[governance] Annan in Davos on Civil Society

Sun Jan 29 04:27:01 EST 2006

Dear list, 

Bill has put the finger on the right point. Here are some quatations from the German Paper "ITU and Follow Up: Food for Thought".

1. The Government of Germany continues to believe that new cross-border challenges for governments in the global Information Society should, to the extent possible and in an evolutionary manner, be dealt with by existing international fora. The creation of new initiatives and organizations usually results in unnecessary time delays, co-ordination problems, overlapping competencies, additional funding requests, and duplication of work. Therefore it is a much better choice to adjust existing structures to the rapidly changing global ICT environment. ITU as the longest standing international organization in the field of telecommunications has a strong potential in providing the appropriate platform for the follow-up process to the UN World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Contrary to private sector based initiatives, one of its strong points is the full and fair involvement of developing countries who face the serious risk of being left behind in the Internet world. An!
 other advantage of the ITU is the participation of the business sector which began long before the multi-stakeholder philosophy became common good in the WSIS discussions.

2. Due to the development orientated nature of the WSIS process, the government of Germany believes that, within the ITU framework, ITU-D should have the leading role in coordinating the organizations effort to contribute to the implementation and follow-up process. Therefore, the coming World Telecommunications Development Conference in Doha will be the adequate occasion to discuss and adopt a first roadmap for the future ITU role regarding necessary action lines to bridge the digital divide caused by the rapid but uneven expansion of information and communication technologies.

3. Baring in mind the proven openness of the ITU, is has to be taken into account that a full realization of the nearly unlimited digital opportunities cannot be achieved by Governments alone. On one hand side, the private sector will continue to play a critical role through ICT investments in developing countries, and one of the core challenges for ITU-D will be the definition and promotion of appropriate national frameworks, respecting the specific circumstances in different countries and regions. On the other hand, it has to be acknowledged that an efficient and successful implementation process also needs appropriate involvement of civil society. Four years of WSIS discussions have established a benchmark regarding the interaction with civil society representatives. Although this inclusive approach has not been without problems, it created expectations regarding the structure and procedures of the WSIS follow-up process, and will therefore influence the extent to which l!
 egitimacy is ascribed to the ITU efforts.   

4. (With regard to Internet Governance) Although the Tunis language leaves room for interpretation, the concept of a far-reaching new co-operation, giving all Governments in their respective roles the adequate opportunity to participate in the global decision making process on Internet Governance issues with significant public policy relevance, should be kept alive. Within the new co-operation framework, the Tunis Agenda defines three main groups of players: Intergovernmental organizations (e. g. ITU, WIPO, UNESCO), international organizations (e. g. ISOC), and organizations responsible for essential tasks associated with the Internet (e. g. ICANN). In all three categories, government have a role to play, and contrary to interpretations who tend to see paragraphs 68-71 of the Tunis Agenda purely as an UN internal coordination challenge, we have to make sure that the upcoming discussions will, in a politically appropriate way, also deal with the two outstanding oversight issu!
 es: Oversight regarding ICANN, and oversight regarding the Internet root zone file. 

5. With regard to the two core Internet Governance outcomes of the WSIS, the PPDP as well as the IGF, the Tunis Agenda ascribes a core function to the UN Secretary-General. Baring in mind the high expectations in all parts of the global Internet community, there is obviously an urgent need for supporting the Secretary-General if these requests should be met in a timely manner. Looking at the necessary level of expertise, it looks obvious to the government of Germany that the ITU will become the "natural" provider of this support. Concerning the PPDP, the Tunis agreement does not ask for discussions and negotiations to take place in just one forum, but leaves enough room for a flexible approach which includes the full range of formal and informal intergovernmental interaction. Taking into account the ongoing efforts of governments in already existing international fora, especially the ITU, it is important to avoid any duplication of work. The role of the UN Secretary-General,!
  supported by the ITU, will mainly be to kick-off and monitor the public policy development process, including the coordination of stakeholder consultations. The important role of the ITU becomes even more obvious with regard to the IGF. Clearly defined through the Tunis Agenda as an open and transparent multi-stakeholder process, it is not unrealistic to expect IGF meetings with 500+ participants. The huge variety of issues that could be placed under the Internet Governance umbrella might result in the creation of numerous sub-entities (working groups etc.), adding to infrastructure demands. This kind of process does not only need a rock-solid secretariat, but also support from experienced staff which can only be found in specialized agencies like the ITU.  

6. With regard to the ICANN GAC, short and long term perspectives should be distinguished. For the time being, the most urgent problem which needs to be solved is the future structure of the GAC secretariat. After being provided first by the government of Australia and today by the EU Commission, GAC members now look for a new model for the time from June 2006 onwards. Germany is not in a position to support concepts regarding the future GAC structure which would give the ICANN GAC a more independent legal structure and/or would result in direct or indirect financial obligations, e. g. by introducing membership or meeting fees, because this would, in the end, mean to establish a new intergovernmental body for Internet Governance issues. If no other cost-neutral solution will be available, it should be carefully considered if and under which conditions the ITU would be in a position to provide the secretariat function for the ICANN GAC. Due to the fact that the ITU has taken !
 part in the GAC work as observer from the very beginning, the necessary expertise is already available.

Best regards

wolfgang

Take also into account, that the German Mr. Kurth is one of four candidates for elecetion as the new Secretary General of the ITU in November 2006.

________________________________

Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Robert Guerra
Gesendet: Sa 28.01.2006 18:07
An: Governance Caucus
Betreff: Re: [governance] Annan in Davos on Civil Society

On 28-Jan-06, at 10:52 AM, William Drake wrote:

>
>
> ITU is going to be the main multilateral venue in which governments 
> address
> IG public policy and standards issues, not the GAC or anywhere 
> else, and we
> should be there.

if i'm not mistaken quite a number of governments made clear 
statements during the WSIS IG negotiations that they did DID NOT want 
the ITU to be the venue where IG public policy and standards issues 
get addressed.

If i recall well,  Brazil, Russia, Iran and many members of the "like 
minded" group were in favour of the ITU, but the "common ground 
group" composed of Singapore, New Zealand, Canada, Uruguay, Australia 
and others were not keen on the ITU. So, no consensus...

Personally,  I don't think Tunis quite resolved the situation. It all 
depends on the what gets decided at the ITU council meeting in early 
Feb, a well as  the structures that get set up in the coming months.

Regards

Robert

_______________________________________________
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