Re: [cooperation-wg] RIPE NCC Contribution to the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation
Dear Gordon Thank you for this. As you may recall, I was a member of the WSIS secretariat when the text in question was negotiated and I was involved in the discussions. As I recall, the term "enhanced coordination" was used as a an euphemism for "end unilateral US control of Internet governance in general and of ICANN and IANA in particular". However, after the text was agreed, there was disagreement regarding its intent: as I recall, the USA took the view that the intent was to encourage more cooperation amongst UN agencies and between those agencies and other Internet governance bodies such as ICANN. But others might have different recollections. Best Richard Sent from Samsung Mobile. <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com> </div><div>Date:26/12/2016 10:46 (GMT-04:00) </div><div>To: Cooperation WG <cooperation-wg@ripe.net> </div><div>Cc: Chris Buckridge <chrisb@ripe.net> </div><div>Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] RIPE NCC Contribution to the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation </div><div> </div>I find it interesting how the term “enhanced cooperation” has been interpreted in ways that I think are quite different to what was in the minds of at least some of the people who I understand originally proposed it. In EU relations “enhanced cooperation” has a specific meaning. It was introduced in the Treaty of Amsterdam: so akin to a "term of art”, if you will. Enhanced cooperation, in the EU, was not meant to imply simply better cooperation: it was about differentiated cooperation. In that environment it was and is about some, not all, member states cooperating more fully, more closely, on certain items even in the absence of a wider consensus. So the idea was that, even in a UN-related context, certain states could cooperate more closely, even in the absence of more general agreement? Given the significant on-going restructuring in terms of international relationships one might imagine a shift back to the original intent. Happy holidays! Gordon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_cooperation
On 23 Dec 2016, at 11:42, Chris Buckridge <chrisb@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
One of the outcomes of last year’s 10-year review of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) was the formation of a Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation on Public Policy Issues Pertaining to the Internet (WGEC). Established under the United Nations’ Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD), the Working Group was set up in response to the feeling expressed by some UN Member States that there was a need to "develop recommendations on how to further implement enhanced cooperation as envisioned in the Tunis Agenda."
More information on the Working Group is available at: http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC-2016-to-2018.aspx
Coming out of the Working Group’s initial meeting in September, there was an open call for contributions in response to two questions:
- What are the high level characteristics of enhanced cooperation? - Taking into consideration the work of the previous WGEC and the Tunis Agenda, particularly paragraphs 69-71, what kind of recommendations should we consider?
Working closely with one of the technical community members of the Working Group, Nick Ashton-Hart, the RIPE NCC developed and submitted a document responding to these questions: https://www.ripe.net/participate/internet-governance/multi-stakeholder-engag...
In summary, the document notes that, while cooperation amongst all stakeholders is vital in developing Internet capacity, it is important that these efforts focus on practical benefits, and that they be minimally distortive or disruptive to the shared platform that is the Internet.
The Working Group will hold its next meeting on 26-27 January 2017 in Geneva, where it will consider the contributions received and the way forward for its work.
Happy, as always, to discuss any questions or comments. Meanwhile, best wishes to those celebrating Christmas/New Year in the coming days and weeks!
Cheers,
Chris Buckridge External Relations Manager RIPE NCC
On 26 Dec 2016, at 17:19, Richard Hill wrote:
As I recall, the term "enhanced coordination" was used as a an euphemism for "end unilateral US control of Internet governance in general and of ICANN and IANA in particular".
However, after the text was agreed, there was disagreement regarding its intent: as I recall, the USA took the view that the intent was to encourage more cooperation amongst UN agencies and between those agencies and other Internet governance bodies such as ICANN.
But others might have different recollections.
As you invite to other interpretations...for me it was and can be used for any process that broadens the discussions and influence in discussions. This is related to at that time USA had special role compared to other States related to ICANN, States have special relations compared to non-States in US context and specifically ITU-T and similar. I.e. "enhanced" to me means broaden and be by default inclusive. Patrik
Patrik, What it means to you may be reasonable. Indeed the US may have agreed with you. But if you want the EU member states to sign up for something it is perhaps better to choose text which does not conflict with text they have already agreed at treaty level. In the meantime I believe the US environment is more important than it was. Commerce was not too intrusive and they provided at least an illusion of DC-based legitimacy. (By the way some of us wondered over coffee if it would not have been better - at least different - if the responsibility had not been with State.) I sometimes wonder though what happens now. Does ICANN fully conform to Californian law regarding not-for-profits? Is there the basis for a possible challenge there? I looked into this some time back. I leave others to repeat the exercise! In addition is ICANN, as de facto monopoly, more open to an anti-trust suit? Will people also be more comfortable with taking ICANN to court simply because the US government is no longer involved? ICANN does have a very attractive heap of cash for a not-for-profit incorporated in California. In any case Californian law is now much more important than it was. And obviously I am not a recognised expert on Californian law! Gordon
On 26 Dec 2016, at 17:23, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
On 26 Dec 2016, at 17:19, Richard Hill wrote:
As I recall, the term "enhanced coordination" was used as a an euphemism for "end unilateral US control of Internet governance in general and of ICANN and IANA in particular".
However, after the text was agreed, there was disagreement regarding its intent: as I recall, the USA took the view that the intent was to encourage more cooperation amongst UN agencies and between those agencies and other Internet governance bodies such as ICANN.
But others might have different recollections.
As you invite to other interpretations...for me it was and can be used for any process that broadens the discussions and influence in discussions. This is related to at that time USA had special role compared to other States related to ICANN, States have special relations compared to non-States in US context and specifically ITU-T and similar.
I.e. "enhanced" to me means broaden and be by default inclusive.
Patrik
On 27 Dec 2016, at 00:10, Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com> wrote:
Patrik,
What it means to you may be reasonable.
I am only asking and claiming what I say is reasonable for me, myself.
Indeed the US may have agreed with you.
Maybe.
But if you want the EU member states to sign up for something it is perhaps better to choose text which does not conflict with text they have already agreed at treaty level.
In the meantime I believe the US environment is more important than it was.
Commerce was not too intrusive and they provided at least an illusion of DC-based legitimacy. (By the way some of us wondered over coffee if it would not have been better - at least different - if the responsibility had not been with State.)
I sometimes wonder though what happens now.
Does ICANN fully conform to Californian law regarding not-for-profits? Is there the basis for a possible challenge there? I looked into this some time back. I leave others to repeat the exercise!
What happens with these questions is that international politics and interest get intertwined with national. Where national legislation can be used to break up otherwise stable international systems. Unfortunate, but that's life.
In addition is ICANN, as de facto monopoly, more open to an anti-trust suit?
Will people also be more comfortable with taking ICANN to court simply because the US government is no longer involved?
I guess so.
ICANN does have a very attractive heap of cash for a not-for-profit incorporated in California.
Do ICANN, or is that only what people think?
In any case Californian law is now much more important than it was. And obviously I am not a recognised expert on Californian law!
Like local law for any organization or private entity acting globally. Just look at how "free movement of services" is challenged within the EU. Patrik
Gordon
On 26 Dec 2016, at 17:23, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
On 26 Dec 2016, at 17:19, Richard Hill wrote:
As I recall, the term "enhanced coordination" was used as a an euphemism for "end unilateral US control of Internet governance in general and of ICANN and IANA in particular".
However, after the text was agreed, there was disagreement regarding its intent: as I recall, the USA took the view that the intent was to encourage more cooperation amongst UN agencies and between those agencies and other Internet governance bodies such as ICANN.
But others might have different recollections.
As you invite to other interpretations...for me it was and can be used for any process that broadens the discussions and influence in discussions. This is related to at that time USA had special role compared to other States related to ICANN, States have special relations compared to non-States in US context and specifically ITU-T and similar.
I.e. "enhanced" to me means broaden and be by default inclusive.
Patrik
When i saw Gordon's question about 'being taken to court', i quickly got myself reminded of the anti-spam team called 'knujon', who actually got involved in legal matters with ICANN, upto a point that they accused ICANN staff (and board) of being corrupt. The problem is though that you need a long breath and a tonne of money to keep a lawsuit going. Talking about the free movement of services, i believe that there was a discussion on this email list about non-discrimination of services for ISP's, because of a new EU-law. In Holland there is a law that prevents discrimination of any kind for ISP's. A mobile phone provider challenged that law with excempting 'all music streaming apps' from the mb-quota. The dutch consumer agency gave them a fine, which is now being challenged in european court. One of the fine things that can happen if you dont think too much about the involved stockholders and the concequences it faces. The question is: if icann ever gets sued, will it be done in an international court or an american court? I usually find these things a big legal minefield that i tend to avoid as someone who is unknown with international politics and legal structures. Also, diversity of the different stakeholders is something that should be carefully looked at, to prevent issues later. Julius Op di 27 dec. 2016 00:17 schreef Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>:
On 27 Dec 2016, at 00:10, Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com> wrote:
Patrik,
What it means to you may be reasonable.
I am only asking and claiming what I say is reasonable for me, myself.
Indeed the US may have agreed with you.
Maybe.
But if you want the EU member states to sign up for something it is perhaps better to choose text which does not conflict with text they have already agreed at treaty level.
In the meantime I believe the US environment is more important than it was.
Commerce was not too intrusive and they provided at least an illusion of DC-based legitimacy. (By the way some of us wondered over coffee if it would not have been better - at least different - if the responsibility had not been with State.)
I sometimes wonder though what happens now.
Does ICANN fully conform to Californian law regarding not-for-profits? Is there the basis for a possible challenge there? I looked into this some time back. I leave others to repeat the exercise!
What happens with these questions is that international politics and interest get intertwined with national. Where national legislation can be used to break up otherwise stable international systems. Unfortunate, but that's life.
In addition is ICANN, as de facto monopoly, more open to an anti-trust suit?
Will people also be more comfortable with taking ICANN to court simply because the US government is no longer involved?
I guess so.
ICANN does have a very attractive heap of cash for a not-for-profit incorporated in California.
Do ICANN, or is that only what people think?
In any case Californian law is now much more important than it was. And obviously I am not a recognised expert on Californian law!
Like local law for any organization or private entity acting globally.
Just look at how "free movement of services" is challenged within the EU.
Patrik
Gordon
On 26 Dec 2016, at 17:23, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
On 26 Dec 2016, at 17:19, Richard Hill wrote:
As I recall, the term "enhanced coordination" was used as a an
euphemism for "end unilateral US control of Internet governance in general and of ICANN and IANA in particular".
However, after the text was agreed, there was disagreement regarding
its intent: as I recall, the USA took the view that the intent was to encourage more cooperation amongst UN agencies and between those agencies and other Internet governance bodies such as ICANN.
But others might have different recollections.
As you invite to other interpretations...for me it was and can be used for any process that broadens the discussions and influence in discussions. This is related to at that time USA had special role compared to other States related to ICANN, States have special relations compared to non-States in US context and specifically ITU-T and similar.
I.e. "enhanced" to me means broaden and be by default inclusive.
Patrik
Interesting this discussion has delved into ICANN world, so will add a few comments. Kindly see inline Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 27 Dec 2016 07:43, "Julius ter Pelkwijk" <pelkwijk@gmail.com> wrote: The question is: if icann ever gets sued, will it be done in an international court or an american court? I usually find these things a big legal minefield that i tend to avoid as someone who is unknown with international politics and legal structures. SO: I am not a lawyer but as I understand it, anyone can file a suit in any country against ICANN but the extent that suit goes then depends on how binding ICANN is to law of the land where the suit is filled. I don't see why ICANN will be tried by international courts, as it's a California incorporated organisation though I recognise that there may be certain paper work that ICANN may have done in establishment of its regional hubs which could make ICANN bound "to some extent" to law of those countries as well. However I think the ultimate would not just be American court but rather a California court. Also, diversity of the different stakeholders is something that should be carefully looked at, to prevent issues later. SO: ICANN is currently going through review of its accountability mechanisms (within the WS2) and there is a dedicated group looking at diversity issues[1]. I encourage you to have a look and perhaps contribute to that work as well. Regards 1. https://community.icann.org/m/mobile.action?dest=%23page%2F59643278 Julius Op di 27 dec. 2016 00:17 schreef Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>:
On 27 Dec 2016, at 00:10, Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com> wrote:
Patrik,
What it means to you may be reasonable.
I am only asking and claiming what I say is reasonable for me, myself.
Indeed the US may have agreed with you.
Maybe.
But if you want the EU member states to sign up for something it is perhaps better to choose text which does not conflict with text they have already agreed at treaty level.
In the meantime I believe the US environment is more important than it was.
Commerce was not too intrusive and they provided at least an illusion of DC-based legitimacy. (By the way some of us wondered over coffee if it would not have been better - at least different - if the responsibility had not been with State.)
I sometimes wonder though what happens now.
Does ICANN fully conform to Californian law regarding not-for-profits? Is there the basis for a possible challenge there? I looked into this some time back. I leave others to repeat the exercise!
What happens with these questions is that international politics and interest get intertwined with national. Where national legislation can be used to break up otherwise stable international systems. Unfortunate, but that's life.
In addition is ICANN, as de facto monopoly, more open to an anti-trust suit?
Will people also be more comfortable with taking ICANN to court simply because the US government is no longer involved?
I guess so.
ICANN does have a very attractive heap of cash for a not-for-profit incorporated in California.
Do ICANN, or is that only what people think?
In any case Californian law is now much more important than it was. And obviously I am not a recognised expert on Californian law!
Like local law for any organization or private entity acting globally.
Just look at how "free movement of services" is challenged within the EU.
Patrik
Gordon
On 26 Dec 2016, at 17:23, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
On 26 Dec 2016, at 17:19, Richard Hill wrote:
As I recall, the term "enhanced coordination" was used as a an
euphemism for "end unilateral US control of Internet governance in general and of ICANN and IANA in particular".
However, after the text was agreed, there was disagreement regarding
its intent: as I recall, the USA took the view that the intent was to encourage more cooperation amongst UN agencies and between those agencies and other Internet governance bodies such as ICANN.
But others might have different recollections.
As you invite to other interpretations...for me it was and can be used for any process that broadens the discussions and influence in discussions. This is related to at that time USA had special role compared to other States related to ICANN, States have special relations compared to non-States in US context and specifically ITU-T and similar.
I.e. "enhanced" to me means broaden and be by default inclusive.
Patrik
Richard, I think we agree. "Enhanced cooperation” was, as far as certain EU folk were concerned, about a group of states cooperating independently of the US. In that context the US would of course choose a different interpretation. So of course there was, and perhaps is, scope for inherent disagreement. Gordon
On 26 Dec 2016, at 17:19, Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch> wrote:
Dear Gordon
Thank you for this. As you may recall, I was a member of the WSIS secretariat when the text in question was negotiated and I was involved in the discussions.
As I recall, the term "enhanced coordination" was used as a an euphemism for "end unilateral US control of Internet governance in general and of ICANN and IANA in particular".
However, after the text was agreed, there was disagreement regarding its intent: as I recall, the USA took the view that the intent was to encourage more cooperation amongst UN agencies and between those agencies and other Internet governance bodies such as ICANN.
But others might have different recollections.
Best Richard
Sent from Samsung Mobile.
participants (5)
-
Gordon Lennox -
Julius ter Pelkwijk -
Patrik Fältström -
Richard Hill -
Seun Ojedeji