[governance] Report of the Open consultation on Internet Governance

[Izumi AIZU]

Jacqueline,

This was very informative and useful. Thank you so much.

I have shared this with the members of the IGTF (Internet
Governance Task Force) of Japan.

thanks again,

izumi

At 12:20 05/09/14 -0400, Jacqueline Morris wrote:
>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 ォ Food for
>thought サ 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

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