SubCommittee A, 15 November 9:00-12:00
Notes by Jette Madsen, CONGO
Third reading of document DT15-E
(I missed the interventions by stakeholders and Internet Society
(ISOC))
Ghana (African Group): small delegations have not been able to
particiate
effectively in drafting groups yesterday. Will preserve right to
go back to the
previous document.
Chair: Today last 6 hours. Can see three approaches
1) we
do not get anywhere and stop negotiations at noon
2) divide
into small groups to reach compromises
3) success
is not reflection of your own views, but to find common ground
(chair’s favoured approach)
para 62 (existing arrangements have worked effectively):
Russia: suggests deletion
US: recognition of existing mechanism, decentralization and the
role of private
sector are fundamental points. Therefore, para should be retained.
Iran sees 62 in the context of a text under negotiation. Wants to
keep it in
square brackets.
63:
Australia: proposes removal of brackets in both 63 and 64
Russia: 62,63 and 64 only mentions positive elements and signals
that no change
is necessary. Wants square brackets retained.
Chair: brackets or deletion?
Russia: prefers deletion.
Canada: paras define the context – should be retained
65:
Canada: was agreed yesterday in their group
Russia: wants “reliability and quality of service” amended
Australia: oppose the Russian proposal.
Russia: reliability and quality of service are extremely
important.
Algeria: prefers to keep text as it is. “Inter alia” signals that
list is not
exhaustive.
Chair: proposes to take out text and insert it as a separate para
Russia: willing to follow chair’s suggestion
66:
agreed
67:
Ghana: insert “actively” before continue.
Iran: would like the three alternatives read aloud.
Canada: no problems with original text.
South Africa: would like to clarify why there are alternative.
Supports alt1
together with Iran. Alt3 was made as response to alt2.
Iran’s problem with alt2: supports the notion of continuity.
Ongoing evolution
within the existing framework. Can not be the case from our point
of view.
Uruguay:
Australia: alt 2 - would like to make it clear that the existing
structure HAS
evolved over time.
US: associate with Australia – can except addition of
“actively” and also “with
full participation”. Supports alt2 with amendment
Chair: “We are convinced that there is need to initiate or
reinforce a
progressive (delete evolutionary) a transparent…”
Constitutes a subgroup to be chaired by Egypt.
68:
Australia: IG should be responsive. Propose insertion of “responsive”.
69:
South Africa: Reservation on text yesterday. We have moved from
oversight to
improved, would like to use “mechanism” instead of “framework”.
Venezuela: would like either a new para between 68 or 69 or to
include end of
para 48 of the Geneva principles in the end of para 68.
Chair: is already included in para 39.
Venezuela: framework or mechanism replaced with “internet
management”
Australia: framework vs. mechanism. South Africa proposed a global
change to
mechanism forward yesterday in drafting group. Framework reflects
that several
institutions are involved in IG. Proposes that the wording is kept
in square
brackets.
UK: Would like to add “in diverse ways” underlining that they do
not want to
standardize the way it ccTLDs are managed.
70:
Chair proposes deletion.
71:
Chair proposes deletion “of further development of”.
Brackets are removed.
Saudi Arabia: both parts should be maintained in square brackets.
Chair: what is important is to keep the concept of gTLDs – please
come up with
language
Saudi Arabia: delete brackets and keep both – would satisfy all.
Agreed.
72:
Saudi Arabia: insert “which reflects their interests” after
Governance
Agreed.
73:
Chair proposes deletion of evolutionary and keep progressive.
Iran: is not sure what a progressive approach means – want the
word in square
brackets.
Chair proposes deletion.
Is deleted.
74:
Chair: delete evolutionary and retain “progressive manner”
Iran: would like to retain brackets around “progressive”. Insert
“regarding IG”
after Geneva Principles. Take out last sentence and put it in a
seperate para.
Australia: reserves its position until it has seen the outcomes of
negotiations
of para 67.
Argentina: Balance between the elements in para 49 in Geneva
Principles.
Stability and security is mentioned three times, whereas none of
the others are
mentioned. Proposes amendment “ensuring equitable distribution of
resources,
active participation for all, multilingualism, stability and
security…”
Egypt proposes to delete progressive manner. Ghana does not agree
Australia to Argentinean proposal: should be at least be kept in.
Originally
para was dealing with critical internet resources, not human
resources.
Chair will set up a WG on this.
New 74B (former 74A):
Saudi Arabia: Amend “should” before “have an equal role”.
Iran: conceptual problem with first part. All stakeholders have a
responsibility
to secure the stability of internet.
UK: “in relation to” instead of “for” – does not suggest full
responsibility
75:
South Africa: amend “a new cooperation model”. Delete
“arrangements”, because it
is not clear.
UK proposes new 75B:
“We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the
future, building
on existing structures, to enable governments on an equal footing
to carry out
their roles and responsibilities in international public policy
issues
pertaining Internet Governance, not in day-day or technical
operation. Such
cooperation should include development of globally applicable…
Associated with
coordination and management of critical internet resources
In this regard, we call on the organizations responsible for
essential tasks
associated with the internet to contribute environment that
facilitate this…The
process towards enhanced cooperation will start by the end of
first quarter of
2006, will involve all stakeholder, will proceed as quickly as
possible
consistent with legal process and will be responsive to
evolution.” (Quoting
incomplete)
US: Proposes in beginning: “Using existent relevant
organizations…”
Uruguay: We have not answered who will be responsible for
implementing this
mechanism
Russia: support US amendment to 75B and propose amendment of
“international” so
that it reads: “Using existent relevant international
organizations…”
Group convened by Switzerland will negotiate 74 and 75.
Paragraphs on forum:
76:
Chair asks US to withdraw its reservation on UNSG.
US: reservation stands. Its decision on 76 is pending on paras 67,
74, 78 and
79. UN does not have a oversight or regulatory function for
national policies.
Therefore, US wants brackets placed by Algeria in 78 removed (The
IGF would
have no oversight function).
Chair asks Algeria if it can accept removal of brackets?
Algeria: won’t accept – its position on 78 is depending on 67
Chair: Nobody has ever said that forum should have an oversight
function and
brackets in 78 is now blocking agreement on UNSG.
Australia recognizes that ISOC will not get support, but UNSG
should be provided
with guidance in terms of the forum. Proposes new para 76B:
“We encourage UNSG to examine a range of options for the
establishment and
operation of the forum, including non-UN organizations with
established and
recognized roles in Internet issues, including development and
multistakeholder
partnerships.”
Brazil: As US seems to be against oversight, not the UN itself,
Brazil proposes
two changes to 76: “convene” could replace “establish” and after
2006 amendment
of “a meeting of the Forum.”
US: find proposal helpful, but the para is still pending on other
paras
Chair asks again Algeria to remove brackets in 78.
Algeria can accept it, but with not go along with the Australian
proposal
Chair asks Australia to withdraw proposal, but Australia is not
prepared to do
this.
US: we are mixing the concepts. There is the issue of oversight,
the helpful
proposal from Brazil and third, the question of non-governmental
participation
in forum.
Algeria is not against that UNSG consult all stakeholder, but
against
introduction of new paragraph.
Uruguay: supports removal of brackets in 78 and the Brazilian
proposal for 76.
76 could be improved without Australian proposal. Proposes instead
amendment to
77a dealing with stakeholder participation.
Ghana appeals to Australia to withdraw its proposal.
China: We reached a compromise text on 76 yesterday. Australia
tabled useful
proposals that were accepted by the group. Does not understand why
they make a
new proposal now.
Chair suggests that they find a separate place to aks UNSG to
recognize
nongovernmental and non-UN participation.
Australia will be flexible to find another place.
US accepts removal of brackets around 76 conditioned on the
outcomes of 67, 74
and 79.
Para 77 was not discussed, as the working group did not discuss it
yesterday.
Switzerland will convene a drafting group on 67, 74 and 75,
Singapore will convene a group on 76-69
Canada will convene a group on the preamble, except 67.
SubCommittee A reconvenes at 4 pm.