[governance] my views and short report -- UNWGEC

Wed Nov 13 09:20:45 EST 2013

Hi

here is my article on the WGEC meeting.

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20131112_enhanced_cooperation_in_internet_governance_mystery_to_clarity/

wolfgang

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org on behalf of Carolina Rossini
Sent: Wed 11/13/2013 1:34 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
Cc: joy; Carlos A. Afonso; BestBits List
Subject: Re: [governance] my views and short report -- UNWGEC

hi all
I think we need a better way to list working topics and moving work based
on who wants to help with what
should best bits have a wiki for work by working groups
formed spontaneously based on what people want to work together on?
i feel a lot get lost in the list and people get distracted over procedural
issues and some times too many contributions - which are good - but some
times have the effect of burying the working proposals
within the Wikimedia groups, this "task forces" work well...
one examples among many from that community is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council of course the goal is different, but much is
how we fix our knowledge and develop work together in a transparent
platform, that also allows debate and a picture of the history of it)
What Carlos proposes demands a lot of work and focus, and since it is hard
to set calls, we need to find ways to work asynchronously
This idea would also work for the working-groups formed at the Best Bits mtg
just a thought ...since this list is a high-traffic list and we could
rethink what needs a working space for work and follow-ups and what
actually needs to circulate/be discussed in the list

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you Joy for sharing your summary with us. This is very useful. I
> would invite all IGC subscribers to read Carlos, Joy and Avri's posts of
> the WGEC as it is very useful.
>
> The #WGEC on Twitter that was used during the meeting will also show the
> trail of discussions and thoughts. Joy I am wondering about the possibility
> of a Webinar where those of you who attended the WGEC can form a Panel
> either through a Webinar or a Google Hangout where you can talk about the
> recent WGEC meeting and take questions from us.
>
> If someone from the IGC would like to volunteer to look into this, it
> would be useful.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Sala
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:39 AM, joy <joy at apc.org> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Carlos - and adding a link to a blog post with a more general
>> note on the summary of the meeting: http://www.apc.org/en/node/18717/
>>
>> regards
>>
>> Joy Liddicoat
>>
>> On 12/11/2013 2:42 a.m., Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>> > Dear people,
>> >
>> > Here are my *personal* views and a short report as a participant in the
>> > Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (UNWGEC) -- its second meeting
>> > just happened in Geneva (6-8 of November). It just follows the latest
>> > edition of the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) held last October in
>> > Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia.
>> >
>> > In the discussion of enhanced cooperation among nations for the
>> > advancement of the information society and knowledge (and with this
>> > phrase I try to synthesize my view of the subject), the IGF is always
>> > taken into account, both to highlight its (relative) relevance and to
>> > suggest the way forward for international governance of the Internet.
>> >
>> > Several governments also insist that the 2005 Tunis Agenda (attached in
>> > PDF), a non-binding commitment among governments, should not be changed
>> > -- some even hail the Agenda as a "bible" to be followed, even if it has
>> > not been followed by some of the very governments which view it as such,
>> > and even if the dynamics of rapid worldwide development of the Internet
>> > requires periodic revisions.
>> >
>> > The Tunis Agenda contains a lengthy specification of the mandate the IGF
>> > should follow, as described in its paragraph 72:
>> >
>> > ------
>> > 72.   We ask the UN Secretary-General, in an open and inclusive process,
>> > to convene, by the second quarter of 2006, a meeting of the new forum
>> > for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue-called the Internet Governance
>> > Forum (IGF). The mandate of the Forum is to:
>> >
>> > a) Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet
>> > governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security,
>> > stability and development of the Internet.
>> >
>> > b) Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different
>> > cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and
>> > discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body.
>> >
>> > c) Interface with appropriate intergovernmental organizations and other
>> > institutions on matters under their purview.
>> >
>> > d) Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, and in
>> > this regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific
>> > and technical communities.
>> >
>> > e) Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the
>> > availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world.
>> >
>> > f) Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing
>> > and/or future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from
>> > developing countries.
>> >
>> > g) Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant
>> > bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make
>> recommendations.
>> >
>> > h) Contribute to capacity building for Internet governance in developing
>> > countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise.
>> >
>> > i) Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS
>> > principles in Internet governance processes.
>> >
>> > j) Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources.
>> >
>> > k) Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse
>> > of the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users.
>> >
>> > l) Publish its proceedings.
>> > ------
>> >
>> > It is clear that this broad mandate is not being fulfilled by the IGF.
>> > First of all, these items show that the IGF should be a process-oriented
>> > forum, not merely a sequence of events.
>> >
>> > Secondly, there are clear references to recommendations that should be
>> > generated by the IGF -- for example items e, g , h , and i --, which
>> > have been basically ignored by the UN.
>> >
>> > The fact is that the IGF is leaving aside significant components of its
>> > mandate, and even governments which swear fidelity to the Tunis Agenda
>> > have not given importance to these shortcomings. Further, the MAG (which
>> > is dedicated only to organize each yearly event ) is composed basically
>> > on UN-filtered sectorial representation but not the necessarily on the
>> > expertises needed to carry out this challenge .
>> >
>> > It is therefore necessary to rethink the IGF if it is deemed to be (or
>> > might become) a central instance of enhanced cooperation. Otherwise it
>> > might be replaced in favor of other ways to advance this process.
>> >
>> > As for WGEC , whose goal is to deliver recommendations on enhanced
>> > cooperation to the Commission on Science and Technology for Development
>> > (UN UNCSTD) in the first half of 2014, which will be brought to the UN
>> > General Assembly in September of the same year, the work so far has
>> > revealed some worrying weaknesses .
>> >
>> > The central result of the first meeting of WGEC, in June 2013, was the
>> > production of a questionnaire that was answered by all sectors. There
>> > were 69 responses , thus distributed: 29 from governments, 23 from civil
>> > society, 11 from the "technical-academic" sector, and eight from the
>> > business sector. More than half of the responses came from developing
>> > countries.
>> >
>> > It produced a consolidation of the results with some flaws (including
>> > the mistakenly taking responses from the Best Bits group of NGOs for the
>> > APC responses), but even so the consolidation gave a reasonable idea of
>> > the various views of the working group in relation to themes of
>> > cooperation and improved governance of the Internet. [summary is
>> > attached in PDF]
>> >
>> > The summary and procedures in the second meeting (6-8 November) reveal
>> > the risk of retracing the path already followed for building the Tunis
>> > Agenda, as well as the efforts of the Working Group on Internet
>> > Governance (WGIG , which met November 2004 to June 2005). Effectively,
>> > significant time was consumed in preparing a list of over 300 topics
>> > possibly related to Internet governance and enhanced cooperation. Group
>> > difficulties in dealing with such a number of issues in order to try to
>> > group them into key issues was such that we constituted a specific group
>> > ("correspondence group") to come up with a short list of topics. The
>> > perception of "déjà-vu" for the old-timers who participated in the WGIG
>> > and the WSIS process is inevitable .
>> >
>> > One of the problems of a working group like this is that participants
>> > are defined in terms of their sectoral representations and not
>> > necessarily because of their expertise on the issues (something similar
>> > to what occurs with MAG). This creates an additional difficulty for both
>> > the consolidation of the issues and the drafting of a qualified report.
>> >
>> > Faced with the lack of time and the uncertainties generated by this
>> > process, some sectors have presented concrete proposals, which I relate
>> > below.
>> >
>> > A group of civil society organizations and individuals presented an
>> > interesting list of possible recommendations to be evaluated and
>> > possibly adopted in the final report WGEC (I added the numbering for
>> > easy future reference). I have reservations about the effectiveness of
>> > the role of IGF so far, but overall I agree with the approach and
>> > consider a contribution to guiding the future WGEC report. Their
>> > suggestions:
>> >
>> > ------
>> > Draft recommendations bullets prepared by a group of WGEC Members and
>> > Observers
>> >
>> > 1- Acknowledges that the Tunis Agenda, if it is to continue as a
>> > reference point for all stakeholders, should be considered as a living
>> > document which needs to be updated to reflect the roles and
>> > responsibilities of all participants;
>> >
>> > 2- Encourages the rethinking of the stakeholder roles that were defined
>> > by governments unilaterally in the Tunis Agenda, noting that these roles
>> > were originally defined by governments in December 2003, Geneva
>> > Declaration of Principles;
>> >
>> > 3- Affirms that the internet belongs to everyone: everyone can use it
>> > and everyone can improve it: this also applies to its governance;
>> >
>> > 4- Acknowledges that Enhanced Cooperation is well underway as intended
>> > in Tunis Agenda paragraphs 67 through 75;
>> >
>> > 5- Concludes that no new multilateral arrangements, are required for
>> > Enhanced Cooperation;
>> >
>> > 6- Acknowledges that new mechanisms  spring into existence organically
>> > as they are needed and that there is  no  need to create new mechanisms
>> > in a top down manner;
>> >
>> > 7- Acknowledges the efforts of various existing mechanisms to understand
>> > internet governance and to make public policy in light of, and taking
>> > into account, its multi-stakeholder nature;
>> >
>> > 8- Congratulates the IGF for its work in meeting its Tunis Agenda
>> > defined role in fostering Enhanced Cooperation;
>> >
>> > 9- Encourages the IGF to cover all issues of Internet governance that
>> > are of concern to stakeholders and to form ongoing Issue Discussion
>> > Groups within the IGF to make recommendations on these issues to the
>> > larger IGF community;
>> >
>> > 10- Encourages the IGF to follow the  recommendations of the CSTD WG on
>> > IGF Improvements including its mandate  to give advice to the functional
>> > Internet governance and management organizations;
>> >
>> > 11- Encourages those making public policy to engage more fully in the
>> > IGF and to bring to the IGF their questions on internet related matters
>> > within their mandates;
>> >
>> > 12- Encourages all governments to commit to the IGF, and to use the IGF
>> > process as an opportunity not just to engage with all other
>> > stakeholders, but as an opportunity to work with each other on an equal
>> > footing;
>> >
>> > 13- Invites all Internet governance and management organizations to
>> > participate in the IGF.
>> >
>> > 14- Reinforces the multistakeholder approach and encourages all
>> > stakeholders to engage more in and work with existing organisations and
>> > to explore ways in which stakeholder engagement can be enhanced.
>> > ------
>> >
>> > In summary , the path is to focus , focus , focus on a small but
>> > essential set of topics and try to build proposals for enhanced
>> > cooperation among nations (rather than just among governments) around
>> > these themes (and this points to the requirement of pluriparticipative
>> > processes all along). Otherwise, the WGEC will end up replaying the
>> > generalities of much of the Tunis Agenda and will barely advance.
>> >
>> > On the side of governments, suggested guidelines came from the
>> > governments of Brazil, Mexico, the UK and Sweden:
>> >
>> > ------
>> > - Members [of the UN] should explore ways to strenghten participation of
>> > all stakeholders from developing countries in existing global internet
>> > governance fora including through funding mechanisms and alternative
>> > working methods such as remote participation.
>> >
>> > - Members should increase efforts to empower stakeholders to particpate
>> > through capactity building, including but not limited to, training
>> > programs, awarness raising, best practice sharing.
>> >
>> > - Members should work with developing countries to create a fair and
>> > consistent domestic framework that stimulates competition and creates
>> > affordable access for all stakeholders.
>> >
>> > - The role of governments should include, but not be limited to, to
>> > empower internet users, ensure a fair and consistent legal framework
>> > that is transparent accountable and equitable and protect human rights
>> > online, to foster a robust global internet infrastructure and support
>> > mulitstakeholder processes and partnerships.
>> > ------
>> >
>> > At this point , I believe the proper junction of the two proposals can
>> > help speed up the process towards the final report of the WGEC.
>> >
>> > fraternal regards
>> >
>> > --c.a.
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>

-- 
*Carolina Rossini*
*Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
Open Technology Institute
*New America Foundation*
//
http://carolinarossini.net/
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini

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