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.
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. Enhanced cooperation, in the EU, was not meant to imply simply better cooperation: it was about differentiated cooperation. 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. 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? Given the significant on-going restructuring in terms of international relationships one might imagine a shift back to the original intent. Happy holidays! Gordon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_cooperation > On 23 Dec 2016, at 11:42, Chris Buckridge <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > 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." > > More information on the Working Group is available at: > http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC-2016-to-2018.aspx > > Coming out of the Working Group’s initial meeting in September, there was an > open call for contributions in response to two questions: > >> - What are the high level characteristics of enhanced cooperation? >> - Taking into consideration the work of the previous WGEC and the Tunis >> Agenda, particularly paragraphs 69-71, what kind of recommendations should >> we consider? > > > 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: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/internet-governance/multi-stakeholder-engagement/wsis/ripencc-ecwg-submission-201612.pdf > > 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. > > 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. > > Happy, as always, to discuss any questions or comments. Meanwhile, best > wishes to those celebrating Christmas/New Year in the coming days and weeks! > > Cheers, > > Chris Buckridge > External Relations Manager > RIPE NCC
