[governance] My memo from Tunis Nov 2003 - Prepcom 3 bis negotiations

Tue May 29 04:39:03 EDT 2012

Thanks Izumi.. and yesterday I had a note from someone who was in the
negotations and he also remembered that EC and IGF were seen as two
processes, related, but separate - i.o.w. agreeting with your and Adam's
recollections.

But I don't think this conflicts with my and Avri's interpretation which
is that the IGF was meant to be a forum where EC is discussed. The IGF
was not meant to be a substitute of EC, nor a policy-making space, but a
space for dialogue about internet public policy issues and
participation, and this includes EC.

Anriette

On 29/05/2012 03:59, Izumi AIZU wrote:
> Hi,
> here attached is the note I took during the Prepcom 3 bis held in
> Tunis in November 2003.
> The final part is not there - but some process before that are captured.
> 
> In my memory, around 8:30 pm or so, the main part of the language of
> all remaining para were agreed,  but then there still remained not-so
> substantive parts, which took another 90 min or so, thereby ending the
> meeting was almost 10 pm.
> 
> And yes, all sides, US, European Commission, UK, China, et al all said
> it was their victory.
> 
> My view is close to what Adam think that EC and IGF are two distinct
> or separate things, yet, I also am aware that the language of these
> paras were so vaguely written so that all parties who have different
> positions could still agree on.
> 
> I vaguely remember that Janis Karklins and ICANN GAC Vice Chair that
> time were discussing on how to explain this "Enhanced Cooperation"
> section since they were made intentionally vague, at the next ICANN
> meeting.
> 
> So, as is shown on this list, the interpretations of how EC and IGF
> relate can be very different by different people, and there is no
> single truth drawn from reading the Tunis Agenda.
> 
> That will give, in my view, good reason to have discussion on this at IGF.
> 
> izumi
> 
> --------------------
> 
> WSIS PrepCom3
> Nov 13
> 12:50
> 
> China Ambassador
> WSIS is now world focus.
> 
> Follow-up activity should be multilateral,
> All stakeholders be involved in Internet governance in real and meaningful way
> What we need are actions and arrangements, rather than empty talk
> There is no such a thing as talking for talking
> Government, private sector and civil society should have a division of labor,
> Playing different role
> Future activities should include:
>  IP address allocation, root zone document, root server emerging
> 
> WSIS is convened according to the UN resolution, and is international
> conference in the framework of UN
> In the past year we have had in-depth comprehensive discussion in that context.
> In the follow-up should be carried out under the UN framework as well.
> 
> We should have any reason to be afraid of UN framework, we don’t understand why.
> That’s my basic standpoint of China delegation
> We are aware that others do not share the same view and we are ready
> to cooperate.
> 
> Saudi Arabia
> Arab Group
> For oversight, Option 1 is the minimum acceptable.
> 
> Ghana
> Africa –
> Coordinated under UN – ITU, UNESCO, and UNDP
> 
> US
> Correct the situation of Uganda, Urugay,…
> 
> Statement:
> Security and stability is of paramount importance.
> Present structure is vital –
> Internet – for medium for global
> Free from governmental oversight and control
> Success – in decentralized nature, at outer edge for innovation
> Burdening oversight is out – works so well around the globe
> Private sector innovation and investment
> Compelling argument against overburdening new inter-governmental oversight –
> We call upon colleagues in this room to join us to work together to
> bring the benefit of information society for all
> 
> Chair – you made the fair
> In the mean time we try to fix the problem – not to lose time
> 
> Argentina
> Not to replace existing body
> Multilateral mechanisms,
> 
> Iran
> Stability and security is referred – we share the same concern, it is
> crucial principle to be preserved and maintained, but only one of the
> principles leaders agreed.
> By highlighting this principle, we should not sacrifice other principles.
> It is important to provide all governments especially from developing
> countries to have realy say on public policy issues on Internet
> governance.
> Create a space for these governments –
> We do not see the hierarchical approach for Geneva principles
> Geneva Principles should be the final approach,
> 
> 
> Australia
> 
> 
> Barbados
> 
> Australia
> 
> 
> Chair
> 9 proposals were sent – almost all calling for new inter-governmental mechanism
> no decision making?
> Different positions on oversight of ICANN
> 
> 1 ??
> 2 A new model for international cooperation – focus on main
> principles, by governments
> 3 Another group – 4 models – world council on Internet is most appropriate
> 4 IGC for global policy and oversight
> 
> Summarize the sense of the debate today
> China – defined the parameters for the debate
> There are two groups who support the status quo
>  1 – if you take ?? action without thorough consideration with all
> linkages, you will endanger the security and stability – very clear
> and strong, let’s maintain the status quo that is working fine, why do
> you interfere that?
> Innovations at edges
> 2 – let’s work towards the status quo – in this present setting –
> strong words, there will be another forum or international
> organization
> 
>  let we shell this issue and decide later – that will disappoint
> governments and civil society
> let’s go back to WGIG report
> 
> Forum proposal enjoyed wide support
> When it comes to the cluster of oversight? – role – positions differ
> 
> We won’t have any voting here, we will work on consensus
> So if we have split, if there is no consent – most rational – we will
> not be able to develop the language
> The effort here is to convince others.
> African group talked about progressive approach. At PrepCom we had
> “evolutionary approach” ^- challenge is that how we do that?
> 
> Forum – does it create dialogue and action?
> 
> Uruguay- let’s synthesize
> 
> One group – we need new organization for oversight, others say not needed
> We need to come to conclusion
> At the end of the day, you have to come to agreement, in written text
> 
> SubComA adjourned.
> 
> Canada – room Hammamet
> 7:30-
> 
> Nov 14, 1000 – on Para 4 and 5
> 
> Chair- read Vint Cerf’s letter to GAC Chair:
> Uruguay
>  Time to agree
> Singapore
>  Alternative language to ccTLD – limit other governments
>  How much GAC can change –
> Singapore to participate ICANN Vancouver meeting
> Change from within to answer to Iran’s question
> 
> Chair:
> 
> Forum – sharp divergence –
> 1600 – to meet
> Chair will prepare a paper – basis for further work
> 1 working group will remain intact – subject to Canada-
> produce a text by 1900 today
> 
> 
> Nov 14
> 1600
> Informal presentation by Paul Twomy and Sharil Tarmizi
> 
> Chair’s new paper DT/15/ Rev.1
> 
> Iran
> Saudi Arabia
> 
> US
> We don’t think no need for “new” multi-lateral mechanism.
> Continue the evolutionary process.
>  Generic domain names = ?
> 
> China
> To US – on 67
> 
> Greece
> Proposed to host the first meeting of Forum.
> 
> Chair, Brazil, you also want to host, or you want to support the proposal.
> 
> Brazil
> They can also host the first meeting of the oversight mechanism.
> 
> Chair,
> You need to first create it.
> 
> Venezuela
> 
> Australia
> Proposed – Internet Dialogue Forum
>  ISOC to be involved as host organization
>  We should invite ISOC to give its view.
> 
> China
> 
> US
> Forum – reserve until 62, 70-75 package be resolved
>  Must be flexible to its agenda
> Concern – role of UN SG, institution of UN
>  As it is undertaking significant review on “UN reform”
>   Under the auspices of UN – be regarded as part of UN reform
> Funding concern – what is the source of funding?
> Chair’s office to explore ISOC
> Australia and Canada- ISOC be the convener or facilitator
>  We have highest regard - bring expert opinion of ISOC
> Appreciation to Russia – ITU taking on additional burden, to them,
> their willingness and practicality – but concern for ITU
> 
> Bulgaria
> ISOC has 75 chapters – it’s not one office in Geneva or Virginia
> 
> Chair
> For forum, if we keep it lean, and membership small,
> 
> Brazil
> Concern with Canada and Australia
> 
> Canada - Preamble and Implementation
>  Sidi Busaid  19:30 –21:00
> Singapore – para 76 and 77
>  Dogga
> Mexico 78 82
>  Tozeur
> 
> Nov15
> A new proposal by ??
> 75C We ask the Sec Gen of UN to initiate and continue a process
> towards enhanced cooperation which will start by the end of the first
> quarter of 2006, will involve all stakeholders [within their
> respective roles], will proceed as quickly as possible, consistent
> with legal process and will be responding to t innovation.
> 
> Alt: Such cooperation, international management of the Internet would
> address international Internet public Policy- setting issues.
> 
> US Alternative:  Relevant organizations should commence a process
> towards enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders proceeding as
> quickly as possible and responsive to innovation. The same relevant
> organizations shall be requested to provide annual performance report.
> 
> 
> BREAK
> 
> 79
> Chair – proposed a language
> 
> US
> We see - Bureau – limited, Forum not limited
> But your revision – if IGF is by invitation only
> 
> Greece
> 
> Chair – another proposal
> 
> Closed
> 
> 67 (chair’s proposal) 	We are convinced that there is a need to
> initiate and reinforce, as appropriate, a transparent, democratic, and
> multilateral process, with the participation of governments, private
> sector, civil society, and international organizations in their
> respective roles. This process could envisage creation of a suitable
> framework or mechanisms, [where justified], thus spurring the ongoing
> and active evolution of the current arrangement in order to synergies
> the efforts in this regard.
> 
> US – insisted and threatened to go back to negotiation
> Iran, Saudi – not accepted
> 
> Chair – I wish you, Iran and US, to have warm relationship.
> 
> 1930
> We need 90 minutes to fix remaining paras
> 
> Karklins
> Head of delegations – 5pm – agreed, to conclude negotiations by 10 pm today
> 
> Plenary – to be started
> Agreed on 21 paras, 4 paras in brackets
> 
> SubcomA – to resume – shortly
> Para 75
> 
> 
> <The negotiation went on and concluded, around 10 pm.>
> 

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

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