AW: [governance] Framework convention

[Kleinwächter, Wolfgang]

Alejandro:

Not to speak of the once-held idea that there are a large number of organizations with a claim for relevance in Internet governance which do not comply with the WSIS criteria about which no-one has even started a discussion here.

Wolfgang:

The challenger in the WSIS process were members of the governmental stakeholder group. The EU wanted to have a new cooperation model with governments on the top ("on the level of principle"). Brazil wanted to have an Internet Convention. South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, India and until PrepCom3 also the government of the Peoples Republic of China wanted to have an "Intergovernmental Internet Council". The ITU wanted to overtake some functions from ICANN and to play a greater (probably leading) role. WIPO, UNESCO, WTO, UNCTAD, ILO and other IGOs which have a stake in IG in its broader understanding (like multiligualism in UNESCO or IPR in WIPO) had a wait and see position with no big ambitions. The USG, supported by a broad range of private sector members and some civil society groups, opposed a broader role for governments.

The result was the agreement to start a proces of enhanced cooperation (both on the intergovernmental level as well as among governmnetal and non-governmental stakeholders) but neither the form, the content, the procedure nor the final objective of the process was defined. Janis Karkelins, president of PrepCom of WSIS II and now the GAC chair, said three weeks after Tunis during the ICANN meeting in Vancouver that he does not understand what the governments (representing the heads of states of about 180 countries) decided in detail and he speculated that obviously even the governments have no clue what they want to do. When Nitin Desai started informal consultations on enhanced cooperation in May 2006, he told governments (and others) that they have to come with ideas how to bring butter to the sandwich. But nothing happend (in the public). There is (public) silence.  

No initiative from the EU. The only word came from Madame Reding when she applauded the JPA as a right step towards a new cooperation model. In May 2007 there is a meeting of the "High Level Internet Governace Working Group" of the EU and there had been consultatitons with the USG under the German EU presidency. But these meetings are closed shops. No agenda, no communique.   

Brazil has given up obviously its idea of an Inernet Convention? Or do they plan something for the Rio 2007 IGF? What about the supporters for the "Intergovernmental Internet Council" (look into the WGIG report)? Silence from South Africa to India to Iran. Did they give up? The Chinese government was happy with the Tunis Agenda which recognized "national soveriegnty" of the national domain name space. An own Internet root with TLD Root Zone files with Chinese characters (where the authorization of the publication of these zone files is done by the MII and not by the DOC) would obviously qualify for "national domain name space". So why the Chinese government should become active? They got what they wanted to have. They will also wait and see. (BTW does somebody know whether ICANN will have its fall 2007 meeting in Taipeh and does somebody know what the position of the Chinese government, which more or less ignores up today the GAC, is in this question?)

The ITU has started just recently a consultatiton with its members on enhanced coopweration according to reolsution 102 from Antalya. But the New ITU SG has made clear in his very first statements that he will not continue to push for ITU leadership in IG as Mr. Utsumi did. ITU under Toure wants to become the leader in Cybersecurity and Infrastructure, two important elements of IG in the broader understanding. And it will make contributions to iDNS, NGNs, ENUM, IPv6 etc. but not in competition to ICANN. But Toure, at the end of the day, is the voice of the member states. So lets wait and see whether the cancellation of his planned visit to the ICANN meeting in Lisbon in March 2007 was indeed for "technical reasons" only. WIPO, UNESCO, WTO etc. did not change their mind. They are waitng. If somebody will ask them to write a report what they have done in their field of competence for IG they will write the report, probably not more than five to ten pages. If nobody asks them, they will do nothing. But who has a mandate to ask for such a report? 

What can we learn and conclude from this, in particular with regad to IGF 2007? Shjuld we support the silence? Is there space for discussion? Any direction? 
  
Best regards

Wolfgang
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance