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

[Joana Varon]

Dear all,

Maybe it's worth to mention some political/conceptual differences in the Brazilian national scenario that might be reflected in different possible interpretations about the actual text:

- Daniel, the author of the text, is the representative from Anatel, our regulatory agency with mandate to represent Brazil at ITU. Anatel was responsible for drafting the first (terrible) version of the opinion on the role of States (which, among other provisions, mentioned ITU as a multistakeholder organization). My view, that could be controversial, is that for Anatel, there is an interest in both: enforcing the role of States and the role of ITU on Internet Governance, particularly because it will be reflected in it's role in the national scenario, vis a vis, CGI.br.  With that approach, more clearly reflected in the previous draft, Russia was sympathetic with the Brazilian proposal, formally expressing it's support. 

Nevertheless, I dont think the reasons for Anatel (aka Brazil) are the same as the ones for Russia. As I've mentioned, there is this sympathy from the part of Anatel, but there is also openness for debate and for making them more aware of the processes from other foruns were Internet Governance is the center of debate and proper multistakeholderism practices have been implemented.

That was clear then Benedito, the Embassador that has been following IGF and all the debates on IG, was the one who presented the proposal in plenary properly, did so focusing on capacity building, in a way that wasn't written in the previously proposed text. That approach  got massive support of developing countries, which, just as civil society, have been strugling to follow IG agenda. I believe that the latest version of the text, expresses that view. 

So, nothing is black or white at the moment. I guess we should use gray areas to share constructive views of all theses processes. Tomorrow there will be a talk with anatel and interested stakeholders about WTPF and preparation for ITU Council next week. I'll suggest that they start to establish the practice of meeting international civil society representatives (just like US has been doing), at ITU meetings related to Internet Governance. As I believe we could bring them inputs from the logic and debates in other foruns. I hope they at least start to think about it. The hard part of Anatel is that its under the Ministry of Communications, and about the Ministry I cannot say good things or have higher hopes.
I also hope you find it usefull, and if so, helping to finnish the draft statement for opening CWG-Internet is also crucial.
All the best
Joana


On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 11:32 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
> 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 · in Daniel Cavalcanti, Internet, WTPF-13
>> The World Telecommunication/ICT Policy Forum (WTPF-2013) 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” stems from one previously discussed at the Informal Experts Group (IEG), 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 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) and the Plenipotentiary Conference of 2014 (PP-14).
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> 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
>> @deblebrown
>> PGP 0x5EB4727D



-- 

-- 

Joana Varon Ferraz
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV)
@joana_varon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130606/63c9feed/attachment.htm>