[WSIS CS-Plenary] Sixth Unoffical personal report of ad-hoc working group of Internet Governance, PrepCom III, WSIS

[Chun Eung Hwi]

Five minutes is not enough for arguing something, but it is very possible=
=20
time for effective communication rather than biting so much time for=20
duplication and repetition of the same words in the name of country=20
delegation. And now we are talking about global information and=20
communication society meaning more feasible, more desirable, more=20
efficient, more valuable communication rather than the discommunication=20
arising from cliche. Will government delegates know this?

Even today, Bertrand Chapelle demonstrated this effective case of=20
communication for making better world. Only for five minutes allowed for=20
civil society group, he commented once again on key points of the issue.=20
Maybe, those who read my fifth unofficial report may have the compromise=20
text as one outcome of ad-hoc working group of Internet Governance. He=20
made three comments on that text.

The first one was to point out the word - "multilateral" still surviving=20
even after his repeated comments should be replaced with multi=20
stakeholder, and the participation of all stakeholders in the=20
international management of Internet should be kept at the first bullet=20
sentence.=20

Regarding the 3rd bullet sentence, he expressed one surprise that the=20
prior "ccTLD" (country code top level domain name) related phrase had=20
completely disappered and the present text is saying more broader and=20
expanded scope of "Internet-related public policy issues" language=20
replaced it. Anyhow, he reiterated the importance of the decision or=20
participation of local internet community (LIC), (but not simply by=20
governments)

Again, today, he pointed out bullet sentence 1 and bullet sentence 4 are=20
intercontradictory because bullet sentence 1 is saying the all=20
stakeholders' participation, but bullet sentence 3 and some phrases of 4=20
is saying only governments.=20

By leaving out of the meeting place, Bertrand requested to be called on=20
when ten minutes briefing is to be held before the closing time. And he=20
put down his mobile phone number to the secretariat. I asked the=20
secretariat person when the predefined closing time is. Then, his answer=20
was that it is open-ending meeting, so we cannot guess it, but it might be=
=20
around five o'clock. (The beginning time of this session was two o'clock.=
=20

Today, even though Friday, in the morning all comments on draft Action=20
Plan document has finished. So, there is no afternoon session. And=20
tomorrow and Sunday, we don't have any session. So, many frinds of mine=20
have already left for looking around the city. But unfortunately, due to=20
my small self-decision for recording what is happening in Internet=20
Governance working group of PrepCom III, WSIS - seemingly very foolish=20
decision, now I am keeping the gate of the meeting room. Bertrand left=20
because he had two more promised meeting. He was not sure whether he could=
=20
come back or not. I could be only one watchdog here. At the front of my=20
desk, one African guy is sleeping in his seat. Is WSIS a torture to him?=20
In the midst of his sleeping, he might communicate with their family=20
members free from this torturing world.=20

After looking around the gate a couple of minutes, I decided to enter into=
=20
the meeting place. If I would not intervene with the meeting, I would not=
=20
be recognized. As I entered into the meeting place, the most heating=20
debate has already gone away. With regard to hot debate point, I could=20
hear only one speech of Brazil delegate. He said that together with all=20
other countries like Egypt, Iran, Bangladesh, China =A1=A6, we respect the=
=20
private sector. Private sector has their own affairs. They can do that by=
=20
self-regulation. On the other hand, each government have their own public=
=20
policies, and for the coordination with other governments, governments=20
should do their own affairs. We have no intention to disturb private=20
sector's affairs. We, as governments, want to do our own affairs. This is=
=20
very legitimate

And the other discussion was concerned with multilingual domain name.=20
Indian delegate proposed the specific language of "internationalized=20
domain name" rather than "multilingual domain name registration" for the=20
bullet sentence 5. And for the time being, there was some confusing talks=
=20
on this - somebody wanted to use the term of "regionalism" and some=20
confusion of RIR (regional internet registry) and domain name, confusion=20
of language and technical code scheme. Sharil (Chair of GAC/ICANN)'s=20
clarification =A1=A6 Diop's technical explanation (Diop was the national=20
delegate of Senegal, but he was financially supported by ICANN for this=20
participation, he is now one of board members of ICANN. I have already=20
described him in my 3rd Unofficial personal report. After very confusing=20
long discussion, all participants agreed to the addition proposal of=20
"taking into account multilingualism" at the end of the first bullet=20
sentence. For the time being, there was chaos talks on multilingualism and=
=20
internationalized domain name.=20

After the closing of the meeting, Bertrand came back and asked some=20
questions to the Chair. He raised up the severe danger of the bullet=20
sentence 3 - because it could be abused as contents regulation by state.=20
He also requested the change of situation of observers' attendance at=20
least next week. Chair promised to try to do so, but still the answer was=
=20
very unclear.

I don't know what happens in the discussion among governmental
delegations. Fortunately, one lady is present in the meeting as a member
of national delegate. She disclosed what is happening in the other mailing
list for Internet Governance. It shows up one severe schism - one bloc of
U.S. EU, Japan, Norway, Canada, Malaysia, Senegal, (prefer
multistakeholder and "international") and the other bloc of Mali,
Mauritious, China, Uganda, Brazil, Saudi Arabia (prefer
"intergovernmental") In closing remark, Chair reminded the spirit of WSIS,
bridging the gap of digital divide and appealing the narrowing down the
gap between extremes, and to seek compromise. And Closed. Bye bye up to
next week Monday.!!!!!

------------------------------------------------------------
Chun Eung Hwi
General Secretary, PeaceNet | phone:     (+82)  2-2166-2205
Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81   |   pcs:     (+82) 019-259-2667
Seoul, 158-600, Korea  =09    | eMail:   chun at peacenet.or.kr
------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---------------------------------------------------
From: "jeanette hofmann" <jeanette at wz-berlin.de>To:=20
governance at lists.cpsr.orgReply-to: jeanette at wz-berlin.deCc:=20
wsis at ilpostino.jpberlin.deSubject: [Governance] report of governance=20
working groupDate: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 16:00:41 +0200
Hi, everyone,
=20
The crucial bone of contention of today was=20
item/bullet point 4, which was already very=20
controversial yesterday. Below you find the=20
different versions discussed yesterday:
=20
=20
4.Internet issues of an international nature=20
related to public policies should be coordinated=20
    a)[between governments and other=20
    interested parties.]=20
b)  [through/by appropriate=20
    intergovernmental organizations under=20
    the UN framework.]
    c)[as appropriate on an intergovernmental=20
    basis.]
    d)[through/by appropriate international=20
    organizations.]
    e)[through appropriate and mutually agreed=20
    international organizations.]
=20
=20
  List of countries that spoke up on this issue today:=20
=20
EU: a or d
Japan: d
Canada: d
Norway: a or d,
Mali: b
Mauricius: b
China: b
Uganda: b
Brazil: b
Australia: a
Saudi Arabia: b
US: a (only)
Mexico: a
Zimbabwe: b
Senegal: a or d
=20
As you can see, no consensus was possible. As a result, item 4 is=20
put into additional square brackets. All in all, there are now 2 levels=20
of square brackets. One applies to the whole paragraph 44, the=20
other to item 4. For option c and e, a third level of brackets was=20
discussed but finally dismissed. Now, the whole para will go back=20
to plenary next week. I don't see that another plenary discussion=20
will be of any help.=20
=20
I am most likely not allowed to post this information, please keep it=20
confidential and by no means forward it with my name or email=20
address attached. Also, no guarantee that I got all the votes right,=20
we have a language problem here and just Richard Hill (surprise,=20
surprise, as an interpreter.
=20
Best, je
=20
=20