[WSIS CS-Plenary] Fw: Background of my objection on final statement of Internet Governance Caucus

[YJ Park]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "YJ Park" <yjpark at myepark.com>
To: "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wz-berlin.de>; <adinafulgaradi at yahoo.com>;
<ct at wsis-cs.org>; "WSIS Internet Governance Caucus"
<governance at lists.cpsr.org>; "karen banks" <karenb at gn.apc.org>; "Adam Peake"
<ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 9:09 AM
Subject: Background of my objection on final statement of Internet
Governance Caucus


> Dear all,
>
> I decided not to participate in this distorted Internet Governance forum
> in early 2004. While I attend PrepCom II of the second phase, I felt
> obligation to make intervention to bring another voice to this forum.
>
> As I addressed my concerns at "Contents and Themes Group" meeting
> yesterday, the position presented by WSIS CS Internet Governance
> caucus should have not been adopted as WSIS CS position.
>
> I am speaking here as co-founder of WSIS CS Internet Governance
> causcus back in Feb 2003 and also as someone who does come from
> Neither USA Nor Europe Nor Japan.
>
> This caucus has historically been dominated by actors from USA,
> Europe and Japan especially those who have "INSIDE" connections
> with the current Internet Governance body, ICANN.
>
> These actors has made their best efforts to distract this caucus to focus
> on some other issues like WIPO, WTO, other internatonal organizations
> and even changed the caucus name into Global ICT Governance.
>
> When 2003 Summit declaration decideed to handle Internet Governance,
> the group dominated then Global ICT Governance caucus finally
> unwillingly started to deal with ICANN in a minimalist manner and
> changed its name again back to Internet Governance caucus in order to
> support ICANN as much as possible.
>
> Not surprisingly I have seen comments made by members of opinion
> leaders of this caucus publicly stated "CONSENSUS" of this caucus
> is to side with ICANN even though they are not happy with the current
> ICANN.
>
> Internet Governance has historically referred to Internet address
> management and therefore governments have been focusing on
> ICANN at World Summit on Information Society. Interestingly,
> WSIS CS has been reluctant to make direct comments on ICANN.
>
> The following statement presented by Internet Governance caucus
> shows exactly where the current Internet Governance caucus stands
> regarding ICANN issues
>
> That statement generally promoted the following principles and
> it never specifically touched ICANN even though many people
> publicly expressed their concerns in ICANN in the list.
>
> 1. Multi-stakeholder
> 2. Human Rights (freedom of expression and privacy)
> 3. Civil Society participation in the WSIS process
> 4. This paragraph seems to describe the ICANN in principle.
>
> ICANN in principle calims it includes decisions by individual users,
> it consists of a series of private agreements including its MoU US
> Department of Commerce. ICANN also claims it respects national
> policies, and it is indeed an international and transnational body in
> appearance at least it could succeed in reaching out Europe.
>
> 5. General issues in Internet Governance.
>
> > Unilateral control of the root zone file and its effects for the name
> > space
>
> > The crucial role of technical standards in the preservation of an
> > interoperable global Internet
>
> Two issues associated with ICANN were listed at Internet Governance
> caucus statement but interestingly those who drafted made not comments
> on whether the curent system is acceptable or not.
>
> Instead, they asked WGIG to evaluate these two.
>
> This argument has been around since 1999. So far "technical stability"
> logic always has won over "diversified technical management system".
> Those who drafted this statement must have already known this.
>
> Those who listened to today's plenary on Internet Governance would
> understand this whole debate at World Summit on Information Society
> is "control" issue. "WHO CONTROLS the INTERNET?"
>
> Since ICANN was set up back in 1998, the control has been exercised
> by "ONE Government" and that raises concerns from most parts of the
> world. Some governments at today's plenary were willing to take risk to
> stand up against the US government more diplomatically despite potential
> accusation of axis of evils. Some governments think they can endure the
> current system as long as they have agreeable dialogue with US Gov't.
>
> If WSIS Civil Society is willing to contribute to this debate as
substantial
> equal partners to other stakeholders as it has been advocating, CS should
> also have made comments on why CS has serious concerns in the current
> Root-server zone file management system, global ccTLD governance
> mechanism, and creation of multilingual top level domain names and asks
> for more internationalized oversight function of Internet address
> management.
>
> I could not see any of these issues cleary in the following statement and
> therefore I "objected" to this statement as Civil Society position. This
> position could have been recorded as a small group of clique who have
> some vested interests in this process. But it was unacceptable to
recognize
> this as civil society position.
>
> Sorry for long-length post to explain why I objected to this statement
> at yesterday's CS Content and Themes Group.
>
> I hope to see WSIS CS is engaged with this debate down this road
> as substantial stakeholders instead of being those who promote ICANN
> that expedites global standards among like-minded groups without enough
> consultation from those who don't belong to the like-minded group.
>
> Thank you,
> YJ
>
> > Hi, everyone, this is the final version of the IG caucus' statement that
> > will be presented at tomorrow's plenary meeting. Other caucuses have
> > contributed significantly. Details can be found in the document itself.
> >
> > I hope we have managed to reach an acceptable compromise between at
> > times conflicting criteria like length,
> > inclusiveness and all-embracing political awareness....
> > Adina, an rtf version for translation and printout is attached.
> >
> >
> > Statement by the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus,
> > the Gender, Human Rights, Privacy and Media Caucuses
> > on behalf of the Civil Society Content and Themes Group,
> > 23 February 2005, Geneva
> >
> >
> > 1. We commend the Secretary General of the United Nations on the
> > establishment of the Working Group on Internet Governance.
> >
> > We express our support for the WGIG’s multi stakeholder approach, and
> > wish to stress that there is a fundamental difference between
> > multilateral and multi stakeholder processes, and that the Summit
> > documents were explicit in calling for the balanced participation of all
> > stakeholders. Legitimate and successful Internet Governance can only be
> > achieved if all concerned or affected groups have an opportunity to
> > influence the outcome. Gender balanced representation in all aspects of
> > Internet Governance is vital for the process and its outcomes to have
> > legitimacy.
> >
> > We believe the WGIG is becoming a working model for multi-stakeholder
> > collaboration, with all sectors providing expertise and contributions.
> > The governments that agreed to this new global practice should now take
> > positive steps to ensure its full implementation.
> >
> > As a first step, conformity with this evolving norm should be carefully
> > assessed with respect to existing arrangements at intergovernmental
> > level, like the ITU, WIPO, UNESCO, other organizations such as OECD and
> > WTO, private sector arrangements like ICANN and the IETF, and to
> > emerging mechanisms.
> >
> > 2. The WGIG should ground its work within a human rights and development
> > framework. The rights to freedom of expression and privacy are of
> > special importance in this context as is the need for a greater emphasis
> > on the principles of openness and transparency.
> >
> > The caucus believes that two outcomes of the WGIG that will add
> > significant value are:
> >
> > 1. An understanding of how governance mechanisms can further these basic
> > rights and principles,
> > 2. An elaboration of the concept of democratic internet governance which
> > fosters the goals of creativity, innovation and cultural and linguistic
> > diversity
> >
> > 3. The extent of participation from those who do not yet have access to
> > the Internet is still far from sufficient. This is especially true for
> > civil society actors. The stakeholders present during this WSIS process
> > have been, in the main, economically privileged and predominately male.
> > We would like the WGIG to make appropriate recommendations to ensure the
> > effective participation of ALL people from all regions of the world. For
> > governance mechanisms to be all-inclusive and transparent, even women
> > and men who are not yet connected by any communication technologies
> > should be represented and heard.
> >
> > 4. All stakeholders should recognize the diversity of processes and
> > mechanisms involved in Internet governance, including:
> > • decisions by individual users
> > • private agreements
> > • national policies, and,
> > • international and transnational bodies.
> >
> > This diversity of perspectives, opinions and values should be reflected
> > in the final report and any further outcomes of the WGIG. While we
> > support WGIG’s efforts to establish consensus on various issues, the
> > report should go beyond consensual matters and find ways to reflect
> > diversity.
> >
> > 5. Although Prepcom 2 is early for substantive progress on issues and
> > definitions, we wish to emphasize those that the WGIG must consider in
> > its next phase of work:
> >
> > • Unilateral control of the root zone file and its effects for the name
> > space
> > • The crucial role of technical standards in the preservation of an
> > interoperable global Internet
> > • The impact of Internet Governance on freedom of expression and privacy

> > • The different implications of Internet Governance for women and men
> > • The impact of Internet Governance on consumer protection
> > • International Intellectual property and trade rules where they
> > intersect with Internet Governance
> > • Access to knowledge as global commons
> >
> > In addition we wish the WGIG luck in coming to closure on a coherent and
> > meaningful definition on Internet governance.
> >
> > The relevance of the WGIG report lies in advancing a global
> > understanding of these issues. Such an understanding constitutes the
> > basis of informed, inclusive and democratic approaches to Internet
> > governance. We look forward to progress being made on these issues and
> > the opportunity to contribute further to WGIG’s work.
> >
> > Regarding follow up of WGIG's final report, negotiations must be
> > conducted “in an open and inclusive process that ensures a mechanism for
> > the full and active participation of governments, the private sector and
> > civil society from both developing and developed countries” as stated in
> > the Geneva declaration of principles. The final negotiated document MUST
> > reflect and honour the multi-stakeholder process that produced it.
> >
> > ---------------
> >
> > best regards, jeanette
> >
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ----
>
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > governance mailing list
> > governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> >
>