by Deborah Brown
UN Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC)
Background: The UN General Assembly established the multistakeholder Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation in 2012 under the auspices of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD). With members from government, the private sector, civil society, technical and academic communities, and international and international organizations, WGEC is tasked with examining the mandate regarding enhanced cooperation as contained in the Tunis Agenda and making recommendations on how to fully implement this mandate. WGEC held two meetings in 2013 (in May and November), which largely entailed creating a questionnaire for feedback from all stakeholders on viewpoints concerning enhanced cooperation, collecting inputs, and establishing a correspondence group* to map out where there are existing international mechanisms addressing international internet-related public policy issues, identify the status of mechanisms and attempt to identify the gaps in order to ascertain what type of recommendations may be required to be drafted by the WGEC. The WGEC is seen as a possible means for identifying an appropriate approach for global internet governance.
*Note: Access was a member of the correspondence group.
General information:
The Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation is expected to complete its work in 2014, with its recommendations feeding into the General Assembly’s overall review of WSIS at its 69th session this fall. WGEC will hold its final meeting this week during which it will endeavor to draft recommendations based on the survey responses and the correspondence group’s work. There is rolling document with proposals of draft recommendations by some WGEC members and observers, and the goal for this final meeting is to come to consensus on a way forward. WGEC’s recommendations will be considered by the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) at its 17th session in May as part of its overall review of WSIS. Finally, the UN General Assembly will consider WGEC’s recommendations in its annual discussion of ICT4D and the overall WSIS review.
What’s at stake:
Enhanced cooperation is one of the controversial issues in internet governance that was left unresolved at WSIS. A fundamental disagreement at WSIS over the role of governments in international internet policy making (specifically concerning U.S. control over the domain name system) resulted in a compromise (para 69 of the Tunis Agenda) that called for enhanced cooperation to “enable governments, on 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.”
While this compromise language helped resolve the issue of technical and operational responsibility, the ambiguity of the term “enhanced cooperation”, which was left undefined, did little to forge common understanding between those who view governments as having a privileged role in internet policy making and those who view governments as one of a number of players in the multistakeholder model. Additionally, the Tunis Agenda did not specify how to put all governments on “equal footing” or how that could be measured.
Fast forward eight years, and WGEC is attempting to take on these issues head on. The group should be commended for adopting a measured approach of collecting feedback from the internet community and mapping out where there are effective processes and where there are gaps. But these exercises revealed stark differences in viewpoints among and between stakeholders.
For example, on the issue of whether enhanced cooperation has been implemented, responses to the working group’s initial questionnaire indicated three different camps, the first saying that it has not been implemented; the second arguing that the implementation of enhanced cooperation has been evolved rather successful in the last eight years and has to be seen mainly as a gradual process.; and the third viewing some progress but recognizes deficiencies, weaknesses and gaps.
The mapping organization of the correspondence group similarly revealed that some respondents saw multiple (sometimes conflicting) institutions addressing internet-related public policy issues, while others argued that there were no mechanisms at all.
But with its final meeting coming up next month, the time has come for some difficult decisions. Will it conclude that enhanced cooperation is well underway and that no additional action is needed? Or, on the other hand, that there has been no progress and recommend setting up new mechanisms to facilitate government participation on international internet policy issue.
While recognizing that one cannot say that enhanced cooperation has been fully implemented, Access’ position is that it is preferable to reform existing institutions involved in internet policy so that all stakeholders can participate on equal footing before discussing creating new institutions. A good start would be to ensure that all existing processes are: open to all interested parties; transparent in the decisionmaking processes; respectful of the equal participation of all stakeholder groups; bottom up in engaging those directly affected; diverse and multilingual; and build capacity for actors and stakeholders to meaningfully participate.
As for addressing gaps in internet policy making at the international level, from a pragmatic and principled perspective, we see value in better utilizing/strengthening existing frameworks, such as the Internet Governance Forum, and preserving the decentralized nature of to enable more stakeholders to engage meaningfully.
See Access’ response to the WGEC questionnaire here.
Key dates:
24-28 February: Final WGEC meeting (Geneva)
12-16 May: Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) annual meeting (Geneva)
23 June - 18 July: ECOSOC substantive session (New York)
In many ways the disclosures on mass government surveillance made by Edward Snowden defined the global debate on internet governance in 2013. Looking ahead in 2014, Snowden’s revelations continue to shape the internet governance landscape, adding significance to already planned events and creating new ones.
| | |
