[WSIS CS-Plenary] Fw: Background of my objection on finalstatement of Internet Governance Caucus
John Fung
john.fung at hkcss.org.hk
Thu Feb 24 17:19:22 GMT 2005
thank you adam,
i have just attended the launching of a new book titled "internet governance" it could be freely downloaded from the following website. It covers a wide range of topics on internet governanace with interesting cartoons...i had a browse at some pages quite interesting and readable. So whoever intereted could have a look too:
http://www.diplomacy.edu/isl/ig
john
Dr John FUNG
Director
Information Technology Resource Centre
The Hong Kong Council of Social Service
url: www.hkcss.org.hk
tel: (852) 2864 2971
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
Reply-To: plenary at wsis-cs.org
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 01:28:48 +0900
>>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>Plenary mailing list
>Plenary at wsis-cs.org
>http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>
______ ______ ______ ______ ______
Sent via the WebMail system of HKCSS
More information about the Plenary
mailing list