[governance] RE: enhanced cooperation

[Adam Peake]

>I am enclosing the letter we sent to Nitin Jan 07.
>
>>  The only consultation process I remember was
>>  Nitin making an open invitation for anyone to
>>  contact him. Not sure my memory's right, but I
>>  think it was at the end of one of the open
>>  consultations last year (May, September?).  He
>>  said people should feel free to contact him, and
>>  he had a room at the Palais des Nations for a few
>>  days and his door was open to anyone.
>
>Adam
>
>I do not at all recollect any such invitation 
>from Nitin in an open consultation


Meryem remembers correctly, wasn't last year, 
Nitin's request was 2006. It's in the transcript 
of the May 2006 meeting 
<http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions/IGF-051906pm.txt>, 
Nitin said " I am available for meeting one on 
one with people" and said he'd take comments by 
email etc.  Can only guess, but I expect Nominet 
took advantage of the offer, spoke with Nitin 
then submitted their comment in writing.


>(I may be wrong and he may have said something 
>in the passing, which hardly constitutes an 
>invitation to stakeholders to participate in the 
>process). If we knew we would have availed of 
>this invitation, especially when we had asked 
>for such an invitation in our letter to him a 
>few months earlier. Are you sure he said any 
>such thing in an open consultation? I only 
>remember him saying during the open 
>consultations that EC should not be discussed 
>here (in the consultations).
>
>
>>  About Mr. Sha's reports...  Anyone remember what
>  > Charles Geiger said about the enhanced
>>  cooperation report when we met him in Geneva
>>  during the last IGF consultation?
>
>I think he said that UN SG will be giving a 
>report on enhanced cooperation to the CSTD for 
>the May session, I remember nothing more.


I was trying to remember what was said about a 
report on enhanced cooperation DESA submitted.

Background being that during the CSTD meeting 
last year some govt asked why the secretary 
general had not submitted a report on enhanced 
cooperation to the CSTD process.  All actionable 
items from the Tunis Agenda were expected to 
submit a report.  So following up from that 
CSTD/ECOSOC asked the SG to report in future.  He 
seems to have passed responsibility on to DESA.

During the lunch meeting with Charles Geiger and 
others we asked if there had been any progress on 
enhanced cooperation and if I remember correctly 
we were told DESA had prepared a report but was 
considered inadequate (very inadequate.)  I'm 
guessing that since then there's been a flurry of 
activity with DESA trying and drag something more 
useful together.  Hence asking ISOC and IETF 
being asked to submit a report.  Think if I were 
ISOC I'd ask DESA to define "enhanced 
cooperation", point out a few other corrections 
(see below) then give a URL for the work IETF and 
ISOC does.


>This exercise of collection of 'annual 
>performance reports' seems to be a part of 
>preparing that report in absence of anything 
>else of any significance to mention there. Will 
>be interesting to see what, for instance, ICANN, 
>reports back on its enhanced cooperation (EC) 
>activity? It will be more interesting to see if 
>the SG's report to CSTD accepts the spin on what 
>is EC that comes from ICANN etc reports as 
>actually what they also see EC as.


As we don't know what enhanced cooperation is, 
it's probably hard to respond.  Surely it's the 
job of the person tasked with producing the 
report to define what their questions mean? 
Otherwise ICANN and any other organization would 
be more that justified in simply submitting their 
organizations standard annual report, 
particularly as Mr. Sha's letter to ISOC 
misquotes the Tunis Agenda, saying:

"...relevant organizations shall be requested to 
provide annual pcrformmce  reports on the steps 
they have taken towards 'enhmced cooperation'."

Quote marks and misspellings in Sha's letter.

TA actually says:

"The same relevant organizations shall be 
requested to provide annual performance reports."

Given this, I think we should be careful when 
reading the paragraph explaining Nitin's 2006 
consultations.

Looks like a bit of panic to me...

Adam


>Parminder
>
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>  From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
>>  Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 8:22 PM
>>  To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>  Subject: [governance] RE: enhanced cooperation
>>
>>  The only consultation process I remember was
>>  Nitin making an open invitation for anyone to
>>  contact him. Not sure my memory's right, but I
>>  think it was at the end of one of the open
>>  consultations last year (May, September?).  He
>>  said people should feel free to contact him, and
>>  he had a room at the Palais des Nations for a few
>>  days and his door was open to anyone.
>>
>>  No idea who he might have spoken to.
>>
>>  About Mr. Sha's reports...  Anyone remember what
>>  Charles Geiger said about the enhanced
>>  cooperation report when we met him in Geneva
>>  during the last IGF consultation?
>>
>>  Adam
>>
>>
>>  >  >©¯The Under-Secretary General of the United
>>  >Nations,
>>  ><http://www.un.org/esa/desa/ousg/#bioSection>Sha
>>  >Zukang, has written to Internet Society
>>  >President and CEO·
>>  >
>>  >Also note that the quoted letter mentions
>>  >
>>  >©¯In 2006, the Secretary-General's Special,
>>  >Adviser for Internet Governance, Mr. Nitin
>>  >Desai, consulted with representatives of all
>>  >stakeholder groups - government, the private
>>  >sector, and civil society, as well as technical
>>  >and academic communities - in order to find a
>>  >common ground wit11 reference to this process-
>>  >In September 2006, Mr. Desai submitted a report
>>  >with the results of these consultations. In
>>  >August 2007,I was entrusted by the
>>  >Secretary-General to contii~ueth e consultation
>>  >process, especially on the next: steps to be
>>  >taken.©—
>>  >
>>  >(end)
>>  >
>>  >I do not know of any discussion that Nitin had
>>  >with representatives of civil society. Does
>  > >anyone have information about it? And if he did
>>  >do it with representatives of other stakeholder
>>  >groups they have been very tight lipped about
>>  >it. In fact we wrote a letter to Nitin early
>>  >last year asking for information on the EC
>>  >process and requesting that we, and CS, be
>>  >included in the deliberations. The letter was
>>  >never acknowledged.
>>  >
>>  >I think we should write once again in protest
>>  >against such exclusion of civil society and IGC
>>  >from this process. At the very least we should
>>  >ask them which representatives of civil society
>>  >they conferred with, and what exactly do they
>>  >mean when they say ‘civil society©–. Such
>>  >ignoring of IGC, and with what we understand as
>>  >civil society, by a process that claims
>>  >multistakeholderism is something we need to
>>  >strongly protest against·
>>  >
>>  >Meanwhile, we should propose a workshop on EC,
>>  >and during the discussions on workshop proposals
>>  >CS MAG members should defend CS©–s right to
>>  >deliberate this important IG issue·
>>  >
>>  >Parminder
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
>>  >Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 7:10 PM
>>  >To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'
>>  >Subject: enhanced cooperation
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >Personally, I would like to propose a workshop
>>  >on the issue of enhanced cooperation (against
>>  >whatever odds of it being accepted). Perhaps we
>>  >can develop the ' Enhanced Cooperation - What
>>  >Was Meant By the Tunis Agenda, and What Is the
>>  >Status of It' theme we proposed for Feb
>>  >consultations into a workshop proposal.
>>  >
>>  >Among the present list of 4 workshop proposals
>>  > the second one on CIRs is still unformed.
>>  >Should the issue of political oversight of CIRs
>>  >contained in the EC proposition be proposed in
>>  >this CIR slot? In that case we can develop the
>>  >above theme proposal.
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >BTW, I am not sure if any of you have seen a
>>  >very significant posting on EC at
>>  ><http://wiki.tools.isoc.org/Policy_Activities/UN_report_request>http://wi
>>  ki.tools.isoc.org/Policy_Activities/UN_report_request
>>  >.
>>  >
>>  >To quote
>>  >©¯The Under-Secretary General of the United
>>  >Nations,
>>  ><http://www.un.org/esa/desa/ousg/#bioSection>Sha
>  > >Zukang, has written to Internet Society
>>  >President and CEO Lynn St. Amour, inviting ISOC
>>  >to provide an annual performance report on the
>  > >steps the organization has taken toward
>>  >"enhanced cooperation" on public policy issues
>>  >pertaining to the Internet.  This request comes
>>  >in the context of the outcomes of the 2005 World
>>  >Summit on the Information Society.  (A copy of
>>  >that letter is posted
>>  ><http://wiki.tools.isoc.org/@api/deki/files/73/=UNrequest20080312.pdf>her
>>  e.)©—
>>  >
>>  >I read it as an effort to parcel the EC concept
>>  >exclusively as a ‘bottom up©– autonomous set of
>>  >activities among existing organization, which to
>>  >me more or less means nothing (sorry for being a
>>  >bit skeptic) and which serves to push away the
>>  >issue of real political oversight of the these
>>  >existing organizations. And I understand that
>>  >this is an important issue about which we are
>>  >concerned. Recent emails by Wolfgang and Michael
>>  >Leibrandt also discuss this issue.
>>  >
>>  >No one else will bell the cat on EC. CS should
>>  >take the lead in bringing this issue in the open
>>  >and base its resolution (or a movement towards
>>  >some kind of resolution in the future) on open
>>  >discussion rather than behind-the-scene
>>  >half-hearted efforts.
>>  >
>>  >Parminder
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >  > -----Original Message-----
>>  >  > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
>>  >  > Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 3:07 PM
>>  >  > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>  >  > Subject: RE: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
>>  >  >
>>  >  >
>>  >  > > All members, pl volunteer for sub groups around each of these four
>>  >  > topics.
>>  >  > >
>>  >  > > Parminder
>>  >  >
>>  >  > However the discussion whether this is the set of workshops we will
>>  >  > sponsor
>>  >  > or if there will be a change I the list remains open, and may be
>>  >  > discussed.
>>  >  > The 4 themes that IGC had proposed for IGF Hyderabad during the Feb
>  > >  > consultations are as follows.
>>  >  >
>>  >  >
>>  >  > 1. Enhanced Cooperation - What Was Meant By the Tunis Agenda, and
>>  What Is
>>  >  > the Status of It
>>  >  >
>>  >  > 2. Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the
>>  Internet
>>  >  >
>>  >  > 3. A Development Agenda for Internet Governance
>>  >  >
>>  >  > 4. Transparency and Inclusive Participation in Internet Governance
>>  >  >
>>  >  > Those who had proposed these themes may also want to build a mass
>>  around
>>  >  > them to develop them into workshop proposals.
>>  >  >
>>  >  >
>>  >  > Parminder
>>  >  >
>>  >  > > -----Original Message-----
>>  >  > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
>>  >  > > Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 2:49 PM
>>  >  > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'William Drake'
>>  >  > > Subject: RE: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
>>  >  > >
>>  >  > >
>>  >  > > .  I
>>  >  > > > suggest that opt-in subgroups be established now to formulate
>>  each of
>>  >  > > the
>>  >  > > > proposals, vet these back through the list by the end of next
>>  week
>>  >  > > latest,
>>  >  > > > and then reach out to potential speakers and co-sponsors (long
>>  lead
>>  >  > > times
>>  >  > > > normally needed, especially if we're asking governments).
>>  >  > >
>>  >  > > Yes, that©–s the way to go.
>>  >  > >
>>  >  > > All members, pl volunteer for sub groups around each of these four
>>  >  > topics.
>>  >  > >
>>  >  > > Parminder
>>  >  > >
>>  >  > >
>>  >  > > > -----Original Message-----
>>  >  > > > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
>>  >  > > > Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 1:33 PM
>>  >  > > > To: Governance
>>  >  > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
>>  >  > > >
>>  >  > > > Hi,
>>  >  > > >
>>  >  > > > I still wonder about how four workshop proposals from one entity
>>  would
>>  >  > > be
>>  >  > > > received first in MAG (especially if space constraints + robust
>>  demand
>>  >  > > > compel them to turn some down) and then by the larger 'community'
>>  if
>>  >  > > > approved.  Plus, if IGC co-sponsors any of the events planned by
>>  >  > > > individual
>>  >  > > > members/CSOs, the name would sort of be everywhere on the
>>  program.
>>  >  > But
>  > >  > > if
>>  >  > > > people, especially our MAGites, think it's not an issue, ok.
>>  >  > > >
>>  >  > > > From an operational standpoint, four is a lot to organize
>  > properly.
>>  >  > > Just
>>  >  > > > the one was time consuming enough last year, given the demands of
>>  >  > > > consensus
>>  >  > > > building on text formulations, line-up, etc, on list and off, not
>>  to
>>  >  > > > mention
>>  >  > > > allaying fears outside CS that it would be too "controversial"
>>  etc.  I
>>  >  > > > suggest that opt-in subgroups be established now to formulate
>>  each of
>>  >  > > the
>>  >  > > > proposals, vet these back through the list by the end of next
>>  week
>>  >  > > latest,
>>  >  > > > and then reach out to potential speakers and co-sponsors (long
>>  lead
>>  >  > > times
>>  >  > > > normally needed, especially if we're asking governments).
>>  Otherwise
>>  >  > the
>>  >  > > > two
>>  >  > > > weeks left before the deadline will pass quickly with us going
>>  around
>>  >  > > and
>>  >  > > > around debating across the four and we'll end up having to do
>>  another
>>  >  > > 11th
>>  >  > > > hour dash to finalize.
>>  >  > > >
>>  >  > > > Few specific comments:
>>  >  > > >
>>  >  > > > On 4/11/08 9:32 PM, "Michael Leibrandt"
>>  <michael_leibrandt at web.de>
>>  >  > > wrote:
>>  >  > > >
>>  >  > > > > Le 11 avr. 08 à 16:58, Michael Leibrandt a écrit :
>>  >  > > > >
>>  >  > > > >>
>>  >  > > > >> 1- "Role and Mandate of IGF"
>>  >  > > > > ***Is it really worth the time - and attractive to potential
>>  >  > listeners
>>  >  > > -
>>  >  > > > to
>>  >  > > > > use the ws for ex post analysis? People want to know why it
>>  makes
>>  >  > > sense
>>  >  > > > to
>>  >  > > > > contribute to the IGF process towards India and beyond. At
>>  least
>>  >  > many
>>  >  > > > > government guys do. Anyway, past and future could be combined
>>  in the
>>  >  > > > title as
>>  >  > > > > you suggested.
>>  >  > > >
>>  >  > > > Bahiameister, if you check the archives you'll see that we spent
>>  a lot
>  > >  > > of
>>  >  > > > time last year in the caucus and with other stakeholders we
>>  approached
>>  >  > > > having exactly the same discussion about whether it is good to
>>  talk
>>  >  > > about
>>  >  > > > "the past."  I think it was ultimately accepted that the mandate
>>  was
>>  >  > not
>>  >  > > > agreed in the Neolithic period and that discussing it was not
>>  >  > equivalent
>>  >  > > > to
>>  >  > > > deconstructing cave drawings.  And in practice, the workshop
>>  >  > discussion
>>  >  > > > was
>>  >  > > > very much forward looking, with what was agreed the IGF should be
>>  >  > doing
>>  >  > > > now
>>  >  > > > as a starting point.  I think this was reflected in the ws
>>  report.  We
>>  >  > > > have
>>  >  > > > a serviceable ws description now, it could be tweaked a little to
>>  make
>>  >  > > > clear
>>  >  > > > the follow up will build on rather than repeat last year, but I
>>  >  > wouldn't
>>  >  > > > go
>>  >  > > > back and reinvent the wheel unless we just want to blow scarce
>>  time.
>>  >  > > >
>>  >  > > > >> 2- "Critical Internet Resources"
>>  >  > > > >>
>>  >  > > > >> Maybe we can openly say >Internationalization of Internet
>>  >  > > > >> Governance<?
>>  >  > > > >
>>  >  > > > > Why not. A bit of a holdall, though, just like CIR.
>>  >  > > > >
>>  >  > > > > ***Agree. Maybe colleagues have a better wording.
>>  >  > > >
>>  >  > > > I agree this would be the right focus, value-adding and not
>>  really
>>  >  > > > explored
>>  >  > > > since WGIG/WSIS.  Better than just "CIR" which it could be
>>  claimed has
>>  >  > > > been
>>  >  > > > done etc.  One concern: I hate to sound like a poli sci weenie,
>>  but to
>>  >  > > at
>>  >  > > > least some folks, internationalization means inter-
>>  nationalization,
>>  >  > that
>>  >  > > > is,
>>  >  > > > an inter-sovereign state process.  Do we want to go there, open
>>  up a
>>  >  > > blast
>>  >  > > > from the past discussion with Russia, Iran, et al. about whether
>>  the
>>  >  > > term
>>  >  > > > means shared sovereignty and intergovernmentalism, or can we find
>>  a
>>  >  > > better
>>  >  > > > framing, something about global multistakeholder gov of CIR?
>>  >  > > >
>>  >  > > > >> 3- "IG and global jurisdiction - political, legal,
>  > contractual,
>>  >  > > > >> technical and private means/instruments"
>>  >  > > > >>
>>  >  > > > >> Is it really about >jurisdiction< at the global level, or more
>  > >  > > > >> about >decision making< processes in a wider sense?
>>  >  > > > >
>>  >  > > > > For former messages on this, I understand it's actually about
>>  >  > > > > jurisdiction
>>  >  > > > >
>>  >  > > > > ***Maybe I have a problem with the phrase >global jurisdiction<
>>  >  > > because
>>  >  > > > I
>>  >  > > > > don`t see a one world government defending a global legal
>>  framework
>>  >  > > yet
>>  >  > > > (and
>>  >  > > > > don`t want to have that, to be clear). WIPO ADR decisions on
>>  gTLD,
>>  >  > for
>>  >  > > > > example, are actually not >jurisdiction<. The growing problem
>>  is, to
>>  >  > > my
>>  >  > > > > knowledge, that national/regional jurisdiction more and more
>>  have de
>>  >  > > > facto
>>  >  > > > > extraterritorial effects.
>>  >  > > >
>>  >  > > > Maybe I'm filtering through my own little prism, but I thought
>>  that
>>  >  > the
>>  >  > > > idea
>>  >  > > > was to look at the consequences of competing national claims of
>>  >  > > > jurisdiction
>>  >  > > > and the extraterritorial extension of laws, regulations, court
>>  >  > > decisions,
>>  >  > > > etc., not just with respect to CIR (e.g. the US/Cuba business)
>>  but
>>  >  > also
>>  >  > > > other aspects of IG as well---content issues from Yahoo to
>>  YouTube,
>>  >  > > > e-commerce, IPR, etc.  Raising concerns about the fragmenting
>>  impact
>>  >  > of
>>  >  > > > unilaterally imposed governance doesn't necessarily point to a
>>  "global
>>  >  > > > jurisdiction" or "world government" solution. Encouraging the
>>  exercise
>>  >  > > of
>>  >  > > > restraint, consultation and coordination etc. would be more
>>  appealing;
>>  >  > > > other
>>  >  > > > architectures are imaginable as well.  We might even be able to
>>  get
>>  >  > > > industry
>>  >  > > > or "TC" co-sponsorship on this one, depending on how it's framed.
>  > If
>>  >  > we
>>  >  > > > form
>>  >  > > > subgroups to push forward proposals, I volunteer to be on this
>>  one.
>>  >  > > >
>>  >  > > > >> 4- "Coexistence of commercial and non-profit spaces on the
>>  Internet
>>  >  > -
>>  >  > > > >> implications for IG"
>>  >  > > >
>>  >  > > > I'd like to hear more from proponents as to what exactly is the
>>  >  > problem
>>  >  > > > this
>>  >  > > > panel would address.  Are we saying that such spaces cannot
>>  coexist
>>  >  > and
>>  >  > > > commercial spaces are somehow going to squeeze out non-profit
>>  ones
>>  >  > > (seems
>>  >  > > > a
>>  >  > > > stretch) or just that some arenas of the commons are getting
>>  partially
>>  >  > > > walled off by IPR rules or what?
>>  >  > > >
>>  >  > > > Thanks,
>>  >  > > >
>>  >  > > > Bill
>>  >  > > >
>>  >  > > >
>>  >  > > >
>>  >  > > > ____________________________________________________________
>>  >  > > > 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
>>  >  >
>>  >  >
>>  >  > ____________________________________________________________
>>  >  > 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
>>
>>  ____________________________________________________________
>>  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
>
>
>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:IGC letter to 
>Nitin Desai 1.pdf (PDF /«IC») (00565F08)

____________________________________________________________
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