AW: [governance] CSTD Meeting on Enhanced Cooperation Note 1

Mon May 21 17:52:34 EDT 2012

Thanks Wolfgang and others who have sent comments. The question is, what
is the best way of taking this clarification forward?

Anriette

On 21/05/2012 10:58, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> Great speech Anriette. You are right, lets first clarify the substance of EC before we come to proposal to formalize (or not formalize) for EC. Well done.
>  
> wolfgang
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Anriette Esterhuysen
> Gesendet: Mo 21.05.2012 09:34
> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Betreff: 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
> 
> 

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

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