[governance] Shared Decision Making Procedures

Sun Mar 31 06:03:36 EDT 2013

Thanks Milton for moving the debate from the composition of the WG to the substance of enhanced cooperation. 

Two comments here:

1. we should not mix ITU with the UNCSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation. You are right both ITU and some UN member states have their own interpretation from the Tunis Agenda (TA). But this are two different processes and it should remain separat. 

2. Be reading the Tunis Agenda you have to put para. 35 a into the context of para. 34. 35a reads: "a)  Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues." This comes from the Geneva Declaration from 2003. But based on the Geneva language, WGIG started its work in 2004 and delivered the wanted definition in 2005 which includes not only the language of the "respective roles" but adds that this roles has to played out on the basis of "shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet." 

My interpretation is that governments, if they execute their respective role and developing Internet related public policies, according to para. 34 have to "share their decision making capacity" with the other stakeholders. With other words, Tunis went one step beyond Geneva and linked to sovereign rights of states to a procedure of sharing decision making with other stakeholders. In my eyes, this was the real substantial innovation in Tunis. What I have seen from arguments in Dubai, when the IG resolution became the subject of a controversy, was that some ITU member states (representing the same governments who will be also represented in the UNCSTD WG) try to play this game to put Geneva against Tunis by ignoring the progress which was reached via the WGIG. 

Additionally para. 37 is important in this context. It says "We seek to improve the coordination of the activities of international and intergovernmental organizations and other institutions concerned with Internet governance and the exchange of information among themselves. A multi-stakeholder approach should be adopted, as far as possible, at all levels." This is certainly an invitation to enhance cooperation among ITU and ICANN on an equal footing in their respective roles avoiding the duplication of mandates by enhancing communication, coordination and collaboration (the famous Meissen EC³). The ITU included in a footnote (for the first time in its history) in Resolution 102, 103 and 133 at its Plenipotentiary Conference in Guadalajara (2010) which expressed the wish for collaboration. But nothing practical came out. However, after Hammadoun and Fadi had breakfest in Baku (November 2012) and Dinner in Davos (January 2013) and the ITU invited Fadi to speak in Dubai and UNESCO invited Fadi to speak in Paris, the climate among the two leaders has moved beyond the frosty relationship between Toure and Beckstroem. This does not yet mean that we can reach progress quickly. The ITU and Mr. Toure is in the hands of the member states (as Fadi is in the hands of the constituencies). Insofar both the UNCSTD WG as well as the WTPF will be interesting indicators whether we can move forward with "shared decision making procedures" among stakeholders. 

My impression is that governments did not realize in Tunis what they signed when they accepted the definition in para. 34. To be frank, 34 contradicts 35 fundamentally and it is the challenge now to find out, what "sharing" means when it comes to the execution of "sovereign rights and responsibilties of states" (will we see the emergence of a concept of shared or collaborative sovereignty?) and how this can be further enhanced on a collaborative basis with all stakeholders and put into a precedural framework. Insofar, the new Ad Hoc IGF Working Group on Internet Governance Principles will become another challenging playing ground. 

Wolfgang

________________________________

Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Milton L Mueller
Gesendet: So 31.03.2013 05:28
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Avri Doria
Betreff: RE: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation

Avri

As for the CSTD WG EC itself, as one of those who was honored with the choice, what is it this group thinks is important?  I would really like to hear what it is this group thinks needs to be done?

[Milton L Mueller] Thanks for posing a useful and constructive question in this thread. I will elaborate my thoughts in greater detail in an upcoming blog post analyzing the ITU-SG report for the WTPF. But in a nutshell, I am concerned about the extent to which ITU and certain other advocates of "Enhanced Cooperation" (EC) are emphasizing the definition of "multi-stakeholderism" (MuSH) that emerged from the WSIS - i.e., the definition that reserves policy making authority to sovereigns and relegates the rest of to "our respective roles." 

While I recognize that these people have the wording of the Tunis Agenda on their side, the TA was in fact a document negotiated by and for states, without civil society or the private sector's full and equal participation, or consent, and thus imho it has no binding authority on the rest of us. Someone needs to uphold a more consistent and new-polity approach to MuSH which emphasizes the legitimacy and authority of new internet institutions to develop 'public policy', and someone needs to explain to states that their monopoly on "public policy" development in their own jurisdictions does not automatically translate into the same powers transnationally. Unless we take a firmer stand on this, I fear that Internet institutions such as the RIRs or ICANN will see it as being in their interests to strike an accommodation with sovereigns to give them veto powers or other forms of arbitrary intervention in putatively bottom-up policy processes (much as ICANN is already doing).

That's for starters...;-)

Insofar as EC is still about US control of the root - I do think that's still important, and should not be swept under the rug. As you probably know, I still believe that the answer is not "inter"nationalization but de-nationalization. 

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