[bestbits] Re: [governance] my views and short report -- UNWGEC

[joy]

Thanks Carlos - and adding a link to a blog post with a more general
note on the summary of the meeting: http://www.apc.org/en/node/18717/

regards

Joy Liddicoat

On 12/11/2013 2:42 a.m., Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
> Dear people,
>
> Here are my *personal* views and a short report as a participant in the
> Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (UNWGEC) -- its second meeting
> just happened in Geneva (6-8 of November). It just follows the latest
> edition of the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) held last October in
> Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia.
>
> In the discussion of enhanced cooperation among nations for the
> advancement of the information society and knowledge (and with this
> phrase I try to synthesize my view of the subject), the IGF is always
> taken into account, both to highlight its (relative) relevance and to
> suggest the way forward for international governance of the Internet.
>
> Several governments also insist that the 2005 Tunis Agenda (attached in
> PDF), a non-binding commitment among governments, should not be changed
> -- some even hail the Agenda as a "bible" to be followed, even if it has
> not been followed by some of the very governments which view it as such,
> and even if the dynamics of rapid worldwide development of the Internet
> requires periodic revisions.
>
> The Tunis Agenda contains a lengthy specification of the mandate the IGF
> should follow, as described in its paragraph 72:
>
> ------
> 72.	We ask the UN Secretary-General, in an open and inclusive process,
> to convene, by the second quarter of 2006, a meeting of the new forum
> for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance
> Forum (IGF). The mandate of the Forum is to:
>
> a) Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet
> governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security,
> stability and development of the Internet.
>
> b) Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different
> cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and
> discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body.
>
> c) Interface with appropriate intergovernmental organizations and other
> institutions on matters under their purview.
>
> d) Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, and in
> this regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific
> and technical communities.
>
> e) Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the
> availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world.
>
> f) Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing
> and/or future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from
> developing countries.
>
> g) Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant
> bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations.
>
> h) Contribute to capacity building for Internet governance in developing
> countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise.
>
> i) Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS
> principles in Internet governance processes.
>
> j) Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources.
>
> k) Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse
> of the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users.
>
> l) Publish its proceedings.
> ------
>
> It is clear that this broad mandate is not being fulfilled by the IGF.
> First of all, these items show that the IGF should be a process-oriented
> forum, not merely a sequence of events.
>
> Secondly, there are clear references to recommendations that should be
> generated by the IGF -- for example items e, g , h , and i --, which
> have been basically ignored by the UN.
>
> The fact is that the IGF is leaving aside significant components of its
> mandate, and even governments which swear fidelity to the Tunis Agenda
> have not given importance to these shortcomings. Further, the MAG (which
> is dedicated only to organize each yearly event ) is composed basically
> on UN-filtered sectorial representation but not the necessarily on the
> expertises needed to carry out this challenge .
>
> It is therefore necessary to rethink the IGF if it is deemed to be (or
> might become) a central instance of enhanced cooperation. Otherwise it
> might be replaced in favor of other ways to advance this process.
>
> As for WGEC , whose goal is to deliver recommendations on enhanced
> cooperation to the Commission on Science and Technology for Development
> (UN UNCSTD) in the first half of 2014, which will be brought to the UN
> General Assembly in September of the same year, the work so far has
> revealed some worrying weaknesses .
>
> The central result of the first meeting of WGEC, in June 2013, was the
> production of a questionnaire that was answered by all sectors. There
> were 69 responses , thus distributed: 29 from governments, 23 from civil
> society, 11 from the "technical-academic" sector, and eight from the
> business sector. More than half of the responses came from developing
> countries.
>
> It produced a consolidation of the results with some flaws (including
> the mistakenly taking responses from the Best Bits group of NGOs for the
> APC responses), but even so the consolidation gave a reasonable idea of
> the various views of the working group in relation to themes of
> cooperation and improved governance of the Internet. [summary is
> attached in PDF]
>
> The summary and procedures in the second meeting (6-8 November) reveal
> the risk of retracing the path already followed for building the Tunis
> Agenda, as well as the efforts of the Working Group on Internet
> Governance (WGIG , which met November 2004 to June 2005). Effectively,
> significant time was consumed in preparing a list of over 300 topics
> possibly related to Internet governance and enhanced cooperation. Group
> difficulties in dealing with such a number of issues in order to try to
> group them into key issues was such that we constituted a specific group
> ("correspondence group") to come up with a short list of topics. The
> perception of "déjà-vu" for the old-timers who participated in the WGIG
> and the WSIS process is inevitable .
>
> One of the problems of a working group like this is that participants
> are defined in terms of their sectoral representations and not
> necessarily because of their expertise on the issues (something similar
> to what occurs with MAG). This creates an additional difficulty for both
> the consolidation of the issues and the drafting of a qualified report.
>
> Faced with the lack of time and the uncertainties generated by this
> process, some sectors have presented concrete proposals, which I relate
> below.
>
> A group of civil society organizations and individuals presented an
> interesting list of possible recommendations to be evaluated and
> possibly adopted in the final report WGEC (I added the numbering for
> easy future reference). I have reservations about the effectiveness of
> the role of IGF so far, but overall I agree with the approach and
> consider a contribution to guiding the future WGEC report. Their
> suggestions:
>
> ------
> Draft recommendations bullets prepared by a group of WGEC Members and
> Observers
>
> 1- Acknowledges that the Tunis Agenda, if it is to continue as a
> reference point for all stakeholders, should be considered as a living
> document which needs to be updated to reflect the roles and
> responsibilities of all participants;
>
> 2- Encourages the rethinking of the stakeholder roles that were defined
> by governments unilaterally in the Tunis Agenda, noting that these roles
> were originally defined by governments in December 2003, Geneva
> Declaration of Principles;
>
> 3- Affirms that the internet belongs to everyone: everyone can use it
> and everyone can improve it: this also applies to its governance;
>
> 4- Acknowledges that Enhanced Cooperation is well underway as intended
> in Tunis Agenda paragraphs 67 through 75;
>
> 5- Concludes that no new multilateral arrangements, are required for
> Enhanced Cooperation;
>
> 6- Acknowledges that new mechanisms  spring into existence organically
> as they are needed and that there is  no  need to create new mechanisms
> in a top down manner;
>
> 7- Acknowledges the efforts of various existing mechanisms to understand
> internet governance and to make public policy in light of, and taking
> into account, its multi-stakeholder nature;
>
> 8- Congratulates the IGF for its work in meeting its Tunis Agenda
> defined role in fostering Enhanced Cooperation;
>
> 9- Encourages the IGF to cover all issues of Internet governance that
> are of concern to stakeholders and to form ongoing Issue Discussion
> Groups within the IGF to make recommendations on these issues to the
> larger IGF community;
>
> 10- Encourages the IGF to follow the  recommendations of the CSTD WG on
> IGF Improvements including its mandate  to give advice to the functional
> Internet governance and management organizations;
>
> 11- Encourages those making public policy to engage more fully in the
> IGF and to bring to the IGF their questions on internet related matters
> within their mandates;
>
> 12- Encourages all governments to commit to the IGF, and to use the IGF
> process as an opportunity not just to engage with all other
> stakeholders, but as an opportunity to work with each other on an equal
> footing;
>
> 13- Invites all Internet governance and management organizations to
> participate in the IGF.
>
> 14- Reinforces the multistakeholder approach and encourages all
> stakeholders to engage more in and work with existing organisations and
> to explore ways in which stakeholder engagement can be enhanced.
> ------
>
> In summary , the path is to focus , focus , focus on a small but
> essential set of topics and try to build proposals for enhanced
> cooperation among nations (rather than just among governments) around
> these themes (and this points to the requirement of pluriparticipative
> processes all along). Otherwise, the WGEC will end up replaying the
> generalities of much of the Tunis Agenda and will barely advance.
>
> On the side of governments, suggested guidelines came from the
> governments of Brazil, Mexico, the UK and Sweden:
>
> ------
> - Members [of the UN] should explore ways to strenghten participation of
> all stakeholders from developing countries in existing global internet
> governance fora including through funding mechanisms and alternative
> working methods such as remote participation.
>
> - Members should increase efforts to empower stakeholders to particpate
> through capactity building, including but not limited to, training
> programs, awarness raising, best practice sharing.
>
> - Members should work with developing countries to create a fair and
> consistent domestic framework that stimulates competition and creates
> affordable access for all stakeholders.
>
> - The role of governments should include, but not be limited to, to
> empower internet users, ensure a fair and consistent legal framework
> that is transparent accountable and equitable and protect human rights
> online, to foster a robust global internet infrastructure and support
> mulitstakeholder processes and partnerships.
> ------
>
> At this point , I believe the proper junction of the two proposals can
> help speed up the process towards the final report of the WGEC.
>
> fraternal regards
>
> --c.a.