Ordinarily
when you review the phrase“Enhanced Cooperation,”it should reflect the etymology of the two words “enhanced” and “cooperation” to indicate that a measure of existing cooperation is being
taken to the next level. Yes, this is the intention of the architects of the
language to avoid an imminent deadlock at the World Summit on Information
Society (WSIS) in Tunis, 2005.
The
European Union (EU) who has successfully used many forms of cooperation to
achieve tremendous success over years came to the rescue when countries
demanded that they join the US in its historical oversight role on the
management of the Critical Internet Resources (CIRs); Internet Address names,
numbers and protocol parameters.
It
can be recalled that the United States (US) provided initial research funding
that resulted in the global networks of networks called the Internet which is
managed by interest-motivated volunteers across the US and later the rest of
the world. As the Internet became the cornerstone of any modern economy, and
governments in the late 1990s began to take note of this critical development
enabler, they began to express interest in the management of the Internet which
culminated in the convening of the 1st World Summit on Information
Society in Geneva in 2003; and due to inconclusive outcome scheduled another
round of Summit for 2005 in Tunis, Tunisia that produced the famous Tunis Agenda (TA).
In
the Tunis Agenda are reaffirmation of Action Lines and Targets
of the Geneva
Action Plan of WSIS 2003 with two important outcomes connected to the
management of CIRs namely the Internet
Governance Forum (IGF) and Enhanced
Cooperation (EC). While IGF convened immediately first in Greece in 2006
and every year till the last in Geneva in 2017, Enhanced Cooperation track
could “not take-off” as
envisaged due to different interpretations by UN member states of the meaning
of “Enhanced Cooperation” and the nature of mechanism for its implementation.
I
had the privilege to speak though remotely at the 1st United Nations
Commission on Science and Technology for Development (UN CSTD) consultative
forum on Enhanced Cooperation on International Public Policy Issues pertaining
to the Internet in 2012, where I reflected as a matter of fact that EC has been
on-going for years even at the bedrock of the Internet.
Without
sustained cooperation, networks cannot be built talk-less of network of
networks. I also indicated that in the government circle, government has
increasingly continued to cooperate on diverse public policy issue pertaining
to the Internet. Issues like cybersecurity and cybercrime have seen governments
collaborating through Interpol, OECD, EU, G7, etc with positive outcomes like
the Budapest
Convention on Cybercrime and more recently on the upcoming General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in
Europe.
While
some stakeholders including governments maintained that EC was already taking
place, other governments indicated that EC according to paragraphs 69 to 71 of
the TA was yet to begin. The consultation on EC in 2012 led to the convening of
the first Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation by a resolution of
the UN General Assembly (GA) (paragraph 20-21) asking the Chair of CSTD to
establish the WG which convened between 2013 and 2014.
Composed
of 22-nation representatives according to UN representation process and 5
representatives each from business, civil society, academic and technical
communities; and International organizations with previous hosts of IGFs; the
WG could not agree to produce a consensus report due to just one controversial
issue - how governments on an equal footing can make decisions on international
public policy matters pertaining to the Internet viz-a-viz CIRs. Based on the
work of a correspondence group, the WG produced evidence that EC has
increasingly been on-going among governments and other stakeholders.
On
the strength of increasing evidence of cooperation on International public
policies issues pertaining to the Internet, the GA by a resolution in 2015
asked the Chair of CSTD to once again convene another WGEC with the hope of
finding a consensus position on the intractable Tunis Agenda outcome.
By
the time the WG was to meet in September 30, 2016, the United States Government
(USG) had wisely in 2014 announced and begun a process to relinquish its unique
oversight function on the Internet. USG
said it was in continuation of a planned process begun in 1998 that saw to the
creation of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a
private sector-led US registered not-for-profit organisation focused on serving
global public interest in ensuring a stable, secure and resilient Internet. The
USG through its agency, the National Telecommunication and Information
Administration (NTIA) of the Commerce Department as part of its condition to
the global Internet community indicated that it would not subscribe to any
government led replacement to its oversight role.
ICANN
based on the mandate given by NTIA led the world to produce an acceptable
proposal to NTIA that convinced the USG to abandon its oversight function on
the Internet on October 1, 2016. This event was like a miracle because a young
US Official once told me in Geneva that“I don’t see USG relinquish this role in my life-time.”
USG
relinquished its oversight function on the Internet but yet some governments
still wanted paragraph 71 implemented to the letter. Most private sector
(business, civil society, academic and technical community) and Western
Countries including Japan posited that nations can exercise their public policy
sovereignty within their borders but not on International Internet public
policy issues (IIPPI). But come to think of it, what is wrong if governments on
an equal footing have a mechanism to discuss IIPPI? Nothing is really wrong and
that was why I proposed for adoption at the WGEC2.0 for the CSTD to continue to
provide the platform for governments to discuss IIPPI with full participation
of other stakeholders since the CSTD already has in its mandate the
responsibility to discuss and make recommendation on public policy issues to
the GA through the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).
This
was to be the consensus agreement as many Western countries that hitherto
objected to the idea later embraced it in the spirit of compromise.
Unfortunately, a handful of countries (e.g. Saudi Arabia) opposed the idea
insisting the only idea they supported was the creation of a new Institutional
mechanism in the likes of ITU
or UNESCO to handle IIPPI. A vast
majority did not support the creation of new Institutional mechanism because:
1. the nature of the Internet (which is distributive) does not concentrate
control on one entity and 2. it would be expensive considering cost cutting
measures within governments across the world not least the United Nations itself.
WGEC2.0
met eight times for 3 days each in Geneva over a 2-year period (2016-2018)
under the distinguished chairmanship of Ambassador Benedicto Fonseca of Brazil, who did from my
perspective an outstanding job of co-ordination to the effect that even with
high tensions many times and eventual failure of consensus recommendation, all
participants remained cordial, hopeful and appreciative of his efforts. The
CSTD Secretariat also worked tirelessly and impressively to support the work of
the WG.
Nevertheless,
the WG agreed on the characteristics of EC including transparency, inclusivity,
collaboration, effectiveness, sustainability, responsiveness, peace etc but its
failure to agree a position by consensus on paragraph 71 torpedoed many other
positive conclusions of the WG.
Perhaps the next line of action is for the subject
of EC to continue to be a subject line item on the schedule of the CSTD
whenever its convenes its annual meeting. CSTD already has such mandate within
its statute anyway.
For
me, it has been a great learning experience and a privilege representing
business and participating at the cutting edge of global Internet public policy
debate as the first African business person in two high profile UN Working
Groups and on the same footing with states.
*Contributed by Jimson Olufuye, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Kontemporary Konsulting, Chairman, Africa ICT Alliance, AfICTA and one of
the 5 global business representatives to WGEC 1.0 & 2.0.
No comments:
Post a Comment