[bestbits] Anatel blog post: Operationalizing the role of governments in internet governance

[parminder]

The article confirms my view that in proposing this opinion draft,   
Brazil meant only the ICANN plus system of technical governance of the 
Internet (also called management of critical Internet resources) in 
which the way to 'operationalise' the role governments was sought to be 
explored. On the other hand, the excitement among civil society around 
this 'opinion' comes from taking it to mean the entire gamut of Internet 
governance. Before any progress can be made on this 'issue' it is 
important to match 'definitions'.

I suspect that civil society is 'mistakenly' getting excited about this 
opinion; this is about improving government influence on ICANN system. 
It is not about the entire global Internet governance.

I think the 'opinion' proposal came from the telecom/ anatel side of 
Brazilian government which is overly influenced/ taken by a definition 
of 'Internet governance' promoted by the ITU - whereby it is considered 
to cover only what 'ICANN plus' system does . (Remember, the famous 
ITU's assertions that WCIT is not about Internet governance, or that the 
ITU has no interest to get into internet governance). We all know that 
this is contrary to definition of Internet governance articulated by 
WGIG, which is the way IG is understood in the mainstream.

Note, the unfortunate wrong usage of the term Internet governance as 
only meaning the ICANN system in the article below:
"Nonetheless, at the international level, our view is that we still need 
to achieve full engagement of governments in the decision making process 
on Internet Governance. …... The fact is that governments so far have 
only had a limited advisory role in international Internet Governance, 
and no actual involvement in the decision making process. "

Does this leave anyone in any doubt whatsoever that Brazil meant just 
the ICANN system by its phrase 'Multistakeholder framework of Internet 
governance', and *not* the entire realm of global Internet governance. 
This is about GAC and governments' unhappiness with the present set up....

parminder



On Wednesday 05 June 2013 08:13 PM, Deborah Brown wrote:
> Thought this might be of interest to the list.
>
> http://itu4u.wordpress.com/2013/06/05/operationalizing-the-role-of-governments-in-internet-governance/
>
>
>   OPERATIONALIZING THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENTS IN INTERNET GOVERNANCE
>
> June 5, 2013 · by itu4u <http://itu4u.wordpress.com/author/itu4u/> · 
> in Daniel Cavalcanti 
> <http://itu4u.wordpress.com/category/contributors/daniel-cavalcanti/>, 
> Internet <http://itu4u.wordpress.com/category/internet/>, WTPF-13 
> <http://itu4u.wordpress.com/category/wtpf-13/>
>
> wtpf-13-blog 
> <http://itu4u.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/wtpf-13-blog.jpg>The World 
> Telecommunication/ICT Policy Forum (WTPF-2013) 
> <http://itu4u.wordpress.com/en/wtpf-13> provided a unique opportunity 
> to put Internet-related public policy issues firmly on the 
> international agenda, particularly the very present issue of the 
> participation of governments as relevant stakeholders in Internet 
> Governance.
>
> Brazil is a country that fully embraces the multistakeholder approach 
> to Internet Governance. Our National Internet Steering Committee is a 
> vibrant organization, as indeed highlighted in the Secretary-General’s 
> Report to the WTPF, which includes a reference to Brazil’s ten 
> “Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet”.  Nonetheless, 
> at the international level, our view is that we still need to achieve 
> full engagement of governments in the decision making process on 
> Internet Governance.
>
> The fact is that governments so far have only had a limited advisory 
> role in international Internet Governance, and no actual involvement 
> in the decision making process. Recent events have indicated that even 
> long standing advice provided by governments on certain issues has had 
> little impact on the actual decisions relating to matters of their 
> direct interest. Regretfully, attempts to deal with this fact have 
> suffered from the low level of participation of the majority of 
> governments in existing international Internet Governance fora.
>
> In this regard Brazil presented at the WTPF an opinion that points to 
> the fact that we must together address two key issues: 
> operationalizing the role of government in the multistakeholder 
> framework for Internet Governance, and the need for capacity building 
> on these issues in developing countries, particularly in the least 
> developed countries, with the support of the ITU.
>
> Brazil´s draft opinion entitled “Operationalizing the role of 
> government in the multistakeholder framework for Internet Governance 
> <http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13IEG3-C-0002/en>” stems from one 
> previously discussed at the Informal Experts Group (IEG) 
> <http://www.itu.int/en/wtpf-13/Pages/ieg.aspx>, which had resulted 
> from the joint work of the drafting group led by Brazil, with the 
> participation of a diverse group of experts from several countries.
>
> During the course of the WTPF, Brazil conducted further extensive 
> consultations with all interested parties, including Member States, 
> sector members and civil society entities present at the event. As a 
> result of a genuine effort to reflect the inputs received, a revised 
> version of the draft opinion was presented, which we expected could 
> have been endorsed.
>
> The draft opinion received widespread support, including statements 
> from Member States in all ITU regions, as seen during the plenary 
> sessions. Despite this fact, in the end the opinion did not achieve 
> consensus at the WTPF. Nonetheless, we did receive very positive 
> feedback as to the importance of the issues that were raised, and a 
> willingness to engage in further discussions, having Brazil as the 
> focal point.
>
> The final report by the Chairman 
> <http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13-C-0016/en> of the WTPF indicates, as 
> a way forward, that these discussions could take place at the ITU 
> Council Working Group on Internet-related public policy issues. 
> Subsequently the output of deliberations would be forwarded to the ITU 
> Council for further consideration. Hopefully this would lead to the 
> inclusion of the issues in the preparatory process for the upcoming 
> World Telecommunication Development Conference (WTDC-14) 
> <http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Conferences/WTDC/WTDC14/Pages/default.aspx> and 
> the Plenipotentiary Conference of 2014 (PP-14) 
> <http://www.itu.int/en/plenipotentiary>.
>
> Brazil also welcomes the broadening of the discussion on these issues 
> to forums such as the GAC, the CSTD, ECOSOC and the IGF. 
> Interestingly, as the WTPF drew to a close with a clear message from 
> the ITU membership and a way forward proposed by the leadership of the 
> Union, there were indications that in the near future these very same 
> issues will also be on the agendas of those other forums. Ensuring a 
> meaningful role for governments and engaging them in the decision 
> making process is in the interest of all those who aspire to a truly 
> multistakeholder international Internet Governance.
>
> /
> cavalcanti <http://itu4u.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/cavalcanti.jpg>By 
> Daniel B. Cavalcanti/
>
> /Daniel B. Cavalcanti is an Engineer and career professional with the 
> Brazilian Government, currently a senior Policy Advisor at the 
> National Telecommunications Agency – Anatel. Over the last decade his 
> work has focused on broadband policy and Internet related issues./
>
>
> -- 
> Deborah Brown
> Policy Analyst
> Access | AccessNow.org
> E. deborah at accessnow.org <mailto:deborah at accessnow.org>
> @deblebrown
> PGP 0x5EB4727D

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130606/7d65e1f5/attachment.htm>