[governance] India's proposal for a 50 member UN committee for Internet Related Policies

[Roland Perry]

In message <8b161c99-51d9-4e26-95e0-1b1d2dddfc4a at email.android.com>, at
10:24:52 on Fri, 18 May 2012, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> writes

I believe the trail starts at:

51  ... facilitate know-how transfer and exchange of best practices, in
    order to enhance the participation of developing countries and all
    stakeholders in Internet governance mechanisms.

52  In order to ensure effective participation in global Internet
    governance, we urge international organizations, including
    intergovernmental organizations, where relevant, to ensure that all
    stakeholders, particularly from developing countries, have the
    opportunity to participate in policy decision-making relating to
    Internet governance, and to promote and facilitate such
    participation.

>67 calls for the creation of a forum

>68 declares the equal role of governments and the cooperation of government
>with ail other stakeholders in the development of Internet public policy

It doesn't mention cooperation, but: "the need for development of public
policy by governments in consultation with all stakeholders."

>69 calls for enhanced cooperation with governments having an equal footing

It "further recognises", ie This is a different thing from 67. And is
where the concept of EC (rather than merely cooperation or consultation)
is introduced, "to enable governments ... to carry out their roles and
responsibilities".

>70 calls for the development of principles for policy development in
>cooperation relevant international organizations

And the venue for that... is within the existing (relevant)
international organisations. Who are called upon to create an
*environment* which facilitates the *development* (not discussion) of
public policy principles. (nb And not called upon to form an IGF).

>71 calls for the UN to initiate a process involving all stakeholders and
>to report yearly on progress

Initiate by Q1/2006, before the start of the IGF.

The relevant organisations, later identified by UNDESA and asked to
report on their "performance" were: ICANN, ITU, W3C, CoE, ISOC, OECD,
UNESCO, WIPO, NRO, IETF.

The reports were sent to CSTD for their review (eg:)

<http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UN-
DPADM/UNPAN039046.pdf>

Note also that the people asked to report on their progress with EC were
those listed, and not "all stakeholders". The multistakeholderism arises
from those organisations being tasked to throw themselves more open to
all stakeholders.

>72 gets into the nitty gritty of convening the forum it called for in para 67

No, the nitty gritty for the EC process (and is various forums as listed
above) is described in para 70 & 71.  (and to some extent 52. Whereas 51
is delivered by the IGF).

72 talks about what the IGF can do as a contribution towards EC,
especially in terms of capacity building and information exchange. Note
that 72(b) tasks it to be non-duplicative, and to that extent should not
be discussing ITU business, ICANN business etc.

>So, the discussion of EC falls inside the discussion of the forum to be created.

No, the new forum (the IGF) falls within EC.

I was hired by the RIR community for five years to pursue its own
programme of EC - which included involvement in the IGF, but was much
more than that (you can read the reports). In particular my brief was to
make the RIRs' existing process more multistakeholder by working with
governments, regulators, law enforcement and Parliamentarians, and to
deliver capacity building on issues relevant to the RIR part of the
ecosystem, and to encourage those folks to become more involved in the
RIR bottom-up policy making process.

Other "relevant organisations" had (to a greater or lesser extent)
similar outreach programmes to deliver their contribution to EC.

>While it appears to be a specific project with its own yearly status
>reporting requirements, a separate mechanism is not defined.

The mechanism is engaging the help of the "relevant organisations" to do
expand their role, as described in 70 & 71.

ps. FWIW I don't think EC can be delivered by setting up one new
Intergovernmental body (with 50 members or not), nor can it be delivered
by handing the whole thing over to just one of the "relevant
organisations" - eg A subcommittee of the ITU.

On the other hand, if there are any organisations who think they've been
left off the "list of ten relevant ones", they should step forward.
-- 
Roland Perry

-------------- 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