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

Thu Jan 9 19:51:22 EST 2014

Hi Marilia, 

Thanks for pointing this out. You are right, this is still a contentious point and the group hasn’t reached a conclusion on the definition. 

In my understanding, the current mapping aims to list ALL examples where EC (however you define it) is taking place in dealing with identified internet-related public policy issues. By looking at various mechanisms (as Phil’s email says, “in the widest sense this includes policy spaces or forums”), the WGEC should then be able to say (or at least say more easily) where the gaps are and come up with a set of recommendations about areas where improvement is needed (if any). 

As a good starting point to understand where the Group stands on this, i recommend to look at the Chair’s Analysis of the responses to the WGEC Questionnaire (http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/WGEC_Summary_of_Responses.pdf) and the summary of the 2nd Meeting (http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/WGEC_2013_Chairmans_summary_en.pdf). To sum up, the Chair identified 3 groups of opinions on whether or not EC is taking place within WGEC: 1) that EC has been taking place in a number of areas (mostly developed countries); 2) that EC hasn’t been taking place (e.g. Saudi Arabia), and 3) that it has been taking place, but there is room for improvement (e.g. Brazil). These positions seem to be closely linked to whether the actors define enhanced cooperation as a government-only game (which roughly leads to position 2), or if they share a broader view (which leads to positions 1 or 3). 

(There is more nuance to these positions, so apologies for any reductionism on my part as I try to summarise – others, feel free to jump in and expand/amend.)

NB – a number of stakeholders who share your view that EC refers to multistakeholder arrangements argued that while progress has been made in setting this up since Tunis (IGF was often mentioned) – more needed to be done to make participation in policy processes on an “equal footing” apply to a full range of relevant stakeholders and issue areas.

Does this help? Happy to discuss further.

Best,
Lea

________________________________________
From: Marilia Maciel [mariliamaciel at gmail.com]
Sent: 09 January 2014 22:44
To: Lea Kaspar
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation - input on mechanisms required

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<mailto: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<mailto: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><mailto: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<mailto: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<http://www.diplomacy.edu>