AW: [bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Request for comment on proposal for IGF multistakeholder opinions

Sun May 19 06:15:51 EDT 2013

Hi everybody, 

here is another perspective:

The problem for some governments is that they want to have "one single place/space" where they can discuss and decide (with other governments) upon Internet Governance issues. There are a lot of governments which do not like neither the GAC (where they have only ad advisory capacity) nor the IGF (where they are one stakeholder among others without any decision making capacity). They mistrust the other I*organisdations as IETF, IAB, IEEE. W3C, RIRS because as governments they have only little to contribute. For them the only remaining option is the UN General Assembly (via the UNCSTD) and the ITU (via the CWG). The Russian delegate made this rather clear in the final WTPF Plenary when he called for "one single body" be pointing to the ITU Council WG on Inernet related Public Policy Issues. 

This will not work. It is simply impossible to "centralize" all public policy related Internet issues in one body. Different bodies will take partial elements into their agendas but they are dependent of (and have to collaborate with) other governmental and intergovernmental bodies (which leads to enhanced cooperation in a process of "enhanced communication, coordination and collaboration/EC³). 

You need two for a tango and a lot of governments do not want to discuss IG related issues within the ITU context. And as a number of governments has said during the WTPF they they can not make decisions within the ITU  without consulting at home private sector and civil society. This does not mean that the ITU has no role top play anymore but a subatnatial number of governments would support ITU more if it would - within its limited mandate - broaden its engagement in building infrastructure enabling more access or/and become more engaged in capacity building via training and education both of governmental experts and the broader public to enable more qualified participation (in particular from developing coubntries) in Internet PDPs. 

In my eyes the WTPF made rather clear that the ITU has only little to do (and to say) if it comes to Internet POLICY development. It remains to be seen what the ITU Council in June 2013 will decide, what the ITU will do with the WSIS 10+ process and how they move towards Busan 2014. Will they continue and expand 101, 102 and 133 or will they moving forward by identifying what their (reduced but workable) core Internet policy business will be between 2014 and 2018?

What is needed is another more general discussion to clarifiy who should do what in the IG ecosystem and how the various governmental- and non-governmental actors work together and share duties and responsibilties. Next to the IGF, the UNCSTD WGEC could become such a space where more clarification can be achieved. One of the first task the WGEC should carry out is a "Mapping of the Internet Governance Eco-System". Together with the "Compendium on Internet Governance Principles", which is now under discussion in the MAG WG IGP, both documents could help to move the whole discussion forward and to identify gaps and "to do lists". 

wolfgang

________________________________

Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von parminder
Gesendet: So 19.05.2013 10:16
An: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
Betreff: Re: [bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Request for comment on proposal for IGF multistakeholder opinions

On Sunday 19 May 2013 01:17 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 19/05/2013, at 1:01 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>> If it is about the Brazilian proposal, would you explain why do you find this particular issue is of such an outstanding significance over so many others.... I for one could never clearly understand the intent and significance of the Brazilian proposal, and I think different players are making different things of it. I dont see it as very significant thing and I am happy to let it die or disappear,  I prefer to discuss issues which have some clarity about them. Brazilian proposal, and its intent, and different people's take on it, simply do not make clear sense to me. Taking such a rather unclear issue to the IGF as the first test of IGF's recommendation making capacity to me doesnt sound as an exciting idea.  A good issue to test IGF's recommendation capacity will be such a one which everyone understands in the same way but people still have different views about it. And something which is really important. And Brazilian proposal seems to be as one of the worst candidates. However, I am happy to be explained the meaning and significance of the Brazilian proposal.
>
> I think it is one of the best candidates precisely because it is relatively uncontentious, yet there is a strong momentum to continue to work on it and the IGF would be boosted by hosting that work.  Even ISOC and the United States indicated that they would probably support it although they would be proposing line-by-line amendments.  We got quite close to agreement on it at the WTPF, that it is a safe bet that all stakeholders can reach agreement on it, which could open the door to the IGF working on more contentious sets of principles in the future (though this first proposal is just couched as a one-off experiment).  Also I can't agree that it's unimportant; the principle of finding constructive ways to integrate governmental participation into a range of multi-stakeholder Internet governance processes is a worthy one.

To clarify, it this about gov participation in ICANN and other such
technical management/ governance systems? That it appears was the
original intention of the Brazilian proposal, along with proposing that
somehow ITU takes a central role in enabling perhaps even fronting such
participation.... Is this the main thrust here? If not what is this all
about? What exactly is meant by 'range of multistakeholder Internet
governance processes' in which governmental participation is to be
integrated... Which processes are meant here.

I have a feeling that at this moment different people are trying to
place different burdens on this above statement..

You are saying it is relatively uncontentious... while I am, first of
all, not able to understand what is it about ...

I cant say it is important or not without being clear what it is
about.... I just felt it is unimportant becuase I cannot really get what
is it really saying. So, if you can clarify that would greatly help.

parminder

>   Perhaps the wording can be further improved, though and this would be provide an opportunity to do that.
>
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
> Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate and geek
> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
>
>
>
>