AW: [governance] enhanced cooperation
Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de
Tue Apr 22 04:58:56 EDT 2008
Does somebody know what happened with the letter from UN Under Secretary general Zhka to ISOC about enhanced cooperation? Did ICANN, ITU, WIPO, UNESCO, IETF, NRO, ICC or the IGC similar letters? Is there any feed back?
Does somebody know what the result is from ITUs questionnaire with regard to resolution 102? Is there a report back to the Council?
Is there a programme committee for the ITU World Telecommmunication Forum (schedule for end of March 2009 in Geneva) and if yes, do they have enhanced cooperation on the agenda?
Will it be discussed (and if yes by whom) in the forthoming OECD Ministerial meeting in June in Seul?
Will the UNCSTD have report for this years session? It became part of its mandate after last years resolution.
If nobody knows anything, the IGC could step in and encourages one of its members to produce an overview in cooperation with GIGANET for the Hyderabad meeting. We can use the May consultation just to ask three or four basic questions to all the organisaitons, participating in the Geneva meeting. It would be good to have such an overview and to present it in Hyderabad.
Any comments?
Wolfgang
________________________________
Von: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
Gesendet: Sa 19.04.2008 18:11
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim'
Betreff: [governance] enhanced cooperation
> These themes that we suggested for IGF, Hyd, for the Feb consultations by MAG are
>1. Enhanced Cooperation - What Was Meant By the Tunis Agenda, and What Is the Status of It
IT for Change proposes to develop a workshop proposal on this theme, and, if agreed, IGC can co-sponsor, and/or its members join in the effort.
There is a lot of confusion around enhanced cooperation ( EC), and I think it is the responsibility of the CS to get a debate going for defining what is EC, and what is being done about it and what needs to be done, and try to draw the important actors involved in this process.
There was some discussion under this head on this list a few days back. Meryem gave her assessment of how things stand. We also decided to write to the UN Under secretary General to find out about the process (which we will do presently). There were other contributions. For instance McTim wrote
>I am. Instead of saying " "the group which likes to call itself the technical community" (and business) is offering a >definition of EC that you don't like, please enunciate a definition that you do like.
>We can't just say "that's not EC", we as IGC have to say "EC is ......".
Yes, McTim, that exactly what we want to do. What about doing it at an IGF workshop.
And when you say, in reply to Meryem,
> > Since nothing has been done on 'enhanced cooperation' (at least, as
>
> > far as we know from publicly available information),
>I don't understand how anyone can still persist in this fiction,.
I must propose that the fiction is not being created by those who are wondering where is EC, but by those who have unilaterally decided that what they are doing is EC. You seem to suggest that those who are questioning the existing (non) process themselves really do not know what EC is or supposed to be. A thing is defined both by what it is supposed to do, and also how. Tunis Agenda is very clear on what EC is supposed to do. It does go over some amount of detail, over several paras, to elucidate this. The need is first identified, and the purpose for EC is put clearly to 'develop globally applicable public policy principles'. Do you have any doubt about it from the reading of TA.
Are any of the EC attempts, you keep speaking about as already happening, moving towards creating such global public policy principles. Is so, can you please explain how, because I am very interested if it were happening?
On HOW this will development of 'public policy principles' happen, TA found it a bit premature to decide on exact modalities and is no doubt somewhat vague. This vagueness represents an incomplete consensus on the exact process, and the effort for getting this consensus has to be kept up. So, TA asks for two set of processes. One to be initiated by the SG which will try to create a process whereby a method/ way etc for developing these public policy principles can take shape. On the other hand, at clearly another level, it also calls upon all institutions engaged with IG to work towards creating conditions towards helping such a method/way of developing such principles to develop and take anchor.
Now, first of all I see no specific way in which all the institutions you say are already doing EC as contributing " to creating an environment that facilitates this development of public policy principles" (para 70, TA). If you think they are, can you tell me how?
Now even if they were doing so, it in itself will only constitute creating an environment for the 'primary purpose' of EC - 'developing globally applicable public policy principles' and cannot on its own, and to exclusion of the primary process (in fact, it is often posited in opposition to this TAs' intended primary process), be called THE EC process. And if someone is calling it that, you know who is creating and 'persisting in fiction'.
In any case, from whichever side you see it, there is enough fiction and confusion around the EC concept to try to seek out some facts through an IGF workshop.
Parminder
________________________________
Dewd,
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
> > Since nothing has been done on 'enhanced cooperation' (at least, as
>
> > far as we know from publicly available information),
I don't understand how anyone can still persist in this fiction, after having sent 3 publicly available links in the last few hours regarding ongoing EC efforts?
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'.
There IS an environment already, you just choose NOt to partake in it.
>
>
>
> 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.
How so?
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.
>
>From where I sit, the "view" of "the group which likes to call itself the technical community" (what would you call them btw?) is to protect and defend the open, transparent, bottom-up nature of CIR policy making that has helped to make the Internet the success it has become.
Are you against this?
>
>
> 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.
I don't see this (although I wish it were true), can you document this?
> The obvious objective is to deny the role of 'public policy'
now that's just silly.
in this
> important area of IG, which is important for all people of this world.
> Such denial of role of public policy in our society's affairs in quite
> in keeping with the neo-liberal
not this again.
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...
>
oh thank god!
>
>
> There is a enhanced cooperation task force (see
> www.ripe.net/ripe/tf/enhanced-cooperation/index.html ),
Yes, I am on it. This in itself is an example of EC!! This is the "group which likes to call itself the technical community" reacting positively to the TA!
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 de'tre 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
> Meryem's email) at
> http://www.iccwbo.org/uploadedFiles/ICC/policy/e-business/pages/CCBI_I
> CC_enhanced_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.
>
and the next 3 paras; in that doc:
Enhanced cooperation should be facilitated across the spectrum of all relevant organizations including those that are private sector-led, those that are intergovernmental (IGOs) and those that are multistakeholder.
· The dynamic nature of the Information Society and the Internet are such that new or additional groups will emerge that should be allowed to be part of this enhanced cooperation process. In keeping with the Tunis Agenda principle of inclusiveness, "All relevant organizations"
should not be interpreted as a snapshot in time.
· The fact that many of the organizations that are addressing Internetrelated issues and their decision-making processes are already multistakeholder should be recognized since this can be an important foundation for enhanced cooperation.
>
>
> Nothing to do with policy development, clearly.
Most of the folk you are calling "the group which likes to call itself the technical community" have their own PDP's, so it's very much about 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
I am. Instead of saying " "the group which likes to call itself the technical community" (and business) is offering a definition of EC that you don't like, please enunciate a definition that you do like.
We can't just say "that's not EC", we as IGC have to say "EC is ......".
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.
But they accountable to their own communities not to IGC or IGF? It's an act of hubris to call people to account when they aren't accountable to us. An example of this is the ISOC page refereed to ealrier, where ISOC says "hey members, what are we to do about this request from the UN".
>
>
>
> 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.
Oh, yes, let's do..here's some suggested text:
Dear Mr. Sha,
Please tell us why we haven't been invited to the EC table, even though it's not yet built? While many of our members refuse to acknowledge that it is being built, they still want a seat at it...now.
We have asked before to be included in a process that we don't acknowledge. Even though we are not one of the traditional IG bodies, we think we know better than they do, and want to make them accountable to the IGF.
We haven't said what we think EC is, but we can say that those who do say they know what it is, and are actively doing it, are wrong.
So, please invite us to participate in EC efforts that don't exist, as we can't stomach the ones that do exist, nor can we tell you what we think they should be,"
Regards,
IGC
____________________________________________________________
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