[governance] Internet Governance : 10 questions for PrepCom3

[William Drake]

Hi Bertrand,

Thanks for the interesting thoughts.  I guess my view would be that a)
there's really no need to spend time rethinking elements of the WGIG
report which, as you note, will not be the basis for negotiations, and b)
given the usual difficulties of building consensus among people on site
and on list in the midst of a fast moving negotiation, sorting through ten
questions might be a bit of a challenge.

To me, the really pressing items that we should concentrate on are
three-fold: 1) the forum, 2) NTIA and the zone file, and 3) the liklihood
that there will be a real press on the part of various parties--and
importantly, not just from the developing world---to see GAC turned into
an intergovernmental organization, or something like it, that would have
the ability to instruct the ICANN board in certain instances to be
defined.

The caucus has previously endorsed 1), which I'd guess has a 70% chance,
more if the USG refuses to consider the others.  2) CS people have put
forward some interesting ideas about this in the past, e.g. a
custodianship relationship via MOU or whatever, but I don't think we've
ever really tried to come to a clear position on a new model.  3) would
probably be as divisive here as it is elsewhere, but I'd think we have to
come to a clear position, and just saying no, if that's the most broadly
shared view, won't be very compelling to the governments---an argument
would be needed as to how one can get greater accountability etc. within
the existing framework, which I doubt many governments will accept.  Since
the USG probably will not go for 2, 3 might be harder to take off the
table than one would have thought.  Of course, they could just go Bolton; 
Gallaghar will be attending for at least the first few days in the second
week.  It could be lively.

Best,

Bill


> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Bertrand de LA
> CHAPELLE
> Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 8:49 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: [governance] Internet Governance : 10 questions for PrepCom3
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> PrepCom3 is probably the last real opportunity to influence
> drafting of the Tunis Document : even if there is a last
> minute compromise session three days before the summit
> itself, it will be in Tunis, with probably no access for
> civil society to the drafting committees, worse than last
> time in Geneva. Two weeks of PrepCom may seem long but they
> will fly quickly and there is a need to focus on the
> essentials of what can be achieved.
>
> PrepCom3 is about two major elements :
> - follow-up / implementation
> - Internet Governance
>
> I believe Internet Governance is going to be the major
> fighting ground among governments up to the summit. In that
> context, we must list the key questions we want to see
> addressed. I propose 10 below as a starting point to help
> move forward.
>
> INTERNET GOVERNANCE WILL BE CENTRAL IN PrepCom3
>
> The open meeting on Sept 6 clearly demonstrated that
> governments :
> - care less about implementation than about Internet
> Governance (judging by the very different attendance of
> ambassadors in the morning and the afternoon)
> - care less about general governance issues than about the
> obvious root server question (ie ICANN evolution).
>
> We can therefore expect an easy watering down of text on
> implementation and a progressively more heated debate on
> Internet Governance.
>
> The reason for this situation is probably as follows :
>
> - on implementation, no government really supports a strong
> implementation framework : developped countries by fear
> (sincere or pretended) of creating a "new bureacracy" and
> some developing ones by fear of seeing others mingling with
> their sovereign right to prevent the emergence of an open
> society; as a result, the wording in the GFC report has
> already been toned down from previous documents, as Ralf and
> Parminder have noted (and even more in the very last
> version, as identified in my review of modifications sent to
> the Plenary list); the risk is only to see this trend
> accelerate; still there could be ways to leverage the
> present formulations in a positive way.
>
> - on Internet Governance, things are different. China,
> Brazil, India or South Africa devote most of their attention
> and efforts to the ICANN question, because it is an
> opportunity to oppose the US and affirm their status of
> major Regional Digital Power. This focus has two additional
> benefits : first, it is also a way to try and reinstall the
> paradigm of the primacy of governments in the only field
> where they are the ones knocking at the door to enter; and
> second, this debate distracts attention from other
> unpleasant issues such as freedom of expression or
> censorship. (By the way, the fact that in this whole
> process, the United States have managed to let themselves
> become the country under fire on such an specific point as
> oversight of the root server when there are so many
> violations of freedom of expression and so many denials of
> access to the internet and information in general in
> oppressive regimes is beyond my comprehension.)
>
> So Internet Governance - our main issue of interest on this
> list - is going to be central during PrepCom3. In particular
> I suspect we will soon see the .xxx question used
> systematically to counter the "if it ain't broken, don't fix
> it" theme used repetitively by the US representatives.
> Governments such as Brazil see this as an example of
> something that needs to be fixed (I don't want to open here
> the discussion on the substance of that point).
>
> WHAT WILL / SHOULD THE TUNIS DOCUMENT CONTAIN ?
>
> The only important question at that stage is : what will get
> into the final Tunis Text ? And what do CS actors want ? One
> thing is sure : no detailed formulation is on the table yet
> and the "food for thought document" of Ambassador Khan, a
> mere proposal for a structure, was not even accepted as
> formal input document for PrepCom3. In addition, his
> reference to specific paragraphs of the WGIG report was
> strongly opposed by the US delegation and the drafting will
> start from a clean slate.
>
> Some urgent questions for the IG Caucus are therefore (non
> exhaustive list) :
> 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 (see separate mail) ?
>
>
> I hope this will help structure discussions during PrepCom3
> and allow the IG Caucus to have a significant impact on the
> final drafting.
>
> Looking forward to seeing those of you that will be in
> Geneva next week - I will miss the others.
>
> Best
>
> Bertrand




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