[governance] Internet Governance : CS Declaration / Tunis Declaration

Sat Sep 17 16:01:42 EDT 2005

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 ?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20050917/49b7da3b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance