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

[John Fung]

Adam,

As spoken, a gentle reminder for you to dig up the paper you have written a=
nd share it with others. From what I can understand you in fact share a lot=
 of the views put forward by YJ in terms of critiques about the existing IC=
ANN and unilateral control over the internet. So I don't quite understand h=
ow these "misunderstandings" between YJ and the internet governance caucus =
happened. I hope that sharing your paper you mentioned to me last night wit=
h the plenary group might help the solidarity within CS. And I think your p=
aper would be educational to many of us too so that we all get to understan=
d a bit more about what "root server management" refers to and its signific=
ance.

I spoke to tracey the chair last night and she also agreed that (correct me=
 if I am wrong tracey) that the "techno" terms such as root server and root=
 zone file had prevented more indept discussions about the "control" issue =
within the cs-plenary members at large. I am hoping too somewhen some capab=
le people will work on an induction kit or a "wsis-terms for idiots" book. =
That would be great.

Cheers.

John FUNG
The Hong Kong Council of Social Service




-----Original Message-----
From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] On Behal=
f Of YJ Park
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 10:12 PM
To: plenary at wsis-cs.org
Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Fw: Background of my objection on final statemen=
t of Internet Governance Caucus



----- 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 Governan=
ce 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=92s 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: =95 decisions 
> > by individual users =95 private agreements
> > =95 national policies, and,
> > =95 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=92s 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:
> >
> > =95 Unilateral control of the root zone file and its effects for the
> > name space =95 The crucial role of technical standards in the 
> > preservation of an interoperable global Internet
> > =95 The impact of Internet Governance on freedom of expression and priv=
acy

> > =95 The different implications of Internet Governance for women and
> > men =95 The impact of Internet Governance on consumer protection =95 
> > International Intellectual property and trade rules where they 
> > intersect with Internet Governance =95 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=92s work.
> >
> > Regarding follow up of WGIG's final report, negotiations must be
> > conducted =93in 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=94 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
> >
>

_______________________________________________
Plenary mailing list
Plenary at wsis-cs.org http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary=



=3D=3D=3D=3D

Dr John FUNG
Director
Information Technology Resource Centre
The Hong Kong Council of Social Service
url: www.hkcss.org.hk
tel: (852) 2864 2971 

 
______ ______ ______ ______ ______
Sent via the WebMail system of HKCSS