[governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation

[Adam Peake]

>Dear Andrea and others
>
>I think Jeremy's interpretation is accurate and a good summary of
>what I think most authors (governments, after all) of the TA intended.


Anriette, hi.

I remember thinking at the time the Tunis Agenda 
was being drafted/finalized that EC and IGF were 
separate.  And still think if they'd meant to be 
part of the same process the document would have 
said so. Paragraphs 71 and 72 would have had 
linking text, there isn't any.  I have no 
remaining notes from the discussions at the time, 
and we didn't have scribes back then, so I 
wouldn't bet on being right.  But as you said in 
another email, the document's not great.  It 
certainly was thought through, editing of these 
paragraphs was going late into the evening on the 
eve the Summit, so I think logical structure of 
the document is not something to rely on.

What I think does matter is Nitin Desai's 
interpretation, as the SG's special advisor 
representative and so the authority for 71 and 
72,  he said they were separate processes. 
Doesn't mean that can't be undone, but believe 
it's where we are now until the SG or his 
representative tells us otherwise.

Best,

Adam







>If you read the text preceding paragraph 67 (which describes IG) and
>then para 67:
>
>"67. We agree, inter alia, to invite the UN Secretary-General to convene
>a new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue."
>
>.. and then the text from paras 68 to 82 (the rest of the TA under the
>heading 'internet governance' it is very, very clear that the IGF was
>meant to be a forum to continue discussion about EC in IG.
>
>As for that UNGA resolution that states EC and the IGF are two distinct
>processes...it is also usually assumed and stated that it still implies
>they are complimentary.. so the TA's mandate for the IGF to be the
>primary forum for taking EC forward is not contradicted.
>
>It is also worth considering whether that 2010 GA resolution would ever
>have been made if some governments, and some members of business and the
>tech community were not so averse to having serious discussion of EC in
>the IGF for its first few years.
>
>As for 'multi-lateral and multi-stakeholder. Yes, this is in the TA, and
>there are different interpretations of what it means, as there are
>different interpretations of what EC means.
>
>Anriette
>
>
>
>
>On 28/05/2012 08:35, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>  On 28/05/12 14:23, Andrea Glorioso wrote:
>>>  both during the WSIS week in Geneva and recently on this mailing list
>>>  I had the occasion to hear/read a number of persons claiming (rather
>>>  forcefully) that the conclusions of the WSIS "clearly" meant the IGF
>>>  to be the or at least an instrument to implement Enhanced Cooperation.
>>>
>>>  Leaving aside for a moment the subsequent UNGA resolution on the
>>>  matter (but noting that even though, strictly speaking, we are not
>>>  talking about binding international law, the principle of "lex
>>>  posterior" could apply) I would be curious to know your views on which
>>>  passages of the WSIS texts could lead to such conclusion.
>>>
>>
>>  Lazily, just copying and pasting from page 518 of my 2008 book on the
>>  IGF (http://books.google.com.my/books?id=G8ETBPD6jHIC):
>>
>>  "...there is no clear division between the role of the IGF and the
>>  process of enhanced cooperation in the Tunis Agenda; rather the former
>>  is treated as an integral component of the latter.[341] What can be
>>  taken from this is that whilst governments will continue to maintain
>>  sovereignty over the authoritative statement of public policy principles
>>  in international and domestic law, those principles are to be developed
>>  in a multi-stakeholder forum, the IGF (from where they may equally find
>>  implementation through other, non-legal mechanisms of governance)."
>>
>>  [341] See WSIS, Tunis Agenda for the Information Society (as in n. 5 on
>>  page 2), paras 67â?ì72, in
>>  which the middle paragraphs on enhanced cooperation are sandwiched by
>>  those calling for the
>  > establishment of the IGF.
>  >
>>  --
>>
>>  *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
>>  Senior Policy Officer*
>  > 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
>>
>>  Follow @ConsumersInt <http://twitter.com/Consumers_Int>
>>
>>  Like us at www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>>  <http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>
>>
>>  Read our email confidentiality notice
>>  <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
>>  print this email unless necessary.
>>
>
>--
>------------------------------------------------------
>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


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