WSIS Resumed Prepcom III
14 November 2005
Notes by Jette Madsen, CONGO
Drafting group chaired by Ghana:
Language on 71g): Encouraging relevant parties to commercially
negotiate
reduced interconnection costs for LDCs taking into account the
special
constraints of LDCs.
Was agreed without further discussions:
WG chaired by Canada: The group had come up with 10 “common
points” which
formed the basis for the discussions at the rest of the meeting:
1. Internet Governance should respect the Geneva principles as set
out in
the Geneva declaration and plan of action.
2. Internet Governance includes more than Internet names and
addresses,
issues dealt with by ICANN, it also includes other critical
issues…
(wording from WGIG report para. 12 to be considered)
3. There are many cross cutting international public policies that
are not
adequately addressed with the current mechanisms which require
attention.
4. Importance of maximizing the participation of developing
countries for
development.
5. Countries’ legitimate interests regarding decisions affecting
their
ccTLDs.
6. Importance of the stability and security of the Internet.
7. Finding solutions to issues arising from the use and misuse of
the
Internet of particular concern to everyday users.
8. Any Internet Governance approach should continue to promote an enabling
environment for innovation, competition and investment
9. Agreement to
creation of a forum (function) (pending conclusion of
discussions on Internet Governance and determination of its
mandate) (based
in multistakeholder participation).
10. the need for governments, on an equal footing, to be able to
carry out
their roles and responsibilities in international public policy
issues
pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical
operation
of arrangements.
Saudi Arabia: Proposal for point 10: “The need for a new
cooperation model
to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out…”
Australia oppose Saudi Arabian amendment: The need for a new
cooperation
model has not been proven – should base on existing models.
Ghana propose amendment to point 4 – “… and taking into account
the
specific interests in Internet Governance.”
US: supports Australia’s concern about the Saudi Arabian
amendment.
Australia: Where does this document fit into the actual text?
Chair: First reactions and then we decide where the paper stands.
Saudi Arabia proposes that its proposal for point 10 is put in
square
brackets as in point 9. There is two views on both
Chair: We are not negotiating text. Will not amend the text, put
their
views are heard.
South Africa support Saudi Arabian proposal and proposes amendment
to point
5: “The need for an oversight mechanism that addresses…”
US: sufficiently mechanisms currently within ICANN – no need for
an
oversight mechanism. Will not accept the amendment.
Chair: There should be no oversight at all? Or there could be a
reference
to oversight, but not in this words or in this
US: Oversight not necessary. There is existing mechanisms today for
discussions.
Saudi Arabia: Need for new model for cooperation between private
sector
technical operation and governments’ public policies.
Point 5: the key question if the existing models are sufficient or
not.
Existing models does not give nations suvereignity over their
ccTLDs.
Brazil: According to US we already have a place for oversight, but
the
place (GAC) is only an advisory council that has no power to
decide. We can
delete the word oversight, but we need a mechanism where countries
can
discuss their own ccTLDs
UK: two proposals for para 5
Delete “oversight”, what we need is an “improved mechanism”
Amend “Countries should not be involved in decision on other
countries
ccTLDs”
Para 10: “the need for a new cooperation model building on
existing
structures”
US: want to underscore the existing opportunities of governments
to manage
ccTLD as they wish: retain authority, give it over to private
sector,
universities – flexility in the existing system.
New cooperation model: signals “a new intergovernmental model” –
do not
support this or find it necessary.
To Brazilian intervention: GAC is an advisory body – that provide
advices
to a board that is international and elected. Invite Brazil to
make
proposal for the GAC at meeting in December.
Saudi Arabia: Approve South African proposal on point 5 + EU
proposal on
this point.
Problem is broader than ccTLDs – oversight mechanism should also
deal with
gTLDs
Venezuela: We should refer to “mechanism” and “responsibilities”
Support South African proposal for point 5 (need for a mechanism)
Support proposal for point 10 (need for new cooperation model).
Japan: Each country should manage its own ccTLD – we should not
set up a
new mechanism
Australia: Associate with US on point 5 and 10 + with Japan.
There is a cooperation model in place and it has worked well.
Priority is
to ensure that it works well and ongoing
UK in response to US intervention: replace “oversight” or
“improved” with
“a flexible mechanism” in point 5.
Point 10: EU is willing to consider other words if “a new
cooperation
model” is itself a problem for the US.
Brazil: ICANN is interested to hear the ideas of the GAC, but we
depend on
ICANN to implement our suggestions. Want a more efficient GAC – “a
GAC
without the A.”
Chair: instead of alternative mechanism – could a genuine reform
of GAC
satisfy you?
How can a body ask for independence if it needs a supervisor to
say yes or
no?
Iran:
Respond to chair question: what is the ceiling for improvement of
GAC? Can
it go beyond its advisory role? We can enhance the role of
governments in
GAC, but GAC remains an advisory body.
Switzerland:
Questions if not if our wishes is reflected, but if we can live
with the
wording.
Support EU wording “improved mechanism” – we will never agree on
the word
“oversight”
+ amendment “Countries should not be involved in decision on other
countries ccTLDs”
how are we assured that GAC will improve at the meeting in
December – need
for minimum of guarantee that this will happen
Columbia:
Obvious that present structures are deficient – no decision-making
possibility for governments
Support “improved and flexible”
South Africa respond to US on ccTLD: Need for a mechanism to
address
problems. We should lay the ground for an equal footing.
Trinidad and Tobago: Para 5 – not just administration of ccTLDs,
but
participation in decision-making. Mechanism must be maintained in
the text.
US on including gTLDs: would like a clarification on why they are
put in
same category as ccTLD.
Two points: 1) ICANN can take its own initiative or respond to
initiatives
of the GAC. Has specifically asked for the views of the GAC in the
past. 2)
No institutions can change without the initiative of its members –
invite
members of GAC to make proposals at the December meeting. No
initiative –
no change will be brought about.
Survey by Internet Society: members commented on the 4 models and
not one
was supported. Interpret is as there is no need for a new model.
There is an ongoing cooperation at the technical level, which
should be
encouraged.
Israel: different countries have different approaches to the
management of
ccTLD - flexibility. Associated with US, Japan and Australia.
Samoa supports Japan, US, Australia and Israel. No need for a new
cooperation model. WSIS should be causious with establish
Point 5: “The need to improve existing mechanisms…”
China: Support the establishment of an oversight mechanism –
improved
mechanism cannot be accepted
Support Saudi Arabia on the need for a new cooperation model.
Australia: There has been evolutions within ICANN – is able to
evolve
(letter from ICANN’s chair is prove of this). We need to recognize
that
there is other stakeholders involved – should keep this in mind.
Cooperation model – should be cooperation between all . Does not
see the
present text as common ground.
Chair: there is problems on two out of ten points (point 5 and
10). Need to
move on to discussions on point 9, which is bracketed.
Read aloud from letter from the chairman of ICANN: how can the
role of
governments be strengthened within existing multistakeholder
structures.
How can governments’ concerns best be addressed and how can
cooperation
with GAC be improved – invite to a discussion.
Uruguay: Substitute “oversight” with “improved” could be a way out
+
alternative text on new cooperation model.
Indonisia supports South African proposal on point 5 and Saudi
Arabian
proposal on point 10 and proposes to Amend Tunis Commitment to
point 1.
Proposes a working group that could reformulate point 10.
Singapore tries to reinforce commonalities. Point 5: ccTLDs are
the
countries’ flags/suvereinity in cyberspace – nobody seems to
disagree that
this is a legitimate interest. Proposes new language:
“Countries legitimate interest as expressed and defined by country
regarding decisions affecting their ccTLDs should be respected and
upheld
through a flexible and improved framework. Countries should not be
involved
in decisions on other countries ccTLDs.”
Disagreement on whether change should come from outside or within
GAC.
Singapore believe it is possible to make improvements within GAC.
Is
encouraged by the letter from the chair of ICANN.
Brazil refers to Swiss intervention: we do not have a guarantee
that GAC
will change. Would like to hear the views of the chair of ICANN at
the next
meeting if he is here.
Chair will talk to ICANN representatives about making a
presentation at
next meeting.
Saudi Arabia?: prefer original wording in point 5 (to proposal
made by
Singapore). Amendment of gTLDs in the text.
Korea: wants improvement within existing structures.
Ghana: “improved and flexible mechanism” does suggest movement.
Another
format that will allow the active participation and inclusion that
they
have asked for. Propose the end of the first quarter of 2006 as
the
timeline for the establishment of a forum. Forum should be a part
of the
ongoing dialogue after Tunis.
Chair asks delegation to focus on point 9 – the mandate of the
forum. When
should it be established and how long should its mandate continue?
Brazil:
-Forum as interface with intergovernmental and other bodies.
- Identify emerging issues and direct them to the attention of the
relevant
bodies.
- Make proposal for action on issues that are not covered
elsewhere.
- Contribute to capacity building of developing countries
- Time frame for establishment – not later than African proposal.
- timeframe for the end of its work – should be decided by the
forum itself
Canada:
- Focused
on capacity building
- Involve
all stakeholders
- Not
replace existing institutions
- Not
involved in day-to-day operation
- Periodically
reviews – its continuation should
be reviewed after 5 years.
- Prepared
to accept African proposal for timeframe.
Uruguay: Brazilian and Canadian lists are good bases for
discussion.
It should be possible for the forum to self-assess its
continuation.
Timeframe for establishment seems appropriate.
Ghana proposes amendment: “The forum should review in-depth the
general
policies of Internet Governance. Such a framework should
facilitate
participation for all stakeholders. We call upon UNSG to organize
the forum
before the end of the first quarter of 2006.”
UK/EU: Interested in Canada’s wording. Should be specified that
the forum
is not intended to be involved in oversight of the Internet and
the
day-to-day technical operation.
Chair asks governments to continue consultations. He will try to
prepare a
paper based on this morning’s discussions. First reading this
afternoon and
then they will set up drafting groups. Hope to have text ready by
7 pm.
Stakeholder interventions:
CCBI: Active engagement in the multiple for a that already exist.
Participation of all stakeholders on an equal footing. Not
establish a new
institution that will drain resources.
CS Internet Governance Caucus: Purpose of forum:
- foster
inclusive dialogue between all stakeholders
- make
practical recommendations for action
Opposes Canadian proposal that limits the focus to development and
capacity
building. Would ghettoize the forum as a meaningful tool for
dialogue.
No single government should have an eminent role. ICANN should be
a global,
independent body.