[Chapter-delegates] Report on 14 December consultation on enhanced cooperation

[Kabani]

Bill,

Thanks,

Asif Kabani

On 17 December 2010 22:25, Bill Graham <graham at isoc.org> wrote:

> All,
>
> As you know, the UN Under-Secretary-General, SHA Zukang, convened "open
> consultations on the process towards enhanced cooperation on international
> public policy issues pertaining to the Internet" in New York on Tuesday, 14
> December 2010.  I requested and received permission to speak as an NGO on
> behalf of the Internet Society as well as the IETF (at the request of the
> IAB).  This is a fairly extensive report on the session, because I thought
> you'd be interested in some of the positions taken.  All written
> contributions to the consultation, and the text of most of the speeches,
> along with a webcast, and the program are to be posted to the DESA web site
> at:
> <http://www.unpan.org/dpadm/wsisfollowup/>
>
> REPORT:
> Of the 25 formal presenters, 14 were governments, 10 were business or civil
> society organizations, and 1 was an intergovernmental organization (ITU).
> Several other governments and civil society organizations spoke during the
> open discussion.  My estimate is that a small majority of governments spoke
> in favour of any mechanism for enhanced cooperation being multistakeholder,
> although several were strongly of the view that enhanced cooperation is
> strictly meant to be inter-governmental.  Of course all business and civil
> society speakers were in favour of a multistakeholder model.
>
> In the most coherent expression of the governments-only view, Brazil spoke
> for India, Brazil and South Africa (IBSA) as a group, presenting their plan
> for "a new world order," in this case in the form of a new intergovernmental
> entity to deal with international public policy issues pertaining to the
> Internet.  It would have governments deal with issues such as:  stability,
> interoperability, network neutrality, human rights the balance between
> security, privacy, openness, and maintaning a development focus.  Brazil
> went on to say that there has been progress toward internationalization of
> ICANN, but it is still dependent on one government.  In their opinion, that
> contravenes UN practice and principles of multilateralism.  They said there
> is a need for an intergovernmental platform formally established under the
> UN to discuss critical internet resources and Internet governance.   That
> said, IBSA reaffirms commitment to the Internet as a global facilitiy based
> on the full participation of all stakeholders, in line with their roles and
> responsibilities.  and denied that their proposal is an attempt to have the
> UN take over the Internet.
>
> On the other side, IETF/ISOC, the European Commission, International
> Chamber of Commerce, ICANN, the NRO, the United Kingdom, the European
> Telecommunication Network Operators' Association, Finland, Tech America, the
> Internet Governance Caucus (David Allen), Italy, Serbia, the American  Bar
> Association, the World Federation of Engineering Organizations and others
> spoke about the benefits of the multistakeholder model.  Many examples of
> post-WSIS enhanced cooperation were offered and, in general, a pretty good
> case was made that enhanced cooperation is alive and well.  ISOC made the
> point that it is not enough for the inter-governmental organizations to
> invite stakeholders to work in forums of their creation; it is also
> necessary for the IGOs to recognize there are many other forums within the
> existing Internet organizations where governments and IGOs need to go to
> cooperate.
>
> After the formal presentations completed, USG Sha opened the floor for
> discussion.  Milton Mueller expressed concern about the IBSA proposal, which
> will fragment cooperation, not enhance it.  He said a purely
> intergovernmental platform means that governments do not take seriously
> their interaction with other stakeholders.  Nor would all governments agree
> to such a forum.  He went on to remind the group that governments have no
> trans-national authority over the Internet.  Public policy is the sovereign
> right of states, but there is no sovereignty over the Internet, which
> negates the position of several governments.  He posed the question to
> governments: why not embrace this challenge rather than running away from
> it?  John Curran (ARIN) and others questioned how the idea of a
> government-only enhanced cooperation process could possibly be considered,
> given the WSIS Tunis Agenda's insistence that "The international management
> of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the
> full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and
> international organizations."  IGC pointed out that  there is still a very
> long way to go before all stakeholders deal with each other in a
> constructive manner; thus work needs to be continued to enhance cooperation
> among all the stakeholders.
>
> China took a new tack by saying that the existing Internet organizations
> have done a very good job of enhancing cooperation but that doesn’t mean
> UNSG doesn’t need to start a governmental process toward enhanced
> cooperation.  They criticized the UN Sec-Gen for not having started the
> process he was asked by WSIS to start by first quarter 2006, and said that
> governments need a private place to discuss how to deal with
> Internet-related public policy issues. They concluded by saying that the
> meeting's purpose was to help the UNSG do his job starting the process, and
> so the meeting doesn’t need to reach consensus.
>
> And in the Chair's concluding remarks, that was the point he made rather
> strongly when talking about the way forward.  He said the point of the
> meeting was to act upon the resolution passed by member states at the WSIS.
>  If anyone does not like it, he said they have to go back to WSIS or ECOSOC,
> and get the resolution overturned.  The UN Secretariat will act on the
> resolution that is current.  As to whether there would be a process on
> enhanced cooperation he said that's no longer for discussion.  On the other
> hand, Sha said all should agree "we" have existing institutions like ITU,
> ICANN, CSTD, ECOSOC, and they’ve all played their respective roles.  He said
> there’s no question the IGF role is recognized, and will be extended for 5
> years.  Those existing mechanisms should continue, including UN institutions
> like CSTD.  But he said noone has created new overarching groups; he
> admitted CSTD has established a working group, but said that’s not
> frightening because it is just a working group: let them work.  He noted
> that working group is to take into account the views of all stakeholders.
>  CSTD is a governmental group, he said, and its working group is also
> governmental, but it can’t do its job without taking into account the views
> of others.  Then in an interesting aside, he mused that the world has
> changed.  When he was in government he said he used to shout at Civil
> Society that they are not accountable to anyone.  But he admitted he was
> wrong – they are the source of ideas, and  have experience in the field, so
> the UN should benefit from their experiences.  No one says don’t consult
> them, he continued; they should be consulted and make recommendations.
>
> And so it ended.  The conclusion is that there has now been a
> multistakeholder consultation, and there will not be more on this topic.
>  The UN Secretariat (Sha) will go away and write a report for next
> June-July's ECOSOC meeting as requested, with recommendations that will take
> into account the views expressed at the December 14 meeting.  My bet, if I
> was to make one, is that the recommendation will be to create an
> intergovernmental working group on enhanced cooperation, possibly with
> occasional consultation meetings for other stakeholders.
>
> COMMENT:
> It seems to me that the some member states are successfully getting the UN
> system to back away from progress made toward multistakedholder engagement
> since the WSIS.  The have also increased the number and frequency of largely
> formalistic consultations with the non-governmental organizations of all
> types, which is having the effect of stretching our and other organizations'
> resources and ability to deal with them.  Whether that is a deliberate
> tactic, or just an accident arising from lack of coordination, is hard to
> say but I think we need to consider carefully where we will participate in
> the next year, focusing more strategically on meetings and mechanisms where
> we stand a chance of having a real impact.
>
> Bill
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20101220/127288b2/attachment.htm>