[governance] FOURTH DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation

Wed Nov 10 09:24:12 EST 2010

Dear all,

Please find below my suggestions in the text, which is easier for me to
follow, incorporating suggestions from some of you which I support and
trying to take into account everything said.

--- 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 *and even recognizing that some steps have been taken towards
Enhanced Cooperation*, 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.

[COMMENT: Amendment to capture the idea shared by some and not shared by
some others that something has happened on Enhanced Cooperation. I consider
the IGFa good example of enhanced cooperation in some respects.]

We make three further points. First, enhanced cooperation should encompass
all Internet-related public policy issues; second, many of our members
believe 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 must
play an integral part in them, as one of the prerequisites for their
legitimacy.

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 to include other substantive Internet related public policy
issues that require attention and resolution at *all levels,
particularly*the global level.
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.

[COMMENT: EC has to happen at all levels, but the consultation is mainly
towards the global and to some extent to the regional level. The national
level was intentionally left out of the international mechanisms]

2. The IGF in its present form is a very important part of the enhanced
cooperation process, in that its multi-stakeholder process can provide input
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 all other Internet governance
organisations, whether new or established.

If institutional changes are to be made, there are various options for
enhancing multi-stakeholder cooperation within and amongst all relevant
organisations (which may be complementary).  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 ecosystem,
linking together all Internet governance organisations, in which all
stakeholders would participate;

* encouraging organisations to enhance their own cooperation with other
stakeholders*, to take full advantage of the IGF,* and to report to the CSTD
on their progress; or

[COMMENT: Text is following Bill’s idea. CS should seek to preserve and
strengthen the space gained in the CSTD]

* establishing a new *governance arrangement* for Internet policy
development, with space for the full participation of each stakeholder group
in its respective role. [COMMENT: I suggest a mix between the original text
and text suggested by Bill.

I suggest to add the IGF to the previous point and take it away from here
for the time being. If  IGF remains in this paragraph, it is not necessary
to say here that it is through a new and supplementary mandate. Actually, if
it is contained in a General Assembly resolution, it will become part of the
mandate event without containing the word “mandate”

The other current spaces where this can take place as already pointed out by
Ian Peter is ICANN and ITU.

Another place where it has occurred is in the Council of Europe. However, to
have some actors (a closed group) negotiating binding instruments, and
opening afterwards such instruments to anybody else creates unneeded
barriers of acceptance, inclusiveness, universality, transparency, openness,
among others]

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.

--- ends ---

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 1:35 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> This incorporates all comments on the third draft, and I would like us to
> try to contribute all final comments within the next couple of days, so that
> we can put the final text to a consensus call.  I realise that,
> unfortunately, the text may not satisfy all of those without outlying views.
>  A reminder that the deadline for our submission is Monday.
>
> In addition to the plain text version, I have marked up version below, for
> those with graphical email clients or access to the Web archive.
>
> --- 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.
>
> We make three further points.  First, enhanced cooperation should encompass
> all Internet-related public policy issues; second, many of our members
> believe 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 must
> play an integral part in them, as one of the prerequisites for their
> legitimacy.
>
> 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 to include other substantive Internet related public
> policy issues that require attention and resolution at the global level.
>  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 its multi-stakeholder process can provide input
> 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 all other Internet governance
> organisations, whether new or established.
>
> If institutional changes are to be made, there are various options for
> enhancing multi-stakeholder cooperation within and amongst all relevant
> organisations (which may be complementary).  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 ecosystem,
> 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 full participation of each stakeholder group
> in its respective role.  This might also be situated within the IGF, but
> pursuant to a new and supplementary mandate.
>
> 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.
>
> --- ends ---
>
> Marked up version follows:
>
>  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.
>
> We make three further points.  First, enhanced cooperation should encompass
> all Internet-related public policy issues; second, *many of our members
> believe* 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
> must play an integral part in them*, as one of the prerequisites for their
> legitimacy*.
>
> 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 *to include **other substantive Internet related public
> policy issues that require attention and resolution at the global level*.
>  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
> *provide input 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 all
> other Internet governance organisations*, whether new or established *that
> do not already follow this model.
>
> *If institutional changes are to be made,* there are various options for
> enhancing multi-stakeholder cooperation within and amongst all relevant
> organisations* (which may be complementary)*.  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" *ecosystem*, 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 full participation of each stakeholder group
> in its respective role.  *This might also be situated within the IGF, but
> pursuant to a new and supplementary mandate.*
>
> 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.
>
> --
>
> *Jeremy Malcolm
> Project Coordinator*
> Consumers International
> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
> *CI is 50*
> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in
> 2010.
> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer
> rights around the world.
> *http://www.consumersinternational.org/50*
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765>.
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101110/11fa9341/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