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

Tue May 29 05:19:19 EDT 2012

Thanks Izumi for your memory. Here is my memory. http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/21/21418/1.html. The link goes to my article I wrote just after the night of the "Battle of Tunis". Unfortunately it is in German, but the English translation is rather okay. 

As I said in my previous mail, WGIG treated IGF and EC (forum function and oversight function) as two processes but both were inter-connected via the IG definition. However today it makes no big sense to find the "reading at the wall" by looking backwards.  What we need is a "new approach", rooted in the Tunis Deal but taking into consideration that the environment both for the IGF and the EC has changed in the last seven years and a new Internet Governance Ecosystem has emerged. 

In 2005 Google was small and there was no Facebook, no YouTube, no Twitter, no cloud computing, no ACTA, no IOT, no smartphones, no filter bubbles, no iDNs, no new gTLDs, no Arab spring and the number of anycast root servers as well as Internet Exchange Points were low. In 2005 we had 900 million Interner users, now we have 2.5 billion. In 2005 the number of Internet users in China crossed the 100 million line. Now it is nearly 600 million. In 2005 the mobile Internet was more a theoretical option. Now the Internet goes more and more mobil. In 2005 there was no digital undersea cable around Africa. Now the infrastructure is there. Today, the managenment of so-called critical internet ressources (CIR) is embedded into this new environment and it is difficult to see that an institutionalized  "new cooperation model" as an intergovernmental oversight mechanism for ICANN would be helpful to manage all the new challenges related to issues as freedom of expression, privacy, consumer protection, access, capacity building, infrastructure development, broadband, fight against cybercrime, personal identity management, intellectual property etc. The risk for an open, free, global and secure Internet comes today with efforts of re-nationalisation, re-centralization and re-regulation with new barriers and restrictions supported by political and commercial interests in both developed and developing countries. 

There is a need to push the restart button. IMHO, before proposing new policies and institutions one have to clarify
1. the issues and
2. the principles. 

What we need here and now is a draft for a "CS Internet Agenda 2020" and the start of a discussion towards a "Multistakeholder Framework of Principles" (or Commitments). 

The drafting of the Civil Society WSIS Declaration (Geneva, December 2003) was a good experience how CS defined issues and proposed policies for a global process. http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/civil-society-declaration.pdf. Wouldn´t it make sense to use the IGF in Baku to start a project Geneva 10+ with the aim, to draft a "CS Internet Declaration" for presentation at the IGF 2013 in Indonesia? This would help to organize and streamline CS activities also for the WSIS 10+ process, organized (more or less top down) by the ITU and the other IGOs. If APC would take the lead (by organizing a pre-conference in Baku), this would be perfect. It could be followed by extensive (moderated) online discussions in a number of working groups (as it was done by the "Content and Themes Team" during WSIS I), using the annual IGF consultations (in Geneva), the 2013 WSIS Forum (probably in Paris) and the regional IGFs in 2013 as platforms to work on such a document and to finalize the draft in November 2013 in Indonesia as an input document from Civil Society for the WSIS 10+ process.  

Wolfgang

________________________________

Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU
Gesendet: Di 29.05.2012 03:59
An: governance
Betreff: [governance] My memo from Tunis Nov 2003 - Prepcom 3 bis negotiations

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.>

-------------- 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