#NETmundial was an act of Enhanced Cooperation, #CSTD was not.
NETmundial contributed toward the progressive view that the enhanced cooperation of all Stakeholders is necessary for Internet Public Policy.
CSTD (the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development) contributed toward the regressive view that the States should be in control of Internet Public Policy.
I spent a good part of the last week trying to get some crumbs of information on what was happening at the CSTD meeting being held in Geneva. What information I managed to get was through the kindness of those who tweeted the meeting (when they were not being abused by some governments and business representatives for doing so) and who sent updates to various lists and chats. This meeting was held in relative darkness, without audio-cast and without even the pretense of remote participation. While some stakeholders other than state government representatives were allowed in the room, and some stakeholders were occasionally given a diminished opportunity to speak, it was not a multistakeholder meeting. It was a UN Intergovernmental meeting. The only thing multistakeholder about the meeting was that they were sitting in judgement of the multistakeholder process of Internet governance and were trying to impose states' viewpoint on who and what was permitted to make public policy with regard to the Internet: the choice is between the States, represented largely by Geneva bureaucrats or the world's people, whose interests were represented by the multistakeholder mix that attended Netmundial 2014. Some of these Geneva bureaucrats are lovely people and I count many as my friends in other venues, in multistakeholder venues. But in Geneva in the relative darkness of the CSTD meeting, they were the judge and jury on the viability of the multistakeholder model for Internet governance.
This was not appropriate.
One irony is that among the topics they discussed was the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC), a multistakeholder group assembled by the CSTD by direction of the UN General Assembly (UNGA). Setting up a multistakeholder working group had been progress for the CSTD. But many of the CSTD member states were unhappy and wanted to show that the model did not work and appeared to do their best to disrupt the processes of that multistakeholder working group, no matter how hard the chair of the group worked in vain to get them to cooperate. As a member of the working group I heard the gleeful refrain: 'see the multistakeholder model doesn't work' from a few rejectionist state members and from their allies in the group. In the CSTD meeting, the states, including the rejectionist states among them, had a discussion about the fate of a multistakeholder group, in a venue that excluded the other stakeholders from equal participation.
This was not appropriate.
They were also discussing the perennial issue, the issue assigned to the WGEC, on the meaning of Enhanced Cooperation? Does it mean among all stakeholders? Or are governments the only ones that may participate in Enhanced Cooperation. As they have done since 2005, some of the member states insisted on a model of Enhanced Cooperation that rejects the principles of participatory democracy as expressed by multistakeholderism (m17m), and gave preference to the idea that it was all about governments. This despite words that they echoed from the Tunis Agenda in 2005 about the participation of all stakeholders:
71. The process towards enhanced cooperation, to be started by the UN Secretary-General, involving all relevant organizations by the end of the first quarter of 2006,
will involve all stakeholders in their respective roles
In terms of "all stakeholders in their respective roles," these governments unfortunately once again reaffirmed Tunis Agenda paragraphs 35 - 37, which inaccurately define the roles and responsibilities of actors in Internet governance from a state-centric point of view; a view where states and intergovernmental organizations control the Internet. In doing so the member states of the CSTD once again reaffirmed the government statement from 2003 that gives some states all the reason they need to put themselves, via some UN system organization, in control of the Internet.
This was not appropriate.
At NETmundial on the other hand, everyone had a equal opportunity to participate. Stakeholders and stakeholder groups, beyond those even imagined at CSTD meetings, were included and treated on an equal footing. Within this equal footing at the global level, the governmental actors and the non-governmental actors were treated equally. The states that participated were able to go off and discuss things among themselves on an equal footing, as were the actors and stakeholder groups that made up the non-governmental side of the process. And they came together at the end on an equal footing, in multistakeholder groups, to hammer out a rough consensus Multistakeholder Statement.
Some of us, myself included, are unhappy we did not get all we wanted in the outcome. I think some of us, myself included, could have done a better job organizing and making sure we had written the words that could be used in the final statement. But we can learn how to function better in these multistakeholder environments. This does not diminish the achievement of NETmundial.
Some of us, myself included, are dismayed at the fact that some of the corporations used their wealth based power to sway the outcome document at the very end of the discussion, but that happens in the multilateral world as well, just less visibly and without any chance for other stakeholders to do anything to counter it.
Aside to those non-governmental actors who disparage participatory democracy as expressed in multistakeholderism - in the multilateral system the big corporations still have access, it is the rest of us, including academics, activists, civil society, internet technical community, and small businesses who are shut out.
NETmundial produced Enhanced Cooperation. While not billed that way, it joins the IGF in terms of being a venue for Enhanced Cooperation on a global multistakeholder scale. And it was the first multistakeholder group to produce an outcome on Internet Public Policy on an equal footing. That is Enhanced Cooperation of the first order, which shows that productive Enhanced Cooperation by all stakeholders on a equal footing is indeed possible.
That is very appropriate.
Over the course of nearly a week, many hours were spent at the CSTD meeting trying to decide whether the NETmundial could even be mentioned in the report. These were not hours spent trying to understand the Enhanced Cooperation achievement of NETmundial, or how it could be carried forward or even to find the perfect words of praise, but rather it was the churlish fight of some states to repress any congratulatory message to Brazil for convening NETmundial or for its achievements. The argument raged on the last day of the meeting until well past 11:00 PM. For some states and their allies, NETmundial is the name that must be not spoken.
Can this possibly be appropriate?
