[governance] ITU IG Resolution

Fri Dec 1 06:56:36 EST 2006

Willie wrote:

> I wasn't sure whether Milton's suggestion of looking at the analogy of the

> free software movement meant getting an exact equivalent or  rather

> producing a simulation of 'enhanced cooperation', which could include a

> legal-type instrument addressing the ideal-type public policy principles

> for the management of critical internet resources and then getting some

> kind of rolling symbolic buy in from governments...like an inverse of the

> bilateral free trade agreements.. > 

I think this is the only way Milton's suggestion can be interpreted - I mean
as a broad ' legal-type instrument addressing the ideal-type public policy
principles'. 

However, there seems to be a confusion whether the 'enhanced cooperation' on
public policy issues mandated in Tunis agenda is meant only for issues
connected to 'critical internet resources' or whether the term has a wider
ambit covering all Internet policy issues at the global level. A few posts
in this string seem to suggest the narrow conception of 'enhanced
cooperation'. My reading of the document however is that it is clearly the
later - though the language of the document does shows the strains of a
complexly negotiated document, where some countries were going to great
lengths in order to minimize any new public policy roles at the global
level. 

Para 58 and 59 clearly states that a broader rather than a narrow conception
of public policy is to be taken.

58.              We recognize that Internet governance includes more than
Internet naming and addressing. It also includes other significant public
policy issues such as, inter alia, critical Internet resources, the security
and safety of the Internet, and developmental aspects and issues pertaining
to the use of the Internet.

59.              We recognize that Internet governance includes social,
economic and technical issues including affordability, reliability and
quality of service. 

Para 60 says that many of these important public policy issues 'require
attention and are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms".  

Para 61 is very important, though it is not often referred to in the post
Tunis period. It clearly speaks of initiating an inclusive multi-lateral
process. And it also speaks of a suitable framework or mechanisms. Since
this is in continuation of the concerns about important 'public policy
issues requiring attention' (para 60) such a process, framework and
mechanism is clearly about IG related public policy issues. 

61.       We are convinced that there is a need to initiate, and reinforce,
as appropriate, a transparent, democratic, and multilateral process, with
the participation of governments, private sector, civil society and
international organizations, in their respective roles. This process could
envisage creation of a suitable framework or mechanisms, where justified,
thus spurring the ongoing and active evolution of the current arrangements
in order to synergize the efforts in this regard. 

Apparently after this 'agreement' on higher level principles and broad
directions things were unable to work towards a clear process, and a
somewhat loose concept of 'enhanced cooperation' was introduced. However
when it first appears in para 69 it is still about a broad and inclusive
conception of public policy issues, as above

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. 

Only in para 70 does the phrase 'public policy issues associated with the
coordination and management of critical Internet resources' appear. 

70.       Using relevant international organizations, such cooperation
should include the development of globally-applicable principles on public
policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical
Internet resources. In this regard, we call upon the organizations
responsible for essential tasks associated with the Internet to contribute
to creating an environment that facilitates this development of public
policy principles.

However, here too this phrase about critical Internet resources is meant to
be inclusive of these issues, and not exclusive of others. It is a call for
ICANNs of this world to heed. 

I think it is evident that the Tunis agenda is clear on calling for an
inclusive multilateral and multi-stakeholder process to address all IG
related public policy issues and not only those related to critical Internet
resources. The term 'enhanced cooperation' used later is also inclusive of
all such issues. 

Parminder 

________________________________________________

Parminder Jeet Singh

IT for Change, Bangalore

Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 

Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890

Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055

www.ITforChange.net 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: wcurrie at apc.org [mailto:wcurrie at apc.org]

> Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 4:13 AM

> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder

> Subject: RE: [governance] ITU IG Resolution

> 

> 'An early and pro-active engagement with the 'public policy and its

> institutional arrangement issues' can still serve to give a greater handle

> to the civil society to promote (and safeguard) public interest.'

> 

> I agree with Parminder that we need to engage the issue directly and think

> Adam's suggestion of a letter to Ntin Desai from the IGC is a good start,

> followed by engaging the new UN SG and ITU SG in the new year.

> 

> I wasn't sure whether Milton's suggestion of looking at the analogy of the

> free software movement meant getting an exact equivalent or  rather

> producing a simulation of 'enhanced cooperation', which could include a

> legal-type instrument addressing the ideal-type public policy principles

> for the management of critical internet resources and then getting some

> kind of rolling symbolic buy in from governments...like an inverse of the

> bilateral free trade agreements..

> 

> the frontier on this issue is still there: USG, some developed country

> governments, ICANN, ISOC and the private sector on one side vs EU, ITU,

> most developing country governments and civil society on the other..

> is this a case of maximising support around a single narrow set of demands

> reagarding internet resources or putting together the broad range of

> public policy issues on IG broadly understood.

> 

> My inclination is to go for the latter but use what was narrowly agreed -

> enhanced cooperation - as the 'wedge' issue. Broadening it would put

> pressure on the developing countries that are uncomfortable with rights

> issues, but it may be possible to extract some of the democratic

> developing countries to take a lead such as India, Brazil and South

> Africa..and have three frontiers - 1. the hegemonic US bloc (USG, Japan,

> Australia, ICANN, private sector, 2. the democratic bloc (EU, democratic

> developing countries, civil society with Amnesty International) and 3. the

> authoritarian bloc (ITU, China, Iran etc)- this, of course, may just be

> wishful thinking aloud...when one thinks say of the rigidity of the G77 or

> how India is operating within the US sphere of influence over nuclear and

> economic issues...

> 

> willie

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20061201/1044bc6f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20061201/1044bc6f/attachment.txt>