[governance] Re: Round II

[Izumi AIZU]

This is close to what I stated on behalf of IGC, as draft I was
reading mostly but, last portion has been modifiedon the fly as the
time gets
longer...

1.
Why it should be MSH
My name is Izumi Aizu, I am from Tokyo, am a newly elected
co-coordinator of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus that
has been engaged in WSIS and IGF very actively. I have been involved
with Internet governance since around 1996. I was the local host of
Singapore’s IFWP back in 1998, after attending first one in Washington
DC and the second meeting in Geneva that summer, that essentially led
the creation of ICANN. I participated all the PrepComs of the WSIS I
and WSIS II.

In the beginning, Civil Society and business were not allowed to enter
the room where governments were negotiating. Gradually, we were given
five minutes slot per day for two-week long negotiation. Then some
government representatives started to realize that maybe it’s good
idea to listen to these experts on the IP address and Domain names
systems that government friends have very little clue of the very
subject they are talking about.
We were given more time, more weight, towards the Tunis Agenda, and then IGF.
There is short history of Multistakeholder, with invisible efforts of
many people inside and outside the governments and UN system.

Why multistakeholder so important?
The Tunis Declaration made it very clear that Internet Governance
should be dealt with the full involvement of all stakeholders – and
created IGF, The Forum for Dialogue, not a decision making mechanism.
ECOSOC resolutions also clearly support this multistakeholder
principle.

So making Working Group on the improvement of IGF by giving advantage
to only one stakeholder group over other stakeholder groups is clearly
a violation of the principle that more than 180 head of states agreed
in 2005 and all the resolutions that follow. Civil Society IGC fully
appreciate and support the balanced participation of all stakeholder
proposed by UK and Portugal and other governments and UNESCO.

Now, more specifically
- This Working Group is not a group OF the CSTD, but a group convened
by the Chair of the CSTD; this was a voluntary choice

The consultations in IGF Vilnius and Geneva clearly called for a group
composed like the WGIG, which is written in the Chair’s summary:
 “that the multi-stakeholder character and inclusive sprit and
principles of the IGF should continue to guide the composition,
modalities and working methods of the CSTD WG.”
“Thus, it was emphasised by a large number of interventions that it
was essential that the working Group be composed of a balanced number
of representatives from all stakeholders - governments, civil society
and the private sector.
A majority of stakeholders welcomed the Chair’s suggestion to use the
model of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG)
Therefore, the consultations today should be, first and foremost,
about reconsidering the composition of the group to make it
multi-stakeholder.

Because it is what 180 countries solemnly declared should be the
approach regarding Internet Governance. Reverting to a purely
intergovernmental group is a betrayal of the WSIS principles and the
difficult but good faith negotiations that took place in Geneva in
May.

2
Why we should keep MSH and how to improve it?
It is because of the nature of the Internet. This may sound obvious to
many of you here, but I also notice some new players now under the new
environment with CSTD community here in Geneva. So let me explain a
little more.

Internet being the very new, innovative transnational or global shared
network of networks, is different from the traditional state-based,
inter-national, and hierarchically managed and inter-connected,
telecommunication networks.

The shared, distributed network of networks requires management or
governance in that manner. And that’s why and how IGF is designed and
implemented.
____________________________________________________________
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t