[governance] THIRD DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation

Sun Nov 7 13:55:20 EST 2010

Some comments below

(…)

Despite an intergovernmental mandate from WSIS to address this governance
deficit, much remains to be done.  It is imperative that this deficit
continue to be addressed, where appropriate through new institutional
developments that comply with the WSIS process criteria of being
multilateral, transparent, democratic and inclusive.

If we want to reach compromise,  “institutional developments” is a good
choice, since it leaves room for different interpretations and for the many
proposals put forth on the list.

We make three further points.  First, enhanced cooperation should encompass
all Internet-related public policy issues; second, the existing arrangements
of relevant organisations (including the Internet Governance Forum) do not
fully implement enhanced cooperation, and thirdly whatever new arrangements
may be put in place, civil society will play an integral part in them.

In order to envision what EC should look like, we need to have in mind the
whole IG ecosystem, and the IGF is an important, vibrant part of it.
Therefore, I believe the IGF has to appear in our statement and its role
needs to be considered when drafting future arrangements.

These points will be explained in turn:

1. Although much of the discussion of enhanced cooperation at WSIS turned
around the narrow issue of internationalising the oversight of Internet
naming and numbering functions, the Tunis Agenda expresses this principle
far more broadly.  It also reminds us that the ultimate objective of our
cooperation is to advance a people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented
and non-discriminatory Information Society.

2. The IGF in its present form is a very important part of the enhanced
cooperation process, in that ideally its multi-stakeholder process can help
to shape decisions taken on Internet related public policy issues in other
fora.  However the full realisation of enhanced cooperation will require a
multi-stakeholder process to extend to other Internet governance
organisations that do not already follow this model.

I would rather say that “its multi-stakeholder process can provide input to
shape decisions (…)”. This indicates that there should be coherence in the
whole system.

When we say “related public policy issues in other fora” and “extend to
other Internet governance organizations that do not already follow this
model”  I have the impression that for IGC, EC means the closest
coordination between IGF, one the one side, and ITU, etc, on the other side.
Our main request is that these other organizations follow the example of the
IGF and become multistakeholder. It could be inferred that no new body needs
to be created and any redesign of existing ones would need to take place. I
don´t believe this is what we meant, but maybe a slight change in phrasing
would help? Something like “Extend to other existing or to be created
Internet governance organizations"

There are various options for enhancing multi-stakeholder cooperation within
and amongst all relevant organisations.  These include:

I agree with Parminder that we now have an opportunity to contribute to the
design of the future of the IG regime and we cannot waste it. If we don’t
have a clear proposal, but rather vague statements, others will make the
decisions for us. Maybe we cannot reach consensus for this statement, but we
should continue the discussion to try to reach consensus on how the IG
regime should look like in the future.

The ongoing discussion on the list would also feed our positions in the CSTD
WG.

(...)

On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 4:37 AM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 3:42 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> > It will be impossible to simultaneously satisfy people like Parminder and
> > people like McTim, so here is my attempt at dissatisfying them equally.
>  The
> > biggest changes are the substitution of a new preamble for the old one,
> and
> > deletion of the "do nothing" bullet point under numbered-paragraph 2.
>  Let's
> > continue to have your comments as we try and reach some common ground.
> > --- begins ---
> > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) regards the process
> > towards enhanced cooperation as a vital step towards addressing the "many
> > cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention
> and
> > are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms" (Tunis Agenda
> para
> > 68).
> > Despite an intergovernmental mandate from WSIS to address this governance
> > deficit, much remains to be done.  It is imperative that this deficit
> > continue to be addressed, where appropriate through new institutional
> > developments that comply with the WSIS process criteria of being
> > multilateral, transparent, democratic and inclusive.
>
> What does the above sentence mean?  Does it mean new institutions or
> new developments within existing institutions?
>
> If the latter, let's say that.  If the former, I would be opposed to this
> idea.
>
>
> > We make three further points.  First, enhanced cooperation should
> encompass
> > all Internet-related public policy issues; second, the existing
> arrangements
> > of relevant organisations (including the Internet Governance Forum) do
> not
> > fully implement enhanced cooperation,
>
> Can we say "many of our members believe the existing arrangements of
> relevant organisations...."
>
>
> and thirdly whatever new arrangements
> > may be put in place, civil society will play an integral part in them.
>
> I would suggest Should/must/can instead of 'will".
>
> >
> > These points will be explained in turn:
> >
> > 1. Although much of the discussion of enhanced cooperation at WSIS turned
> > around the narrow issue of internationalising the oversight of Internet
> > naming and numbering functions, the Tunis Agenda expresses this principle
> > far more broadly.  It also reminds us that the ultimate objective of our
> > cooperation is to advance a people-centred, inclusive,
> development-oriented
> > and non-discriminatory Information Society.
> >
> > 2. The IGF in its present form is a very important part of the enhanced
> > cooperation process, in that ideally its multi-stakeholder process can
> help
> > to shape decisions taken on Internet related public policy issues in
> other
> > fora.  However the full realisation of enhanced cooperation will require
> a
> > multi-stakeholder process to extend to other Internet governance
> > organisations that do not already follow this model.
>
> What does this mean?  What other IG institutions are not sufficiently MS?
>
> >
> > There are various options for enhancing multi-stakeholder cooperation
> within
> > and amongst all relevant organisations.  These include:
> >
> > * establishing a lightweight multi-stakeholder observatory process
> perhaps
> > hosted under the auspices of the IGF (pursuant to its mandate in
> paragraph
> > 72(i));
> >
> > * utilising a virtual and voluntary global social community or "social
> > grid", linking together all Internet governance organisations, in which
> all
> > stakeholders would participate; or
> >
> > * establishing a new umbrella governance institution for Internet policy
> > development, with space for the participation of each stakeholder group
> in
> > its respective role.
>
> If you are going to remove the "do nothing" option, because some folk
> oppose it, then in fairness, I suggest you must remove the above
> option as some oppose that as well.
>
> Getting into options at all is a quagmire, i suggest that it might be
> easier to reach consensus if we don't enumerate the options at all.
>
> >
> > 3. Paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda makes very clear that civil society
> is
> > an integral participant in the development of any process towards
> enhanced
> > cooperation.  Therefore the IGC, in our capacity as members of civil
> > society, looks forward to contributing constructively in transparent,
> > accountable and democratic multi-stakeholder consultations towards this
> end.
>
> fine with that para.
>
>
> > --- ends ---
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101107/c1aaa806/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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t