[governance] Sept 22 / Morning subcomittee notes

[Izumi AIZU]

OK, the webcast came back now. I missed the first portion
of Chair's summary, but so Singapore and El Salvador will
report back tomorrow morning, right?

izumi


At 12:55 05/09/22 +0200, you wrote:
>council of europe
>
>- makes reference to coe convention on cybercrime
>- asks for global ascension to cybercrime convention
>
>
>caricom
>
>ralf bendrath
>
>brazil
>
>UK / EU
>
>- supports general outline of chair
>- reserve the right to make comments
>- there is still much work to be dobne to iid common ground and
>common understanding and develop framekwork which different country
>concerns can be addressed.
>- question - > what is timeline to tabling a text
>- on tue welcomed wgig report as basis for this subcommittee.
>reiterates support for using wgig report. however, this is not a
>negotiated text. it serves as a starting point.
>- comments made so far provide valuable input
>
>- the EU regocnizes there is no UNIQUE definition of IG. should use
>the wgig definition as a working definition for IG. can revist it if
>needed.
>
>chair
>
>- timetable. probably afternoon and evening sessions.
>- definition. concern has been noted
>
>iraq
>
>- comments on part 5 (f/u and future arrangements)
>- framework for interface: recommendations og wgig founded on two
>piallers - oversight and forum.
>- Question on - "Framework for interface between existing and future
>arrangements
>". should it be two subpoints and not one.
>
>chair:
>
>- evolutionary / incremental references come from reference made
>earier by ghana/africa group. that's the justification
>- framework for interface : is the overall chapeau for the bullets
>that follow.
>
>interface between the existing agreements and furture posibility
>
>- recommendation on forum: is a seperate point
>- delegates have to decide have to decide if structure is light,
>heavy or tighly controlled. across the spectrum there are mentions
>that it should be agile. it should NOT be a burdensome beaurocracy
>
>USA
>
>- contratulate chair on outlien that focus us on important issues
>- confirms that this is a working document, that each of the points
>are open for discussion. we will follow suite and offer our views on
>specifics
>- two poiints:
>1. agree with EU that defn offered by WGIG report i an interesting
>one that can be used as a working definition. we have a view about it
>and will offer interesting discussion
>2. models: agree with russia that models offered are not exhausted.
>other possibilities and external suggestion might come.
>
>- welcome the outline and look forward for discussion.
>
>chair:
>
>- thanks us for comments
>
>singapore
>
>- general support for chairman's document.
>- while might have individual comments, will make them at later stage
>- the scheme presented by chair is one we can agree with.
>
>honduras
>
>- agree with mayority of areas to express ddevelopment
>- wgig mentions them too in a way that creates a dialogue with dev
>countries
>- in different parts of the report -> recommend that a section on
>access to all be added to the chair paper. (to be added as an
>overaching goal)
>
>chair:
>
>- 3b : access to information and knowledge.
>- it is already in geneva documents. we will reinvoke a reference to it.
>
>saudi arabia
>
>- iranian part 5 proposal, support it
>- Q: will you restrucutre part 5 as per comments made earier by iran
>
>chair:
>
>- agreeded with iranian proposal. explained existing points. thinks
>that iranian delegate agreeded
>- you are putting too much emphasis to the points. we aren't
>negotiating yet, just points on what to talk about later,.
>
>cuba:
>
>- likes the chair discussion paper
>- 2 comemnts:
>
>1. 4 in seperating it from #3, makes it seem that it  does not
>related to public policy. but in the wgig report they were.
>
>2. agree with iranian comment that section 5 needs to have more details
>
>- process comment: agree with brazil and colombia that we should move
>to comments on section 5, on models.
>
>chair
>
>- we are advancing on section #5. we are on that subject
>- there might be a misconconception on promoting development. they
>are seperated for understanding, but let's find language to
>conceptually link them.
>- we will come up with some language
>
>brazil
>
>- reference to ccbi talking about governance. quoting on what was
>said - "they do not support a more centralized system for IG".
>- brazilian delegation could not agree more with ccbi, as currently
>there is currently a centralized system controlled by a single
>computer in marina del rey.(ICANN)
>- the only way to move forward is to create aninternet council that
>can substitute work being done by icann an iana. this council is
>common to models 1,3 & 4. we just have to negotiate the details.
>- we need more than one government involved. i think this an
>unanimous comment from the wgig report.
>- don't think others oppose moving away from the existing centralized
>process.
>
>chair
>
>- at appropiate time cbbi might want to explain what they mentioned
>- i understand you support iic (intil internet council)
>
>haiti
>
>- comment on part 4.
>- add  ict programs and projects to  section 4
>
>Egypt:
>
>- further expand part 4
>- 53.4 in wgig report should be added - equitable access for all
>should be added.
>
>
>chair:
>
>- honduras also proposed that. will take note of it.
>
>stakeholders:
>
>- private sector (ISOC)
>
>- thanks wgig members
>- cost of access, advice and how to use the internet, security and
>usefull content, in language
>- we are here (para 4 of wsis declaration). we need to remind
>oursleces, on two issues:
>* connectivity and capacity building are key issues
>
>(seems to be repeating what is in ISOC comments to wgig report)
>
>- isoc has been keenly involved in capacity building and connectivity
>need to be
>
>- models: the existing models work and have been resliant
>- many of the policy areas are already being discussed. we need to
>build and evolve existing structures and organizations and not create
>new strucutures.
>- the internet community has adapted and become more open
>- the system works and evolves now
>
>ccbi:
>
>- forum function: a variety of existing organizations already
>- many of the organizations allow for discussion
>
>- the internet has worked well with decentralized control
>- this decentralzied control has allow for growth at edges.
>- supports greater participation and greater evolution
>
>- there may be in some cases call for issue specific fora
>
>- any issue specific event should include information exchange and
>horizonal collaboration
>- the space would need to be a neutral space to bring them together
>as equal partners.
>- existing organizations could increase participation to all
>stakehodlers at national and regional level.
>
>- information should be to favcilitate and exchange information.
>- ccbi looks forward to contribute further
>
>heather shaw (CBBI)
>
>- need to facilitate collaboration
>- new fora can be xpensive. need to make most of existing
>organizations before creating new organizations
>- capacity building important
>- all stakehodlers have a role to play on capacity building.
>
>ralf bendrath
>adam peake
>
>venezuela
>
>- wgig report is a guide.
>- the proposed models can be used as a guide only. we shouldbe able
>to make combinations and/or changes
>- there might be areas of convergence
>
>- we have limited time to discuss, and it is out last chance to reach
>an accord we have at this prepcom. there should not be a prepcom 3
>bis. we have almost finished a week of declarations and we don't have
>text.
>- we are worried that we haven't yet been able to enter into a
>discussion in a text and plan of action.
>- the guide presented by chair is good. we sugegst the following
>
>section 1:
>- related to definition
>- we should be guided by the geneva principles
>
>section 2:
>
>- suggests addtion to have interactyion between stakehodlers
>- coordination, cooperation,
>
>section 3& 4:
>
>- we should put all of these into a single part called governance models
>- we should reach agreement
>
>section 5:
>
>- a section which should be subdivded:
>
>a. models of governance
>b. implementstion on models
>c. definition of public policies. we should go into details.
>
>at this stage there are elements that require further work
>
>- we are worried as time is moving on. we should start discussing now
>
>- recommendation: let us setup several groups. the important point is
>that we shoudl start by tomorrow. as time is short we need to hurry
>up. if we don't we will have to setup several groups that would make
>it difficult for small delegations such as ours.
>
>chair
>
>- one should banish worry
>- there will be no prepcom bis
>
>el  salvador
>
>- will submit a list of written comments on parts 1 & 2
>-
>section 3a & 5: there seems to be duplication. how to we proceed.
>
>- part 5: Question on oversight function
>- models: can we envisage other models that aren't in wgig report
>
>chair
>
>- there is overlap between 3a and one bullet in #5. we will try to
>rationalize it .
>
>
>saudi arabia ( on behalf of arab countries):
>
>- would like concentrate on part 5.
>- the essential decisions need to be taken on part 5 before we get to
>specific wording.
>
>
>chair
>
>- what we have done to-date has been easy.
>- we are now moving into a more difficult phase. it will be  a
>challenging area.
>- will be need to focus on intelligence to strike compromises, to
>know that the other sides are saying.
>
>- let's do something more skill-full that can gen results.
>
>- drafting groups proposed to draft language. will circulate text
>that has blanks to be filled in.
>
>- status of papers:
>
>* food for thought: no status. just an aid to facilitate discussion
>* outline: tool to facilitate dsicussion
>* paper: no status. use it, substitute it, would be to focus mind and
>attention on subjects.
>
>* only text with status would be the ones emerging from the
>discussions. by monday we might have a rolling text.
>
>* this afternoon there should be a flurry of activcity. suggestion.
>
>- meet amongst yourself to strategise
>- tomorrow there will be a suggestion paper for thought.
>- let's have cross group dialogue
>-
>
>drafting groups:
>
>- how do we associate other stakeholders. I need your help on what to
>do. there are rules of procedures, but there are also calls for
>observers to be involved in the negotiating exercise.
>
>in summary:
>
>1. create working groups
>2. a non-paper will be circulated
>3. seek guidance on how to involve observers in drafting groups.
>
>
>USA
>
>- while we consider your proposal
>- we thank you for these suggestions. we know it is not an easy task
>
>- two thoughts to have:
>
>1. practicality
>- many delegations are small.
>- would ask that if drafting groups created that we don't have too
>many of them,as hard for small delegations
>
>2. principle
>
>- we need to give very careful and full thought to observers
>- would seek that observers participate in the debate in the drafting
>groups
>- those communities need to be at the table.
>
>brazil
>
>- you are going in a good direction.
>- one practical difficulty. we are here to negotiate a text to be
>signed by heads of state.
>
>- there is a moment where governments need to sit among each other
>(that is exclude civil society)
>
>- we need to meet in small groups, practically it needs to be done in
>a quiet way
>
>chair
>
>- rules of procedure, what is there?
>- section 8.
>- there is no text that refers to observers in working groups
>
>saudi arabia (arab states)
>
>(1)
>- in the past had no objections to drafting groups. should limit the #
>- should only create them after the basic decisions have been made in
>plenary
>
>(2)  observers:
>
>- the geneva summit set the present. the rules are clear. we should
>follow the rules from phase I.
>- in this context it would be difficult to involve them
>
>
>senegal (african countries)
>
>- satisfied with the method of work that has been proposed
>- drafting groups: will allow for a rather lively discussion.
>- we need to have a limited # of drafting groups , as otherwise it
>would be difficult for small delegations.
>- work of regional groups should also be considered.
>
>canada
>
>- thanks the chair for his propsal
>- we dont' have  any agreement yet.
>
>1. necesity to insure security and stability
>2. multistakeholder approach - let's put it into practice.
>- supports us view that observers that they have a lot to contribute
>-
>
>working groups
>- we need to define well the groups and keep them to minimu
>
>the following should be first discussed in plenary:
>
>- defintions
>- role & responsivility of stakeholders
>- pass over the key issues,
>
>then, go to drafting text.
>
>summary: we need a bit more time in plenary that will condition what
>drafting groups will do. we need to include a broad group of
>stakeholders
>
>chair:
>
>- we must make progress
>
>methodology (thinking outloud)
>
>- if we distrubute work and have soem rough idea to working works,
>they will bring them back to plenary
>- plenary should not block work of the working groups.
>- hard to draft text in plenary. it would disastrous to try it.
>
>iran:
>
>- welcomes the initiative of the chair
>- would like to flag that there should be no proliferation of working
>groups. would make it hard for small delegations.
>
>- other stakeholders:
>* iran appreciates the input of all the stake-holders.
>* emphasis that this is an intergovernmental process.
>
>El salvador
>
>- support safety and security, multilaterism and transparency
>- we don't seem to be in the usual UN pattern
>- we had small drafting groups in intercessional in paris (phase 1).
>we had civil society participating in the past and make statements
>that helped us make concepts clearer and guide negotiations.
>
>- (supports cs)
>
>- proposal from el salvador for observers to attend and make
>contributions to drafting groups
>
>chair
>
>- this is a different process.
>- there are rules of procedure. but, there is a grey area.
>- there is (prepcom) precedent where cs & observers have been involved
>
>- let's take it as an agreed principle that all stake-holders
>participate.
>
>japan
>
>- good idea to create drafting groups. a concern with the # that
>might be created.
>- if they are in the afternoon, it will conflict with other subcomittee
>
>
>UK (on bahalf of EU)
>
>(1)
>- stakeholder participation in working groups. the MS nature of the
>internet. we need to involve all key stakeholders.
>
>- in the wg's that are created, we need to draw on the expertize
>
>(2) # of drafting groups. there is a difficulty for smaller delegations.
>
>- there is also a limited # of experts available.
>
>
>Australia
>
>- supports canada about what issues to be discussed in plenary
>- drafting groups - would prefer a smaller #
>- ngos: would support participation of ngos. they are fundamental
>
>- impressed by the high quality of the contributions of ngos
>- given the nature of the internet, the expertise is with ngos and
>their experience would help us.
>- supports that rules should support involvement of observers in
>working groups.
>
>
>chair
>
>- we need to make progress
>
>nicaragua: (on behlaf of grulag)
>
>- working groups : we need to be careful. it's an issue with small
>delegations.
>
>
>china:
>
>- two points.
>
>1. support the chair as to the proposal that we shoudl start drafting
>2. it's an intergovernmental process
>
>honduras
>
>- thanks chair for the methods to work
>- perhaps we can have meeting of regional groups - as we already have
>consensus
>- perhaps could regional coordinators could attend drafting working
>groups
>- need to take into account other stakeholders - they should be able
>to pariticiapte
>
>turkey:
>
>- thanks chair for proposals
>- looks forward to working with observers in accordance with rules of
>procedure
>- how many wg will be created?
>
>
>singapore
>
>2 points:
>
>1. concern about small delegations
>2. the input from other observers is vital. supports el salvador that
>observers sit in meetings and contribute written comments. let's look
>for way to do it
>
>new zealand
>
>- agree with canada to insure security and stability of the intenet.
>whatever we do should be through that lense
>- agree with singapore, isoc and others - we have a responsibility to
>users in countries. we need to establish which issues need fixing .
>- we might not yet be at the drafting stage.
>- let's keep # of drafting groups small.
>- multistakeholder - this is a good opportunity to put into practractice
>
>norway:
>
>- welcomes initiative of chair & proposal of drafting groups.
>- important to bring ngo views and expertise into drafting groups.
>they could be helpful and useful.
>- the model proposed by el salvador is a good one. one where they are
>observers, where they can talk, but not in negotiating.
>
>pakistan (asian grp)
>
>- welcome the proposal for working groups
>
>- endorse that there should not be a proliferation of working groups.
>
>- multistakeholder: position of asia group:
>
>* that is prepcom should adhere to rules and principles of the geneva
>phase
>
>
>
>chair
>
>- let's come tomorrow to comment on today's comments
>
>switzerland
>
>- agree with creation of drafting groups. the # should be small.
>
>
>india
>
>- supports drafting groups creation
>- drafting groups must have the prsence of the other stakeholders.
>supports singapore view on this
>
>Canada
>
>- not all regional groups can work in a way to coordinate . ie. not
>possible for weog.
>
>barabados
>
>- supoports el salvador and singapore view that obervers be in wg
>
>togo
>
>- keep # of wg small. if possible do it in regional and/or sub-
>regional fashion so that smaller countries can be involved.
>
>sudan
>
>- will be frank in regards to DG. not convinced that the need to have
>drafting groups as ultimately it will come back to plenary.
>- of course can split subcommittee into two sections (1) 5 & 3:
>models, (2) all other matters.
>
>south africa
>
>- support for proposal
>- we should have small # of WG
>- ask for reassurance on what will adopt.
>
>
>chair
>
>indonesia
>
>- supports rule of procedure in regards to drafting group.
>
>nigeria
>
>- supports creation of WG. they should be limited so that regional
>associations can be involved
>- other stakehodlers: the rules need to be followed. observers should
>not have voting rights
>
>nepal
>
>- supports a limited # of WG
>- good that cs make stakements and written contributions to WG
>
>lebanon
>
>- support for proposal
>- ngos: supports saudi arabia , brazil and others that although value
>their contribution that CAN NOT agree that they participate in
>drafting groups.
>
>australia
>
>- Q on rules of procedure. acknowledge that there is ambiguity. there
>is a question is there a legal impediment on
>
>- asks for legal advice if there is legal impediment for them to
>participate
>- puts forward the proposal that ngos be able to participate. ngos
>would NOT be voting.
>
>chair
>
>- there is no legal impediment
>
>?????
>- WG proposal good.
>- # of WG should be limited.
>- they be open ended groups
>- participation of other partners: however, would like to respect the
>rules of procedure and precedent.
>
>
>Egypt
>
>- support the formation of drafting group. should be strictly
>intergovernmental.
>- support the participation of multistakeholders - however underlines
>that drafting group stay strictly intergovernmental
>
>
>azerbajan
>
>- supports limited # of drafting groups.
>- it would be useful to invite multistakeholders - according to
>existing rules of procedure
>
>chair
>
>- made 3 proposals
>(1) - there is no objection for them to be created. they should be
>limited
>(2) will circulate a paper - no objection
>(3) stakeholders with drafting groups: there are two groups
>
>- el salvdor & singapore: they are objservers and can make
>contributions , but are not in negotaions. (like in pc 2)
>
>- asks el salvador to consult with others for 5 min to see if there
>can be an agreement on 3rd propsal.
>
>[ break for 5 min]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

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