[WG-Strategy] [Ext] Re: Text on Enhanced Cooperation

[Blaker, Paul (DSIT)]

OFFICIAL

Hi all

I’m new to this group but I hope it’s OK to throw in some comments. “Enhanced cooperation” is in the Tunis Agenda, of course, but I’d agree with Wolfgang that reopening this old debate will really lead us nowhere. After so many fruitless discussions in the past, I’m sorry to see so much energy being spent on this phrase again.

WSIS+20 needs to develop a more positive, future-focused agenda, promoting greater global representation, particularly from developing countries, and greater inclusion in policy-making processes. We’d also like to see a discussion about more positive ways of using the CSTD. But “enhanced cooperation” is not the right tool for this – it just risks taking us backwards and entrenching old positions.

Paul

Paul Blaker
Head of ITU and Internet Governance
Department for Science, Innovation & Technology
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 7515 701352
www.gov.uk/dsit<http://www.gov.uk/dsit> | https://twitter.com/SciTechgovuk



OFFICIAL

From: parminder <parminder.js.work at gmail.com>
Sent: 23 July 2025 14:42
To: wg-strategy at intgovforum.org
Subject: Re: [WG-Strategy] [Ext] Re: Text on Enhanced Cooperation



On 23/07/25 19:02, Veni Markovski wrote:
Thanks, Raul.
Since Tunisia there was the WSIS+10 process (with its outcome document) and the GDC with the relevant texts about Internet governance, and the work of the CSTD, ITU, and others in between.
We have to remember (be reminded, and sometimes to remind our own selves!) that the language from the Tunis Agenda was updated (upgraded) in 2015, and again last year. WSIS+20 has the chance to to some more upgrades, or if no agreement is reached, keep the old language.

Yes, Veni, that is the default,... Thanks for reminding us of it. I do not think the language Valeria circulated here was much different from the default (unless I missed something).... But our purpose need not be the default preservation or promotion ... There is nothing, digital society wise, that is default, or static, around us (someone considered as a father of AI resigned his VP position at google worried that nothing is default any more!) .... Should we not be taking account of what people,and notables, and communities, and (most) governments, actually think -- in fact a lot of CS groups, thinktanks, even private sector players, outside this perhaps charmed circle that may find the default status quo fine?

best, parminder



Best,
v/

From: Raúl Echeberría <raul at alai.lat><mailto:raul at alai.lat>
Date: Tuesday, July 22, 2025 at 22:46
To: wg-strategy <wg-strategy at intgovforum.org><mailto:wg-strategy at intgovforum.org>
Subject: [Ext] Re: [WG-Strategy] Text on Enhanced Cooperation



Hi.

I very much agree with Wolfgang. Having been too in the room during the night session in Tunis the last night before the summit, I can ensure that the expression “enhanced cooperation” didn’t aim to have any other meaning that being a compromise text.

After several months in which different groups of countries were simply trying to strengthen their respective positions, the day before the summit we all concluded that the most important thing was to reach an agreement, which made us change our mindset.
Uruguay (with me as the spokesperson) and Canada (represented by Bill Graham) proposed the crazy idea of setting aside the text we had been working on for months and starting from scratch to try to find common ground.
The suggestion was taken up by Ambassador Kahn of Pakistan (chair of the Internet Governance negotiations), and we got to work hard.

We reached a point where there were two positions that were difficult to reconcile, even with the desire to reach agreements.

On the one hand, there were those who argued that new governance mechanisms had to be "created," and on the other, there were those of us who accepted that existing mechanisms could "evolve," but based on what already exists. "Create" and "Evolve" were difficult verbs to put in the same sentence.

We spent a long time experimenting with different options until, as Wolfgang pointed out, David Hendron proposed the novel and friendly expression "Enhanced cooperation," which neither affirmed nor contradicted either of those two visions, which had been difficult to reconcile.

To make the ambiguity even clearer, Enhanced cooperation is not described as a single process or series of processes. Rather, paragraph 71 itself, in an intentionally contradictory manner, on the one hand calls on the UN Secretary-General to initiate a process toward Enhanced cooperation, and on the other hand assigns the same responsibility to the (plural) relevant organizations.

Attempting to assign a meaning to the expression "Enhanced cooperation" or to identify, design, or implement an Enhanced cooperation process simply distorts the spirit of the Tunis Agenda.

Most of the time, reaching agreements involves concessions and sacrifices from all parties involved.

The ambiguity and intentional lack of clarity in paragraph 71 is something we should really highlight and value as an example of the compromises made by all to achieve the WSIS 2005 Tunis agreement.

I don’t think is a good idea to continue with this discussion around Enhanced Cooperation.

I know that this story can be told in many different ways. This is simply one version of somebody who was heavily involved in the WSIS preparatory work and WSIS negotiations,  as many others in this group.


Best,

Raúl






El 22 jul. 2025, a las 5:06 p. m., Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang at kleinwaechter.info><mailto:wolfgang at kleinwaechter.info> escribió:

Hi,

to be frank, I am not happy with the proposal. "Enhanced cooperation" is "coded", or better "polluted"  language. In 2005, it tried to combine "fire and water" in a critical moment of history. This was good and helpful. But as we have seen in the last 20 years, the concept did not constitute a basis for progress. Different parties continued with their differences (see below). To reopen the debate is in my eyes a waste of time and ressources and will lead to nowhere. Furthermore, it has the potential to open another Pandora´s Box.

I understand, that the issue is on the table for WSIS+20 and will not disappear (which would be the best solution). I understand also, that a substantial number of governments from the Global South, which are not satisfied with the present mechanisms, have developed their own understanding of EC in the last 20 years (which often has little to do with the original problem). For them "enhanced cooperation " stands for more equality and fairness in Internet related intergovernmental negotiations and for more equal participation of non-state actors from the Global South in multistakeholder processes.

This is fair and has to be adressed. Insofar it is good, as proposed in the new text, the CSTD could be the best  venue to reach progress. The CSTD is an intergovernmental body, where all governments are on equal footing. Furthermore, the CSTD has demonstrated that it can accomodate meaningful participation of non-governmental stakeholders, as the various CSTD WGs and also the Interessional CSTD Meetings have demonstrated.

The best way forward would be to introduce new language and to get rid of the "poisened" EC language from 2005. For some governments, EC is just a starting point to create intergovernmental oversight mechanism, inter alia, to change ICANN´s GAC into a GOC (Governmental Oversight Committee).

What about "enhanced, fair and equal  collaboration" (EFEC)?

Wolfgang



PS: Here is my view of the history, which is needed to understand the complexity of the problem.  Juan made a very good statement in Geneva last week when he explained once again, how the language emerged and did find its way into the Tunis Agenda.

Here is my report from the history books (as a WGIG member, who was also sitting in the room during the night session in Tunis, where the final language was adopted:

WGIG did have a mandate to make recommendations to the Tunis summit. WGIG discussed two main areas: The "Oversight Function" (this was mainly ICANN) and the "Forum Function" (this were the broader Internet related public policy issues). In its Final Report WGIG could agree on the "Forum Function" and proposed the IGF. But it could not agree on the "oversight function".

It proposed four models (1. a new UN Internet Organisation/Status Quo plus plus, 2. an Intergovernmental Internet Council,  where governments will be responsible for decision on the "level of principle", but would leave decisions on day-to-day-operations in the hands of the Internet community (Status quo plus), 3. Keep the system as it s (if it isn´t broken, do not fix it/status quo) and 4. remove US oversight of the A root server of ICANN (status quo minus).

In Tunis, governments could not agree on one of the four proposal. The EU wanted option 2. This was opposed by the US government, which supported option 3. Developing countries wanted option 1. Non-governmental stakeholders were in favour of option 4.

It was David Hendon from the UK government (the UK did have the rotating EU presidency in fall 2005) who came with compromise lanaguage. The compromise was "agree to disagree" and to postpone a final decision by starting a process with a number of options for future arrangements. Within the EU "enhanced cooperation" is used as a terminologie for processes, where a limited number of member states agree to go beyond the existing regulations. The "Schengen Agreement" or "the EURO" are two examples for enhanced cooperation within EU.

Within the last 20 years, no group was able to make an arrangement for Internet Governance which went beyond the WSIS framework and its mechanisms (as the IGF). The only thing which we have seen was the removal of US oversight over the A-Root Server (2016) and the emergence of regional and national arrangements, in particular around national and regional IGFs (NRIs). More or les, with regard to ICANN we have now "Status Quo Minus".

But what we did see also was, that the discussion of a number if "internet related public policy issues", as cybersecurity, digital trade, human rights or new emerging technologies moved out of the WSIS process to other institutions, mainly to intergovernmental organisations of the UN system.

Cybersecurity is good example. In Geneva during WSIS 1 - this was just a couple of months after the adoption of the Budapest Convention (November 2001) - cybersecurity was discussed at length. The call was for a "new culture of cybersecurity" in the Geneva Declaration (2003). And cybersecurity was a corner stone also in one of the Action Linies in the 2003 "WSIS Plan of Action" (ITU as the facilitatir).   It is intersting to re-read the text of the WSIS Action line. It proposed "cooperation among the governments at the UN and with all stakeholders at other appropriate fora for enhance user confidence, build trust etc....
12. Confidence and security are among the main pillars of the Information Society.


  1.  Promote cooperation among the governments at the United Nations and with all stakeholders at other appropriate fora to enhance user confidence, build trust, and protect both data and network integrity; consider existing and potential threats to ICTs; and address other information security and network security issues.


  1.  Governments, in cooperation with the private sector, should prevent, detect and respond to cyber-crime and misuse of ICTs by: developing guidelines that take into account ongoing efforts in these areas; considering legislation that allows for effective investigation and prosecution of misuse; promoting effective mutual assistance efforts; strengthening institutional support at the international level for preventing, detecting and recovering from such incidents; and encouraging education and raising awareness.


  1.  Governments, and other stakeholders, should actively promote user education and awareness about online privacy and the means of protecting privacy.


  1.  Take appropriate action on spam at national and international levels.


  1.  Encourage the domestic assessment of national law with a view to overcoming any obstacles to the effective use of electronic documents and transactions including electronic means of authentication.


  1.  Further strengthen the trust and security framework with complementary and mutually reinforcing initiatives in the fields of security in the use of ICTs, with initiatives or guidelines with respect to rights to privacy, data and consumer protection.


  1.  Share good practices in the field of information security and network security and encourage their use by all parties concerned.


  1.  Invite interested countries to set up focal points for real-time incident handling and response, and develop a cooperative network between these focal points for sharing information and technologies on incident response.


  1.  Encourage further development of secure and reliable applications to facilitate online transactions.


  1.  Encourage interested countries to contribute actively to the ongoing United Nations activities to build confidence and security in the use of ICTs.


At this time cybersecurity was seen more as "cybercrime" and less as "national security". Inspired by the WSIS discussion, the UNGA started in 2004 a cybersecurity debate in the 1st Committee of the UNGA and established first a number of GGEs for cybersecurity, later two OEWGs for national cybersecurity and an AHC for Cybercrime.

I see both the new UN Cybercrime Convention as well as the new UN permanent mechanism with the POC mechanism as a CMB and the round table on capacity building as well as the LAWS negotiations as an direct outcome from WSIS Geneva/Tunis and an example for "enhanced cooperation" for "Internet related public policy issues", as called for in para.69 of the Tunis Agenda.

We do have similar outcomes in the HRC, the WTO and other organisations, where governments are "on equal footing" and have all opportunities to exersize their "rights and responsibilities". The same in the UNCSTD. Also in ICANN, all governments are now on a equal level. Iran and the US have the same vote in ICANN´s governmental advisory committee (GAC).


_______________________________________________
WG-Strategy mailing list
WG-Strategy at intgovforum.org<mailto:WG-Strategy at intgovforum.org>
To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org






_______________________________________________

WG-Strategy mailing list

WG-Strategy at intgovforum.org<mailto:WG-Strategy at intgovforum.org>

To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org/attachments/20250723/5baf8012/attachment-0001.htm>