[WSIS CS-Plenary] Sub-committee A , 10:00 - 12:30 meeting notes

[Robert Guerra]

<http://wsis.civiblog.org/blog/_archives/2005/9/22/1248875.html>

Date: March 22, 2005
Sub-committee A , 10:00 - 12:30 meeting notes

-- Interventions --

council of europe

- makes reference to coe convention on cybercrime
- asks for global ascension to cybercrime convention

caricom

Civil Society

brazil

UK / EU

- supports general outline of chair
- reserve the right to make comments
- there is still much work to be dobne to iid common ground and  
common understanding and develop framekwork which different country  
concerns can be addressed.
- question - > what is timeline to tabling a text
- on tue welcomed wgig report as basis for this subcommittee.  
reiterates support for using wgig report. however, this is not a  
negotiated text. it serves as a starting point.
- comments made so far provide valuable input

- the EU regocnizes there is no UNIQUE definition of IG. should use  
the wgig definition as a working definition for IG. can revist it if  
needed.

chair

- timetable. probably afternoon and evening sessions.
- definition. concern has been noted

iraq

- comments on part 5 (f/u and future arrangements)
- framework for interface: recommendations og wgig founded on two  
piallers - oversight and forum.
- Question on - "Framework for interface between existing and future  
arrangements
". should it be two subpoints and not one.

chair:

- evolutionary / incremental references come from reference made  
earier by ghana/africa group. that's the justification
- framework for interface : is the overall chapeau for the bullets  
that follow.

interface between the existing agreements and furture posibility

- recommendation on forum: is a seperate point
- delegates have to decide have to decide if structure is light,  
heavy or tighly controlled. across the spectrum there are mentions  
that it should be agile. it should NOT be a burdensome beaurocracy

USA

- contratulate chair on outlien that focus us on important issues
- confirms that this is a working document, that each of the points  
are open for discussion. we will follow suite and offer our views on  
specifics
- two poiints:
1. agree with EU that defn offered by WGIG report i an interesting  
one that can be used as a working definition. we have a view about it  
and will offer interesting discussion
2. models: agree with russia that models offered are not exhausted.  
other possibilities and external suggestion might come.

- welcome the outline and look forward for discussion.

chair:

- thanks us for comments

singapore

- general support for chairman's document.
- while might have individual comments, will make them at later stage
- the scheme presented by chair is one we can agree with.

honduras

- agree with mayority of areas to express ddevelopment
- wgig mentions them too in a way that creates a dialogue with dev  
countries
- in different parts of the report -> recommend that a section on  
access to all be added to the chair paper. (to be added as an  
overaching goal)

chair:

- 3b : access to information and knowledge.
- it is already in geneva documents. we will reinvoke a reference to it.

saudi arabia

- iranian part 5 proposal, support it
- Q: will you restrucutre part 5 as per comments made earier by iran

chair:

- agreeded with iranian proposal. explained existing points. thinks  
that iranian delegate agreeded
- you are putting too much emphasis to the points. we aren't  
negotiating yet, just points on what to talk about later,.

cuba:

- likes the chair discussion paper
- 2 comemnts:

1. 4 in seperating it from #3, makes it seem that it  does not  
related to public policy. but in the wgig report they were.

2. agree with iranian comment that section 5 needs to have more details

- process comment: agree with brazil and colombia that we should move  
to comments on section 5, on models.

chair

- we are advancing on section #5. we are on that subject
- there might be a misconconception on promoting development. they  
are seperated for understanding, but let's find language to  
conceptually link them.
- we will come up with some language

brazil

- reference to ccbi talking about governance. quoting on what was  
said - "they do not support a more centralized system for IG".
- brazilian delegation could not agree more with ccbi, as currently  
there is currently a centralized system controlled by a single  
computer in marina del rey.(ICANN)
- the only way to move forward is to create aninternet council that  
can substitute work being done by icann an iana. this council is  
common to models 1,3 & 4. we just have to negotiate the details.
- we need more than one government involved. i think this an  
unanimous comment from the wgig report.
- don't think others oppose moving away from the existing centralized  
process.

chair

- at appropiate time cbbi might want to explain what they mentioned
- i understand you support iic (intil internet council)

haiti

- comment on part 4.
- add  ict programs and projects to  section 4

Egypt:

- further expand part 4
- 53.4 in wgig report should be added - equitable access for all  
should be added.

chair:

- honduras also proposed that. will take note of it.

stakeholders:

- private sector (ISOC)

- thanks wgig members
- cost of access, advice and how to use the internet, security and  
usefull content, in language
- we are here (para 4 of wsis declaration). we need to remind  
oursleces, on two issues:
* connectivity and capacity building are key issues

(seems to be repeating what is in ISOC comments to wgig report)

- isoc has been keenly involved in capacity building and connectivity  
need to be

- models: the existing models work and have been resliant
- many of the policy areas are already being discussed. we need to  
build and evolve existing structures and organizations and not create  
new strucutures.
- the internet community has adapted and become more open
- the system works and evolves now

ccbi:

- forum function: a variety of existing organizations already
- many of the organizations allow for discussion

- the internet has worked well with decentralized control
- this decentralzied control has allow for growth at edges.
- supports greater participation and greater evolution

- there may be in some cases call for issue specific fora

- any issue specific event should include information exchange and  
horizonal collaboration
- the space would need to be a neutral space to bring them together  
as equal partners.
- existing organizations could increase participation to all  
stakehodlers at national and regional level.

- information should be to favcilitate and exchange information.
- ccbi looks forward to contribute further

heather shaw (CBBI)

- need to facilitate collaboration
- new fora can be xpensive. need to make most of existing  
organizations before creating new organizations
- capacity building important
- all stakehodlers have a role to play on capacity building.

Civil Society:

- ralf bendrath
- adam peake

venezuela

- wgig report is a guide.
- the proposed models can be used as a guide only. we shouldbe able  
to make combinations and/or changes
- there might be areas of convergence

- we have limited time to discuss, and it is out last chance to reach  
an accord we have at this prepcom. there should not be a prepcom 3  
bis. we have almost finished a week of declarations and we don't have  
text.
- we are worried that we haven't yet been able to enter into a  
discussion in a text and plan of action.
- the guide presented by chair is good. we sugegst the following

section 1:
- related to definition
- we should be guided by the geneva principles

section 2:

- suggests addtion to have interactyion between stakehodlers
- coordination, cooperation,

section 3& 4:

- we should put all of these into a single part called governance models
- we should reach agreement

section 5:

- a section which should be subdivded:

a. models of governance
b. implementstion on models
c. definition of public policies. we should go into details.

at this stage there are elements that require further work

- we are worried as time is moving on. we should start discussing now

- recommendation: let us setup several groups. the important point is  
that we shoudl start by tomorrow. as time is short we need to hurry  
up. if we don't we will have to setup several groups that would make  
it difficult for small delegations such as ours.

chair

- one should banish worry
- there will be no prepcom bis

el  salvador

- will submit a list of written comments on parts 1 & 2
-
section 3a & 5: there seems to be duplication. how to we proceed.

- part 5: Question on oversight function
- models: can we envisage other models that aren't in wgig report

chair

- there is overlap between 3a and one bullet in #5. we will try to  
rationalize it .

saudi arabia ( on behalf of arab countries):

- would like concentrate on part 5.
- the essential decisions need to be taken on part 5 before we get to  
specific wording.

chair

- what we have done to-date has been easy.
- we are now moving into a more difficult phase. it will be  a  
challenging area.
- will be need to focus on intelligence to strike compromises, to  
know that the other sides are saying.

- let's do something more skill-full that can gen results.

- drafting groups proposed to draft language. will circulate text  
that has blanks to be filled in.

- status of papers:

* food for thought: no status. just an aid to facilitate discussion
* outline: tool to facilitate dsicussion
* paper: no status. use it, substitute it, would be to focus mind and  
attention on subjects.

* only text with status would be the ones emerging from the  
discussions. by monday we might have a rolling text.

* this afternoon there should be a flurry of activcity. suggestion.

- meet amongst yourself to strategise
- tomorrow there will be a suggestion paper for thought.
- let's have cross group dialogue
-

drafting groups:

- how do we associate other stakeholders. I need your help on what to  
do. there are rules of procedures, but there are also calls for  
observers to be involved in the negotiating exercise.

in summary:

1. create working groups
2. a non-paper will be circulated
3. seek guidance on how to involve observers in drafting groups.


USA

- while we consider your proposal
- we thank you for these suggestions. we know it is not an easy task

- two thoughts to have:

1. practicality
- many delegations are small.
- would ask that if drafting groups created that we don't have too  
many of them,as hard for small delegations

2. principle

- we need to give very careful and full thought to observers
- would seek that observers participate in the debate in the drafting  
groups
- those communities need to be at the table.

brazil

- you are going in a good direction.
- one practical difficulty. we are here to negotiate a text to be  
signed by heads of state.

- there is a moment where governments need to sit among each other  
(that is exclude civil society)

- we need to meet in small groups, practically it needs to be done in  
a quiet way

chair

- rules of procedure, what is there?
- section 8.
- there is no text that refers to observers in working groups

saudi arabia (arab states)

(1)
- in the past had no objections to drafting groups. should limit the #
- should only create them after the basic decisions have been made in  
plenary

(2)  observers:

- the geneva summit set the present. the rules are clear. we should  
follow the rules from phase I.
- in this context it would be difficult to involve them


senegal (african countries)

- satisfied with the method of work that has been proposed
- drafting groups: will allow for a rather lively discussion.
- we need to have a limited # of drafting groups , as otherwise it  
would be difficult for small delegations.
- work of regional groups should also be considered.

canada

- thanks the chair for his propsal
- we dont' have  any agreement yet.

1. necesity to insure security and stability
2. multistakeholder approach - let's put it into practice.
- supports us view that observers that they have a lot to contribute
-

working groups
- we need to define well the groups and keep them to minimu

the following should be first discussed in plenary:

- defintions
- role & responsivility of stakeholders
- pass over the key issues,

then, go to drafting text.

summary: we need a bit more time in plenary that will condition what  
drafting groups will do. we need to include a broad group of  
stakeholders

chair:

- we must make progress

methodology (thinking outloud)

- if we distrubute work and have soem rough idea to working works,  
they will bring them back to plenary
- plenary should not block work of the working groups.
- hard to draft text in plenary. it would disastrous to try it.

iran:

- welcomes the initiative of the chair
- would like to flag that there should be no proliferation of working  
groups. would make it hard for small delegations.

- other stakeholders:
* iran appreciates the input of all the stake-holders.
* emphasis that this is an intergovernmental process.

El salvador

- support safety and security, multilaterism and transparency
- we don't seem to be in the usual UN pattern
- we had small drafting groups in intercessional in paris (phase 1).  
we had civil society participating in the past and make statements  
that helped us make concepts clearer and guide negotiations.

- (supports cs)

- proposal from el salvador for observers to attend and make  
contributions to drafting groups

chair

- this is a different process.
- there are rules of procedure. but, there is a grey area.
- there is (prepcom) precedent where cs & observers have been involved

- let's take it as an agreed principle that all stake-holders  
participate.

japan

- good idea to create drafting groups. a concern with the # that  
might be created.
- if they are in the afternoon, it will conflict with other subcomittee


UK (on bahalf of EU)

(1)
- stakeholder participation in working groups. the MS nature of the  
internet. we need to involve all key stakeholders.

- in the wg's that are created, we need to draw on the expertize

(2) # of drafting groups. there is a difficulty for smaller delegations.

- there is also a limited # of experts available.


Australia

- supports canada about what issues to be discussed in plenary
- drafting groups - would prefer a smaller #
- ngos: would support participation of ngos. they are fundamental

- impressed by the high quality of the contributions of ngos
- given the nature of the internet, the expertise is with ngos and  
their experience would help us.
- supports that rules should support involvement of observers in  
working groups.

chair

- we need to make progress

nicaragua: (on behlaf of grulag)

- working groups : we need to be careful. it's an issue with small  
delegations.


china:

- two points.

1. support the chair as to the proposal that we shoudl start drafting
2. it's an intergovernmental process

honduras

- thanks chair for the methods to work
- perhaps we can have meeting of regional groups - as we already have  
consensus
- perhaps could regional coordinators could attend drafting working  
groups
- need to take into account other stakeholders - they should be able  
to pariticiapte

turkey:

- thanks chair for proposals
- looks forward to working with observers in accordance with rules of  
procedure
- how many wg will be created?

singapore

2 points:

1. concern about small delegations
2. the input from other observers is vital. supports el salvador that  
observers sit in meetings and contribute written comments. let's look  
for way to do it

new zealand

- agree with canada to insure security and stability of the intenet.  
whatever we do should be through that lense
- agree with singapore, isoc and others - we have a responsibility to  
users in countries. we need to establish which issues need fixing .
- we might not yet be at the drafting stage.
- let's keep # of drafting groups small.
- multistakeholder - this is a good opportunity to put into practractice

norway:

- welcomes initiative of chair & proposal of drafting groups.
- important to bring ngo views and expertise into drafting groups.  
they could be helpful and useful.
- the model proposed by el salvador is a good one. one where they are  
observers, where they can talk, but not in negotiating.

pakistan (asian grp)

- welcome the proposal for working groups

- endorse that there should not be a proliferation of working groups.

- multistakeholder: position of asia group:

* that is prepcom should adhere to rules and principles of the geneva  
phase


chair

- let's come tomorrow to comment on today's comments

switzerland

- agree with creation of drafting groups. the # should be small.


india

- supports drafting groups creation
- drafting groups must have the prsence of the other stakeholders.  
supports singapore view on this

Canada

- not all regional groups can work in a way to coordinate . ie. not  
possible for weog.

barabados

- supoports el salvador and singapore view that obervers be in wg

togo

- keep # of wg small. if possible do it in regional and/or sub- 
regional fashion so that smaller countries can be involved.

sudan

- will be frank in regards to DG. not convinced that the need to have  
drafting groups as ultimately it will come back to plenary.
- of course can split subcommittee into two sections (1) 5 & 3:  
models, (2) all other matters.

south africa

- support for proposal
- we should have small # of WG
- ask for reassurance on what will adopt.

chair

indonesia

- supports rule of procedure in regards to drafting group.

nigeria

- supports creation of WG. they should be limited so that regional  
associations can be involved
- other stakehodlers: the rules need to be followed. observers should  
not have voting rights

nepal

- supports a limited # of WG
- good that cs make stakements and written contributions to WG

lebanon

- support for proposal
- ngos: supports saudi arabia , brazil and others that although value  
their contribution that CAN NOT agree that they participate in  
drafting groups.

australia

- Q on rules of procedure. acknowledge that there is ambiguity. there  
is a question is there a legal impediment on

- asks for legal advice if there is legal impediment for them to  
participate
- puts forward the proposal that ngos be able to participate. ngos  
would NOT be voting.

chair

- there is no legal impediment

?????
- WG proposal good.
- # of WG should be limited.
- they be open ended groups
- participation of other partners: however, would like to respect the  
rules of procedure and precedent.


Egypt

- support the formation of drafting group. should be strictly  
intergovernmental.
- support the participation of multistakeholders - however underlines  
that drafting group stay strictly intergovernmental


azerbajan

- supports limited # of drafting groups.
- it would be useful to invite multistakeholders - according to  
existing rules of procedure

chair

- made 3 proposals
(1) - there is no objection for them to be created. they should be  
limited
(2) will circulate a paper - no objection
(3) stakeholders with drafting groups: there are two groups

- el salvdor & singapore: they are objservers and can make  
contributions , but are not in negotaions. (like in pc 2)

- asks el salvador to consult with others for 5 min to see if there  
can be an agreement on 3rd propsal.

[ break for 5 min]
[resumed session]

singapore

- an agreement that in WG it will be good  for NGo to attend at  
outset to present written and oral statements.
- after that 2 views. (1) once they have made the statements , they  
would be asked to leave. (2) others felt that once the stakeholders  
had been invited to give their comments, they could stay and observe

El salvador

- consulted countries.
- there are strong views to follow paris intersessional rules.
- many countries in each camp.

chair

- asks el salvador & singapore to consult in the afternoon. ask that  
they report back in the morning.
(an open ended consultation group)


iran

- do not share views of singapore.

nicaragua (on behalf of grulag)

- there is no consensus. will consult further and report back in the  
morning.