[WG-Strategy] [Ext] Re: Text on Enhanced Cooperation
Anriette Esterhuysen
anriette at apc.org
Wed Jul 23 14:30:34 EDT 2025
Dear Ana
Thanks a lot for the reference to the Johnson Sirleaf and Lofven report.
Do you think it is realistic to propose that the CSTD's mandate be
expanded to play the role of their proposed "Global Commission on Just
and Sustainable Digitalization"?
I like this idea a lot.
Anriette
Anriette Esterhuysen -anriette at apc.org//anriette at gmail.com
On 2025/07/23 18:36, Ana Neves via WG-Strategy wrote:
>
> Thanks, Paul, for bringing up how the CSTD could be more effectively
> leveraged. With that in mind, let me share a few reflections on its
> role in the context of the WSIS+20 review:
>
> *4. The CSTD and the need for a modernized mandate*
>
> The central role of the *Commission on Science and Technology for
> Development (CSTD)* in the UN system should continue to be reinforced.
> In light of rapidly evolving digital ecosystems and geopolitical
> shifts, it is now timely and necessary to advocate for a *modernized
> and future-facing mandate for the CSTD*. Such an updated mandate
> should more effectively interface with new and emerging digital policy
> arenas—specifically around Internet governance, AI, data ecosystems,
> and digital development. A refreshed mandate would not only reinforce
> the CSTD’s legitimacy, but also help anchor a 21st-century relevant
> governance architecture that balances science, innovation, inclusion,
> digital international cooperation and accountability.
>
> For reference, I would like to highlight the /Report from the
> High-Level Advisory Board on Effective Multilateralism – A
> Breakthrough for People and Planet: Effective and Inclusive Global
> Governance for Today and the Future
> <https://unu.edu/sites/default/files/2025-03/highleveladvisoryboard_breakthrough_fullreport.pdf>/,
> co-chaired by Ellen Johnson Sirleaf (former President of Liberia) and
> Stefan Löfven (former Prime Minister of Sweden). This report may offer
> valuable insights for updating the CSTD mandate, particularly
> regarding the proposal for a /Global Commission on Just and
> Sustainable Digitalization/, which could be multistakeholder by
> nature, under the São Paulo Multistakeholder Guidelines
> <https://netmundial.br/pdf/NETmundial10-MultistakeholderStatement-2024.pdf>.
>
> Ana
>
> Ana Cristina F. Amoroso das Neves
>
> /Head, Internet Governance Office/
>
> /2025 IGF MAG Member///
>
> /Chair of the DNS.PT Advisory Board/
>
> *FCT- FCCN***
>
> Avenida do Brasil, n.º 101 | 1700-066 Lisboa
>
> T: +351 21 392 4498
>
> M: +351 912 397 371
>
> www.fccn.pt <http://www.fccn.pt/>__
>
> www.governacaointernet.pt <http://www.governacaointernet.pt/>__
>
> https://www.intgovforum.org/en <https://www.intgovforum.org/en>
>
> Linkedin <https://www.linkedin.com/in/anacristinaamorosoneves/>
>
> I am sending this message at a time that works well for me. I respect
> your choice of when and how to work, and I don’t expect a response
> outside of your working hours. Thank you!
>
> *De:*Blaker, Paul (DSIT) via WG-Strategy <wg-strategy at intgovforum.org>
> *Enviada:* 23 de julho de 2025 16:03
> *Para:* wg-strategy at intgovforum.org
> *Assunto:* Re: [WG-Strategy] [Ext] Re: Text on Enhanced Cooperation
>
> 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
> <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.
>
> 2. 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.
>
> 3. Governments, and other stakeholders, should actively
> promote user education and awareness about online privacy
> and the means of protecting privacy.
>
> 4. Take appropriate action on spam at national and
> international levels.
>
> 5. 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.
>
> 6. 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.
>
> 7. Share good practices in the field of information security
> and network security and encourage their use by all
> parties concerned.
>
> 8. 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.
>
> 9. Encourage further development of secure and reliable
> applications to facilitate online transactions.
>
> 10. 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
> 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
>
> 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
> To unsubscribe or manage your options please go tohttp://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/20250723/9f1d3252/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the WG-Strategy
mailing list