Ce diaporama a bien été signalé.
Nous utilisons votre profil LinkedIn et vos données d’activité pour vous proposer des publicités personnalisées et pertinentes. Vous pouvez changer vos préférences de publicités à tout moment.

Recommendation on un secretary digital cooperation report by shreedeep rayamajhi

21 vues

Publié le

Recommendation on Report of the UN Secretary-General’s ‎High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation by shreedeep rayamajhi

Publié dans : Internet
  • Soyez le premier à commenter

  • Soyez le premier à aimer ceci

Recommendation on un secretary digital cooperation report by shreedeep rayamajhi

  1. 1. Recommendation on Report of the UN Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation by Shreedeep Rayamajhi Report of the UN Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation CALL FOR FEEDBACK: Section 1 GLOBAL DIGITAL COOPERATION Recommendation 5A We recommend that, as a matter of urgency, the UN Secretary-General facilitate an agile and open consultation process to develop updated mechanisms for global digital cooperation, with the options discussed in Chapter 4 as a starting point. We suggest an initial goal of marking the UN's 75th anniversary in 2020 with a “Global Commitment for Digital Cooperation” to enshrine shared values, principles, understandings and objectives for an improved global digital cooperation architecture. As part of this process, we understand that the UN Secretary-General may appoint a Technology Envoy. Global digital cooperation is certainly a need but with the growing trend of control over the internet and technology, the possibility of creating a uniform practice is a question of standard. The problem with the variation of interpretation and values has resulted in a chaos of Internet being manipulated by the rich and the powerful. Still today in major parts of the developing world, internet is not a choice but a question of access. In such scenario where the world is reaching the next billion, the question of Global Commitment for Digital Cooperation is a bigger issue. Yes, shared values, principles, understandings and objectives for an improved global digital cooperation architecture is a basic need but at the developing level these values differentiate at individual country and region. We must collaborate and understand the dynamics of such commitment where the role of multistakeholder is eminent. Recommendation 5B We support a multi-stakeholder “systems” approach for cooperation and regulation that is adaptive, agile, inclusive and fit for purpose for the fast-changing digital age. • Proposed questions for your feedback (suggestions only, all feedback welcome): • How would you improve the current existing frameworks for digital cooperation? • What/if any new frameworks/mechanisms would you recommend? • How might we strengthen the practices/impacts of digital governance mechanisms? • How can we properly resource and fund multi-stakeholder processes to ensure: • Broad, inclusive and adequate participation • Ability to implement desired programmes • On-going improvement efforts are successful • How do we further enhance our collaboration to advance our shared values, principles, understandings and objectives for digital cooperation?
  2. 2. Recommendation on Report of the UN Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation by Shreedeep Rayamajhi Multistakeholder environment has been collaborated in various process and practice but in developing countries the push of multistakeholder approach is more complex in terms of lack of values and leadership. Representation and inclusion are a higher concern when it comes to global level but at national or country level right person and right choice is a major priority. From multistakeholder to collaborative environment there are challenges of resource and commitment. Multistakeholder is not just a concept of diversity or inclusion but it is the democratic value which we all have undermined. Reality is Multistakeholder concept is hugely misinterpreted by wrong interpretation and manipulated in developing countries, so it needs better core values and collaboration in terms of creating that dynamics. Enhancing digital cooperation will require both reinvigorating existing multilateral partnerships and potentially creating new mechanisms that involve stakeholders from business, academia, civil society and technical organisations. We should approach questions of governance based on their specific circumstances and choosing among all available tools. Where possible we can make existing inter-governmental forums and mechanisms fit for the digital age rather than rush to create new mechanisms, though this may involve difficult judgement calls: for example, while the WTO remains a major forum to address issues raised by the rapid growth in cross- border e-commerce, it is now over two decades since it was last able to broker an agreement on the subject. Digital cooperation at various stakeholder level is manipulated at leadership level. The concept of power and lobbying attitude has engulfed the dynamics. The value of internet must be very clear in terms of standardization so that internet can be treated equally for all. Today the difference in not in- between people who have internet and technology but it’s between people who have no connection and they aspire to be connected and it’s a radical different thing. The inter-governmental forum needs to mechanize the various process and values so that it can be neutralize in mitigating the gaps of net neutrality and Digital Divide. Though called a multistakeholder but the values of the practice have created gaps in process where still today the bottom up approach highlights the civil society to put the rich and famous as Multistakeholder Advisory group and there is limitation of developing countries and representation. Technology has not just empowered people, but it has also brought in light the level of how it can be used see before and after the process. The limitation of inter-Governmental process is catered in the limited practice of the representation which needs to be addressed with proper values. Given the speed of change, soft governance mechanisms – values and principles, standards and certification processes – should not wait for agreement on binding solutions. Soft governance mechanisms are also best suited to the multi-stakeholder approach demanded by the digital age: a fact- based, participative process of deliberation and design, including governments, private sector, civil society, diverse users and policymakers.
  3. 3. Recommendation on Report of the UN Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation by Shreedeep Rayamajhi Yes, this is the right approach of creating a better governance model with soft governance mechanism. Reality of today is still at grassroots level the first thing is the network shutdown. It’s the easy solution where the government and other stakeholder reason it to be easy to pull the plug blaming everything to be problem of the wide network but nobody talks about raising awareness and capacity building. There is a lack of better core values as internet grew with prejudices and labels of being associated with the developed nation. The soft governance mechanism can certainly harness values and ease the public policy process which is a great challenge in the developing countries. Your internet is not my internet and my internet is not the internet of today. The aim of the holistic “systems” approach we recommended is to bring together government bodies such as competition authorities and consumer protection agencies with the private sector, citizens and civil society to enable them to be more agile in responding to issues and evaluating trade-offs as they emerge. Any new governance approaches in digital cooperation should also, wherever possible, look for ways – such as pilot zones, regulatory sandboxes or trial periods – to test efficacy and develop necessary procedures and technology before being more widely applied.213 Technology is not just a part of the governance process it’s a tool of human evolution. The public policy is not just a part of the government strategic process. In major parts of the world the policy are driven by the public not by any stakeholder group so the rigidity of the limiting the PDP needs to be open and loosen up. We envisage that the process of developing a “Global Commitment for Digital Cooperation” would be inspired by the “World We Want” process, which helped formulate the SDGs. Participants would include governments, the private sector from technology and other industries, SMEs and entrepreneurs, civil society, international organisations including standards and professional organisations, academic scholars and other experts, and government representatives from varied departments at regional, national, municipal and community levels. Multi-stakeholder consultation in each member state and region would allow ideas to bubble up from the bottom. The Global concept of multistakeholder needs to adapt various sectors and stakeholder as internet is the voice of today. The bottom up approach needs to have clarity and further needs to adapt the collaborative adaptation process. The consultations on an updated global digital cooperation architecture could define upfront the criteria to be met by the governance mechanisms to be proposed, such as funding models, modes of operation and means for serving the functions explored in this report. There is a big confusion of how the multistakeholder model is to be run. When it comes down to the grassroots level its always comes to funding as a major challenge. The Numbers VS the funding is
  4. 4. Recommendation on Report of the UN Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation by Shreedeep Rayamajhi major challenge which needs proper addressing at governance level so that multistakeholder approach can be nurtured with proper values. More broadly, if appointed, a UN Tech Envoy could identify over-the-horizon concerns that need improved cooperation or governance; provide light-touch coordination of multi-stakeholder actors to address shared concerns; reinforce principles and norms developed in forums with relevant mandates; and work with UN member states, civil society and businesses to support compliance with agreed norms. It is really important to look into the current practice and gaps of multistakeholder practice and the gaps. The multistakeholder evolution also needs better enriching values which needs to be polished and collaborated time and again. The Envoy’s mandate could also include coordinating the digital technology-related efforts of UN entities; improving communication and collaboration among technology experts within the UN; and advising the UN Secretary-General on new technology issues. Finally, the Envoy could promote partnerships to build and maintain international digital common resources that could be used to help achieve the SDGs. The UN system has both plus point and negative point of limiting the bilateral level so the envoy will certainly has an edge to work modality and to overcome the gaps. CALL FOR FEEDBACK: Section 2 A possible architecture for Global Digital Cooperation ''INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM PLUS"205 The proposed Internet Governance Forum Plus, or IGF Plus, would build on the existing IGF which was established by the World Summit on the Information Society (Tunis, 2005). The IGF is currently the main global space convened by the UN for addressing internet governance and digital policy issues. The IGF Plus concept would provide additional multi-stakeholder and multilateral legitimacy by being open to all stakeholders and by being institutionally anchored in the UN system. The IGF Plus would aim to build on the IGF’s strengths, including well-developed infrastructure and procedures, acceptance in stakeholder communities, gender balance in IGF bodies and activities, and a network of 114 national, regional and youth IGFs206. It would add important capacity strengthening and other support activities. The IGF Plus model aims to address the IGF’s current shortcomings. For example, the lack of actionable outcomes can be addressed by working on policies and norms of direct interest to stakeholder communities. The limited participation of government and business representatives, especially from small and developing countries, can be addressed by introducing discussion tracks in which governments, the private sector and civil society address their specific concerns. The IGF Plus would comprise an Advisory Group, Cooperation Accelerator, Policy Incubator and Observatory and Help Desk. The Advisory Group, based on the IGF’s current Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group, would be responsible for preparing annual meetings, and identifying focus policy issues each year. This would not exclude coverage of other issues but ensure a critical mass of discussion on the selected issues. The Advisory
  5. 5. Recommendation on Report of the UN Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation by Shreedeep Rayamajhi Group could identify moments when emerging discussions in other forums need to be connected, and issues that are not covered by existing organisations or mechanisms. Building on the current practices of the IGF, the Advisory Group could consist of members appointed for three years by the UN Secretary-General on the advice of member states and stakeholder groups, ensuring gender, age, stakeholder and geographical balance. Potential questions for your feedback (suggestions only, all feedback welcome): 1. What are in your view criteria that the proposed Advisory Group should fulfil that are not yet being taken into account by the IGF Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group in present IGF setting? 2. How do you address the concerns that these proposals may be considered going beyond the original IGF governance structure and mandates? 3. How might the current Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group be strengthened? 4. What changes (if any) should be considered to the role and responsibilities of the Multi- stakeholder Advisory Group/Advisory Group? 5. How do we ensure the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group/Advisory Group has appropriate funding and support? The Present Advisory Group Model has been limited within the limitation of the standard process. The level of cooperation and collaboration needs to search better in context of adaptation where the new model suggested can certainly bring in a new angle. The internet that was created in room has today expanded beyond the geography and every day its shortcoming the limitation of what is possible. With such growth and mechanism we certainly need a dynamic approach. The model suggest can be a new beginning to encapsulate the idea of adaptation for better collaboration and cooperation. Regarding the concern, internet must outgrow the expectation and it needs radical solution which is pervasive and more inclusive and adaptive. The current Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group needs to be more operational in the IGF as they have been limited. Their effectiveness can be only utilized when they are active and beating in the model. From the past few years I have seen very lame and less active people in the MAG position. This needs to change, we need young and energetic young leaders. The MAG members selected from consolidated groups highlights the politics and manipulation. People involved in real grounds needs to be selected. The MAG basic criteria highlight least developed nation and other priority criteria which are never followed. Especially with civil society group the politics and manipulation an issue. MAG member needs to be funded and should be provided the best possible way of facilitation as they are volunteers and they expect the least. The Cooperation Accelerator would accelerate issue-centred cooperation across a wide range of institutions, organisations and processes; identify points of convergence among existing IGF coalitions,
  6. 6. Recommendation on Report of the UN Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation by Shreedeep Rayamajhi and issues around which new coalitions need to be established; convene stakeholder-specific coalitions to address the concerns of groups such as governments, businesses, civil society, parliamentarians, elderly people, young people, philanthropy, the media, and women; and facilitate convergences among debates in major digital and policy events at the UN and beyond. The Cooperation Accelerator could consist of members selected for their multi-disciplinary experience and expertise. Membership would include civil society, businesses and governments and representation from major digital events such as the Web Summit, Mobile World Congress, Lift:Lab, Shift, LaWeb, and Telecom World. Potential questions for your feedback (suggestions only, all feedback welcome): 1. How would you envision the work of the Cooperation Accelerator in practice? 2. How do we ensure the Cooperation Accelerator has appropriate funding and support? 3. How could existing intersessional activities from across the IGF community support/participate in a Cooperation Accelerator? For example, Best Practice Forums (BPFs), National, Regional, Sub-regional and Youth IGF Initiatives (NRIs), or Dynamic Coalitions (DCs)? Dynamics of internet demands a collaboration among the different accelerated actors. With the ever- changing roles and values, it needs a matrix of collaboration and cooperation from all sides. The work of the cooperation accelerator in practice needs to be open and transparent giving the space and indicator of basic values. It is relevant that cooperation accelerator needs a proper funding for research survey and information access which needs better guidance and mapping where the internet organization can help. The current model needs to be readjusted the accelerators as they are the need and the previous model are the basic structure. So, it has to be strategically aligned. The Policy Incubator would incubate policies and norms for public discussion and adoption. In response to requests to look at a perceived regulatory gap, it would examine if existing norms and regulations could fill the gap and, if not, form a policy group consisting of interested stakeholders to make proposals to governments and other decision making bodies. It would monitor policies and norms through feedback from the bodies that adopt and implement them.207 The Policy Incubator could provide the currently missing link between dialogue platforms identifying regulatory gaps and existing decision making bodies by maintaining momentum in discussions without making legally binding decisions. It should have a flexible and dynamic composition involving all stakeholders concerned by a specific policy issue. Potential questions for your feedback (suggestions only, all feedback welcome): 1. How should the Policy Incubator be organized, locally and globally? 2. How could existing intersessional activities from across the IGF community support/participate in the Policy Incubator? For example, Best Practice Forums (BPFs), National, Regional, Sub-regional and Youth IGF Initiatives (NRIs), or Dynamic Coalitions (DCs)?
  7. 7. Recommendation on Report of the UN Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation by Shreedeep Rayamajhi 3. How do we ensure the Policy Incubator has appropriate funding and support? First the policy incubator needs to understand the dynamic of how the world works. In Developed nation the policy is an open and transparent where people have their rights and responsibility and the government itself is willing to adapt and understand. In developing countries, the situation is a bit complex as people are aware and there can be rigidity from the government in adaptation process. But when we talk about the least developed country there is a huge gap of rights and acceptance. IN such region the government is solely responsible for the public policy process where the consultation is a desired way of cooperation. People are the end just to face the consequences. The current Intersessional Activities have to be further collaborated with better values to engage leaders as it can be great source of policy. The only solution to the policy incubator can be a strategic planning with internet organization like ISOC, and ICANN to create better governance model. The IGF Trust Fund would be a dedicated fund for the IGF Plus. All stakeholders – including governments, international organisations, businesses and the tech sector – would be encouraged to contribute. The IGF Plus Secretariat should be linked to the Office of the United Nations Secretary- General to reflect its interdisciplinary and system-wide approach. Potential questions for your feedback (suggestions only, all feedback welcome): 1. Do you believe the IGF Plus model is implementable, given that the IGF Trust Fund is based on voluntary donations? 2. What can we do to ensure the IGF Plus has appropriate funding and support? The IGF Trust Fund historically lacked sufficient funding to fulfil its current (and basic) budget. It is a great initiation of the IGF Plus model that is more focused towards the engagement and creating better scope. Yes, the IGF plus model is implementable based on the voluntary donation. As the model itself is very practice in context of toady’s internet and internet behavior of the users. Better collaboration with the stakeholder and business and private sector can result in better solution. __________________ Shreedeep Rayamajhi ICT4D Consultant Founder Rayznews|Learn Internet Governance https://icannwiki.org/Shreedeep_Rayamajhi