[bestbits] [governance] Second WGEC meeting26-27 January 2017, Geneva

Tue Jan 31 02:07:41 EST 2017

Warm greetings Wolfgang,
Thank you for this piece of your writing in 2013.
"After seven years of endless discussion — including several UN reports and consultations in New York and Geneva - the 67th UN General Assembly decided to establish another "Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation" (WGEC) to find out, what could and should be done to implement the Tunis Agenda. The WGEC operates under the UNCSTD. It has about 40 members with 15 coming from the private sector, technical community and civil society. It started its work in May 2013. As a first step it did send out a questionnaire with 18 questions."

There was commentary in this thread in line of interest in a UN body for the Internet (semblance to UNESCO for Education) - might this be the language that Governments are used to/understand considering what is public policy/administration today.Yet on the other hand, the Internet Governance drives for multistakeholderism - like WGEC membership.
Blessed day.
Regards/Wangari  ---
Pray God Bless. 2013Wangari circa - "Being of the Light, We are Restored Through Faith in Mind, Body and Spirit; We Manifest The Kingdom of God on Earth".

    On Monday, 30 January 2017, 19:49, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

 Hi Wangari Kabiro,

if you want to know the full background and the history of the language of "EC", here is an article I wrote a couple of years ago in CircleID:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20131112_enhanced_cooperation_in_internet_governance_mystery_to_clarity/

What we have now (after the IANA transition) is the "Status Quo Minus": All governments are now on "equal footing": In the GAC, in the UN General Assembly, in the ITU or in UNESCO. With other words: Para. 69 is implemented. This is good for the Internet. But it is not good for some governments who do not like their advisory role in ICANN and want to heve a full oversight over Internet related public polcy issues. But please tell me, which "technical issue" in the Internet does not have a "public policy component"?

Wolfgang

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: WANGARI KABIRU [mailto:wangarikabiru at yahoo.co.uk]
Gesendet: Mo 30.01.2017 16:37
An: Anriette Esterhuysen; Nick Ashton-Hart; governance at lists.igcaucus.org IGC; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
Cc: Izumi AIZU; <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> APC Members
Betreff: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Second WGEC meeting26-27 January 2017, Geneva

Many thanks Anriette for the brief and the references are clarifying!
Be blessed.

Regards/Wangari ---
Pray God Bless. 2013Wangari circa - "Being of the Light, We are Restored Through Faith in Mind, Body and Spirit; We Manifest The Kingdom of God on Earth".

    On Monday, 30 January 2017, 16:16, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:

 Dear Wangari

Apologies for delay in responding.

It is an interesting question, and it goes to the heart of the enhanced
cooperation debate, which in many ways is at the heart of the internet
governance debate that has been ongoing since 2003.

The term was first used in 2005 - and it means different things to
different people, and the text in the Tunis Agenda where it is first
references in a formal UN agreement, can also be interpreted in
different ways.

For the last decade it has been used as a political football.. in one of
those matches in which it is not clear if anyone actually scores any
goals. In fact, for some of the players, the objective of the match has
been to avoid anyone scoring any goals :)

This is a good recent piece by David Souter:
https://www.apc.org/en/blog/inside-information-society-enhanced-cooperation-en

I quote from it:

"'Enhanced cooperation', like the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), was
part of the compromise on the future of the Internet at WSIS in 2005.
Agreement could not be reached on the governance of critical Internet
resources, including the domain name system. ICANN (the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), for some governments, was
little more than an adjunct of the United States. Some wanted the
Internet brought within the ambit of an intergovernmental (or
multilateral) agency such as the International Telecommunication Union
(ITU). Others were, as they remain, determined to keep the Internet free
from intergovernmental oversight. As well as dividing governments, this
was (and is) therefore a tussle between multilateral and
multistakeholder approaches to the Internet.

The term worked at the time because of its creative ambiguity: like many
UN outcomes it meant different things to different folks. But the
contests that it overlay were, and still are, unresolved. Several UN
initiatives and working groups have failed to reach consensus on it
since the Summit. Some governments (and civil society activists) claim
that nothing's changed since WSIS: that governments, particularly
developing country governments, can't play a substantive role in
Internet decisions because there is no proper intergovernmental forum.
Others suggest that diverse multistakeholder initiatives represent a lot
of 'enhanced cooperation' that's already taking place."

So in response to your question, it is not a new thing that for several
governments, the meaning of enhanced cooperation is "cooperation between
governments". And the term 'equal footing' means that all governments
should have equal access and voice in these processes.

They generally quote paragraph 69 of the Tunis Agenda:

"69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the
future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their
roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues
pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and
operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy
issues."

And their position is that the IGF has nothing to do with this type of
cooperation.

Personally, I think this is misinterpreting the Tunis Agenda. If you
read the two previous paragraphs, 67 and 68, there is a clear reference
to the IGF (referred to in the Tunis Agenda as "the forum for
multi-stakeholder policy dialogue". I quote:

"67. We agree, inter alia, to invite the UN Secretary-General to convene
a new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue.

68. We recognize that all governments should have an equal role and
responsibility for international Internet governance and for ensuring
the stability, security and continuity of the Internet. We also
recognize the need for development of public policy by governments in
consultation with all stakeholders.

69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the
future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their
roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues
pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and
operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy
issues."

My interpretation would be that these paragraphs talks about the forum,
about involvement of all stakeholders, and about the need for
governments to be able to play their role in international public policy.

These area all important and legitimate and they don't need to be
mutually exclusive.

But there are different views, and there was a General Assembly
resolution in 2011 or 2012 which stated that the IGF and enhanced
cooperation are two separate processes.

I do think governments have a legitimate point in saying that they need
a space where they can talk about 'cross cutting' internet-related
public policy issues. Specific issues are being addressed in places like
the Human Rights Council (for internet and human rights issues) or in
WIPO (for copyright related issues, for example).

And I also think that developing countries are not sufficiently
empowered or influential in most internet-related policy discussions.

I just don't believe that setting up a new intergovernmental mechanism
is the right solution to this problem. And it is one that is high risk
for civil society.

But others in the WGEC have different views.

Warm greetings and thanks for following the meeting!

Anriette

On 27/01/2017 19:38, WANGARI KABIRU wrote:
> Warm greetings Anriette,
> 
> In the morning there was reference in the semblance that enhanced
> cooperation is a government area not for the IGF...MAG.
> Would you kindly shed light. 
> 
> 
> The comments;
> -  that statistics in developing countries are a result of tradeoffs and
> thus not (necessarily) reliable
> - how an entity is considered multi-stakeholder in one forum and in
> other spheres not viewed as such. Taking into account
> multi-stakholderism is a key tenet in Internet Governance
> 
> Many thanks for the briefs.
> 
> Be blessed.
> 
> Regards/Wangari
>  
> ---
> Pray God Bless. 2013Wangari circa - "Being of the Light, We are Restored
> Through Faith in Mind, Body and Spirit; We Manifest The Kingdom of God
> on Earth".
> 
> 
> 
-- 
-----------------------------------------
Anriette Esterhuysen
Executive Director
Association for Progressive Communications
anriette at apc.org
www.apc.org
IM: ae_apc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20170131/93748b41/attachment.htm>