[governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please
Parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Tue Jan 9 01:45:31 EST 2007
Sorry, forgot the attachment
Helps people to make track changes
________________________________________________
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
<http://www.itforchange.net/> www.ITforChange.net
_____
From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 11:51 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Milton Mueller'; ajp at glocom.ac.jp
Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please
> Where are our coordinators? Wouldn't it be appropriate for them to
> initiate action on this, e.g. develop a draft?
I apologize for being amiss on this issue after promising on 30th last to do
a draft in 3-4 days.
A draft is enclosed for your consideration, and also pasted in the body of
this email below.
A couple of points about the draft.
Firstly, I have made it elaborate rather than concise - arguing the case and
making a formal claim to know the present position against clear
commitments, as a stakeholder of the WSIS and post WSIS process.
Secondly, between the options of considering 'enhanced cooperation' (EC) as
THE required public policy process(es) spoken of in paras 60 and 61 of Tunis
agenda, or considering it as one of the processes which gets discussed in
more details in the subsequent parts, I have taken the latter option. Tunis
agenda can be read either way, and there can be multitude of opinions on
this issue. However, I preferred to avoid putting all our 'public policy'
eggs in the EC basket. Also there is the problem that the opening para 69
that mentions EC for the first time seem to capture it in a somewhat
exclusive governmental framework. The overall paras 61 however is more
multistakeholder inclusive. In any case, other paras talk about different
public policy mechanisms/ processes etc for ccTLDs (63) and gTLDs (64)..
Keeping EC as just one of the envisaged/possible mechanisms of public policy
also helps us to keep a way out of a situation where a slightly improved
GAC, is attempted to be passed off both as the EC as well as all that was
ever meant in Tunis agenda as any kind global public policy space or process
..
Parminder
(draft below, and also enclosed as attachment)
>From the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus
Nitin Desai
Special Advisor to the Secretary-General, United Nations.
Dear Mr Desai,
Wishing you a happy and fulfilling 2007!
The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) would like to congratulate you for the
very successful first meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). A good
amount of the credit for this goes to your personal leadership, and that of
your advisory team. The first meeting of the IGF was a crucial mould-setting
exercise, and we appreciate the fact that all parties approached it
positively, and with due care. We have been able to set the stage for a new
multistakeholder exercise in global governance which is indeed
path-breaking, not only in the area of governance of the Internet, but in
general as an outstanding example for future reforms in global governance.
IGF has got firmly established as an open platform, inclusive to all, which
gives an opportunity to discuss and debate public policy issues related to
the Internet, and explore possibilities as well as constituencies for needed
change and reform. Some of these issues can even reach high enough degree of
consensus among the involved parties that can drive change on its own - for
instance agreements on new technology or legal standards, incorporating
agreed issues of public interest, that are acceptable to all stakeholders,
civil society groups, business and the governments. However, the fact
remains that most public policy processes at the IGF, at least after they
reach a level of maturity of debate and deliberation in the IGF, require
inputting into an appropriate political arena of global public policy
making. It is the lack of progress in this area in the post WSIS period that
continues to cause concern to us.
The Tunis agenda clearly recognizes 'that there are many cross-cutting
international public policy issues that require attention and are not
adequately addressed by the current mechanisms' (paragraph 60 of Tunis
agenda). It further affirms, for this purpose, the '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 . (p 61). The Tunis agenda also
expressly calls for 'creating an environment that facilitates this
development of public policy principles' (p 70). The intent and mandate of
the Tunis agenda in terms of the importance and urgency to proceed with the
task of developing public policy principles for the Internet, and
processes/mechanisms for their development and application, is quite
evident.
As one form or possibility for this exercise, paragraph 71 lays out such a
clear mandate that it is worth quoting in full.
The process towards enhanced cooperation, to be started by the UN
Secretary-General, involving all relevant organisations by the end of the
first quarter of 2006, will involve all stakeholders in their respective
roles, will proceed as quickly as possible consistent with legal process,
and will be responsive to innovation. Relevant organisations should commence
a process towards enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders,
proceeding as quickly as possible and responsive to innovation. The same
relevant organisations shall be requested to provide annual performance
reports.
However, as we enter the year 2007, there has been no word, much less
action, on the broader issue of developing public policy principles and
processes for the Internet, and specifically, the more clearly mandated
issue, with timelines, of initiating the 'process towards enhanced
cooperation'. As a matter of paramount global public interest, as well as a
stated commitment of the WSIS, we, the IGC, as stakeholders of the WSIS and
post-WSIS process, request to be informed on the status of these issues, in
terms of the action that has been taken, and is intended to be taken.
We also wish to claim the full participation of civil society in the
envisaged process of 'enhanced cooperation' and other public policy
processes, which is implied and mandated in the concerned parts of the Tunis
agenda, and we request you to ensure such participation. We note with
concern that some parties have tried to claim 'enhanced cooperation' as a
government-only process. This is completely at variance with the overall
envisaged approach to public policy issues for the Internet (p 60 and 61) as
well as in terms of the specific process of 'enhanced cooperation' (p 71).
We also offer our complete cooperation, and assistance as may be required by
you, for initiating these processes, in order to ensure incorporation of
public interest in the development of the most powerful technologies of our
times, that holds much promise for just and equitable social change.
Thanking you.
Sincerely
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 6:49 AM
> To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp; governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please
>
> >>> ajp at glocom.ac.jp 12/28/2006 4:17 AM >>>
> >Any thoughts on writing to Nitin Desai asking for an update on
> >enhanced cooperation? And working on statements/contributions to the
>
> >February consultation? (about 6 weeks away.)
>
> I strongly agree with Adam that this is a desirable thing. Enhanced
> cooperation, no matter how bullshit a formulation it is, was supposed to
> be one of the key outcomes of WSIS, and represents a critical point of
> contention between EU and USA.
>
> There are (legitimate) worries about governments being passive watchers
> of IGF "shows", expressed by Jeanette earlier. Enhanced coop is one of
> the few areas where state politics can intersect with post-WSIS Forum
> politics. At worst, making this inquiry may also bring us face to face
> with the possible truth that the govts have no intention of doing
> anything and are playing games with WSIS/IGF. If so, we need to call
> their bluff
>
> Where are our coordinators? Wouldn't it be appropriate for them to
> initiate action on this, e.g. develop a draft?
>
> Adam has already laid out the basic outlines of what needs to be said:
>
> >a letter asking for
> >progress/update, why aren't we being told, and we would like to be
> >involved. And cc'ing govt and others we know interested to see if
> >they will also then ask the same questions might be helpful.
> >
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070109/0d08b653/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: letter to nitin 0107.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 37376 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070109/0d08b653/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070109/0d08b653/attachment.txt>
More information about the Governance
mailing list