[WSIS CS-Plenary] Fw: Background of my objection on final
statement of Internet Governance Caucus
Adam Peake
ajp at glocom.ac.jp
Thu Feb 24 16:28:48 GMT 2005
>Adam,
>
>As spoken, a gentle reminder for you to dig up the paper you have
>written and share it with others.
John, Thanks to your prompting I have asked Adina to print a paper I
wrote earlier this year on Internet governance and WSIS. I hope
copies will be distributed this evening at content and themes. It is
also online at
<http://igov.apdip.net/opening_discussion/resources/wsis_governance_paper.pdf>
It is intended as an introduction to the issues in the context of
WSIS. It was written in May (with some corrections later!) so is not
up to date on what has happened since, but I hope the background will
be helpful.
Anyone interested in more recent and more specific examination of
issues should look at the work of the Internet Governance Project
<http://www.internetgovernance.org/>
Thanks,
Adam
>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 ICANN and
>unilateral control over the internet. So I don't quite understand
>how these "misunderstandings" between YJ and the internet governance
>caucus happened. I hope that sharing your paper you mentioned to me
>last night with the plenary group might help the solidarity within
>CS. And I think your paper would be educational to many of us too so
>that we all get to understand a bit more about what "root server
>management" refers to and its significance.
>
>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 capable 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 Behalf 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
>statement 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
>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?? 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?? 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?? work.
>> >
>> > Regarding follow up of WGIG's final report, negotiations must be
>> > conducted ??n 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
>> >
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Plenary mailing list
>Plenary at wsis-cs.org http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>
>
>====
>
>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
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Plenary mailing list
>Plenary at wsis-cs.org
>http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
More information about the Plenary
mailing list