[governance] Internet Governance : CS Declaration / TunisDeclaration

[Milton Mueller]

Bertrand has made some valuable suggestions and I look forward to
discussing them here and on the list. I wish to make two broader
observations:

1. WGIG Report as basis for negotiations
I am disturbed by the apparent passive acceptance of the demand by the
US that the WGIG report should not be the basis of negotiations. To me,
this represents an obvious contradiction of the intent of the WG in the
first place, and an enormous setback for our cause(s). I have trouble
understanding how other governments, much less CS, have let this happen.


2. Principles and Conventions
I know I will sound like a broken record here, but it is becoming clear
that WSIS/WGIG's attempt to jump straight from a Summit to detailed
organizational and procedural changes in Internet governance will not
work - and could never have worked. A framework convention, or some
other way to get governments to agree to start negotiating on basic
principles of Internet governance without committing themselves to
anything, will have to come first. Perhaps we (IGP) were wrong that we
were ready to go directly to a FC from WGIG, but it is also manifest
that you are not going to create new organizations or specific changes
in root server oversight until the key state actors have agreed to first
negotiate about what principles and norms are going to guide those
changes. 

I wish to amplify Bill Drake's warnings about the GAC. There is a real
danger that instead of deliberate, negotiated agreements on principles
and norms, we will get some kind of ad hoc empowerment of ICANN's GAC.
As I have pointed out in several writings, the GAC is potentially a very
dangerous animal, because it has NO defined procedures and in insulated
from ICANN's already weak accountability structures. And if it achieves
influence over ICANN its decisions cannot be ignored by governments that
don't accept them. If enforced via ICANN's control of the root, its
decisions apply to every country. 

>>> Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle at gmail.com> 09/17/05 4:01 PM
>>>
Dear Wolfgang and all,
 I am indeed in favor of a CS declaration on Internet Governance at
Tunis. 
But that does not mean we should not get involved now in the drafting 
process of the Tunis Declaration part dedicated to Internet Governance.
This 
is the purpose of my 10 questions. If Bill has taken the time to read
them, 
they are not a reopening of the WGIG debate and they are right on the
topic 
of the proposed structure of Amb. Khan. 
 The key issue of PrepCom3 is NOT yet the drafting of an alternative 
declaration (although it is worth discussing there its principle and
general 
outline depending on how negociations evolve). It is not only to
discuss the 
issues addressed by the WGIG in more detail. The purpose IS to monitor

closely the discussions on the text the governments are drafting an try
to 
have an impact. How do we want it to be structured, what are the
minimal 
elements and the things we do not want ? How do we plan to lobby ? who
are 
the allies, on what topics ?
 To be more concrete, I do believe that governments will not agree in 
PrepCom3 and probably not even during the Summit on substantive aspects
and 
probably not even on more than a multi-stakeholder principle and the
need to 
continue discussing this question. Using amb. Khan's structure as guide
for 
the moment, I believe they will agree on : 
1) an introduction on :
- the mandate of WGIG and a note of its report (suggestion of Brazil) 
- a reiteration of the Geneva Principles (multilateral , etc ...) This
is 
where my question 3 comes : should we ask for the replacement of 
multilateral by multi-stakeholder ?
- the affirmation of security, stability, etc..of the Internet as a
common 
objective/guiding principle This is where my question 4 comes :
inserting 
the notion of "shared responsibility" ? I would add : should we ask to
have 
this paragraph moved one level up, before the principles ?
2) a definition of Internet Governance : this is where my question 2
comes : 
do we endorse the WGIG's definition ?
3) separating infrastructure and management of critical internet
resources 
[Part 4a)], (that is : ICANN), from other Policy issues [part 4b)],
without 
getting in detail in the substance of the latter. This is where my
questions 
5, 6 and 7 come in. 
4) a part devoted to "development-related issues" This is where my
question 
8 comes in 
 Very open questions will be : 
- the relationships between governments and ICANN : I do not believe
there 
will be any possible agreement there before Tunis among governments.
the 
only option (last minute compromize like last time) will probably be to

address this question after Tunis in the general framework of the
follow-up 
to the present ICANN MoU. This is related to my questions 5 and 6 :
what 
should be the framework for the discussion of the follow-up to ICANN's
MoU ? 
how should it associate all stakeholders ?
- the establishment of a Forum [resp Fora] : there the devil is in the

details and the key question is what form/procedures should such 
mechanism(s) adopt ? This is my questions 9 and 10. Question 10 in 
particular is of great importance, as it addresses the possible
relationship 
between different parts of the draft Tunis Document and could allow to
get 
on one side (implementation) what is not obtained on the other
(Internet 
Governance).
 So, sorry to insist, but these questions are very operational and down
to 
the point. Add other if you want - they are very welcome - but if you
don't 
address them, don't complain afterwards that CS positions are not taken
into 
account. Most diplomats in the room are not like us all, passionate
about 
Internet Governance. Apart from the general US-China battle on
oversight, 
most of them don't care a damn about these issues - if they understand
them 
-. In four months, most of them will not even think about the
information 
society and this summit any more. All they want is to be offer their
heads 
of state an agreement in Tunis, even if it is only to set up a specific

mechanism to address these issues further. Let's help them in a way
that 
sets the future activities in a proper balance. 
 Looking forward to seeing you soon. 
 Best
 Bertrand
  For clarity, I reproduce below the 10 questions of my previous mail
:
  
1) is Amb. Khan's document STRUCTURE appropriate as a starting point ?
if 
not, what would we like ? 

2) is the working definition of Internet Governance in the WGIG report

something we can live with ? (I personnally can and commend the work of
the 
group on that point, but others may differ) 

3) can we manage / should we try to replace the formulation
"multilateral, 
transparent and democratic with the full involvement of all
stakeholders" by 
"multi- stakeholder, transparent and democratic", arguing that the
second 
part of the present formulation is always dropped ? 

4) can we / should we insert - as some government delegations including

Salvador are also requesting - a notion that the security, stability, 
continuity and development of the Internet as a Global facility is the

"shared responsibility" of all stakeholders ? 

5) should the issues listed in Part 4a) be placed in the general
framework 
of the revision of ICANN's MoU ? I suppose this issue will not find its

solution within WSIS but that, like in the first phase, WSIS may call
for 
the establishment of a broad debate / work group on the reform of
ICANN : should
we support/propose such an exit route if it offers enough guarantees of

multi-stakeholderism ? 

6) on the role of governments - and not simply the so- called
"oversight 
function" - what do we really accept / support / wish ? 

7) should a mechanism be proposed for the identification of new issues
in 
addition to the ones listed in Part 4 b) ? Are the existing ones
appropriate 
? 

8) what formulations can be proposed to avoid that Part 5 on measures
to 
promote development have substance and do not become a simple
reiteration of 
the formulations of the Geneva DoP and PoA ? 

9) do we want a new multi-stakeholder Forum or the guarantee that all
fora 
(existing or new ones) function on the basis of true and effective 
participation of all stakeholders, with a minimal set of agreed rules 
(Governance Protocol) and coordination mechanisms ? 
10) last - but not least - is there / should there be any articulation

between the fora mechanisms dealing with Internet Policy issues that
this 
Chapter 3 addresses and the "policy debate" section of the newly
proposed 
Chapter one on follow-up ?
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance