WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus

Response to the WGIG Report (draft ajp Aug 11)

SECTION/PARAGRPAH	
I. Introduction (1 to 7)	1. The WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus expresses its strong support and appreciation for the process and outcome of WGIG. We believe WGIG to the best extent possible achieved the mandate set for it by the WSIS Geneva Declaration of Principles and Plan of Action. 2. We believe that the high quality of the report is the result of both the multi-stakeholder collaboration and the open and inclusive consultation with the wider WSIS community. We want to thank Ambassador Desai and Mr. Kummer for their commitment and dedication to this approach, pioneering new ways of collaboration across sectors and communities demonstrating a shift from the principle of the multi-stakeholder approach to putting it in practice. 3. We also would like to commend all members of WGIG for their openness and hard work. The successful outcome of WGIG wouldn't have been possible without your dedication. We hope that the multi-stakeholder approach as explored by WGIG will become a reference model for future WSIS discussions, for other organizations to adopt, and that future processes will build upon.
II. Working definition of Internet governance (8 to 12)	4. We welcome the adoption of a broad working definition of Internet Governance. This definition allows all stakeholders to bring to the table any existing or future internet governance related issue and facilitates the development of a holistic and inclusive global dialogue on ways to continually improve governance arrangements. (AJP: I would like to criticize the use of facility to describe the Internet. I think the definition makes more sense when seeing the Internet as a "platform" on which things are built/enabled.) Karenb: I think we should also comment on the lack of reference to the history of the internet – as noted by bian peter in the MarkII response – ian, do you have any language we can add here? Though, this should be in reference to the introduction, Section I
III. Identifying public policy issues that are relevant to Internet governance and assessing the adequacy of existing governance arrangements (13 to 28)	General 5. With regard to public policy issues, the caucus expresses its appreciation for the comprehensive nature of the issues outlined in the background document, and the prioritisation of issues requiring immediate attention, as outlined in the WGIG report. 6. In particular, we support the emphasis of fundamental values that civil society advocates - such as freedom of expression, data protection and privacy rights, consumer rights, multilingualism, capacity building and meaningful participation in internet governance processes. These values are cornerstones that contribute to enabling people-centered information and communication societies that are open to all. 7. This enumeration of values helps all stakeholder groups to develop a better understanding of the variety and the interdependence of problems that need attention at a range of levels. It highlights that finding solutions to these problems will require the cooperation of all stakeholders.
Para 15 and 76	(WGIG report para 15 and 76, NTIA statement "U.S. principles on the Internet's Domain Name and Addressing System," of June 30, 2005.) karenb: have left just this first para here, and the full statement moved down to Section V 8. We would like to underscore that unilateral control of the root zone file is a public policy issue. We agree with WGIG that no single government should have a pre-eminent role in global governance of the logical infrastructure of the Internet.
	Issues in need of further development or absent from the report 9. We are concerned that some issues, which we consider to be priority public policy issues requiring immediate attention, are not included, or are not addressed significantly/substantially in the WGIG report. We also note that two issues, "Allocation of domain names" (para 21) and "Intellectual property rights" (para 23), are identified as important issues relevant to Internet governance, but the report makes no corresponding policy recommendation in Section V, B. karenb: think a general statement that the fact that these are public policy issues, which don’t have a natural ‘home’ or that their home if not taking into account the intersection with internet governance, makes the forum an important place for ongoing discussion. And, maybe this whole section can be revised to be written as statements of problem, with corresponding recommendations in section V (as the report does)
Is there no reference to this at all in the report?	a. Adapting and implementing WSIS principles within existing intergovernmental and international organizations is an area that needs urgent attention. This should be a priority issue for the proposed forum to consider.
Paras 24 and 81	b. Human rights and Freedom of Expression (Article 19) and Privacy (Article 29) We are pleased to see the recognition of the imperative of upholding universally agreed human rights and data protection in relation to measures to address security and the investigation of crimes committed online. However, we feel that the report could have been strengthened by addressing human rights as a cross-cutting principle, with particular reference to Articles 19 and 29, in relation to the development and application of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet. Nothing in Internet governance negotiations must impair, restrict, or contradict these rights. Karenb: that is fine, suggest we send this quickly to the human rights caucus to comment on
Paras 17 and 79	c. Internet Stability, Security and ‘Cybercrime’ Governments should address privacy and security jointly and transparently, in cooperation with all stakeholders. Invasions of privacy must be prevented, and where privacy is outweighed by other societal claims there must be clear rules, subject to independent judicial oversight, setting forth the conditions under which it can be violated. We strongly support paragraphs 24, 25 and 81, 83 of the report: measures taken in relation to the Internet on grounds of security, stability or to fight crime must not violate rights to freedom of expression or rights expressed in Article 19 and Article 29. Karenb: that is fine, suggest we send this quickly to the privacy-security caucus to comment on
Para 23	d. Intellectual property rights Whilst we welcome that the vastly divergent views on the fairness of the current intellectual property rights regime have been acknowledged, we would like to raise three public policy issues of concern: Karenb: do we want to make a recommendation the three issues? i. The application of traditional IPR rules to cyberspace creates unique challenges that necessitate the need for assessment and reform. Karenb: Recommendation? – this is really very general though, it could be combined with the first sentence and made as a statement of the general problem. ii. New instruments to govern Intellectual Property on the Internet (such as WIPO's Internet Treaties, and the UDRP) have been developed without effective consideration of the rights of users. Karenb: the above is a statement of fact, the following could be a recommendation on point ii but developed (how interests should be taken into account) We believe that organisations responsible for developing such instruments must look to the interests of end-users and society as they have been articulated in other IP legislation such as copyright and fair use, and provide an ongoing voice for these interests. Karenb: the following is also a recommendation – could be moved to section V We further believe that key technologies and standards underpinning the Internet should be made available for use free of charge and not subject to capture or control by any single government or entity. We hope that the WSIS negotiations are able to take these issues into account and develop more balanced policies. (ajp: could/should we mention CAFTA exporting DMCA? Not first time. I have no ideas for language.) karenb: can you resphrase it as a statement of fact? It is then easier to form recommendations
No reference, background report only	e. Universal Access Building an inclusive and global framework to address internet governance issues will be largely meaningless if more than half of the world's population have no access to its potential benefits. Affordable and universal access is one of the most obvious issue that needs to be addressed in this context as a matter of public policy, requiring attention in its own right within the relationship between ICTs and development. In the absence of coordinated global governance that addresses access to critical ICT and internet infrastructure as a global, regional and national public good, the important goal of achieving universal access to the internet will not be achieved. Karenb: I think we need a recommendation on this – I will draft some language – or, we rely on the ‘catch-all’ introduction (the forum etc) and work on more specific recommendations before prepcom
Paras 16 and 78	f. interconnection costs With regard to international interconnection charges, the Caucus believes that there must be international rules encouraging fair, cost-oriented charging, considering that developing countries pay the full cost of the circuits involved. This is a matter of considerable urgency that should be investigated in relevant international fora like the ITU, WTO and the proposed forum. Karenb: ditto above
No reference (background report only)	g. Open content: The WSIS Declaration of Principles states that the "ability for all to access and contribute information, ideas and knowledge is essential in an inclusive Information Society". We believe this implies the free access to knowledge that is developed using public resources for public good purposes. Both governments and intergovernmental agencies should be encouraged to make relevant information available via the internet, and adopt open and alternative content licensing schemes that support the diffusion of that knowledge. Karenb: Ditto above
Paras 27 and 85	h. Cultural diversity and inclusion Bodies responsible for international Internet governance functions should reflect the priorities of all affected cultures in their operations. They should ensure an effective voice for all cultures in the deliberations and decision-making processes of these bodies. Such representation will facilitate the development of local content in local languages, help implement IDNs, and ensure that other trans-border issues are confronted in an effective and culturally appropriate manner. Karenb: ditto above
No reference, only in background paper	i. Free and open source software We welcome the reference to FOSS in the background paper but continue to advocate that the use of FOSS should be a priority over other alternatives whenever and wherever possible. In particular, government bidding should take into account that opting for usually more expensive proprietary solutions when there are equivalent FOSS alternatives could make them subject to popular legal action on the grounds of mismanagement of public funds (is this correct, sued for not using Linux… could we just say it's cheaper, more secure, and better!). Karenb: carlos drafted this text and there was a similar comment at the time – carlos, can we redraft?
IV: Developing a common understanding of the respective roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders from both developed and developing countries (29 to 30)	
Para 29	10. The caucus believes the academic and technical communities, are, for the main part, constituents of Civil Society. Karenb: do we not want to acknowledge their specific contribution in relation to development of the internet at all?
Paras 30, 31, 32	11. We appreciate the attempt to recognize the roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders, government, civil society, private sector in internet governance processes. However, we are concerned that the specific roles of the civil society and the private sector in relation to that of government are not fully defined, allowing for ambiguous and/or different interpretations. WSIS Declaration of Principles, para. 49 on which WGIG based its work is flawed, as it fails to recognize the multi-faceted nature of ICT policy making processes and makes simplistic assignments of responsibilities. Consequently, paragraphs 30,31,32 read as a hastily compiled ‘shopping list’ of roles and responsibilitues.
	Ajp: (I think we will need to develop answers to justify 12 and 13 further, challenged by both India and Brazil during the WGIG consultation.) Karenb: I have tried to respond to the concerns of government delegations who oppose ‘representation’ by (largely) northern based CSO’s lobbying on behalf of ‘their’ citizens, but am not sure the following quite does it. Policy development in relation to internet governance specifically, and ICT policy more generally, is becoming more and more the realm of international and intergovernmental spaces. The caucus acknowledges that sovereign rights of governments should not be compromised and that in some cases, national level policy-making is inclusive of civil society and other stake-holders. In such cases, it could be surmised that the interests of civil society are advocated effectively through government delegations, particularly where such delegations include civil society and other stakeholders. However, we must acknowledge that truly effective ‘bottom-up’ national policy-making processes, that include the meaningful participation of civil society and other stake-holders is not universal, and that international spaces are often important avenues for national civil society delegates to make their voices heard. We strongly advocate for a mutually reinforcing process of support for ‘bottom-up’ national level multi-stakeholder processes and an enabling environment for meaningful participation by civil society in public policy processes at regional and international levels, given the expanded diversity of stakeholders in this context.
	13. As demonstrated through WGIG, civil society participation provides an efficient way of gaining important perspectives that fall outside the scope of private sector organisations or may not yet have become substantial policy issues in individual countries.
V. “Proposals for action, as appropriate”	14. With regard to the recommendations of the report, we express our full agreement with the overarching goal of enhancing the legitimacy of Internet Governance arrangements. We also agree that capacity building in developing areas and the effective and meaningful participation of all stakeholders around the world are the most essential steps in reaching this goal.
A. Recommendations related to Internet governance mechanisms (35-39)	
Forum function (40 to 47)	15. The caucus supports the establishment of a new forum to address the broad agenda of Internet governance issues, provided it is truly global, inclusive, and multi-stakeholder in composition. Stakeholders from all sectors must be able to participate in such a forum as equal peers. 16 The forum should be established on condition that there is agreement on its scope, structure, membership and modalities, and that its activities are fully funded for an appropriate period of time (example, 2 years.) The caucus recommends that Sub-Committee A create a multi-stakeholder working group to address these and other issue regarding the forum function. 17. The forum should not be anchored in any existing specialized international organization, but rather should be organized as a legally free-standing entity. If this is impossible, then the forum should be organized directly under the auspices of the United Nations Secretary General. 18. The forum should not by default have a mandate to negotiate hard instruments like treaties or contracts. However, in very exceptional circumstances when the parties all agree that such instruments are needed, there could be a mechanism that allows for their establishment. Normally, the forum should focus on the development of soft law instruments such as recommendations, guidelines, declarations, etc. 19. In substantive terms, the forum should provide, inter alia, the following functions: Inclusive dialogue, with a differentiated architecture allowing for peer-level interaction where appropriate, i.e. in working groups (here the ITU model is instructive, i.e. in the different ways study groups and plenaries work); systematic monitoring of trends; comparative, cross-sectoral analysis of governance mechanisms, with an eye toward "lessons learned" and best practices that could inform individual and collective institutional improvements, (WGIG Report para 72); assessment of horizontal issues applicable to all arrangements, e.g. the promotion of transparency, accountability, inclusion, and other principles of "good governance"; identification of weaknesses and gaps in the governance architecture, i.e. "orphaned" or multidimensional issues that do not fall neatly within the ambit of any existing body; identification of potential tensions between separately developed mechanisms, and possibly efforts to promote enhanced coordination among them; promotion of decentralized convergence among positions and initiatives, where possible; pre-decision agenda setting that could, inter alia, feed into the work of other bodies; monitor governance mechanisms to ensure they are open to and facilitate the participation of developing nations and civil society. assist and support organizations and other entities dealing with Internet governance issues to improve their coordination and exchange of information. provide a clearing house for coordination, resource mobilization, identification of new needs and gaps, in relation to supporting meaningful developing country participation and capacity building
Global public policy and oversight (48 to 71)	20. The caucus finds model one to be unworkable and not in keeping with the inclusive processes recommended throughout the WGIG report. Model two is clearly the most workable, however, aspects of models three and four may enrich other approaches. Ajp: (I don't get what was being said in the original. Think we need to support the simplest and most straight forward model: two.) Karenb: I think the above was our ‘starting point’ – only to rule out model one categorically – however, model 4 clearly sees CS in largely an advisory role, so would be unacceptable at least in that respect. APC is leaning towards a combination of models 2 and 3 – I would prefer we narrow this down a little and be more specific about what we do like.. 21. Civil Society believes that it is clear that oversight is a significant issue which needs further discussion. To this end, we would support the establishment of a multi-stakeholder working group (under auspices of the Chair of Sub-Committee A) to explore approaches mutually acceptable to all stakeholders in the lead up to the WSIS summit. We also indicate our willingness to work with all stakeholders, and as a caucus, towards evolution and acceptance of a single model. 22. An acceptable oversight solution, from a civil society point of view, is one which: Can accept inputs from the proposed global forum structure Allows multi-stakeholder input into policy evolution Ensures meaningful participation of all stakeholders from developing countries Focuses on shared responsibility and shared sovereignty rather than the notions of oversight, control and power in relation to management of critical resources Does not allow dominance or perceived dominance by any one country 23. We believe that this broad issue and in particular the issue of governance structures as regards the root zone authorisation function should be addressed with some urgency. 24. The acceptance of a single root for the DNS is an important enabler of the Internet's international reach Governance arrangements for the root zone file should be outside the control of any individual government, and broadly acceptable to all stakeholders. Failure to address this issue will lead to an increase in the number of alternative root structures that could impact negatively on the Internet's security, stability and interoperability. Under the current addressing scheme, this could lead to the fragmentation of the Internet and the user community.
Institutional coordination (72) Pursuant to paragraph 50 of the WSIS Declaration of Principles, the WGIG recommends that the secretariats of intergovernmental organizations and other institutions dealing with Internet governance issues continue to improve the coordination of their activities and exchange information on a regular basis, both among themselves and with the forum.	Karenb: I suggest we move our comments regards international and intergovernmentals aligning their proceses with WSIS principles, in addition to coordination – we don’t just want better coordination, we want better access to their processes – or, we just leave for the recommendations – next para
Regional and national coordination (73) The WGIG noted that international coordination needs to build on policy coordination at the national level. Global Internet governance can only be effective if there is coherence with regional, subregional and national-level policies. The WGIG therefore recommends: (a) That the multi-stakeholder approach be implemented as far as possible in all regions in order for the work on Internet governance to be fully supported at the regional and subregional levels; (b) That coordination be established among all stakeholders at the national level and a multi-stakeholder national Internet governance steering committee or similar body be set up.	Karenb: Any comments?
B. Recommendations to address Internet-related issues (74 to 85)	25. We share the WGIG’s observation that there are significant barriers to the participation of all stakeholders in governance mechanisms and that international and intergovernmental organizations, including private sector or self-regulatory bodies that establish governance mechanisms impacting stakeholders outside the business community, should take measures to enable effective participation from developing countries and from civil society in their discussions and decision making processes.
Para 76: Administration of the root zone files and root server system of the domain name system (DNS)	Karenb: would like for people to comment on this, any edits etc, in light of the recent meeting in washington Milton and willie currie attended (I will get willie to look at this) Root Zone file and NTIA statement (WGIG report para 15 and 76, NTIA statement "U.S. principles on the Internet's Domain Name and Addressing System," of June 30, 2005.) 26. We would like to underscore that unilateral control of the root zone file is a public policy issue. We agree with WGIG that no single government should have a pre-eminent role in global governance of the logical infrastructure of the Internet. 27. We welcome the clarification provided by the US government statement of June 30, however it raises a number of important concerns. 28. Since issuing the statement the US government has explained that it regards the DNS as critical to the stable and secure operation of the Internet and, consequently, until such time as a workable alternative to the current arrangement is presented and agreed, it will maintain its historic and current role. 29. The caucus recognizes the validity of this position, and recommends that: a.) in keeping with the US government's recognition that governments have legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns with respect to the management of their ccTLD, and has welcomed the further opportunity for dialogue on these issues and seems committed to ensuring progress, the US government should state that it will take no action to cause any TLD to be removed from the root zone file, or any redelegation to occur, without the explicit approval of the government or economy responsible for the TLD in the case of ccTLD and contracting party with ICANN in the case of any other TLD. This to be monitored by ICANN GAC. (I'm not confident about this… does it help?) b.) Sub-Committee A establish a working group to explore how the process of authorizing changes or modifications to the authoritative root zone file (authorizing additions, deletions and redelegations) can be agreed to the mutual satisfaction of all stakeholders in the lead up to the Tunis WSIS summit. 30. Regarding the statement made by Michael D. Gallagher, Assistant secretary at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). (no idea how to deal with the rest of this statement. I think OK to leave.) 31. In the absence of any clarification (requested above), the statement is interpreted as a manifestation of a US strategy that it will never give up its control over core Internet resources including root zone file, root server operation, Domain Name and IP address management, and related resource management. 32. More specifically, it indicates that the current contractual framework regarding US unilateral control over the root zone file will be maintained for an indefinite time into the future This directly contradicts the consensus of WGIG: "No single Government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international Internet governance" (in para 48 of the WGIG report"). 33. The US statement also appears to indicate that US will maintain its oversight of ICANN, without describing which areas or functions of ICANN are the target object of the oversight. This contradicts our understanding of the widely publicized positions of the US Government and ICANN that they will not renew the Memorandum of Understanding at its expiry date of September 2006 and thus ICANN will gain an international independence, once ICANN and its community demonstrate its ability to guarantee stability and security of a critical global resource under its own authority. 34. The statement makes it difficult for the world to believe that ICANN is, or can ever become, the trusted and fair broker it needs to be. We would like to hear from the US representative whether this apparent shift/turn around is what it seems. 35. Civil Society does not fully endorse the current state of ICANN, especially in their representational structures and policy development processes, and recognizes that there is a lot of room for improvement to enhance the participation of all stakeholders as is outlined in the WGIG report. However, we also consider that the model the ICANN community has developed to date is still far better than the direction the US statement revealed. 36. We understand that the current ICANN model puts the technical community in charge of technical resource development, management and operation, while it provides an adequate framework for coordination and cooperation among private sector (including the technical community), governments and civil society (including users and non-commercial entities) in its policy development and decision making process. 37. We call for the evolutionary yet significant improvement of this framework, one that enhances the stable, secure and innovative functioning of the Internet, and provides increased authority achieved by the consensual agreement and involvement of all stakeholders. 38. Unilateral oversight without consent of other stakeholders will not contribute to the long-term stability and security of the Internet for the benefit of all users and citizens, and may place stability and security at risk.
CONCLUSION	39. In conclusion we would like to emphasize the following points: 40. A new forum is needed to address the broad agenda of Internet governance issues provided it is truly global, inclusive, and multi-stakeholder in composition. We recommend that Sub-committee A establish a multi-stakeholder working group to make suggestions on scope, structure, membership, modalities and funding models for the forum. 41. While there is not yet consensus on how to organize oversight with regard to the core resources, there is a consensus that oversight is an issue that needs further discussion. We recommend that Sub-committee A establish a multi-stakeholder working group to make suggestions on oversight. Karenb: I think it would be good if we indicated which models we are supporting 42. The prioritised public policy issues form part of an "agenda for action" but should not exclude other issues considered to require urgent attention. Rather, all outcomes of the WGIG process should feed into a comprehensive research and action programme with an immediate need of more detail and substance to the issues. It has been helpful to acknowledge the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders. What is needed now is greater detail in terms of how, in what ways and at what levels, stakeholders can interact, build and represent constituencies and collaborate in existing and emerging internet governance mechanisms. 43. We would like to restate that there are significant barriers to the participation of all stakeholders in governance mechanisms. Capacity building in developing areas to enable and ensure the effective and meaningful participation of all stakeholders around the world are essential elements underlying all our discussion on Internet governance. Capacity building and ensuring the meaningful participation of all stakeholders must be a priority going forward.

Heading bit

karen

2005-08-12T15:28:00

karen banks