[governance] Internet Governance : 10 questions for PrepCom3

Fri Sep 16 14:49:25 EDT 2005

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