World Summit on the Information Society

Prepcom III

Sub-Committee A (Internet Governance)

22 September 2005

Report by Jeremy Schtern

Key points:

• drafting groups will be formed
• will be limited number to accommodate smaller delegations
• stakeholders (NGOs, CS and PS) role in them is still open: will eitherbe A) closed completely; B) allowed in as observers only with some
  speaking rights; C) allowed full participation in negotiations
• this will be decided right away
• chair will diffuse a document for discussion, form drafting groups for tomorrow am

Full notes:

Subcommittee A: Thursday Sept 22- 10-13 hrs, RM XX

Before session:

Handout: The Chair’s Discussion Paper
(paper version of discussion agenda projected on screen and discussed yesterday)

reads as follows: (English only)

Preambular text

Part 1: introduction
- Geneva principles
- WGIG mandate
- Working Definition

Part 2: Stakeholders
- roles and responsibilities
- coordination

Part 3: Public policy issues relevant to IG

3a) infrastructure and management of critical internet resources

3b) use of internet
- internet stability
- spam
- access to info and knowledge
- freedom of expression
- data protection and privacy rights
- consumer rights
- Intellectual property rights


Part 4: Measures to promote development
- capacity building
- meaningful participation in global policy development
- multilingualism
- enabling environment


Part 5: follow-up and future arrangements

-approach: evolutionary / incremental
-framework for interface between existing and future arrangement
-possible governance/ oversight function: (four models)
- possible forum
-recommended mandate
-structure- light/ heavy? Loose/ tight?

10:15

Karen Johnson of Council of Europe

-bring to delegates attention that the statement in WGIG report that “there is a lack of multi-lateral forums on prevention of cyber crime” is false.
-encourages WSIS to adopt Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime so that work is not duplicated.

CariCom (Caribbean Communication)

- our lack of participation in the WSIS process reflects not a lack of interest but a lack of capacity common to all developing
countries
- access to backbone, use and misuse, d

10:23 Chair: We went through parts 1-3 yesterday, we are now on part 4 (of above document)
-asks for comments (none given)

Chair: moving to part 5

-asks comments:

Russia

- section 5, bullet 3, suggests remove word “four” so that it says only models, since all models have been critiqued
- would like document DT8 annotated with cross references to WGIG report and document DT 7, the comments received on

Chair: this paper (DT 8 as written above) has no status, is just a tool to facilitate discussion, but annotation can be done.

Columbia

- sure that there are other models, so we should say models instead of ‘four models’, but shouldn’t be too vague because we have to know what
the models are.

Chair:

-reviews models from WGIG report

Brazil

- we need some background information- the WGIG report was requested by our heads’ of state, it is not without status, it is
highest possible status. It deserves our utmost attention.
- We have to focus our discussion.


UK (on behalf of EU)
- support chair’s plans for discussion
- still much work to be done to build on common ground, build on shared understandings
- what is the timetable? When does chair envisage tabling text?
- Reiterates support for WGIG report, but that it is not a negotatied text, agree that other material can contribute to the discussion, notably document DT 7 (the comments on WGIG report)
- There is no unique definition of IG, WGIG is a working def., we can discuss as needed and revisit at the end.

Chair:

- timetable will be aggressive: maybe starting tomorrow, be ready for afternoon and evening sessions
- to discuss exact deadlines soon.

Iran

- questions the / between evolutionary/ incremental/ revolutionary
- is ‘framework’ something different from model and forum?



The United States

- a number of interventions have made points with which we would like to associate
- we have a view on the WGIG definition we will discuss it
- we agree with Russia on the 4 models, there are nuances between the model that may come from external to the WGIG report.
- Overall accept the chair’s text as a non-status working document.


Singapore
- the scheme of this document is the correct one and the order is the correct one.


Chair:
Language should be in readable prose but accessible to heads of states and technocrats.

Honduras

- recommends that “access for all” is mentioned as a specific point in document as it is in WGIG report and not just assumed as part of implementation

Saudi Ariba

- in favour of Irans suggestion RE part 5, what is the chair’s postion?

Chair:

You are attaching too much importance to the text- they are just bullet points for discussion, not points for negotiation.

Cuba
-part 4 is separated from part 3, thus development issues are separate from public policy issues
- like to associate with iran’s points on part 5, and with brazil, iran and others and that we have to move quickly to issues of text in regards to part 5 in particular

Chair:
- We can find some language to link IG and development



Brazil

- CCBI said yesterday that they do not support a more centralized system for IG, the Brazilian gov agrees with this totality because it is impossible to have a system more centralized than the current system where 1 company from California controls everything. They only way to solve this is to have an Internet Counsel. This is common to WGIG models 1, 2 and 3 and we just need to negotiate the details. This is, I think a hunaimus decisions of the WGIG report and I have heard nothing to contradict it from the other delegations.

Chair.

- You are backing a fusion between model 3 and 4?

Hati

- We need ICT programs without which interconnection and even training will be meaningless for development.

Chair

- segments closed temporarily, we will hear statements

Egypt

- further expansion of list to include all developmental concerns

Stakeholders:

PS: Mathew Sheers, Internet society

- It is very unlikely that people around the world care about root servers, IPv 6 etc, but they do care about access costs, language availability and training etc.
- Quotes paragraph 4 of WSIS declaration
- We have spent too much time discussing architexture, more real issues.
- The IS has spent much time in the last decades doing capacity building
- Make connectivity and capacity the issues here
- The existing structures work, the public policy issues are addressed elsewhere.
- We in the Internet community are interested in organic chance, participants in the WSIS must acknowledge that the Internet community has worked
- The internet community includes standards setting institutions and many other types of orgs. It is at the core of the development of the past, present and future of the internet yet they are not one of the primary stakeholders. Demands to acknowledge that.

Ishia from CCBI

- clarifies position on centralization.
- Discussion of forum function, there are many existing forum. Internet is designed and works in a de-centralized design.
- CCBI supports efforts to encourage participation in existing forums.
- Any additional exercises would have to add value.
- Would be a duplication of costs and resources and could sidetrack efforts to increase access to ICTs- to the real reason of the WSIS
- Any events or spaces should be to exchange info on existing organizations.

Heather Shaw ICC, on Behalf of CCBI

- creating new fora can be expensive, particularly where existing mechanisms exist and thus existing mechanisms should be exhausted first.
- WSIS should foucs on more meaningful participation in existing fora as a discussion of capacity building.
- Translation of docs, travel expenses for developing countries.
- All people must have access to basic education and access to ICT training
- Educators should use info about current and future marketplaces to structure curiulms
- Submitts language suggestion for chapter 3 (very long, missed it- look for text version)

CS: Ralf on behalf of Privacy and security group
- only if people can use it freely can the Internet be the important tool of development
- support WGIG conclusions on privacy
- lack of rules on problem
- joins Montreaux declaration in calling on UN to enact global law
- joins in calls to enact global privacy forum
- will submit language soon

Adam Peake IG cacus

- Civil society not satisifid with roles and responsibilities as described in Geneva dec, but are more than satisified with the roles and responsibilities described in WGIG report

Venezuela
- We haven’t got to the heart of the matter, we need to hurry
- As regards part 4, we propose to put all of these into a single part that could be called governance models. The important thing is to reach agreement.
- Proposes that we set up several groups to discuss the, by tomorrow by latest.

Chair
- consolidate your own and regional positions and then reach out to other delegations
- I am thinking about working groups.
- There will be no prepcom III bis, everything must, must, must be done here, there will be no intersectional meeting of any kind.

El Salvador
- overlap between 3a and part 5 of chair’s document


Saudi Arabia (on behalf of Group of Arab Countries)

- Arab group prepared to make statement on part 5.


Chair
- calls for cross fertilization to synthesize ideas

proposal 1:
- Drafting groups as of tomorrow
- Chair will circulate a text with blanks in it in areas where common ground has not been established. Paper will not have any status. Designed to instigate submission of language and thus, negotiation amongst positions.
- Rolling text by early next week.
- Likeminded groups should meet this afternoon, try to build coalitions, cross group dialogues.
- Asks for direction on the possibility of having CS, PS and International orgs as observers of drafting groups.

US
- Practicality and principle
- Many delegations are small in terms of the number of experts that they can bring into drafting groups. Thus, few groups are better
- In response to the Internet Society, we seek an opportunity for those groups to participate in the debate much more than 15 minutes at the end of every session. They need to be at the table.

Brazil

- we are here negoating a text to be signed by our heads of state, this is an intergovernmental process. We have CS and PS in our delegation, but we have to have a moment when governments sit together to decide.

Dr. Kelly (from Chair).

- relevant sections from Rules of Procedures section 8 rule 51
- no text relating specifically to drafting groups or working groups

Saudi Arabia
- small number of groups
- must be set up after principle decisions have been taken here
- the Geneva summit set the precedent already, the same method should be adopted here. Members of CS and PS- through their delegations- may participate, there is no need to invent a new mode of participation.

Senegal (on behalf of Africa)

-limited numbers of groups

Canada
- 2 areas of agreement amongst all. Security and multi-stakeholder
- There are many stakeholder groups that can bring a great to negotiation (as with US).
- Need to deal in plenary with some issues first.

Chair:

- things will go to groups and come back to plenary. Plenary should not block the work of the working groups.

Iran

- limited numbers of groups
- national committees established with multi-stakeholders, but mandate not clear here for this, this is an intergovernmental process.
- Sites rule 55, NGOs etc can distribute observers at public meetings, drafting meetings would not be public.

El Salvador

Chair

Singapore

UK (on behalf of EU)

- need to draw on multistakeholderism to the maximum in the drafting of text.

Australia
- associate with Canada about concern for more discussion in plenary first
- prefer a small number of drafting groups
- would support the involvement of NGO stakeholders in drafting groups
- we see value in those contributions of these groups
- much of the expertise lies with these groups

- rules of P suggest question is open to plenary

Nicaragua (on behalf of GROLAC)
- concerns about small delegations

China
- we have spent a lot of time working with the private sector, but the negotiations themselves are intergovernmental negotiations.

Honduras
-maybe should be regional groups.
- any other stakeholders who want to observe can participate

Turkey
- supports the proposals and looks forward to working with stakeholders in observer capacity, following the rules of P

Singapore
- limited size delegation
- observation by multi-stakeholder, but no negotiation

New Zeeland
- more time in plenary
- multi-stakeholder participation, use the WGIG report conclusions to involve them now.

Norway
- multi-stakeholder approach should be stakeholders as observers with the possibility to talk, but not in the drafting possibility itself.

Pakistan (on behalf of Asian group)

- The Asian group is of the view that the this prepcom should adhere to the rules and procedures established during the Geneva documents.

Switzerland
- necessary to give the right to speak to stakeholders in the meetings

India

- supports Brazil and China, but at the same time the drafting groups must have observers from other stakeholders, so we support Singapore

Canada

- points out that not all regional groups are in the business of coordinating positions


Barbados
- expertise of stakeholders is vitally important

Togo

- limited number of groups

Sudan
- we are not convinced of need of groups, it will all come back here in the end
- suggests 2 groups,
- 5.3: models for IG
- and one which deals with all of the other matters

South Africa
- we thought that that confusion over stakeholders was cleared using the rules of P in the Geneva phase, that roles for observers were there.

Chair
- rules of procedure stickly followed do not allow for participation
- precendant suggests possibility
- we are in a grey area

Indonesia

- supports chair, Asia group

Nigeria
- the rules need to be followed, if they participate they have no voting rights

Nepal
- it wouldn’t be a bad idea to seek input from observers, but not in drafting process

Lebanon
- confirm Saudi Arabia / Brazil, stakeholders should not participate in intergovernmental drafting groups

Australia
- asks legal advice
- supports Singapore position, think it is important that they speak but do not have negotiating powers

Algeria
- limited groups and open ended groups
- prefer to stay in white area of rules rather than grey area


Azerbaijan
- very usefull to invite all of the stakeholders according to the existing rules


Chair

- no objection to setting groups up
- number should be limited
- no objection that I circulate a paper
- associating stakeholders: 3 postions emeged
- 1. associate them; 2. don’t associate them; 3. associate them, give them statements to make, but they do not vote.

Gave Singapore and those who supported them 5 minutes to convert everyone else to the middle road.