World Summit on the Information Society
Prepcom III
Sub Committee A (Internet Governance)
26 September 2005
0900-1300
Notes by Ms Claudia CARYEVSCHI
[opening]
ISOC
Appreciates no conclusion drawn
Capacitybuilding – regional backbones – multilingualism/local content necessary
Encourage stakeholders to participate : use existing multi-stakeholder fora
Stability/security: stakeholders evolutionary change from within existing mechanisms
Existing mechanisms first
Connectivity/capacitybuilding most change needed
Internetcommunity should be recognized as most important stakeholder
ICCI/CCBI
Capacitybuilding should be primary theme of chapter
Enabling environment for private sector
*
stakeholders: shared responsibilities to contribute should be emphasized
support what is already good – further develop healthy state of internet
First Reading
§39
El Salvador:
proposes new para 38.
“ Recognizing internet as global facility available to public; Good internet governance foundation for people centered inclusive and development orientated infosoc. Futhermore as global facility the security and stability of the interrnet should be assured.”
Wants to insert because there is no clear link between IG and infosociety towards development and internet as global facility (only implicit).
Bangladesh:
UN development agencies should contribute more, more financial support for efforts
(comments later)
Russia:
Second line insert: that “internet central element of infrastructure of infosoc, “
Taken from para 4 of doc 5
Line 4 add: “research and academic facility into global facility available to public”
Taken from para 8 of doc 5
Iran:
Supports original language, wants to refer to global resources
§39/40/41/42
§48 from geneva principles – proposition to reinstate
US supports El Salvador
Amendment to last sentence of new para of El Salvador
“furthermore, as a global facility, we commit to its stability and security. “
41/42
41:
Nepal:
Mauritania:
39 – balanced because of referral to geneva principles
supports Iran to refer to global resources
and supports SA that acces should be equitable and non-discriminatory
African Group:
Supports, will come back with comments later (not disruptive)
New Zealand:
Supports, minor comment para 40: add “secretariat” to second sentence
Should mention security/stability of internet – takes text from para 6 WGIG report:
(as part of 42 or new para)
El Salvador:
Good governance = democracy transparency multilateral
Para 39 i.o. “program of the infosociety” => all-inclusive
Chair: keep para 39 lean and focussed- not too many changes
Iran:
Good IG , supports El Salvador, also outlined by Geneva principles
Strongly supports SA
Commitment to principle of stable/secure function of internet only accepted if same commitment is made to what was layed down by ES: IG should “democracy transparency multilateral”
Chair: challenge = Balance commitment to security and stability with IG
Arab group
nondiscriminatory
Dominican republic:
Gender equality: spanish = access for everybody in spanish language commented in masculine not feminine so asks secretariat to change
Cuba:
Supports Arab Group and Iran
Brasil:
Not reopen what already agreed upon in geneva principles
Para 48 = 11 principles
Suggests not to pick from this list
Chair agrees
Burkina Faso:
39 addition to last sentence “equitable access to resources
should mention
South Africa:
Support Brasil Cuba Iran
Addition:
“Importance of internationalization”
Legitimacy – all stakeholders supposed to participate in infosoc which is not case – consent about security / stability
Saudi Arabia
Try to avoid reopen discussion; just agreed upon principles already agreed upon
39 text clear – importance of stable secure functioning of internet
Para 6 WGIG report + para 48 geneva principles state same
proposes to use WGIG
Nicaragua:
Only on behalf of own country. Support El Salvador. Make para 38 or insert of 39, proposes to have it on screen.
Geneva declaration: international management should be multilateral democratic and transparent in spanish text, but in english text we should not say SHOULD be;
It should read “is”
Strongly supports para as it is now (by El Salvador) – but amendments SA is ok, and brasil/south africa and others who wanted stability/security on one hand and democractic/transparent on other is also supported
Iran:
Para 41 :
Comment to the addition in line 2: “some” of public issues (by US):
WGIG addressed public policy issues; if there are others that are left out of this report then those should be mentioned; but for now this language (without ‘some') is better
Reaction US:
Phase 1 should be used as governing text – enabling environment as concept was not included in WGIG report and is of paramount importance and that should have considerable attention so should be added
Chair: “a number of” – formulation will be used
Morocco to Chair:
Supports text; balanced; doesn't want too much modifications, but doesn't understand the approach used now, is of the believe that there would be 3 draftinggroups, so asks for explanation for approach today (in contradiction with approach agreed upon on Friday)
Chair: no agreement last Friday; availability of translation was issue for draftinggroups, and also not completed firs reading yet. Areas of difficulties should be defined first, so first complete process and then there will be draftinggroups.
In synchronization with transparency.
Also, to avoid procedural debates.
Malawi:
supports South Africa and allies – proposal to insert word before “multilateral”
Nigeria:
Comes back to draftinggroups
Chair: draftinggroups will meet in plenary, also because of translation
Cluster 3 highest interest (future implementation) so couldn't be parallel with other clusters
Russia:
On behalf of CIS as stated in document proposed for the secretariat
Clarify proposal on para 39; wants to put on screen:
Second line: after internet “central element of structure infosociety “ after evolved “ ....”
Colombia:
Need to specify concepts and responsibilities for each of international Bodies and IGO's relevant to this to avoid any critical interpretations which could lead to us thinking that public policy and global norms where of the sphere of private sector which is not the case.
Subpara a: role of international organizations: second sentence add “reponsibilities for support to governments” “global” technical norms; and “inre
=>
“International organizations have a responsibility in supporting governments of global technical norms and internet related public policy issues. “
Congo;
42: definition for IGO's, when we talk about norms, IGOs shouldn't be forgotten
Uruguay:
Para 43 in general good /balanced basis. ‘all stakeholders have to be involved' => academic and technological/scientific community should be mentioned (working group, para 33 of their report, points out that contribution of acadmic community is very valuable and technical community and organizations are deeply involved in internet operation). Conclusions of working group reflect agreed fact, but is not reflected here (no civil society) so uruguay suggests a new subpara to 43 – F- which would state:
“The academic community and technical community have carried out and should continue to carry out a valuable contribution to developjment and functioning of internet”
El Salvador:
“express our convinction that all stakeholders, priv sector + civil society should participate
Colombia:
(Missed the point made)
Senegal:
Para 43 is correct as it defines the responsibility of each stakeholders. Lower case a...on public policy authority should also play in the decision-making processes. Proposed adding public authorities in the para.
Saudi Arabia:
Para 43 is aligned with para 49 of the principles, thus retain as it is already an agreed text
Iran:
No need to amend section on the involment of para 43, especially the wording on civil society
Australia:
Para 43...Academic, scientific and technological communities... be added
Role of CS is superficial....include proposals from CS in the drafting process
Strengthen role of the private sector
Dominican Republic:
Add the academic and scientifc sector in the facilitation of capacity-building
Chair:
Drafting Group: Senegal, SA, Dominican Republic, etc to come up together to work on Para 43
European Union:
Para 49 is supported. But address “true” multi-stakeholder cooperation
Welcome inclusion of the academic sector
Delete clause on communities
Support sub-para E
Chair:
Urugual coordinates drafting group
Canada:
Stick with texts of para 43
Benin:
Comment on para 45
Nicaragua:
43bis: in favor of this proposal, thus endorse El Salvador's intervention
Benin:
Concern with unilateral control of the Internet...expresses appreciation of the management so far...but no conrete proposal thus look for an appropriate qualitier
Russia:
Why express appreciation? What are the historical reasons why this happened? Adopt Para 19 of the WGIG report as it states the reasons... difficulties encountered that time
Include adding para 19 of the WGIG report to the current draft texts
Canada:
Reducing internet costs and resources...move to Section 3A
On para 45, refer to intervention made by US.... turning commitment to ensure security and stability of the Internet
Saudi Arabia:
Arab Group considers to restructure:
Structure of 3A be defined....add a new para 45b or 46....
We recognize the need for multilateral, transparent...public policy on root zones
Ensure sovereignty of country domains and fair distrubition of IP resources
Merge para 47 and 48
Iran:
Ok with para 45
On para 48 of the WGIG report,..no single government on the mgnt of the Internet.
Delete wording on security, stability....as it has been mentioned many times
Support Saudi Arabia's intervention
Azerbaijan:
Para 45: impt to mention some barriers and multistakeholder participation
Brazil:
Include para 19 of the WGIG report to para 45 of the draft chapter 3
Uganda:
Proposes 45bis...from the African Group
Improve wording of para 47.... institutionalized regional Internet resources management centers.... plus sovereign management of ccTLDs
For contributions, email to wsis-contributions@itu.int
United States:
On para 46, need to establish linkage between current structures and developments on the Internet from 1995
Alternative to 1st sentence, para 46:
We recognize and acknowledge the vital role played by many existing organizatins in the technical management of the Internet and strive to build on the current strucutres which facilitation the global expansion of the Internet in a secure and stable manner.
Supports interventions of Saudi Arabia and Ghana.
Adam Peake, GLOCOM on behalf of IG Caucus:
Use time tomorrow
India:
Supports intervention of Saudi Arabia and Iran
China:
Will deliver a specific statement on para 45 on a latter time
Japan:
Impt issue on IP address is equitable distribution
United Kingdom on behalf of the EU:
Missed the point...talks fast
New Zealand:
Supports Canada's intervention on para 45-47 as well as Japan's intervention on IP addresses
On para 47, use word “equitable”
Venezuela:
Switch para 48 to para 46 for better flow
Ghana:
On para 46....use stakeholders, not different actors
On para 47.... use fair, not balanced
Sudan:
On para 46, progress on the principles must be monitored and periodically reviewed
Chair:
Will reconvene 6pm today.
Announcement on Uruguay convening drafting of para 43
GRULAC meeting
Arab Group meeting
Meeting adjourned