[bestbits] Re: Important new joint submission to CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation
matthew shears
mshears at cdt.org
Sun Aug 25 07:44:31 EDT 2013
Hi Jeremy, all
Great job of combining diverse perspectives. A couple of thoughts for
your consideration. I like the overall submission but believe that for
the BestBits response to be as effective as possible it needs to be
concise as possible. I am concerned that it is overly long in parts.
In particular, the response to *question 8* is very long and seems
contradictory in places.
For example, the submission generally notes that the binary view of "we
need some UN-associated structure" versus the "everything is just fine
the way it is" has been talked to exhaustion and is not reflective of
the needs of all stakeholders nor the public interest. I think we all
recognize that existing structures do not adequately address our overall
concerns. However, for Q8 the paragraph that starts with the "In such
fields of public policy..." seems to suggest that there will inevitably
be some association with the UN:"Therefore, if the mechanism that we
begin through the CSTD Working Group does lead towards a new framework
or process, we accept the likelihood that such framework or process
would likely have to be at least loosely linked with the UN." This
seems to contradict other points in the text and I am not sure that we
have discussed whether or not we accept that this is the case. My
preference would be for this para to be removed (particularly as the
first sentence in the para also seems to suggest that the only way
forward is a structure that is UN based or built from scratch.) I do not
think we should be limiting the possible mechanisms that may come out of
this process, rather we should be ensuring how we want to process to be
undertaken.
In this regard, perhaps we could also emphasize in Q 8 that w/r/t
_mechanisms_ for achieving enhanced cooperation: 1) all stakeholders
need to be fully involved (as equals) in any process that could lead to
new frameworks, mechanisms or structures for discussing international
public policy issues in the future (this is not a given), 2) that
whatever the result(s) of that process all stakeholders should be
involved in the discussion of international public policy issues as per
paras 68 and 71 TA (nor is this a given), and 3) that we should not
prescribe or pre-determine any particular model (except that it must be
consistent with the above, transparent, open, etc.) for the result of
that process - the model may differ based on the issue being discussed,
for example, or we may develop entirely new proposed models (perhaps
something for us to think about going forward) or it could be some
morphed version of the IGF, or a combination of efforts, etc.
I also believe that*question 11* needs a rethink. The response paints a
very negative view of multi-stakeholderism and reads more like an
editorial than a consultation response.
We could start by noting that the question itself is poorly phrased as
we do not accept that the roles of stakeholders are limited to the
definitions of the Tunis Agreement per comments in response to question
5. As to what barriers remain, there are many: 1) basic divergence of
views as to what enhanced cooperation means; 2) inability to agree how
international public policy issues should be addressed and in what fora;
3) inability to agree which international public policy issues should be
the focus of enhanced cooperation and which are adequately addressed
already/elsewhere; 4) lack of support (particularly among governments)
for full stakeholder involvement in the process towards enhanced
cooperation let alone enhanced cooperation itself, etc., etc.
And how are these challenges overcome? One very modest approach might
be to suggest identifying/agreeing 2 to 3 discrete international public
policy issues areas that are not at all adequately addressed and of
general concern to all stakeholders. If we can find some points of
common interest we can then perhaps discuss how, when and where such
points should be discussed. This is just one very simplistic way
forward - it would be good to be able to suggest others. Another might
be to restate the excellent "way forward" suggestion in the second para
of the response to question 8 where it says:
/This should lead into an intermediate phase of more formalised
transparency and reporting and collaboration among all institutions or
processes dealing with Internet governance. The IGF (with its mandate
to "promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS
principles in Internet governance processes") could be the home for this
role. //
////
/I think the more concise we can be and the more recommendations we can
make the better.
Thanks.
Matthew
--
Matthew Shears
Director and Representative
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org
+44 (0) 771 247 2987
Skype: mshears
On 23/08/2013 00:55, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> A reminder that any remaining comments on this draft submission are
> due over the weekend, so that can post it to the Best BIts site and
> begin collecting endorsements in time to submit it to the CSTD on 31
> August.
>
> I would like to reiterate the importance of us delivering a strong
> joint civil society submission to this questionnaire. Other groups
> such as ICC-BASIS are supporting the status quo, and even putting
> forward the idea
> <http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:PGwE66q1mrYJ:www.iccwbo.org/Advocacy-Codes-and-Rules/Document-centre/2013/ICC-BASIS-responses-to-CSTD-enh-coop-questionnaire/+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz&client=firefox-a> that
> things like the (much-criticised by civil society) APEC Cross-Border
> Privacy Regulation system is a good example of enhanced cooperation in
> practice! So it is very important for us to put forward a strong
> submission that points out the shortcomings of the status quo, and
> advances a public interest perspective on this topic.
>
> Thanks.
>
> On 19/08/2013, at 4:16 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org
> <mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>> wrote:
>
>> All Best Bits participants are now invited to finalise a joint
>> submission to the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, which
>> we are to submit by the end of August. This will be a very important
>> submission in its own right, and also a key preparatory document to
>> three upcoming Best Bits meetings - our APrIGF workshop in Seoul
>> <http://2013.rigf.asia/workshop-proposal-7/>, Day 1 of our Best Bits
>> meeting in Bali <http://bestbits.net/bestbits2013/>, and one of our
>> two workshops at the global IGF
>> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/workshop_2013_accomplish_list_view.php?xpsltipq_je=36>.
>>
>> Its importance is that it addresses a question, unresolved for the
>> last eight years, about how global Internet governance (in the broad
>> sense that goes beyond technical issues) should evolve in response to
>> states claims of sovereignty over public policy issues relating to
>> the Internet. I wrote a background paper
>> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/workshop_background_paper/64_1367863304.pdf>
>> about this general question (and slides
>> <https://www.unesco-ci.org/cmscore/sites/default/files/2013wsis10/internet_freedom_in_a_world_of_states.pdf>)
>> for our WSIS+10 workshop in Paris. Post-PRISM, the question has only
>> assumed greater importance.
>>
>> For the past few weeks, a civil society-only Best Bits working group
>> <http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/ec> (which also includes, though
>> not in an official capacity, civil society members of the CSTD
>> working group) has been working hard on this, to hone in on the core
>> issues and to state them clearly and fairly, taking into account the
>> wide divergence in views that exists even within civil society. The
>> result of our work is open for your comment for one week, at which
>> time we will close for endorsements:
>>
>> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/ec
>>
>> The current text is also pasted below. We aim for this submission to
>> be as broadly inclusive of the views of Best Bits participants as
>> possible, so after reading and considering the existing text
>> carefully, if you have any changes to suggest, please speak up. If
>> the changes are minor, you can just make them on the Etherpad. If
>> major, we would ask that you raise them on the list first. The more
>> groups that can endorse the submission, the more influence it will have.
>>
>> Just to reiterate, we are not taking endorsements yet. This will
>> occur after one week of final comments from this list. (There is no
>> point in taking endorsements when there might still be changes to the
>> text.) For the same reason, we ask that you don't forward the draft
>> text widely yet. If you want to bring other groups into the
>> discussion that is welcome, but (for now) the best way to do so would
>> be to ask them to join the Best Bits list.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130825/bca6c800/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list