[governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please

[Parminder]

> We are writing to you because we understand you were asked by the UN
> Secretary General to begin informal consultations on how to start a
> process aimed at enhancing cooperation on international public policy
> issues related to the Internet.

Is it generally known that Secy Gen did ask Nitin Desai to begin
consultation? ( I, for instance, did not know) Should we proceed from
this...

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: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller at syr.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 7:53 PM
> To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp; parminder at itforchange.net; governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please
> 
> Parminder:
> Thank you for an extensive effort  on this draft. Perhaps some of the
> delay in getting there stemmed from what I think is your overestimate of
> the amount of work required.
> 
> I really think in this case we need to be very concise and to the
> point. Something like,
> 
> " Dear Nitin:
> <insert a line or two of pleasantries if you wish>
> 
> We are writing to you because we understand you were asked by the UN
> Secretary General to begin informal consultations on how to start a
> process aimed at enhancing cooperation on international public policy
> issues related to the Internet.
> 
> The IGC would very much appreciated an update on progress and news of
> the current state of play with respect to "enhanced cooperation." What
> concrete measures have been taken and what role is contemplated for
> civil society in them?
> 
> 
> 
> >>> parminder at itforchange.net 1/9/2007 1:21 AM >>>
> > 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

____________________________________________________________
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