[governance] Report of the Open consultation on Internet Governance

Wed Sep 14 12:20:01 EDT 2005

Please find enclosed the report on the Informal Consultation on
Internet Governance, convened by Ambassador Khan on 6 September 2005.
The Food for Thought document is available at:
www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/consultations/6sep/food-for-thought.doc.

Open consultation on Internet Governance

6 September 2005

Ambassador Khan from Pakistan, Chairman-designate of PrepCom-3
Sub-Committee A, first made a short presentation of the « Food for
thought » document. The purpose of this paper was to give guidance to
all stakeholders, and the approach at this stage was only to raise
questions. This was not an official document and was not part of the
WSIS negotiation process.

He later on reminded that the two bases for negotiations for Chapter 3
on Internet Governance would be the Geneva Principles and the WGIG
report, since the text on Internet Governance would have to facilitate
the implementation of the Geneva principles.

The USA delivered a series of general comments on the procedural
aspects of this consultation and questioned the overly technical
content of the Food for Thought paper, as well as the fact that the
WGIG report should not be considered as a basis for negotiations. This
was reiterated a second time by the US delegation later on during the
discussion. The UK, on behalf of the EU, only recognized that the
structure of this paper was a good base for negotiations. However both
delegations would give more comments during PrepCom-3.

Further to a question from Greece, Dr. Tim Kelly clarified that the
WSIS ES received so far more than 300 pages of comments, so that the
compilation had been made in a selective way to set down a readable
and useful document. The compilation also included some contributions
from non accredited entities, such as CS caucuses.

Geneva principles

Nicaragua, on behalf of GRULAC, said that the information society
should focus on people and that WSIS opened an excellent opportunity
to make progress in building the Information Society through the
Internet. Internet Governance needs to be transparent, democratic and
multi-stakeholder oriented, in accordance with the provisions of the
Geneva Declaration.

Pakistan, on behalf of the Asian Group, underlined that the discussion
on basic IG principles agreed in Geneva should in no way be reopened
in Phase 2. Security and stability of the internet should be only
considered as one of the eight principles agreed in Geneva, as also
supported later on by Brazil (who also asked what the difference
between the Geneva Principles and the Guidance principles was), Iran
and El Salvador. Honduras argued that security and stability of the
internet should not prevail over the other principles, such as access
for all and an equitable distribution of resources.

Internet Governance working definition

Pakistan stated that the democratic and transparent nature of IG
should be clearly highlighted in the working definition adopted in
Tunis, which should not be limited to its descriptive aspects. Iran
added that the prescriptive part of the definition should also be
retained. El Salvador stressed that the text to be adopted in Tunis
should guarantee that this definition, which was a very good basis, is
not definitive. Bertrand de la Chapelle (www.wsis-online.net)
mentioned that the working definition represented a significant
progress, and gave a practical framework including national and
regional dimensions.

Stakeholder participation

Pakistan stressed the need to deal with stakeholder involvement in
accordance with the Geneva principles. Iran proposed that mention be
given to the shared responsibility of all stakeholders, including
corporate responsibility to create an enabling environment for the
development of ICTs. Mr. de la Chapelle underlined the need to mention
precisely the principle of a shared responsibility of all stakeholders
in the definition of IG. In addition, as based on the principles
agreed in Geneva, any mechanisms adopted should be multi-stakeholder
based. The Internet Society stressed the importance that internet
users participate in this process.

Policy issues

Nicaragua stressed that questions related to funding, access for all,
security and stability of the Internet, as well as multilingualism and
accountability should also be strong elements of IG.

Francis Muguet (ENSTA) regretted that the scientific community had not
been included enough in the WGIG report. This was, he said, the reason
why many issues were ignored or misunderstood in the document, such as
the question of free software, technical aspects of DNS, or a
scientific approach to security and stability of the Internet,
including spam.

Israel pointed to the need to prevent religious intolerance on the
Internet, as well as to combat the use of the Internet by terrorist
networks. Multilingualism should also be strongly promoted.

The Internet Society asserted that Section 4-a., on infrastructures
and management of critical internet resources, did not include a
positive language yet (e.g. Internet Society's response to the WGIG
report).

Development issues

Brazil stressed the specific needs of developing countries, which are
looking for a better access to knowledge. Egypt welcomed the content
of the document in terms of development issues, noting that
discussions on other stakeholder comments had been very fruitful.
However, Egypt added that other elements contained in the WGIG report
should be retained in Chapter 3, such as access for all.

Forum function

Nicaragua briefly underlined the need for a constructive and open
debate on the IG-related work after Tunis. Pakistan, noting that none
of the four proposed forum models enjoyed any consensus, proposed more
detailed consideration of the issue.

Brazil urged Member States to take a decision to fix up and improve
the IG system, which does not work up to its full capacity under its
current organization. Technical expertise, to be provided by ICANN,
and political guidance should both be developed in the Internet
governance system. Developing countries also need a better access at
the decision-taking level. Chairman Khan answered that the discussion
on how to fix the IG system should be more specific (such as the
creation of an international organization, or new relations between
ICANN and the GAP, etc.). Brazil later on clarified its position,
stressing the need to establish a global internet forum to address
policy issues, giving the example of religious intolerance or the .xxx
domain name. The Tunis outcome document should therefore give a
precise guidance to establish such a forum.

Iran stressed that the four IG models developed by the WGIG report
were articulated around a "Forum+" arrangement, while the Food For
Thought document only referred to a forum in isolation. Participation
of States should be guaranteed at the international policy level to
prevent the IG model to be jeopardized by domestic interests.

Based on the conclusion that the scientific community was not included
enough in the WGIG report, Francis Muguet (ENSTA) emphasized that IG
required an international legal framework for a multi-stakeholder
internet governance forum which could effectively work. Bertrand de la
Chapelle supported that the framework for IG follow-up should rather
be related to the global WSIS framework. The GFC definition of
follow-up provided three elements, but the policy dimension was still
in a void in the GFC proposal, in which a multi-stakeholder forum
framework for policy debate was still missing. The definition of
principles for multi-stakeholder participation in the IG Forum would
be one of the major concerns of all during PrepCom-3.

Working methods for Sub-Committee A on Internet governance

According to Brazil, there would be two ways to go ahead: the first
one is to follow and pick some elements of the Chair's proposal as a
basis for negotiations; the second option is that the Tunis Summit
would take note of the WGIG report and would take further decision.

CCBI raised several questions about procedures and working methods
during PrepCom-3 with Sub-Committee B on IG, proposing that the
speaking time for business entities be more flexibly distributed, for
more productive contributions from observers to the process. CCBI also
requested that business entities could participate in the work of the
drafting groups. Ambassador Karklins answered that the allocation of
speaking slots for observer entities would be at the discretion of the
Chairman of the Sub-Committee, provided that it would fit with the 15
minutes as decided. ICANN underlined as well that the participation of
NGOs and of other stakeholders was an important element in the
on-going negotiations, in order to maximize their expertise in the
process.

By closing the meeting, Chairman Khan encouraged stakeholders to have
formal and informal discussion on IG, to continue to send
contributions and to submit joint statements.

-- 
Jacqueline Morris
www.carnivalondenet.com
T&T Music and videos online

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance