[governance] sub-committee A - ongoing issues

[Adam Peake]

Hi,

As you'll have seen from Jeremy Shtern and Robert Guerra's very 
helpful notes and blogs, Sub-Committee A (Internet governance) got 
complicated this morning.  I'll try to explain what I think is 
happening and implications for civil society.

After this morning's general discussion, at about 12 noon, Amb Khan 
(chair) suggested that drafting groups should be created to work on 
text for the rest of the process. He suggested these drafting groups 
would start work tomorrow. To help the work of the drafters, tomorrow 
morning the chair will distribute a text of the Chapter on Internet 
governance (perhaps his text will be online by 10AM Geneva local 
time?) He was very clear about the status of all the papers that have 
been made available to date:  all are for our information, all are to 
aid discussion, they have no official status.

So the purpose of the text the chair will deliver tomorrow is to 
focus attention on issues and to stimulate discussion.

The meeting accepted that the chair would submit a text, they should 
accept it tomorrow without complaint. (some will remember the 
problems we had at an earlier prepcom when Adama Samassekou tried to 
introduce a non-paper... it caused all kind of trouble.  This should 
not happen tomorrow.)

Most governments said only a limited number of drafting groups should 
be created.  Delegations do not have enough members for many 
additional groups. There was no decision on the number of groups, but 
it will be only a few.

So it was agreed there will be drafting groups.

The main issue then was rules of procedure for these drafting groups.

Participation of observers was a contentious.  The outcome is we are 
now faced with three options

(1.) Observers will not be able to participate in drafting groups. 
Intergovernmental only.
(2.) Observers will be able to make written or spoken comments at the 
start of a drafting group session and will then be asked to leave.
(3.) Observers will be able to make written or spoken comments at the 
start of a drafting group session and will be able to stay as silent 
observers.

Observers of course want option (3.)  My feeling is that we might get 
(2.) but (1.) is not unlikely.  I hope I am wrong.

No decision was made today, but the governments have been asked to 
decide overnight.

Option 1 and 2 will be very hard for us. The first time we would see 
text from drafting groups would be when it is presented to the 
Plenary. Under rules of procedure for the prepcom observers are 
allowed to participate in Plenary and speak, but we must submit our 
comments for each day before the Plenary session starts.  Therefore 
we will not be able to comment on text until the day after it comes 
from the drafting group, and by that time government's in Plenary 
will have completed comments on the text we observers are only just 
beginning to address.  Options 1 and 2 would make our comments and 
presence largely irrelevant.

Governments suggested that civil society and private sector might 
appoint a few liaisons to work closely with the government chairs of 
the drafting groups, bringing information to their stakeholders.  But 
as the drafting groups are likely to be working late into the day 
(perhaps night), this would not help us prepare timely and therefore 
relevant comments to plenary.

Hopefully we will get option 3 tomorrow.

Thanks,

Adam
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance