed in places like
the Human Rights Council (for internet and human rights issues) or in
WIPO (for copyright related issues, for example).
And I also think that developing countries are not sufficiently
empowered or influential in most internet-related policy discussions.
I just don't believe that setting up a new intergovernmental mechanism
is the right solution to this problem. And it is one that is high risk
for civil society.
But others in the WGEC have different views.
Warm greetings and thanks for following the meeting!
Anriette
On 27/01/2017 19:38, WANGARI KABIRU wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Warm greetings Anriette,
In the morning there was reference in the semblance that enhanced
cooperation is a government area not for the IGF...MAG.
Would you kindly shed light.
The comments;
- that statistics in developing countries are a result of tradeoffs and
thus not (necessarily) reliable
- how an entity is considered multi-stakeholder in one forum and in
other spheres not viewed as such. Taking into account
multi-stakholderism is a key tenet in Internet Governance
Many thanks for the briefs.
Be blessed.
Regards/Wangari
---
Pray God Bless. 2013Wangari circa - "Being of the Light, We are Restored
Through Faith in Mind, Body and Spirit; We Manifest The Kingdom of God
on Earth".
</pre>
<fieldset class="gmail-m_8776412099288405097mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre>______________________________<wbr>______________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="gmail-m_8776412099288405097moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="gmail-m_8776412099288405097moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/<wbr>unsubscribing</a>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="gmail-m_8776412099288405097moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/<wbr>info/governance</a>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="gmail-m_8776412099288405097moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="gmail-m_8776412099288405097moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/<wbr>translate_t</a><span class="gmail-HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
</font></span></pre><span class="gmail-HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
</font></span></blockquote><span class="gmail-HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
</font></span></blockquote><span class="gmail-HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<pre class="gmail-m_8776412099288405097moz-signature" cols="72">--
------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:+44%207712%20472987" value="+447712472987" target="_blank">+ 44 771 2472987</a></pre>
</font></span></div>
______________________________<wbr>______________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/<wbr>info/bestbits</a>
</blockquote></div>
</div></div>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre wrap="">____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a></pre>
</blockquote>
</body></html>