[bestbits] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation - input on mechanisms required

[Marilia Maciel]

Dear Lea,

Thank you for the information and for seeking input from this broader group.
I have not followed the work of the WGEC as closely as I would like to,
therefore I have a doubt regarding the framing of this consultation you
brought to our attention. The attached e-mail asks to identify "mechanisms"
(plural, and I read this is fora) where enhanced cooperation exists.
Therefore, it seems to depart from the assumption that EC is already being
implemented in many different spaces. As far as I remember from the CSTD
discussions on EC where I participated,  wether EC was already in place or
not was one of the key issues on this debate. If EC means something like
"discussions taking place in a multistakeholder fashion", whenever that
happened we could say that there was EC. On the other hand, if EC means
something specific, then probably it is something yet to be created.

Given how the question was framed, I would like to know if the WG has
already taken a stance on this issue, if they have agreed on a working
definition of EC and what was it. Sorry if this has already been discussed
at some point.

Thanks!
Marília




On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 8:21 PM, Lea Kaspar <Lea at gp-digital.org> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> As you may know, the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC;
> http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC.aspx) is currently mapping
> mechanisms where enhanced cooperation is taking place, and assessing those
> mechanisms. The mapping is expected to form the basis of the Working
> Groups' recommendations.
>
> The first leg of the mapping exercise is being done remotely by a subgroup
> coordinated by Phil Rushton and Joy Liddicoat, called the Correspondence
> Group (which some on this list are a part of, including myself). Phil has
> contacted the Correspondence Group to ask for input in to the process (see
> below). The inputs are being organised according to a list of 24 broad
> areas of internet-related public policy, the list of areas is in the
> attachment.
>
> Although input has only been sought from the Correspondence Group members,
> I would be happy to consolidate any input from the broader civil society
> into one submission. If you want to contribute, please send me any examples
> you want included by  January 24th.
>
> This should not stop anyone already a member of CG from submitting their
> own input directly, but rather making sure that a broad civil society view
> is taken into the next WGEC meeting.
>
> Please let me know if you have any questions.
>
> Best,
> Lea
>
> -----
>
> From: gec at LIST.UNICC.ORG<mailto:gec at LIST.UNICC.ORG> [mailto:
> gec at LIST.UNICC.ORG] On Behalf Of Private Sector Phil Rushton
> Sent: 07 January 2014 20:58
>
> To: CGEC at LIST.UNICC.ORG<mailto:CGEC at LIST.UNICC.ORG>
> Subject: CSTD WG on EC - input on mechanisms required
>
> Dear Colleague
>
> First many thanks for volunteering to assist in identifying where the
> mechanisms of enhanced co-operation exists, and second, apologies for the
> delay in getting the base text to you.  The information that is being
> sought (and which is described below) should be provided to me by January
> 31st.  This will allow for a second round of clarification, if required,
> prior to the information being submitted to the CSTD WG meeting in February.
>
> The attached document has had its 200+ policy issues grouped into 24 broad
> areas (listed in column B), and it is against these broad areas that your
> input is sought.  The input that is being sought in these various broad
> areas is to:
> a.        Use the identified broad areas of international public policy
> issues pertaining to the Internet in the attached spreadsheet that has been
> developed in the second meeting of the WGEC (and since updated). (NB)
> Additional issues may be added to the identified public policy issues if
> agreed by the WGEC.
> And
> (b) list where there are existing international mechanisms addressing the
> issues in the list
> (c) identify the status of mechanisms, if any, whether they are addressing
> the issues
>
> Please provide evidence or examples of where some or all stakeholders in
> their broadest sense (Government, Industry, Academia, Business and Civil
> Society) have engaged in working together on that issue.
>
> The detail that is being sought, where it is known, is as follows:
>
>  *   the name of the mechanism (in the widest sense this includes policy
> spaces or forums);
>  *   the stakeholders involved,
>  *   details of any discussions, or where such details can be read,
>  *   dates started, completed;
>  *   current status of  mechanism discussion, etc.
>
>
> Regards
> Phil Rushton
> Standards and Numbering Policy Strategy
> BT Technology Service & Operations
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
*Marília Maciel*
Pesquisadora Gestora
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio

Researcher and Coordinator
Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts

DiploFoundation associate
www.diplomacy.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140109/fb9d1b0b/attachment.htm>