[WSIS CS-Plenary] Subcomitee A notes: plenary Sept 27 (first half)
Jeremy Shtern
jeremy.shtern at UMontreal.CA
Tue Sep 27 11:22:53 BST 2005
Good Morning,
We are in a recess.
This morning's subcommittee A plenary has thus far focused on the
chair's document section 5 Follow-up and future arraignments
As, I suggest at least, it has been quite significant- the cards are
being placed on the table. I will give the notes on what has transpired
thus far in case some people on site but in other venus would like to
come for the rest of the discussion.
I will try to do a full summary at the conclusion of the session, but,
for the time being, the major development has been the emergence of two
very distinct approaches to Internet Gov, post WSIS:
1.) first suggested by Iran, seconded by numerous delegations: a
governmental council for Internet Governnance public policy issues with
a separate multi-stakeholder body for management of technology, both
under the Aegis of the UN.
2.) First suggested by the EU, seconded by other developed countries
including US, NZ, Aust etc. Which is the status quo option- keep
everything in the existing institutions that have worked.
As I said, I will try to do a more complete summary at the conclusion of
the session but here are my (Very rough) notes for the time being:
Sept 27 2005
Subcommittee A: plenary discussion of Section 5
Location: Assembly Hall
Art Riley Cisco System- CCBI
- discuss form function
- business supports information exchanges, but should be limited
- should not be duplicative of other issues
- WSIS shows that many are engaging internet already and that they
are being effective
- Duplication of existing structures could cause competition,
divert resources away from the relevant existing institutions
Get this statement: CS- coalition on Financing
- the internet exists as much in the physical network
- the Internet is a global space, global public good, global
public resources
Adam Peake- CS IG cacus
- seeks clarification on drafting groups, if CS language is being
included
Chair:
- gives lecture about how ‘nothing in the UN happens
automatically, even governments have to lobby’.
- The overall setting is influenced by your presence
- I have stalled the procedural matters by keeping it very
informal
- “just bear with us, try to make to the most of the present
conditions”
- “we have injected constructive ambiguity in this process”
Secretariat
- we took into account all of that was there
Iran
- we want to have stakeholders involved in management of the
technology but, public policy issues left to the governments
Russia
India
United Kingdom (EU)
62 Suggests Geneva principles +:
- should not replace existing mechanisms, but should build on them
- the new public/private model should contribute to the
susatainable stability and robustness of the Internet by addressing
appropriately public policy issues related to key elements of IG
- the role of governments in the new model should be primarly
focused on issues of public policy, excluding involvement in the day to
day management of the Internet
Russia
- proposal of EU seems very interesting
- we need to think about infrastructure as well.
- Now we have a public infrastructure managed by 1 state, the UK
proposal continues this
- We cannont accept the EU proposal, need more reference to the
WGIG
Iran (See this document)
- go back to para 48 of WGIG report
- the first thing we believe that the consil should do is international
public policy issues, then oversight of Internet resources management
-approve rules and procedures for dispute resolution management
- leave the functions to a reformed and nationalized existing
institution, but should be responsible to intergovernmental council.
- reads out text for new para 62
- involves putting ICANN IANA into a UN council on Internet
governance.
Brazil
- Iranian proposal is quite reasonable.
Oman
- acting as though Geneva principles and WGIG report do not exist
- find Iran’s report very interesting
Japan
- further discussion necessary. Associate with EU. Existing
structures are important
Columbia
- vision of Columbia coincides with Iran’s vision, international
council
South Africa
- Having listened to the proposals by the EU and Iran, we would
like to align ourself with Iran
- Instutations need to be legitimate to be acceptable to SA.
- Come from a country where, just because there are structures in
place that they are legitimate
Cuba
- supports the proposal made by Iran.
- Goes to the heart of the issue, the outcomes of the first phase
and based on the WGIG report
New Zeeland
- the existing mechanisms are not perfect but they work. They
bring ever cheaper connectivity to ever increasing parts of the world.
Public policy issues are already addressed in exising fora. Do not
believe throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Saudi Arabia
- the proposal put forward by Iran puts in place concret phases of
work, we would like to see it in writing, side by side with the proposal
of the EU
Bangladesh
- is there any proposal to put in a watchdog?
- The regions are so different in the event of the implemtation of
international IG?
- Bigger states may try to influence smaller states and regions.
Chair:
- the real question is the relationship between the existing
institutions of IGs and governments
Bangladesh
- governments change in each national context, therefore we need a
bottom line set of principles to adhere to regardless of changing
national priorities
US
- Associates with Japan on essential elements on security and
stability as well as vital role played by many organizations
- Internet society has raised two points they like to reflect.
Change is best brought about through existing mechanisms, not without.
Responsbility that all stakeholders have to increase the internet in the
developing world.
- Repsonsibilty for development, responsibilities of govs and
stakeholders, Value and Innovations at the edges- how do we capture this
in change?
- They work from the bottom up.
- The history of the Internet is the history of change from the
bottom up.
- We should not limit top down this bottom up process of change
- Uses the word medium.
Ghana (on behalf of Africa Group)
- IG should be transparent and democratic
- Would like to see the proposals in writing before commenting
Singapore
-Change is necessarcy
-Singapore does not believe that the status quo today is satisfactory
-far more responsive to the public policy imperatives expressed
-let’s start thinking of what phase 1 would be of this evolutionary
change would be
-discussing a forum or a model at this point is a bit like talking about
building a house when you haven’t scouted out the nehiborhood yet.
-we need to advance in a phase by phase manner, but deliberatively
China
- an evolutionary approach? This process has been underway for two
years.
- Need to label this approach as progressive and evolutionary.
- What the delegation of Iran said seemed relevant
- We hope to have all the written texts first
Algeria
- evolution oui! Status quo, non!
- A real change, not a virtual one.
- The Iranian proposal is close to what we want.
Venezula
- the role of governments should be through a world internet
council, and the the technical management should be separate.
- Both should be under the agies of the UN.
Switzerland
- Swiss feels that the status quo is not satisfactory but favour
evolution over revolution.
- Internationalization (internalization?) of oversite functions
and the ability of govs to exercise sovereignty over their CCTLDs
- Needs to be incremental. The forum as we see it, seems to be a
first stage.
Mexico
- EU proposals are perfect in line with Geneva declerations. We
associate with them.
Croatia
- we align ourselves with New Zeeland and Singapore.
- Clearly a need for profound change
- However, we think we should exhaust existing institutions first
through incremental change.
- EU proposal is balanced.
Australia
- seconds ISOC, Japan, Croritia, US etc.
- priority stability etc.
- governance arraignments should foster innovations
- existing have worked (see list in India submission of last week)
- illogical to trade these for illdefined and unknown new elements
- find the suggestion unprovable that a overarching new body could
take this all on.
- WSIS should be careful of suggestions that would divert
resources away from ICT4D
Chair
List the exisiting institutions:
Austriallia
(Lists a bunch)- refers to Indian contribution of last week.
Senegal
- ongoging follow-up so that progressively we will go to this
internet functions
- this is why the African group has proposed that changes be made
so that IG becomes more eficant, transparent, democratic
- that is why we think follow-up is important
Iran
- we say yes to the principle of stability etc.
- but, on top of that, we say that we should not scarify the
principles of international management, transparency and democracy of
the Internet towards those ends.
- Interface between existing and future arraignments is a function
of the oversight follow-up form, not the other way
Barbados
- find both EU and Iran proposals interesting
- evolutionary changes- but evolution is not a consistent and slow
process, can happen in leaps and bounds, espically as a result of
technological change
- by the time we finish this, Internet as we know it may not
exisit, may not even be called the Internet, we see the issue of IG as
work in progress.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-=-=
Jeremy Shtern,
candidat doctoral et chercheur au Laboratoire de Recherche sur les
Politiques de Communication/
Ph.D candidate & researcher at the Communications Policy Research
Laboratory
Université de Montréal
département de communication
514-343-6111 ex./poste 5419
jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-=-=
-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU
Sent: September 27, 2005 5:08 AM
To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: [not_spam] Re: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Comments at
plenary - Sept 27 AM
I also think while waiting for the decision of our participation in
drafting
groups, we are already losing the opportunites for almost two days.
Just sitting inside the drafting group room quietly is better than
kicking
out, but for that we cannot make any substantive comments but just
being there watching governments going ahead for the negotiation.
I think we should put equal amount of energy for making subtantive
comments, especially as they approach to the core issues of oversight
and forum we should really make our own position clear to them
in time, not after.
Let us first discuss about that this afternoon at the IG caucus
meeting in Geneva, and welcome all online comments for that.
Thanks,
izumi
At 17:52 05/09/27 +0900, Adam Peake wrote:
>[Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire
>list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for
specific people]
>
>Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic
>translation of this message!
>_______________________________________
>
>I read some text this morning. As the CS plenary decided that we
>should not present the draft discussed in content and themes and
>various CS lists, we dropped that text for now. What I think I said
>(pretty on the fly) was:
>
>Good morning Mr. Chair
>
>Thank you for your personal efforts to ensure transparency and
>inclusion, your efforts since the publication of the WGIG report are
>much appreciated.
>
>However, Civil Society is disappointed that we will not be able to
>participate fully in the drafting groups. And that the rules and
>procedures for this prepcom now seem unclear to all.
>
>Could you explain the situation regarding drafting groups?
>
>We note your new compilation document of comments received, and are
>pleased to see that some civil society comments have been included.
>But also note some have not been included. For example last Friday
>we made comments about 43c. These comments were also mentioned by a
>government in sub committee yesterday. But they are not mentioned
>in your new document, nor were they mentioned during the drafting
>group meeting that discussed 43 yesterday. Did we have rights to
>speak in that drafting group? Could we have reminded the group that
>we had already submitted comments and those comments were already on
>the prepcom3 website.
>
>I think you can understand our confusion. Can we join and speak in
>drafting groups? Are our comments made to sub-committee A being
>taken into consideration?
>
>We would appreciate clarity on this. We were expecting some
>resolution yesterday.
>
>Thank you.
>
>END.
>
>Izumi has sent some notes with the chair's response you should
>already have seen.
>
>I think bad precedence is being set. Above was read in my name and
>that of GLOCOM and on behalf of the IG caucus so is my
>responsibility, I thought something had to be said.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Adam
>_______________________________________________
>Plenary mailing list
>Plenary at wsis-cs.org
>http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
More information about the Plenary
mailing list