[governance] [bestbits] Second WGEC meeting26-27 January 2017, Geneva

Mon Jan 30 10:33:31 EST 2017

+ 1 Anriette - very nicely summarized.


On 30/01/2017 14:16, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Dear Wangari
>
> Apologies for delay in responding.
>
> It is an interesting question, and it goes to the heart of the enhanced
> cooperation debate, which in many ways is at the heart of the internet
> governance debate that has been ongoing since 2003.
>
> The term was first used in 2005 - and it means different things to
> different people, and the text in the Tunis Agenda where it is first
> references in a formal UN agreement, can also be interpreted in
> different ways.
>
> For the last decade it has been used as a political football.. in one of
> those matches in which it is not clear if anyone actually scores any
> goals. In fact, for some of the players, the objective of the match has
> been to avoid anyone scoring any goals :)
>
> This is a good recent piece by David Souter:
> https://www.apc.org/en/blog/inside-information-society-enhanced-cooperation-en
>
> I quote from it:
>
> "‘Enhanced cooperation’, like the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), was
> part of the compromise on the future of the Internet at WSIS in 2005.
> Agreement could not be reached on the governance of critical Internet
> resources, including the domain name system. ICANN (the Internet
> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), for some governments, was
> little more than an adjunct of the United States. Some wanted the
> Internet brought within the ambit of an intergovernmental (or
> multilateral) agency such as the International Telecommunication Union
> (ITU). Others were, as they remain, determined to keep the Internet free
> from intergovernmental oversight. As well as dividing governments, this
> was (and is) therefore a tussle between multilateral and
> multistakeholder approaches to the Internet.
>
> The term worked at the time because of its creative ambiguity: like many
> UN outcomes it meant different things to different folks. But the
> contests that it overlay were, and still are, unresolved. Several UN
> initiatives and working groups have failed to reach consensus on it
> since the Summit. Some governments (and civil society activists) claim
> that nothing’s changed since WSIS: that governments, particularly
> developing country governments, can’t play a substantive role in
> Internet decisions because there is no proper intergovernmental forum.
> Others suggest that diverse multistakeholder initiatives represent a lot
> of ‘enhanced cooperation’ that’s already taking place."
>
> So in response to your question, it is not a new thing that for several
> governments, the meaning of enhanced cooperation is "cooperation between
> governments". And the term 'equal footing' means that all governments
> should have equal access and voice in these processes.
>
> They generally quote paragraph 69 of the Tunis Agenda:
>
> "69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the
> future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their
> roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues
> pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and
> operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy
> issues."
>
> And their position is that the IGF has nothing to do with this type of
> cooperation.
>
> Personally, I think this is misinterpreting the Tunis Agenda. If you
> read the two previous paragraphs, 67 and 68, there is a clear reference
> to the IGF (referred to in the Tunis Agenda as "the forum for
> multi-stakeholder policy dialogue". I quote:
>
> "67. We agree, inter alia, to invite the UN Secretary-General to convene
> a new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue.
>
> 68. We recognize that all governments should have an equal role and
> responsibility for international Internet governance and for ensuring
> the stability, security and continuity of the Internet. We also
> recognize the need for development of public policy by governments in
> consultation with all stakeholders.
>
> 69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the
> future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their
> roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues
> pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and
> operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy
> issues."
>
> My interpretation would be that these paragraphs talks about the forum,
> about involvement of all stakeholders, and about the need for
> governments to be able to play their role in international public policy.
>
> These area all important and legitimate and they don't need to be
> mutually exclusive.
>
> But there are different views, and there was a General Assembly
> resolution in 2011 or 2012 which stated that the IGF and enhanced
> cooperation are two separate processes.
>
> I do think governments have a legitimate point in saying that they need
> a space where they can talk about 'cross cutting' internet-related
> public policy issues. Specific issues are being addressed in places like
> the Human Rights Council (for internet and human rights issues) or in
> WIPO (for copyright related issues, for example).
>
> And I also think that developing countries are not sufficiently
> empowered or influential in most internet-related policy discussions.
>
> I just don't believe that setting up a new intergovernmental mechanism
> is the right solution to this problem. And it is one that is high risk
> for civil society.
>
> But others in the WGEC have different views.
>
> Warm greetings and thanks for following the meeting!
>
> Anriette
>
>
>
> On 27/01/2017 19:38, WANGARI KABIRU wrote:
>> Warm greetings Anriette,
>>
>> In the morning there was reference in the semblance that enhanced
>> cooperation is a government area not for the IGF...MAG.
>> Would you kindly shed light.
>>
>>
>> The comments;
>> -  that statistics in developing countries are a result of tradeoffs and
>> thus not (necessarily) reliable
>> - how an entity is considered multi-stakeholder in one forum and in
>> other spheres not viewed as such. Taking into account
>> multi-stakholderism is a key tenet in Internet Governance
>>
>> Many thanks for the briefs.
>>
>> Be blessed.
>>
>> Regards/Wangari
>>   
>> ---
>> Pray God Bless. 2013Wangari circa - "Being of the Light, We are Restored
>> Through Faith in Mind, Body and Spirit; We Manifest The Kingdom of God
>> on Earth".
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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

-- 
------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 771 2472987

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20170130/bfedca35/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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