[governance] RE: enhanced cooperation
Parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Sun Apr 13 04:41:02 EDT 2008
> Since nothing has been done on 'enhanced cooperation' (at least, as
> far as we know from publicly available information), it might have
> been considered a good idea to ask all "IG institutions" to provide
> an "annual performance report". I understand from the letter sent to
> ISOC that, more than a report from ISOC, what is asked for is a
> report from IETF (ICANN and others probably got their own letter).
> i.e. ISOC is not really asked per se, and certainly not asked as a CS
> organization.
>
> I infer from this understanding that the IGC does not need to be
> consulted at this step of gathering "performance reports". We don't
> have anything to report on this, the IGC is not an "IG institution".
You are right Meryem. The exercise that Nitin carried out in 2006 was
different. It was in pursuance of the directive to the UN SG by Tunis Agenda
para 71 (first part) to start a process towards enhanced cooperation by the
end of the first quarter of 2006. The present process being directed by Sha
is about the last part of para 71 whereby 'relevant organizations' should
start a process of 'enhanced cooperation' and provide annual performance
reports.
Para 71 read as follows
71. The process towards enhanced cooperation, to be started by the UN
Secretary-General, involving all relevant organizations 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 organizations should commence
a process towards enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders,
proceeding as quickly as possible and responsive to innovation. The same
relevant organizations shall be requested to provide annual performance
reports. (ends)
It is obvious that these two processes are supposed to have very different
substance. (Among other things, note that the phrase (will be) responsive
to innovation is used twice.) The UN SG initiated process is the address
the real issue of development of globally-applicable principles on public
policy issues while the process to be done by relevant organizations and
their performance reports is about creating an environment that facilitates
this development of public policy principles.
Para 70 reads as
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.
(ends)
Obviously the principal need and act of developing public policy principles
is at a very different level from merely creating an environment to
facilitate such development. To collapse the two into one process of
enhanced cooperation (EC) that is basically only about some activities (only
some repackaging of what they may in any case be doing) of the relevant
organization and ignoring the principal need recognized by Tunis agenda for
a new way to look at developing globally applicable principles on public
policy is indeed a travesty. (Such a need is identified and developed from
para 58 onwards). But this is exactly what is being tried to be done by many
the ICANN plus group and the business sector. Now if the UN system
succumbs to validating this version of enhanced cooperation as THE enhanced
cooperation process that was meant by the Tunis agenda, it is probably time
we tried to do something about it.
This also shows the fault-lines between a more policy oriented civil society
and the group which likes to call itself the technical community, and if
often defended as a part of civil society. On many important IG issues their
views are very different, which is one of the reasons we have often tried to
make some distinctions between these two groups.
This one version of enhanced cooperation as being efforts of cooperating
with one another is being sold with some kind of focused effort at this
moment. The obvious objective is to deny the role of public policy in this
important area of IG, which is important for all people of this world. Such
denial of role of public policy in our societys affairs in quite in keeping
with the neo-liberal thrust that we encounter around in many small and big
ways, and which is often recognized as very detrimental to the interests of
disadvantaged groups and people
But lets not go any further down that route
for the present
There is a enhanced cooperation task force (see www.ripe.net/ripe/tf/
<http://www.ripe.net/ripe/tf/enhanced-cooperation/index.html>
enhanced-cooperation/index.html ), and the documents/ responses of Nominet,
ICC etc are relatively clear about what they mean by enhanced cooperation
- basically by a strong implicit or explicit implication of what they DO NOT
think is enhanced cooperation. Ironically, this latter thing what they do
not think is enhanced cooperation is exactly what is the raison detre and
meaning of enhanced cooperation as per Tunis agenda, which is painstakingly
developed from para 58 onwards in the document. Please read these parts of
TA which speak about things like cross-cutting international public policy
issues that require attention and are not adequately addressed by the
current mechanisms (para 60), and (immediately afterward), We are
convinced that there is a need to initiate, and reinforce, as appropriate, a
transparent, democratic, and multilateral process (para 61), and many other
such references
On the other hand what the (so-called) technical community and the business
sector want the concept of enhanced cooperation to remain confined to can be
seen from a quote from a document of ICC (quoted in Meryems email) at
http://www.iccwbo.org/uploadedFiles/ICC/policy/e-business/pages/CCBI_ICC_enh
anced_cooperation_preliminary_input_31March06.pdf
* We believe that enhanced cooperation refers to greater cooperation
among existing organizations, not the creation of new entities.
* Enhanced cooperation amongst the relevant organizations that address
Internet related issues should be guided by the objective of information
sharing, creating more awareness and where appropriate, coherence in
work programmes and collaboration.
Nothing to do with policy development, clearly.
It is only in Internet governance, where process routinely over-runs and
obliterates substance (as in multi-stakeholder-ism) that a group of
stakeholders can be fast moving towards closer and closer cooperation on an
issue on the very basic objective and meaning of which they have
dramatically opposing views.
The issue most relevant here is of where does civil society and IGC stand on
this. Are we willing to allow this to happen in front of our eyes and offer
no engagement, which of course (as always in political implications) itself
is an active act of collusion. Or do we have some views on it, and
propulsion to engage.
If we have some views, and want to engage on this issue, I propose we hold a
workshop on enhanced cooperation. We will want to draw out the opinions of
different actors on the issue, and hold them accountable on many things they
can be called upon to account for in the very muddy state-of-affairs
described above.
Meanwhile we should also do what Meryem suggests below. Comments on this
line of action are solicited.
> What I would suggest now is that IGC coordinators send a letter to
> the UN under-SG (not to Desai), referring to the letter sent to ISOC
> (as it seems to be the only public info we currently have), and
> asking him, basically, what are the new developments on 'enhanced
> cooperation', and what are the plans. We should also ask him to
> publish Desai's report to the UN SG of late 2006, for the sake of
> transparency, accountability, etc. This letter should enclose a copy
> of IGC letter to Desai dated January 2007, and ask what are the CS
> constituencies that were consulted in this process, as you initially
> proposed.
Parminder
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org]
> Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 11:27 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] RE: enhanced cooperation
>
> Parminder, all,
>
> Here's my understanding of the situation and of how we should proceed
> as IGC:
>
> What is important is the information contained in your first mail in
> this thread, i.e. that the UN under-SG has found, in March 2008, that
> something should be reported on 'enhanced cooperation', probably in
> view of the next "cluster of WSIS-related events" (13-30 May in
> Geneva: http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/cluster.asp?
> year=2008&month=0&type='alf'&subtype=0).
>
> Since nothing has been done on 'enhanced cooperation' (at least, as
> far as we know from publicly available information), it might have
> been considered a good idea to ask all "IG institutions" to provide
> an "annual performance report". I understand from the letter sent to
> ISOC that, more than a report from ISOC, what is asked for is a
> report from IETF (ICANN and others probably got their own letter).
> i.e. ISOC is not really asked per se, and certainly not asked as a CS
> organization.
>
> I infer from this understanding that the IGC does not need to be
> consulted at this step of gathering "performance reports". We don't
> have anything to report on this, the IGC is not an "IG institution".
>
> Worth noticing: the letter is sent by the UN under-SG, who, according
> to the letter, "In August 2007 was entrusted by the Secretary-General
> to continue the consultation process, especially on the next: steps
> to be taken.". Not Desai anymore, but rather the UN under-SG. "Mr.
> Mr. Sha Zukang became the United Nations Under-Secretary-General for
> Economic and Social Affairs on 1 July, 2007" (http://www.un.org/esa/
> desa/ousg/#bioSection).
>
> One might suspect that, in line with his comments during May 2007 IGF
> open consultations (see my previous mail), Desai made clear in his
> 2006 report to the UN SG that nothing could be expected on the
> 'enhanced cooperation' front, in the current state of affairs.
> Quoting him again: "For six months, I personally met with people to
> find out whether there could be some basis, some common ground which
> could be found for a process, leaving it very flexible and elastic as
> to what this process could be. And, essentially, I have sent the
> report of that to the
> Secretary-General, the then-Secretary-General. And the fact is that
> there isn't that common ground as yet. So I think we'll have to try
> something different, a different approach. So let us see."
> Apparently, we now start seeing.
>
> What I would suggest now is that IGC coordinators send a letter to
> the UN under-SG (not to Desai), referring to the letter sent to ISOC
> (as it seems to be the only public info we currently have), and
> asking him, basically, what are the new developments on 'enhanced
> cooperation', and what are the plans. We should also ask him to
> publish Desai's report to the UN SG of late 2006, for the sake of
> transparency, accountability, etc. This letter should enclose a copy
> of IGC letter to Desai dated January 2007, and ask what are the CS
> constituencies that were consulted in this process, as you initially
> proposed.
>
> Best,
> Meryem
>
> Le 12 avr. 08 à 18:52, Parminder a écrit :
>
> >
> >
> > It is of great concern that while Nominet, ISOC and ICC are
> > actively pursued
> > to comment on enhanced cooperation as per what is described as
> > multi-stakeholder process of consultation, IGC is cold shouldered
> > even when
> > it writes a letter requesting inclusion in the process (even if the
> > letter
> > went after the 2006 process).
> >
> > I think we need to discuss this challenge to what is considered as
> > multi-stakeholderism in IG circles... and who can pass off as civil
> > society. Takes us back to the 'what is CS' discussions on this list.
> >
> > And I speak of not only IGC, but of all and any CS groups.
> > Apparently none
> > were consulted. Does a consultation with governments and existing IG
> > institutions like Nominet and ICANN constitute multi-
> > stakeholderism. Or even
> > by including ISOC, and its IETF group.
> >
> > Parminder
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org]
> >> Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 9:19 PM
> >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> Subject: Re: [governance] RE: enhanced cooperation
> >>
> >>
> >> Le 12 avr. 08 à 16:52, Adam Peake a écrit :
> >>
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >> This consultation happened happened in 2006, not 2007, since Desai's
> >> report was sent to the UN SG in late 2006.
> >> This was at the time when inputs on IGF agenda setting were also
> >> requested.
> >>
> >> Actually, I've found through some googling that Nominet (UK) sent its
> >> contribution to Desai on 27 June 2006. In its letter, Nominet refers
> >> to Desai's "request that Nominet contribute to your current
> >> consultation". Which means that contributions has been expressly
> >> requested by Desai, and that this wasn't a consultation through
> >> informal corridor's discussion. Nominet's letter at: http://
> >> www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/7716_060627_Enhanced_cooperation.pdf
> >>
> >> Furthermore, ICC's input on same issues are dated March 2006 (http://
> >> www.iccwbo.org/policy/ebitt/id5871/index.html)
> >>
> >> During May 2007 open consultation in Geneva (preparing Rio IGF), many
> >> participants (among them many governments) asked about this. Desai
> >> answered (http://www.intgovforum.org/May_contributions/
> >> IGF-23May07Consultation.txt):
> >> ">>CHAIRMAN DESAI: The -- Are there any others? Okay. Let me begin
> >> first by a
> >> word on something which is not the subject matter of our discussion.
> >> And that
> >> is enhanced cooperation. I had reported to you a little earlier.
> >> Basically, if
> >> you look at the text of what came out of Tunis, unlike in the case of
> >> IGF, in
> >> the case of enhanced cooperation, the process was not specified. It
> >> was just
> >> said, "Launch a process." Nothing more was said as to what sort of
> >> process or
> >> what was expected. There's absolutely no indication given, unlike in
> >> the case
> >> of IGF, where it's very clear, where there's a whole long paragraph
> >> specifying
> >> terms of reference. A lot of things were specified in the case of
> >> IGF. So,
> >> essentially, what the Secretary-General did was to start a process of
> >> consultation, which we did. For six months, I personally met with
> >> people to
> >> find out whether there could be some basis, some common ground which
> >> could be
> >> found for a process, leaving it very flexible and elastic as to what
> >> this
> >> process could be. And, essentially, I have sent the report of that to
> >> the
> >> Secretary-General, the then-Secretary-General. And the fact is that
> >> there isn't
> >> that common ground as yet. So I think we'll have to try something
> >> different, a
> >> different approach. So let us see. At the moment, the -- as you
> >> know, there is
> >> a certain state of change in New York, not just in terms of the
> >> Secretary-General, but even the key department which is handling
> >> this, there
> >> will be a change at the end of June. So I -- and perhaps that may
> >> lead to
> >> certain movement beyond that point. But the real difficulty that we
> >> face there
> >> is the fact that nothing more was said beyond the word "process."
> >> Unlike in the
> >> case of IGF, where, in a sense, the marching orders are reasonably
> >> clear. There
> >> was not that much scope for modification, interpretation, and so on.
> >> So what we
> >> did was essentially a good offices function. And as you know, in
> >> diplomacy, the
> >> best you can do in good offices is provide those good offices. You
> >> can't
> >> necessarily assume that they will lead to a successful result. But I
> >> do accept
> >> that this is an area where we will have to ask ourselves, what do we
> >> do, at some
> >> point. "
> >>
> >> In summary, he said that nothing happened, and that he doesn't see
> >> what could happen, since he got from his "informal consultation" the
> >> sense that "there isn't that common ground as yet". Note that he
> >> provided his report of end 2006 to the former UN SG. And then the new
> >> UN SG was elected.
> >>
> >> Meryem
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080413/99627dcc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list