[bestbits] Quick Update on WGEC meeting day 3

Sat May 3 21:45:25 EDT 2014

Stephanie¹s admonition is especially true in light of possibility that
internet initiatives may emerge in the ITU Plenipotentiary in October.
Definitely better to get more work done sooner.

‹Mike

-- 
Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project

mgodwin at internews.org | Mobile 415-793-4446

Skype mnemonic1026
Address 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA

INTERNEWS | Local Voices. Global Change.
www.internews.org <http://www.internews.org/> | @internews
<http://www.twitter.com/internews> | facebook.com/internews
<http://www.facebook.com/internews>

On 5/3/14, 9:40 PM, "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
wrote:

>Thanks for this summary, very interesting.  I think it would be unwise to
>neglect a chance to move the yardsticks forward on enhanced cooperation,
>which means (probably, or at least IMHO) seizing the good bits from the
>attached document, cross  fertilizing with the good bits from netmundial,
>reminding everyone how far the Internet has evolved since Tunis (and
>therefore the people must too), and building a platform for rough
>consensus on multistakeholder action.  This would be a welcome input to
>discussion on other lists, where the interaction at times ranges from
>arid to bloated, but all in all this will help it be more productive,
>with substantive action items like this to build on.  Personally, while I
>sure understand that everyone is tired, I don¹t believe we can sit on our
>hands until the end of 2014, there are too many things we need to push to
>the next level.
>Thanks
>Stephanie
>On May 3, 2014, at 7:25 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>> 
>> And then there was the third day.
>> The last day.
>> 
>> We spent the morning wandering through the wilderness of repeated
>> arguments.  Reviewing and revising recommendations that had not reached
>> consensus, and some that had reached rough consensus - what we needed
>> was to reach full consensus.
>> 
>> As we discussed them, sometimes we got tantalizingly close to full
>> consensus, but then one or another of us, and sometimes it was me I must
>> confess, said something that showed the closeness had been a tempting
>> illusion.
>> 
>> We had tea breaks and coffee breaks where the chair and various groups
>> discussed the state of discussions to try and figure out what to do
>>next.
>> 
>> We had lunch.
>> We talked,
>> and we talked.
>> 
>> After lunch we finally admitted, in a consensual manner, that we were
>> not going to reach consensus on recommendations in this meeting.
>> 
>> So we talking about the WG report, or rather, the Chair's report.
>> 
>> Yes, we eventually did reach consensus on what to call the report!
>> 
>> We then started to discuss the form and content of the Chair's Reports.
>> 
>> Many of us told the Chair how much we trusted him to write the report
>> and be fair.
>> 
>> Some of us went on to tell him what he had to avoid saying in order to
>> be fair. Maybe some trust is only skin deep.
>> 
>> We went back on forth on what to do with the most valuable work done by
>> the correspondence group.  Some of us wanted it to continue and become a
>> living artifact, and wanted that point made to the powers-that-be in the
>> CSTD.  Others said it was just an exercise of the WG and should be
>> dropped - but i think that for these people the results of that work had
>> not verified their view that there were huge gaps to be fill
>> 
>> (ok, so I am showing some prejudice in that last statement, please
>> forgive me. One of the few things that really bothered me during the
>> meeting was the apparent disrespect shown to the brave and worthy
>> volunteers who took on this large body of work only to have their
>> efforts deprecated - and no i did not help them and was not part of the
>> workforce - it was too hard a job for me and I avoided it like a
>>plague.)
>> 
>> As for the future, there may be further meetings.
>> There may not be.
>> If there are, they may occur this year.
>> Or they may occur next year.
>> 
>> I personally hope that we continue the work.  but I hope we wait until
>> after all of Internet governance 2014 events are over, and after all
>> stakeholders have had time to adjust to the new realities that
>> NETmundial presents.  And after the IGF, which I hope learns something
>> from NETmundial, and after the ITU PleniPot 2014 does whatever it is
>> going to do.
>> 
>> I thought the meetings were valuable.  I think the participants, and I
>> hope their fellow stakeholders - however they define the groups they are
>> part of, have a better understanding now than they did before.
>> 
>> And while we did not come together in final consensus, I thought some of
>> the couplings at the meeting where wonderful.  For example the KSA and
>> Iran, normally not the best of friends, were bosom buddies at this
>> meeting, united in their arguments on women's rights, treatment of
>> marginalized groups and a host of other issues.  It is good that there
>> are still some things that can bring enemies such as this together.  And
>> to see civil society members working closely with governments and with
>> business was a good thing too. If we can't work with the people we
>> disagree with, how are we going to solve anything - we learn to build on
>> the few things we do disagree with.
>> 
>> Now I sound almost maudlin!
>> 
>> One last thing:
>> 
>> There was a possibility, as I mentioned in another one of these Quick
>> Updates that we would need to submit _Opinions_.  While we never did, as
>> we never reached consensus to do so, several groups did arrive at a
>> possible offering.  Several of us from civil society, though not all by
>> any means, did develop one.  While I will leave it for the others who
>> worked on this with me to associate with it or not, and thus to put
>> themselves on the line to have to explain it, I am including this
>> compromise proto-document below as I think it includes a fair number of
>> ideas that are worthy of the light of day and of further discussion.
>> 
>> Signing out from Geneva airport and the WGEC, at least for now
>> Who knows what the future will bring.
>> 
>> ----------------------
>> The Opinion
>> 
>> This is the draft opinion of a group of Civil society participants
>> including group members Avri Doria, ...
>> 
>> ---
>> Definitions
>> 
>> Enhanced Cooperation: an ongoing multistakeholder and multilateral
>> process where all stakeholders contribute according to their expertise
>> and interests, to enable all other stakeholders to achieve full
>> participation in order to improve and democratise the governance of the
>> Internet at all levels.
>> 
>> Multistakeholder process: a form of participatory democracy where any
>> person, alone or as part of a group, can contribute fully.
>> 
>> Equal  footing: the recognition, enjoyment  or exercise by all
>> stakeholders, on the basis of equality and without discrimination, of
>> the freedom to participate in multistakeholder processes.  In Internet
>> governance this is in line with stakeholders' roles and
>> responsibilities, which should be interpreted in a flexible manner with
>> reference to the issue under discussion. As with UN representation by
>> governments, where all are equal regardless of size or wealth,
>> contributions should  be judged on their quality, and not by the number
>> of people that a representative may claim.
>> 
>> Possible outcome:
>> 
>> There is support within civil society for establishing a
>> multistakeholder mechanism, to promote the ongoing  monitoring and
>> analysis of Internet-governance developments, and the  on-demand sharing
>> of knowledge on policy issues, models and experiences  that governments
>> and stakeholders need to help them identify effective solutions. We view
>> this as a first step,  building on the work of the Correspondence Group
>> of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. There is also support
>> within civil society for a second step of a multistakeholder
>> coordination mechanism that would recommend the most appropriate venue
>> or venues to develop  further policy as required. This could be
>> accomplished through existing institutions as appropriate.
>> 
>> This mechanism could attached to an existing multistakeholder body such
>> the IGF (per paragraph 72 b of the Tunis Agenda), to the UN Commission
>> on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD), or to any comparable
>> venue consistent with the guiding principles as established in the
>> NETmundial Multistakeholder statement.
>> 
>> The discussions of the WGEC take their origin from the Tunis Agenda.
>> The Tunis Agenda was a remarkable document for its time, that resulted
>> from government discussions at WSIS. The Tunis Agenda laid a basis for
>> ongoing discussions. The Tunis Agenda's great value was in giving an
>> impetus to the development of the multistakeholder model in Internet
>> governance. Over the intervening years, the variety of multistakeholder
>> models have progressed beyond what could have been imagined in 2005, in
>> line with technological evolution. Allowing the Tunis Agenda to remain a
>> static document, as if it was written in stone, risks it  becoming ever
>> more irrelevant in today's world; Instead, we recommend that it be
>> treated as a living document, a solid foundation upon which we can build
>> our understanding of the enhanced cooperation of all stakeholders in the
>> area of Internet governance.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>