[governance] CSTD Meeting on Enhanced Cooperation Note 1

[SAMUELS,Carlton A]

This is a very well-balanced presentation that suggests the right course of action; first decide on scope before the framework for EC is established.  The real concern is power distribution.

- Carlton
________________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen [anriette at apc.org]
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 3:34 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD Meeting on Enhanced Cooperation Note 1

Here are the remarks I made on the CSTD panel on EC on 18 May 2012.
Pasted below and attached as a PDF.

Anriette
------------------------------------------------------------

Why are we here and why is this event so well attended?

We are here because the internet matters to us. It matters more than in
2005 because more people and countries are connected to the internet.
More poor people are connected as access expands.
 Therefore it follows that decisions made about internet policy and
development matters. Global decisions, but also national decisions that
influences how we use the internet.

Sometimes national decisions influences how people everywhere use the
internet, for example copyright enforcement by one country can limit
access to knowledge and information for internet users everywhere. But
even national decisions that are directed at people inside a particular
country, such as censorship of filtering, or blocking affects people
outside of that country as because the internet connects us all.

We are also here because IG decision-making is complex and dispersed.
The internet is not a publicly owned entity. Ownership and
responsibility for managing and developing the internet is mixed. Users
develop applications and content. Companies build platforms and provide
services. Much of the infrastructure we use to access the internet was
built by the public sector. Protocols and standards are developed by
engineers, inventors and technicians. The internet is existentially and
integrally multi-stakeholder. This is why governance of the internet
cannot but be fully multi-stakeholder.

We are also here because people are not happy with the current status
quo in IG.  Some stakeholders say that EC is already happening, others
say it is not. Some countries have more power and influence than others,
Some make more effort than others. Some feel that decisions are made
that are not consistent with existing global agreements, e.g. in the
case of human rights. Not only governments have concerns. There are also
dissonances in the participation of business and civil society and the
technical community. Small businesses and many in civil society have no
real voice in IG. There are different interpretations of EC. Does it
refer only to more cooperation with/among governments?
And amidst all this it is often not clear where the public interest lies
in IG, and who its defenders are.

We are also here, perhaps primarily, because we have not done what the
Tunis Agenda mandated: using the IGF to take forward the discussion on EC.

Where to from here? My proposal is a working group on enhanced
cooperation be established, in a similar way to how the WGIG (Working
Group on Internet Governance) was formed (for example, 50% of the seats
in this WGIG was reserved for States to ensure they were given adequate
representation). It should work within the framework of the IGF. This is
essential to respect the original purpose for the establishment of the
IGF, and because the IGF brings together so many stakeholders already
engaged in IG. It could also work in collaboration with the CSTD. It is
critical that this WGEC is fully multi-stakeholder, and that all
stakeholders should feel comfortable with how it was constituted and how
it functions.

Scope, output, success criteria for this WGEC:

Definitions: It can address some of the definitions around which there
is so much disagreement, e.g. 'enhanced cooperation', 'in their
respective roles', 'equal footing', and what it means to be
'multilateral and multi-stakeholder'.

Issues: It can identify what the issues are that most require better
cooperation among stakeholders, and that governments feel most strongly
they need more involvement in.
Mapping: It should undertake mapping of existing IG institutions and
processes, and assess progress in EC in each of there.

Output of the WGEC:  Aside from a report on its work, issues,
definitions, etc. I think it would be most useful if this group can
produce a “Multi-stakeholder Declaration on Enhanced Cooperation in
Internet Governance” - a statement of common principles and commitments
needed to ensure public-interest oriented IG based on cooperation among
all stakeholders. It could also produce a report with recommendations
regarding institutional arrangements for IG, where they are working
well, where there are gaps, how these can be addressed, and so on.

Success criteria for the WGEC would include the legitimacy of group and
how it was constituted, its leadership, the extent of interaction and
feedback with other bodies that are discussing these issues and with all
who feel they are stakeholders in IG. I look forward to more discussion
today, and, to us working together to find a fresh approach  towards
more inclusive spaces and processes in IG.

18 May 2012

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