[governance] [bestbits] Second WGEC meeting26-27 January 2017, Geneva
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Mon Jan 30 16:14:46 EST 2017
On Tuesday 31 January 2017 12:06 AM, Lea Kaspar wrote:
> Dear Anriette, all,
>
> (I'm writing here in my capacity as another CS-selected member of the
> WGEC who participated in last week's proceedings)
>
> This really is a great summary of the current debate - thank you for
> sharing it on the lists and for sharing David's blog post.
>
> I'm interested in understanding better two points you raise towards
> the end of your post (and which summarise how some stakeholders are
> framing the problem):
>
> 1) lack of space for governments to discuss cross-cutting
> internet-related pp issues and;
> 2) lack of sufficient empowerment/ influence in most
> internet-related policy discussions by developing country
> governments.
>
>
> The problem could of course be framed in different ways, depending on
> one's starting position and definition of EC. I just saw Parminder's
> email to that effect which is very thoughtful and can serve as a
> starting point for further discussion. But leaving that aside for the
> moment, I am interested in understanding better the two points
> identified above. This is because I've seen these arguments emerge in
> last week's discussions and would like to be able to engage with them
> 'on an equal footing' :).
>
> On the first point, and apologies if this comes off as naive, but what
> is behind the position that governments need a space where they can
> talk about 'cross cutting' internet-related public policy issues?
> What's driving it? I know for some governments it's partly
> (geo)political posturing, but beyond that, and especially for
> developing country governments - where should one look to better
> understand the substantive argument that supports this position?
Lea, let me see if I can engage with some of these points.
First of all, governments want a space where they can not only "discuss"
but also "develop" cross-cutting international Internet-related public
policies. As for what is driving such a demand I think it should not be
difficult to see knowing as most of us do here that OECD countries
develop "international" Internet related public policies through OECD's
Committee on Digital Economy Policies. This committee was re-mandated
with a new name and mandate just a few years back. The process was
in-putted into by civil society actors, most of them present here,
without asking the OECD countires why do they need such an forum for
Internet-related public policy development, whether it is just
geo-political posturing, and so on. Why should these questions be
addressed to developing countries who would simply like such
"international" policies to be developed democratically with all
countries participating equally when these questions do not get asked
from OECD countries doing exactly the same work, in exactly the same
inter-governmental manner? Just because the latter are the rich and
powerful countries? (Pl do excuse the rhetoric.)
>
> On the second point, which I've heard raised many times, I'd be
> interested to hear whether people think this is changing due to the
> proliferation of internet related pp issues across the international
> policy landscape (UNGA, HRC, AU, ITU, ASEAN...). True, in some
> processes this may indeed be the case (e.g. OECD, London Process?),
> but there are many others that increasingly deal with internet related
> PP where the voices of developing country governments are anything but
> powerless. In fact, in the three UNGA committees which deal with
> issues such as cybersecurity (1st committee), WSIS (2nd committee),
> and privacy (3rd committee), the G77 hold the majority vote. The
> situation is not much different in the ITU and a number of other
> bodies. Is this problem likely to loose its grounding or even
> relevance with the changing nature of the landscape?
You would notice that the processes that you mention as where developing
countries do get excluded are those which are specifically committed to
Internet-related policy issues, and those that you mention where
developing countries have equal voice are old ones dealing with other
general areas which may have some Internet related aspects/ areas. (ITU
is a different case to which I will come presently.) So, the real
question is, why rich countries need and prefer to have committed
mechanisms just for Internet-related public policy issues but it is
considered unnecessary to have such forums - with same specific/
committed mandate exclusively for internet policies - where developing
countries can be equally present? Why does the logic change just because
developing countries are added to the mix? And to deflect their demands,
examples are given of existing forums that are focussed on very
different matters, which though may have some Internet aspects (which
today almost everything has? OECD has about 45 or so other committees,
dealing with almost everything that can need dealing, and each of these
areas having some Internet aspects that too get dealt by them; why did
it then feel the need to have a committed Committee for Digital Economy
Policies, just a few years back?
As for ITU, please do remember how most CS groups here fought to keep
Internet policy issues as far from ITU's work and mandate as possible,
and how WCIT crashed not only on inclusion of Internet in the ITRs but
even its inclusion as an appended resolution. So, when at ITU people do
not want ITU to deal with the Internet, but when one asks for some
other democratic body for the Internet, ITU is given as one place where
Internet issues are being addressed. It is a bit unfair to be batting
from both the sides. In any case, I do not think ITU is the right place
for Internet related public policies, it is useful for many aspects of
Internet related technical policies along with ICANN and other such
technical policy bodies.
>
> Thanks in advance for the openness in reading these questions. They
> are addressed to anyone who can shine light on them, and raised in the
> spirit of encouraging an informed debate on these issues.
Yes, I too am really interested in this debate. Thanks for your
openness, parminder
>
> On a general note - I would really encourage people to engage in this
> debate if they are interested. Governments on the WGEC seem to hold
> rather polarising positions, and I think this opens the opportunity
> for civil society to play a bridging role in shaping the group's
> outcomes. With modalities allowing observers to actively participate
> in the meetings, you can engage directly or channel your views via
> others.
>
> In any case, looking forward to people's views and comments.
>
> Best wishes,
> Lea
>
> ps - I'm not on the IGC/APC lists so my posts don't go through there,
> but feel free to loop the lists back in for those who are on them
>
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 3:33 PM, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org
> <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>> wrote:
>
> + 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
>> <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 <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> <http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> <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
>>> <http://translate.google.com/translate_t>
>
> --
> ------------
> Matthew Shears
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> + 44 771 2472987 <tel:+44%207712%20472987>
>
> ____________________________________________________________ You
> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> <http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20170131/cc876d60/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list