_______________________________________________I recall that the public consultation from NETmundial+10 is still open to contributions.
The fragmentation of the governance space, the further development and application of the multistakeholder model, and the role of the IGF are main issues to be considered by NETmundial+10.
And, among other questions, the consultation asks the community which are the key messages that NETmundial+10 could send to the GDC. These messages shall be reflected in the final NETmundial+10 outcome document.
Flávio
Some additional thoughts from me:
I think one can see the challenge of this document written by NY as opposed to Geneva folks — I really think we would be having a much different document if it were written by folks in Geneva, who have the institutional and historical context. Like others, I also found it extremely surprising that the WSIS Forum or the work the ITU has been doing for the past 20 years is not acknowledged.
The other thing that caught my eye is the use of “multistakeholder cooperation” — not “governance or approach”. In the case of the latter, stakeholders can steer and even impact the way the conversations get shaped; in the case of “cooperation”, things are a bit more fluid; it just feels a much weaker term to use.
I don’t necessarily agree with the assessment on the IGF — I re-read the doc twice and both times it felt as if there was this very lukewarm endorsement of the IGF. The GDC seems to have missed a great opportunity to strengthen the IGF by assigning its follow-up and implementation; instead, we are seeing that the IGF is one of the many options used. Additionally, the whole 61 paragraph is creating a Digital Cooperation Forum without creating a Digital Cooperation Forum. It seems as if the proposal for the creation of an office under SG is creating a new body without going through the process of creating a body — i.e. member state sign off.
Which brings me to the final observation: the draft has too many ideas for the creation of new things — a scientific panel on AI, something on data governance, a human rights multistakeholder panel, a fund and this coordination office. Also, the CSTD is getting additional duties and, for those of us who have followed a bit the CSTD, this is another process that is highly multilateral and top down. To me, it is becoming rather apparent that the UN is aiming at centralising the governance digital issues under its umbrella, slowly departing from more inclusive processes that have either been established or they are in the process of.
Finally, on Anriette’s point on connectivity — I absolutely agree. The draft literally continues this monolithic view on connectivity and fails to take into account all the work that has been done. There is no question that more work is required but some examples of community networks and blended financing mechanisms could have been recognised. It is really a shame that the draft does not reflect any of these.
And, also plus one to Fiona’s comment on the AI outline — I had the same reaction. This seems to be jumping the gun as it reflects some ideas in the HLAB report that has not yet been endorsed by member states. This indicates some cross-fertilisation which is rather interesting.
I am still absorbing the draft as I am sure others do.
Konstantinos
Dr. Konstantinos KomaitisResident Senior Fellow, Global and Democratic Governance,DFRLab, The Atlantic Council
On 2 Apr 2024, at 15:54, Veni Markovski <veni.markovski@icann.org> wrote:
_______________________________________________Thanks, Fiona.
Indeed, strange that the work of the ITU is not mentioned; hopefully member states, who are participating in this list, are taking notes, and will suggest recognition of the great work the ITU is doing; also around the WSIS Forum.Here are my three points as of now:
- The technical community is recognized as a separate stakeholder, and not part of any other stakeholder group.
- The Multistakeholder model of Internet governance and the Internet Governance Forum are supported in several different instances.
- The creation of the (UN Secretary-General’s) multilateral Digital Cooperation Forum is not supported.
However, we could reach out to our respected national governments, and bring to their attention the issues we see in the zero draft. After all, that’s what they will discuss in April and May – how to make the document better.Best,v/From: wsis20 <wsis20-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Fiona Alexander <fionaa@american.edu>
Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 at 08:40
To: "wsis20@icann.org" <wsis20@icann.org>, "anriette@gmail.com" <anriette@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [wsis20] GDC zero draftThanks to those who have already shared their first impressions. It is really helpful to see those perspectives. This is the zero draft so I think as others have said, work to be done. For those on the list that are governments that opportunity is apparent, any further information on how non-government stakeholders can provide input? I thought someone had posted to the list there would an informal stakeholder input session, but I haven't seen any specifics. Have others? This seems particularly critical given paragraph 54 asks the private sector, technical and academic communities, and civil society to endorse the GDC.My take on the zero draft:
- agree with Jordan, some good text on IGF and including all stakeholders;
- seems an unusual omission that the connectivity section doesn't reference or call out the work of the ITU, since connectivity is their primary mission and in the deep dives last year and the 2 consultations this year, all commenters were very pro ITU. There is also a whole host of other work around meaningful connectivity, including the ITU Parter2Connect program and ICANN's UA work that could be mentioned. Anriette also makes great points on concerns with this section;
- the AI section looks very expansive and perhaps is a cut and paste from the AI High Level Advisory Board report. That seems premature since that work is ongoing and has not been endorsed or agreed by Member States; and,
- the draft falls short in a few places on avoiding duplication and using existing mechanisms, another clear point of consensus in the earlier discussions. Specially the call for an annual AI dialogue seems duplicative of the existing AI for Good annual meeting. And then for the follow up and implementation, it starts ok, but another clear omission, this time the WSIS Forum which seems particularly odd given the earlier call to have WSIS +20 update the WSIS action lines. But the proposal for a high level meeting every 2 years seems completely unnecessary, duplicative and wasteful given all the follow up and implementation already identified. It seems to be that those last two paragraphs, 64 and 65, could just be deleted.
Look forward to hearing others perspectives.Fiona
wsis20 mailing list
wsis20@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/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.
_______________________________________________ wsis20 mailing list wsis20@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/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.-- Prof. Flávio Rech Wagner Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul Instituto de Informática Porto Alegre, Brasil Presidente da Internet Society Brasil flavio@inf.ufrgs.br, info@isoc.org.br https://www.isoc.org.br Twitter: @ISOCBrasil https://www.facebook.com/isocbrasil/ https://www.youtube.com/isocbrasil https://www.instagram.com/isocbrasil/ https://www.linkedin.com/company/isoc-brasil/
wsis20 mailing list
wsis20@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/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.