WSIS Prepcom III
Sub-Committee A
1000-1300 hours
Report by Jeremy Shtern
It seems in fact that the global council on Internet Governance as proposed by Iran is not in place of the forum function as I had earlier described it, but something separate.
Iran in fact supports the forum function as well.
The chair summarized the two competing visions of the forum function as:
EU (UK) and Brazil
Brazil
- has a proposal for the forum:
- -linked to UN
- interface with Inter gov bodies and other institutions on matters under their purview
- identify appropriate issues and bring them to the appropriate bodies
- identify issues not dealt with elsewhere
- connect other groups
- contribute to capacity building in developing countires
- promote and acces on an ongoing basis the WSIS principles in IG.
EU
- we think in balance there is an advantage to having a forum.
- Should not have an oversight function
- Should work with exiting organizations and institutions
- Should not dominate work done elsewhere
- Should have a clear mandate.
A drafting group was formed, but not on this issue. It will be discussed further in the afternoon subcommittee A meeting.
There were concerns raised about some elements of the particular visions of the forum articulated, but no direct objection to the establishment of the forum itself (save for one delegation which said the global council of Internet Governance- which is also still just an idea on the table- would do the same functions.
Full, but rough notes below:
Sept 27 2005
Subcommittee A: plenary discussion of Section 5
Location: Assembly Hall
Art Riley Cisco System- CCBI
- discuss form function
- business supports information exchanges, but should be limited
- should not be duplicative of other issues
- WSIS shows that many are engaging internet already and that they are being effective
- Duplication of existing structures could cause competition, divert resources away from the relevant existing institutions
Get this statement: CS- coalition on Financing
- the internet exists as much in the physical network
- the Internet is a global space, global public good, global public resources
Adam Peake- CS IG cacus
- seeks clarification on drafting groups, if CS language is being included
Chair:
- gives lecture about how ‘nothing in the UN happens automatically, even governments have to lobby'.
- The overall setting is influenced by your presence
- I have stalled the procedural matters by keeping it very informal
- “just bear with us, try to make to the most of the present conditions”
- “we have injected constructive ambiguity in this process”
Secretariat
- we took into account all of that was there
Iran
- we want to have stakeholders involved in management of the technology but, public policy issues left to the governments
Russia
…
India
…
United Kingdom (EU)
62 Suggests Geneva principles +:
- should not replace existing mechanisms, but should build on them
- the new public/private model should contribute to the susatainable stability and robustness of the Internet by addressing appropriately public policy issues related to key elements of IG
- the role of governments in the new model should be primarily focused on issues of public policy, excluding involvement in the day to day management of the Internet
Russia
- proposal of EU seems very interesting
- we need to think about infrastructure as well.
- Now we have a public infrastructure managed by 1 state, the UK proposal continues this
- We cannot accept the EU proposal, need more reference to the WGIG
Iran (See this document)
- go back to para 48 of WGIG report
- the first thing we believe that the consil should do is international public policy issues, then oversight of Internet resources management
-approve rules and procedures for dispute resolution management
- leave the functions to a reformed and nationalized existing institution, but should be responsible to intergovernmental council.
- reads out text for new para 62
- involves putting ICANN IANA into a UN council on Internet governance.
Brazil
- Iranian proposal is quite reasonable.
Oman
- acting as though Geneva principles and WGIG report do not exist
- find Iran's report very interesting
Japan
- further discussion necessary. Associate with EU. Existing structures are important
Columbia
- vision of Columbia coincides with Iran's vision, international council
South Africa
- Having listened to the proposals by the EU and Iran, we would like to align ourself with Iran
- Institutions need to be legitimate to be acceptable to SA.
- Come from a country where, just because there are structures in place that they are legitimate
Cuba
- supports the proposal made by Iran.
- Goes to the heart of the issue, the outcomes of the first phase and based on the WGIG report
New Zeeland
- the existing mechanisms are not perfect but they work. They bring ever cheaper connectivity to ever increasing parts of the world. Public policy issues are already addressed in exising fora. Do not believe throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Saudi Arabia
- the proposal put forward by Iran puts in place concret phases of work, we would like to see it in writing, side by side with the proposal of the EU
Bangladesh
- is there any proposal to put in a watchdog?
- The regions are so different in the event of the implemtation of international IG?
- Bigger states may try to influence smaller states and regions.
Chair:
- the real question is the relationship between the existing institutions of IGs and governments
Bangladesh
- governments change in each national context, therefore we need a bottom line set of principles to adhere to regardless of changing national priorities
US
- Associates with Japan on essential elements on security and stability as well as vital role played by many organizations
- Internet society has raised two points they like to reflect.
Change is best brought about through existing mechanisms, not without.
Responsbility that all stakeholders have to increase the internet in the developing world.
- Repsonsibilty for development, responsibilities of govs and stakeholders, Value and Innovations at the edges- how do we capture this in change?
- They work from the bottom up.
- The history of the Internet is the history of change from the bottom up.
- We should not limit top down this bottom up process of change
- Uses the word medium.
Ghana (on behalf of Africa Group)
- IG should be transparent and democratic
- Would like to see the proposals in writing before commenting
Singapore
-Change is necessarcy
-Singapore does not believe that the status quo today is satisfactory -far more responsive to the public policy imperatives expressed
-let's start thinking of what phase 1 would be of this evolutionary change would be
-discussing a forum or a model at this point is a bit like talking about building a house when you haven't scouted out the nehiborhood yet.
-we need to advance in a phase by phase manner, but deliberatively
China
- an evolutionary approach? This process has been underway for two years.
- Need to label this approach as progressive and evolutionary.
- What the delegation of Iran said seemed relevant
- We hope to have all the written texts first
Algeria
- evolution oui! Status quo, non!
- A real change, not a virtual one.
- The Iranian proposal is close to what we want.
Venezula
- the role of governments should be through a world internet council, and the the technical management should be separate.
- Both should be under the agies of the UN.
Switzerland
- Swiss feels that the status quo is not satisfactory but favour evolution over revolution.
- Internationalization (internalization?) of oversite functions and the ability of govs to exercise sovereignty over their CCTLDs
- Needs to be incremental. The forum as we see it, seems to be a first stage.
Mexico
- EU proposals are perfect in line with Geneva declerations. We associate with them.
Croatia
- we align ourselves with New Zeeland and Singapore.
- Clearly a need for profound change
- However, we think we should exhaust existing institutions first through incremental change.
- EU proposal is balanced.
Australia
- seconds ISOC, Japan, Croritia, US etc.
- priority stability etc.
- governance arraignments should foster innovations
- existing have worked (see list in India submission of last week)
- illogical to trade these for illdefined and unknown new elements
- find the suggestion unprovable that a overarching new body could take this all on.
- WSIS should be careful of suggestions that would divert resources away from ICT4D
Chair
List the exisiting institutions:
Austriallia
(Lists a bunch)- refers to Indian contribution of last week.
Senegal
- ongoging follow-up so that progressively we will go to this internet functions
- this is why the African group has proposed that changes be made so that IG becomes more eficant, transparent, democratic
- that is why we think follow-up is important
Iran
- we say yes to the principle of stability etc.
- but, on top of that, we say that we should not scarify the principles of international management, transparency and democracy of the Internet towards those ends.
- Interface between existing and future arraignments is a function of the oversight follow-up form, not the other way
Barbados
- find both EU and Iran proposals interesting
- evolutionary changes- but evolution is not a consistent and slow process, can happen in leaps and bounds, espically as a result of technological change
- by the time we finish this, Internet as we know it may not exisit, may not even be called the Internet, we see the issue of IG as work in progress.
Chair:
Should there be a forum or should there be know forum
EU
- we think in balance there is an advantage to having a forum.
- Should not have an oversight function
- Should work with exiting organizations and institutions
- Should not dominate work done elsewhere
- Should have a clear mandate.
Venezula
- proposes a body called the knowledge society
- we must not ignore the government sector, they are not on an equal footing as CS etc, they ought to have more weight than these institutions, governments should be responsible for providing a framework.
Columbia
- we are not very clear of the need for setting up a forum. We feel that the discussion can be carried out in the council that is being proposed.
Brazil
- has a proposal for the forum:
- -linked to UN
- interface with Inter gov bodies and other institutions on maters
under their purview
- identify appropriate issues and bring them to the appropriate
bodies
- identify issues not dealt with elsewhere
- connect other groups
- contribute to capacity building in developing countires
- promote and acces on an ongoing basis the WSIS principles in IG.
South Africa
- are favourable to forum proposal.
Iran
- are satfisfied chair's paper separates froum from governance function- sepearte but compelementary issues.
- Do support the forum
- Paragraphs 45, 46-47 of WGIG, would like to support Brazil's list of thing important to forum
- Forum should not be limited in terms of time, should be ongoing and regular meetings
Canada
- Canada has stated that it ‘could' support a form.
- We see the forum as a development issue.
- Do not think that it should be treaty making body
- Think the existing institutions are evolving.
???
- seconds brazil
Chair:
Suggests two forum options: EU and Brazil
Adam Peake
- fully support the establish as forum
- there is no cross cutting global institution
- asking that the UN Secratry General to establish it as a free standing institution
Art Riley- CCBI
- re-iterates earlier comments
Saudi Arabia
- the proposal from Brazil was interesting because it said the forum should be along side the council
- we also agree with the EU in that it should not do oversight, should not do public policy
Japan
-dialogue should continue, seconds Canada, EU
Urugay
- the forum would help integrate developing countries
- serious methodological issues to sort out.
Chair:
Discussion on Part 5, 3A will continue in Rm XX at 330 along with second reading of the chair's text.
- new drafting group on mult-lingualism and enabling environment (chapters 60-61)
Canada 100
Ghana and Sengal 56-59 16
Egypt 60-61 6-9 , rm 16