<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body ><div>Dear Gordon</div><div><br></div><div>Thank you for this. As you may recall, I was a member of the WSIS secretariat when the text in question was negotiated and I was involved in the discussions. </div><div><br></div><div>As I recall, the term "enhanced coordination" was used as a an euphemism for "end unilateral US control of Internet governance in general and of ICANN and IANA in particular".</div><div><br></div><div>However, after the text was agreed, there was disagreement regarding its intent: as I recall, the USA took the view that the intent was to encourage more cooperation amongst UN agencies and between those agencies and other Internet governance bodies such as ICANN.</div><div><br></div><div>But others might have different recollections. </div><div><br></div><div>Best Richard</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><div style="font-size:9px;color:#575757">Sent from Samsung Mobile.</div></div><br><br><div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com> </div><div>Date:26/12/2016 10:46 (GMT-04:00) </div><div>To: Cooperation WG <cooperation-wg@ripe.net> </div><div>Cc: Chris Buckridge <chrisb@ripe.net> </div><div>Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] RIPE NCC Contribution to the CSTD Working
Group on Enhanced Cooperation </div><div><br></div>I find it interesting how the term “enhanced cooperation” has been interpreted in ways that I think are quite different to what was in the minds of at least some of the people who I understand originally proposed it.<br><br>In EU relations “enhanced cooperation” has a specific meaning. It was introduced in the Treaty of Amsterdam: so akin to a "term of art”, if you will.<br><br>Enhanced cooperation, in the EU, was not meant to imply simply better cooperation: it was about differentiated cooperation. <br><br>In that environment it was and is about some, not all, member states cooperating more fully, more closely, on certain items even in the absence of a wider consensus.<br><br>So the idea was that, even in a UN-related context, certain states could cooperate more closely, even in the absence of more general agreement?<br><br>Given the significant on-going restructuring in terms of international relationships one might imagine a shift back to the original intent.<br><br>Happy holidays!<br><br>Gordon<br><br>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_cooperation<br><br><br>> On 23 Dec 2016, at 11:42, Chris Buckridge <chrisb@ripe.net> wrote:<br>> <br>> Dear colleagues, <br>> <br>> One of the outcomes of last year’s 10-year review of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) was the formation of a Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation on Public Policy Issues Pertaining to the Internet (WGEC). Established under the United Nations’ Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD), the Working Group was set up in response to the feeling expressed by some UN Member States that there was a need to "develop recommendations on how to further implement enhanced cooperation as envisioned in the Tunis Agenda."<br>> <br>> More information on the Working Group is available at: <br>> http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC-2016-to-2018.aspx<br>> <br>> Coming out of the Working Group’s initial meeting in September, there was an open call for contributions in response to two questions: <br>> <br>>> - What are the high level characteristics of enhanced cooperation?<br>>> - Taking into consideration the work of the previous WGEC and the Tunis Agenda, particularly paragraphs 69-71, what kind of recommendations should we consider?<br>> <br>> <br>> Working closely with one of the technical community members of the Working Group, Nick Ashton-Hart, the RIPE NCC developed and submitted a document responding to these questions: <br>> https://www.ripe.net/participate/internet-governance/multi-stakeholder-engagement/wsis/ripencc-ecwg-submission-201612.pdf<br>> <br>> In summary, the document notes that, while cooperation amongst all stakeholders is vital in developing Internet capacity, it is important that these efforts focus on practical benefits, and that they be minimally distortive or disruptive to the shared platform that is the Internet. <br>> <br>> The Working Group will hold its next meeting on 26-27 January 2017 in Geneva, where it will consider the contributions received and the way forward for its work. <br>> <br>> Happy, as always, to discuss any questions or comments. Meanwhile, best wishes to those celebrating Christmas/New Year in the coming days and weeks! <br>> <br>> Cheers,<br>> <br>> Chris Buckridge<br>> External Relations Manager<br>> RIPE NCC<br><br><br><br></body>