AW: [governance] RE: enhanced cooperation
Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de
Sun Apr 13 05:00:52 EDT 2008
Adam
very good proposal. Here are two comments:
1. In principle it is good that Sha contacts not only governments but also non-governmental players like ISOC, ICC etc. It counters the interpretation EU Commssioner Reding gave in Athens, that EC is mainly an intergovernmental process in the "center" with concentric circles around it, including the IGF. This was certainly a wrong approach (which was not repeated in Rio), but some governments have this interpretation. We discussed this in Meissen in July 2007 during the EC symposium (after the summer school) and we concluded that regardless of the "silence" EC is already developing: Not top down but bottom up in form of enhanced communication, enhanced coordination and enhanced cooperation (EC³) among involved and concerned governmental and non-governmental parties (like ICANN-UNESCO in multiligualism). However we further concluded that the "intergovernmental component" of EC is still on a low level. With other words, we should see the intergovernmental component of EC embedded in a broader multistakeholder process of EC³. Nitin always argued that "he facilitates" the process but does not "steer it", The stakeholders have to do their own homework. If they want to move forward, okay. If they are unable to agree, it needs more time. So it is up to the governments to find a way how to contribute to EC³ and it is also the task of the CS/PS to make their contributions.
2. A letter to Sha asking for more involvement of the IGC would make sense, it is really needed. It was Sha who asked in Rio for a special consultation with CS (I also was there) and - surprise, surprise - he changed his speech and introduced at least one point from the discussion with us: Financial support for CS people from developing countries to enable them to participate in the process. But he was also open to all other points we raised in the debate about the various dimensions of the inclusion of CS in policy development and decision making around the Internet as part of the further development of the principle of multistakeholderism. He himself was very clear in labeling the IGF as - from an UN perspective - experiment in how this new principle can work on the ground. He also said that in his opinion IG could become the next big issue (after climate change) for the UN. I discussed the various ideas further with him in a more private conversation after his press conference whan I thanked him for the inclusion of this "money point" in his speech (which was not in the written version he distributed already before he took the floor in the opening of the IGF). With other words, the IGC should write the letter, refer to the CS consultation he had in Rio offer him to be seen as a/the CS partner in further discussion around EC. And as Adam has proposed: Make in simple and clear. No big theories, just simple facts and clear points.
Wolfgang
________________________________
Von: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
Gesendet: So 13.04.2008 10:23
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: RE: [governance] RE: enhanced cooperation
>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).
See my other email. Likely Nominet took up the
offer to meet with Nitin and then responded
further in writing. ICC's contribution was
different, a response to the first open
consultation trying to identify the scope of
issues the IGF should address -- ICC wanted
enhanced cooperation separate. Sent before
Nitin's "come see me" offer. In light of para 71
it's no big surprise ISOC (IETF) would be asked
for an annual report.
>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.
Nitin asked any interested person to contact him
and or see him, I guess Nominet took up the offer.
Para 71, regarding enhanced cooperation asks all
relevant organizations to provide annual
performance report. So really no surprise ICANN
ISOC (IETF) would be asked (I am actually not
sure why ISOC, but that perhaps depends on what
enhanced cooperation is, of course something we
don't know.)
A letter to Mr Sha asking which CS organizations
have been consulted is a good idea. And for a
copy of Nitin's 2006 report. Mr Sha did meet
with some individuals (me included) in Rio, but
not as consultation about enhanced cooperation.
We could also ask him to define what he means by
enhanced cooperation. Keep any questions as
simple and direct as possible.
Adam
>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:// <http:///>
>> www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/7716_060627_Enhanced_cooperation.pdf
>>
>> Furthermore, ICC's input on same issues are dated March 2006 (http:// <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
____________________________________________________________
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