[WSIS CS-Plenary] Some thoughts on Internet Governance for Tunisia Prepcom

[Thomas Ruddy]

Dear all,
--- Milton Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> * Identify which of the multiple Intgov regimes
> are failing, or where 
> contradictions or loopholes exist

I have written a paper delving into some of these
questions. It will be published in the coming
months, but a draft version is available now as
"Regime Conflicts at the World Summit on the
Information Society",
http://www.webster.ch/faculty/ruddy/paperorlandoumbruch0329.pdf
  
 
> * Take a position on privacy specifically as it
> relates to Internet 
> governance and surveillance

Here too I have advocated our taking a stand on
privacy, esp. as it may be jeopardized by
"ubiquitous computing" and the "Internet of things."
The latter refers to the "smart tags" that industry
wants to place on practically all newly sold consumer
products. Once they are scanned, these tags will be
networked by Verisign in a way similar to that in
which the dot-com domain is now.  Many consumers want
to "kill" the tags at the point of sale, and wary
consumers may be able to use control devices to
accomplish that shutting off.
Best,
Thomas
> 
> > 
> > Internet governance will presumably be a major
> focus
> > 
> > of the rest of the WSIS process. In order to
> > facilitate
> > progress toward a CS position 
> > 
> > Insofar as the Internet governance caucus can
> agree
> > to do
> > anything, it was agreed that we should take the
> > relevant section 
> > of the Civil Soc Declaration as a starting point,
> > and discuss how to 
> > modify it. That is what I do in this post. 
> > 
> > A summary of the CS Declaration's main points
> > relevant to IG are:
> > 
> >  * Governments should not take over the ICANN
> > function and should 
> > not be exclusively responsible for IG
> > 
> >  * The special US oversight role over ICANN and
> the
> > root zone file 
> > (mistakenly identified as the "root servers")
> should
> > end when "the 
> > conditions for system stability and sound
> management
> > can be 
> > guaranteed"
> > 
> >  * There should be "public interest monitoring"
> and
> > analysis of Internet 
> > governance-related IOs such as ICANN, WIPO, OECD,
> > WTO, etc.
> > 
> >  * A "multi-stakeholder observatory committee"
> > should be established to 
> > perform this monitoring and analysis
> > 
> > In terms of modifying this statement, I think a
> lot
> > of work needs to be done. At the time it was
> written
> > it probably did a good job of staking out basic CS
> > attitudes toward some key Internet governance
> > issues, both broad and narrow. The debate has
> > progressed significantly since WSIS Phase 1,
> > however, and in its current form the statement
> does
> > not contribute much.
> > 
> > * At a minimum, we need to correct the error and
> > properly identify 
> > what ICANN does and what aspect of it is
> supervised
> > by the U.S. Dept 
> > of Commerce. The root servers are actually owned
> and
> > operated by 
> > independent organizations and have no contractual
> > relationship either 
> > with ICANN or the U.S. DoC. ICANN does, however,
> > have some MoUs 
> > with the USG and the U.S. Dept of Commerce does
> > oversee the contents 
> > of the root zone file. 
> > 
> > * In addition, I personally would want to closely
> > re-examine those 
> > words about when USG oversight should end; the
> > qualification about 
> > "guaranteed" conditions for "system stability and
> > sound management" 
> > sounds a bit too restrictive for me. If a new
> > statement is not to be 
> > completely irrelevant, a firm position on this
> issue
> > must be taken
> > 
> > * The "observatory committee" strikes me as an
> idea
> > who time has 
> > come and gone. Most of what it was supposed to do
> > has been 
> > superseded by the SG's Working Group. (Maybe we
> can
> > claim that 
> > our call was heeded? ;-) ) 
> > 
> > * A revised statement should take some position on
> > how to deal 
> > with multiple, overlapping internet governance
> > regimes. See my 
> > discussion of this in the Internet Governance
> > Project's paper on 
> > principles and norms
> > http://dcc.syr.edu/miscarticles/IGP-UNICTTF.pdf 
> >  
> > A more aggressive approach to revision could do
> any
> > or all of the 
> > following:
> > 
> > * Identify which of the multiple Intgov regimes
> are
> > failing, or where 
> > contradictions or loopholes exist
> > 
> > * Articulate specific critiques and supports of
> > ICANN, e.g. oppose 
> > the use of Internet resources as leverage for
> > regulation and control, 
> > and call for consistency of its governance
> > mechanisms with the end 
> > to end principle; approve ICANN's incorporation of
> > direct CS input into 
> > its processes, with perhaps some critique of its
> > bowdlerized At-Large 
> > mechanisms 
> > 
> > * Articulate specific critiques of ITU and address
> > the ITU-ICANN relationship
> > 
> > * Address in a more substantive way the
> relationship
> > between 
> > developed and developing countries in governance
> > institutions. 
> > The current language, which basically says that
> > inclusiveness is 
> > good, rather begs the question of what
> institutional
> > reforms 
> > would actually improve the situation.
> > 
> > * Take a position on IPR and specifically fair use
> > standards
> > 
> > * Take a position on spam control
> > 
> > * Take a position on privacy specifically as it
> > relates to Internet 
> > governance and surveillance
> > 
> > --Milton Mueller
> > (with apologies for the monolingualism)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Plenary mailing list
> > Plenary at wsis-cs.org
> >
>
http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
> 
>