Greetings, all, Thanks Fiona and Paul for your submissions. I just want to add a little background to show that we're actually making some progress on the GDC document. From my perspective, the entire GDC SOTF is a continuation of the implementation of the WSIS Tunis Agenda 2005. As some may recall, the Tunis Agenda produced the two tracks of Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and Enhanced Cooperation to enable government on an equal footing oversee Public Policy matters pertaining to the Internet. While IGF started in 2006 and has been operational, the tract on Enhanced Cooperation did not commence until 2012 after the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development was mandated by the General Assembly (GA) to actualise it. It was further mandated to setup a Working Group for Government reps (with reps from the private sector, civil society, academic and technical communities) to firm up the mechanism for enhanced cooperation. The Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC) (of which I was one of the 5 private sector members representing the private sector from the global south) worked in two phases between 2014 & 2018. At the 2nd phase, it was close to a concensus agreement for the CSTD+other stakeholders to oversee Internet public policy matters since dealing with public policy matters is already in the CSTD mandate. But Saudi Arabia objected and wanted an institution in the like of ITU to be created to oversee Internet public policy matters. So WGEC failed to submit a concensus report (concensus in WGEC unlike in ICANN is for there to be no objection at all). Then the UN Secretary General (SG) setup the High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation in 2018. The HLP submitted its report in 2019 and based on the report, the SG proposed the GDC-SOTF in his Common Digital Agenda report. An observation from my side is the softening of Saudi-Arabia's position on IGF (as they're the host of the 2024 IGF!), multistakeholderism and withdrawal of insistence on the creation of an institution like ITU for Internet public policy matters. A reduction of that demand to an Office may be a compromise. What I would expect is that the Office should have the concerned stakeholders embedded in its operations and should not be a government only entity for meaningful participation as outlined in Netmundial+10 principles and even in the GDC. If GDC is endorsed by all HoSs on September 22-23, 2024, it'd mark a significant milestone on the actualisation of the Tunis Agenda. The GDC itself apart from its focus on the actualization of the SDGs, it is also an instrument for the realization of the WSIS Geneva declaration 2003 Action Lines and Targets. Let's push more on the active participation of the concerned stakeholders (private sector, civil society, technical and academic communities) in the working of the new Office. At the same time, the GDC can still be subject matter discussion issues in CSTD and in the IGF. Cheers, JO -------------------------------- Jimson Olufuye PhD (fncs, ficma, c.ITP, PRINCE2, CISA, CISM, CRISC, PhD) Chairman, Advisory Council, AfICTA.africa Chairman, Kontemporary® Konsulting Ltd Consulting | Outsourcing | Cybersecurity Systems Integration | Maintenance Services www.kontemporary.net.ng Voice: 234 802 3183252 Data: 234 816 5012368 Skype: jolufuye This email is for the exclusive recipient/s and it may contain confidential materials. If you have received it and it is not meant for you, please alert me @ jolufuye@kontemporary.net.ng or discard at once. Thank you. On 2024-09-03 20:22, Paul Wilson via wsis20 wrote:
Hi Fiona et al,
Looking at references to the IGF in rev 3 and 4…
The rev 3 text included this text in clause 27:
We reaffirm the role of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as the primary multistakeholder platform for discussion of Internet governance issues.
…which was updated in rev 4:
We reaffirm that Internet governance
should continue to follow the provisions set forth in the outcomes of the summits held in Geneva
and Tunis, including in relation to enhanced cooperation.
So rev 4 doesn’t reaffirm IGF specifically, but it reaffirms the Tunis agenda, which certainly did establishe the IGF as the "primary multistakeholder platform for discussion of Internet governance issues". In that case, I guess this change isn’t so bad as a compromise text? Rev 4 also has this new text:
68. We will build on the processes and forums emanating from the WSIS, in particular the Internet
Governance Forum and its national and regional initiatives, as well as the WSIS Forum, to advance
implementation of this Compact. We look forward to the WSIS+20 Review in 2025 and invite it to
identify how these processes and Forums can support the contribution of all stakeholders to
Compact implementation.
I wonder if the words "build on" have a special meaning, for instance to imply something separate from that which is being built upon? If it’s not loaded in such a way, then this text can be taken to mean strengthening the IGF and NRIs, which would be a good thing obviously.
Possibly, "strengthen" could be used instead of "build on", to clarify that is still about supporting the IGF, and not something else? Or is is better to live with the ambiguity in this case?
Paul.
On 28 Aug 2024, at 7:03, Fiona Alexander via wsis20 wrote:
Hi to all
Attached is GDC Rev 4 which has made it my way from a few different people this morning. I understand that like Rev 3 the draft was released under silence procedures. I don't have the details on the silence procedures deadline this time around, perhaps others do.
I'm still digesting the text but a quick assessment on the issues I have been most closely following:
* leans into ITU more on connectivity and bridging the digital divide;
* 2005 status quo on Internet governance (a pity in my view on the IGF funding challenge); * More caution on Digital Public Infrastructure; * The new AI panel and annual dialogue remain; * Follow up seems a bit more grounded in existing mechanisms and a GDC implementation map produced and linked to next year's WSIS +20; and,
* A proposal for creation of a new UN office remains and will go to the General Assembly meetings next month, presumably for approval.
Look forward to hearing others perspectives.
Fiona
_______________________________________________
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20
Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20
Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.