[governance] Proposal for an IGF working group on EC

Thu May 17 02:40:21 EDT 2012

Dear Anriette and all

Please find hereafter some exerpts of the statement (in italics) and my personal questions and comments :

Based on our experience with global public policy issues pertaining to the internet, we are today in a position to say that we are not in favour of a new UN body to govern the Internet.

What (kind of) body does ACP propose for incorporating the actual governance of the Internet ? Unless other  indications are added in the document, the statement seems to consider the IGF as a possible "body". But actually, IGF is rather an “informal body” (an oxymore !). Or does APC consider EC as a goal ? In my opinion, this issue should be more clearly dealt with. 

large, globalised companies often being disproportionately influential as they are powerful in open processes in their own right, and through the influence they have on governments.

International organizations also are “influenced”, both inside –such as ITU, UNITAR- and outside the UN system –such as G8, OCDE ….

APC recognises the importance of specifically underscoring one of the largest examples of existing imbalance in internet governance, as mentioned above: the geopolitical influence of the United States and Europe. However, the power of other forces and drivers (governmental and non-governmental) should not be underestimated

The “geopolitical influence” of the US and Europe is quite different, since all major Internet corporations –in fact monopolies in their respective domain- are American : Google, Cisco, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, e-Bay …  Nowhere in the APC statement these monopolies are addressed despite the strong links they have with Internet governance. 

I do also regret that the specific problematics of DCs don't have their prominent place in this APC (i.e. CS) statement.

Best regards

Jean-Louis Fullsack

CSDPTT

> Message du 16/05/12 16:57
> De : "Anriette Esterhuysen" 
> A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Copie à : 
> Objet : [governance] Proposal for an IGF working group on EC
> 
> Hi all
> 
> Attached (and below) is a statement and proposal on EC that we hope to
> discuss further, online, and then also in the CSTD consultation on
> enhanced cooperation on Friday 18 May here in Geneva. Note that this is
> not yet an official APC position. Members are still discussing it.
> 
> Looking forward to your feedback.
> 
> Anriette
> 
> 
> -----------------------------
> 
> APC Policy Programme calls for the establishment of a multi-stakeholder
> working group of the Internet Governance Forum aimed at enhanced cooperation
> 
> GENEVA, MAY 14 2012 - Cooperation in internet governance implies that
> all partners should, in their respective roles, work together on an
> equal footing and with a shared mission. The Association for Progressive
> Communications' Communication and Information Policy Programme (APC
> CIPP) thereby supports strengthening 'enhanced cooperation' to address
> global public policy issues pertaining to the internet, which will
> realise its potential only when forces are balanced.
> 
> Structural differences exist between governments, the technical
> community the private sector and civil society - four stakeholder groups
> that make up the current internet governance ecosystem. APC is a civil
> society network that has not shied away from actively participating in
> the global policy dialogue and seven years after release of the Tunis
> Agenda still believes that internet governance should be ,participative,
> inclusive, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of
> governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community
> and international organisations. This implies recognizing and curbing
> imbalances not only between stakeholders, but also within stakeholder
> entities.
> 
> APC stresses the principle of democratic global governance of the
> internet. Building legitimacy of global internet-related policy spaces
> and mechanisms is a complex process that requires the acknowledgment of
> power dynamics, diverse interests and the political climate. Future
> internet governance mechanisms must engage stakeholders on an equal
> footing and ensure they are effectively represented.
> 
> APC further requests that as a forum for multi-stakeholder dialogue on
> internet policy, established as an outcome of the World Summit on
> Information Society, the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) establish a
> multi-stakeholder working group on unresolved issues related to
> 'enhancing cooperation' in internet governance. The Tunis Agenda states
> very clearly that taking enhanced cooperation forward is central to the
> mandate given to the IGF.
> 
> “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.
> 
> “72. We ask the UN Secretary-General, in an open and inclusive process,
> to convene, by the second quarter of 2006, a meeting of the new forum
> for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance
> Forum (IGF).”
> 
> The text of the Tunis Agenda then continues to describe in greater
> detail what this open and inclusive process should achieve in order to
> forward enhanced cooperation, and, in paragraph 73 it proposes how this
> should be done:
> “73. The Internet Governance Forum, in its working and function, will be
> multilateral, multi-stakeholder, democratic and transparent. To that
> end, the proposed IGF could:
> a. Build on the existing structures of Internet governance, with special
> emphasis on the complementarity between all stakeholders involved in
> this process – governments, business entities, civil society and
> intergovernmental organizations.
> b. Have a lightweight and decentralized structure that would be subject
> to periodic review.
> c. Meet periodically, as required. IGF meetings, in principle, may be
> held in parallel with major relevant UN conferences, inter alia, to use
> logistical support1.“
> Participation and cooperation in internet governance has increased
> dramatically since 2005. It is important that these gains are not lost.
> As pointed out by Joy Liddicoat, coordinator of APC's Internet Rights
> are Human Rights project, there is particular value in “... the system
> of [internet governance] remaining dependent on the collection of
> individuals and organisations and the system of mutual recognition and
> cooperation which have ,so far, enabled the internet to function without
> significant problems. Such a system provides a compelling framework
> within which contests for control have sufficient counterweights to
> ensure no single person or organisation has total autonomy.”
> 
> At the same time, many imbalances and constraints remain and new
> challenges are posed by the rapid development of the internet and its
> increased relevance as more people, particularly people who are excluded
> from social, economic and political power, gain access.
> 
> Unresolved issues include real constraints for effective participation
> in internet governance decision-shaping and decision-making such as, but
> not exclusive to, financial resources, capacity, knowledge and
> understanding of issues and implications. These constraints do not apply
> only to civil society, but also to governments, the technical community
> and the private sector. They apply primarily, but not exclusively to
> stakeholders from developing countries.
> 
> For cooperation between stakeholders in internet governance to be
> further enhanced, these imbalances need to be acknowledged, and
> addressed. They exist between countries: governments from North America
> and Europe are generally more engaged in IG, and have more influence;
> between companies, with large, globalised companies often being
> disproportionately influential as they are powerful in open processes in
> their own right, and through the influence they have on governments.
> 
> Imbalances also exist in the participation of civil society in internet
> governance: within civil society (with only a small sub-section of civil
> society participating regularly), and, between civil society and
> governments as well as other non-governmental stakeholders such as
> business and the technical community.
> 
> The Association for Progressive Communications sees 'enhanced
> cooperation' as a responsibility of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF).
> The advances towards a potential consensus among stakeholders that have
> been made since 2005 can and must evolve into concrete and sustainable
> mechanisms that facilitate not just multi-stakeholder participation, but
> also multi-stakeholder decision-making in internet governance.
> 
> Based on our experience with global public policy issues pertaining to
> the internet, we are today in a position to say that we are not in
> favour of a new UN body to govern the Internet. This does not imply that
> we do not place great value on the UN system and the important role it
> plays in facilitating international cooperation. Nor do we subscribe to
> the manner in which governance of internet resources is currently being
> done. We are also unhappy with the degree to which current arrangements
> only partially implement a multi-stakeholder model. We believe that
> civil society and the citizens of the world will be best served by an
> internet governance setting that relies on 'enhanced cooperation' among
> equals. For these reasons we call on all stakeholders to renew and
> reinvigorate efforts to ensure existing mechanisms demonstrate enhanced
> cooperation and improved internet governance, and to explore the
> establishment of new mechanisms that can effectively deepen cooperation
> between all stakeholders.
> 
> In our collective efforts to ensure that global governance of the
> internet relies on enhanced cooperation among equals, developing a set
> of principles and procedures to guide the way in which multi-stakeholder
> collaboration can practically translate into EC is necessary.
> Accordingly, APC proposes that an IGF working group on enhanced
> cooperation be established, drawing on the modalities used to constitute
> the Working Group on Internet Governance in the build-up to the second
> phase of the WSIS in Tunis. It should be multi-stakeholder with all
> stakeholders able to participate on an equal footing.
> 
> We propose that the goal of this working group should be to develop a
> 'Multi-stakeholder Declaration on Enhanced Cooperation in Internet
> Governance' that, in line with the Tunis Agenda, captures consensus
> positions on basic principles, modalities for enhanced cooperation. It
> should also consider proceedings of the United Nations Human Right
> Council in relation to the internet and human rights. This group can
> consider proposals for enhancing cooperation made in the last few years,
> such as, for example, the IBSA (India Brazil South Africa) and CIRP
> (Committee for Internet Related Policies) proposals as well as the
> proceedings of the General Assembly sessions that dealt with enhanced
> cooperation.
> 
> APC recognises the importance of specifically underscoring one of the
> largest examples of existing imbalance in internet governance, as
> mentioned above: the geopolitical influence of the United States and
> Europe. However, the power of other forces and drivers (governmental and
> non-governmental) should not be underestimated. APC executive director
> Anriette Esterhuysen adds, “it would be a mistake to assume that
> shifting the current balance of geopolitical influence away from the US
> and Europe would guarantee that the public interest, as opposed to
> narrower business and government interests, will become the main driver
> for IG. It is also no guarantee for a stronger voice for civil society.”
> 
> APC will continue working with a rights-based and public interest
> principles approach towards its vision of an internet that is governed
> by a clear set of guiding principles and procedures grounded in human
> rights declarations. This should be the concrete goal of 'enhanced
> cooperation' and this is certainly what APC will be actively pursuing.
> 
> 16 May 2012
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This statement has been developed by the Association for Progressive
> Communications (APC) Communications and Information Policy Programme.
> The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) is an network and
> non-profit organisation founded in 1990 that wants everyone to have
> access to a free and open Internet to improve lives and create a more
> just world. www.apc.org
> 
> END
> 
> Context
> Tunis Agenda (WSIS, 2005) http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html
> Report of the Secretary-General : Enhanced cooperation on public policy
> issues pertaining to the Internet (UN Economic and Social Council, 2009)
> http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UN-DPADM/UNPAN039046.pdf
> CSTD meeting on enhanced cooperation on public policy issues pertaining
> to the Internet (May 18 2012)
> http://www.unctad.org/en/Pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=61
> APC Contribution to the UN CSTD five year review of progress concerning
> WSIS outcomes
> http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_CSTDquestionnaire_WSISFollowUp.pdf
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
> executive director, association for progressive communications
> www.apc.org
> po box 29755, melville 2109
> south africa
> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
>
> [ APC_enhanced_coop-final_DRAFT_16052012.odt (61.2 Ko) ]
> [ APC_enhanced_coop-final_DRAFT_16052012.pdf (143.1 Ko) ]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120517/471d7941/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

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