[WSIS CS-Plenary] Fwd: PrepCom-3 Highlights: 28 September 2005

[Tracey Naughton]

 	PrepCom-3 Highlights

Telephone:	 +41 22 730 6039
Fax:	 +41 22 730 5201
E-mail:	 wsismedia at itu.int
Website:	 www.itu.int/wsis/newsroom/2/

PrepCom-3 Highlights: 28 September 2005


Cracks appear in Fortress Internet
EU proposal rocks “status-quo” camp


The European Union signaled a radical shift of position on its  
support for maintaining the Internet governance status quo, tabling a  
bold new document on Wednesday night that proposed a new public- 
private governance model, including an international multi- 
stakeholder forum.

Taking the floor half-way through Wednesday evening’s meeting of Sub- 
Committee A, the UK delegate’s placid delivery belied the ground- 
shaking import of the proposal, which represented a clear departure  
from the “status quo” camp led by the US.

As proposed, the new model would foster development of public policy  
principles, and include provision for equitable global IP number  
block allocation, procedures for changing the root zone file system  
to provide for insertion of new top-level domains and for changes of  
ccTLD managers. It also includes open support for a new public policy  
forum that would work with existing institutions and organizations to  
address multi-dimensional and interrelated public policy issues  
without trying to “dominate issues already dealt with elsewhere”  
or performing oversight functions.

In an attempt to quell the buzz generated by the intervention, the US  
delegation moved quickly to clarify its own position: any model must  
ensure stability and security, be founded on a competitive market- 
based approach, recognize private sector leadership, and support  
local innovation at the edges of the network. “Under no  
circumstances”, the US delegate said, would his country “take any  
action that would adversely impact the security and stability of the  
Domain Name System, and will maintain its historic role in  
authorizing changes to the root zone file.”

Two other proposals were made by Argentina supported by the US and by  
the African Group.

Drafting groups strive for consensus
Today’ session had already begun encouragingly, with discussion  
quickly moving to reports from the various drafting groups set up to  
broker agreement on new wording.

Norway presented a proposed new paragraph 52 for document DT/10, but  
was asked to reconvene to finalize paragraphs 53 and 55, following  
suggested new text from Nicaragua.

Consensus-building meetings led by Canada had come close to  
finalizing paragraphs 49, 49bis, 50, 50bis and 51, with clean text  
expected shortly. When the group led by Ghana reported that it was  
still struggling with the text of the so-called “development  
cluster”, New Zealand accepted the role of moderator, and the  
countries involved continued to meet to work towards clean text.

Egypt had also made good progress on multilingualism (para. 60), but  
was still working with Saudi Arabia and the US to broker agreement on  
paragraph 61.

Chairman Khan also praised the efforts of El Salvador, which had  
achieved clean text for paragraphs 39, 39b and 39c.

In addition to negotiations on text, several civil society  
organizations took the floor to make statements. The Disability  
Caucus stressed the need for accessibility guidelines that promote  
disabled access to ICTs. The Cultural Diversity/Indigenous Peoples  
Caucus advocated the inclusion of much more language on cultural  
diversity and the needs of indigenous communities. “Cultural  
diversity,” noted the speaker, is about much more than just  
multilingualism.”

Face-off over implementation
Sub-Committee B translocated to new meeting room, where delegates  
suddenly found themselves facing each other instead of the podium —  
and faced-off against each other on the question du jour: who should  
be mandated to organize the WSIS follow-up?

At the regional and national levels, agreement was easily reached on  
strengthening the role of regional commissions, with governments  
tasked with organizing regional WSIS follow-up conferences. Delegates  
also reaffirmed the importance of participation from civil society,  
business and other stakeholders. However, follow-up at the  
international level came under intense discussion.

Citing UN General Assembly Resolution 57/270B of July 2003 on the  
implementation of UN summits, the UK, on behalf of the European  
Union, opted for a WSIS implementation mechanism in the tradition of  
other UN summits.

While no new agency would be envisaged under the EU plan, the UN  
Secretary-General would act as the focal point for the coordination  
of implementation efforts conducted by existing UN agencies. The USA,  
Norway and others supported this proposal, while New Zealand called  
for the UN Secretary-General to present an annual report on the WSIS  
follow-up to ECOSOC or the General Assembly.

Key role for ITU?
On the other side of the fence, several countries favoured the  
establishment of a special WSIS follow-up body — modalities to be  
defined by the UN Secretary-General — to coordinate implementation,  
conduct evaluation, and provide annual progress reports.

“If we don’t have a clearly defined body or person for  
coordination, we would have failed,” said the delegate from Saudi  
Arabia, speaking on behalf of the Arab group. “ITU is the entity  
best equipped to be a coordinator.” Switzerland, host of the first  
phase of the Summit, suggested that such a coordination body should  
be in place and working by 2006.

The Nigerian delegate made an appeal for an effective and well- 
coordinated implementation process to help alleviate hardships in  
developing countries, while Ghana, speaking for the African group,  
suggested a link to the follow-up of the Millennium Development Goals.

Chairman Shope-Mafole noted the UN system’s responsibility to  
provide a specific follow-up mechanism. The question now, she said,  
would be “to find a balance in the context of this resolution (A/RES/ 
57/270B)”, which contains a somewhat vague reference to “relevant  
follow-up mechanisms”. Ms Shope-Mafole proposed taking the issue to  
an ad hoc working group, as this is “probably the most important  
point of the WSIS outcome. Let’s take some time,” she said, “so  
that the result is a good one.”


Parallel events


Internet Governance Oversight Function
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR)
This second CPSR meeting, designed to foster dialogue on two of the  
WGIG report’s most pressing issues — the forum and oversight  
functions — began with a brief overview of the four models proposed  
in the WGIG report. While Model 2 was identified as the option  
favoured by a majority of civil society groups, it was noted that  
WSIS discussions are only focused on a small subset of the many  
complex issues that make up the debate.

Attempting to come to grips with some of these, panelists looked at  
what oversight really means, whether ICANN could really become a  
global organization, and which approach represents the best way  
forward. The importance of involving all stakeholders on an equal  
footing, and of encouraging cooperation, was emphasized.

Communication Rights and a Rights-Based Approach
Lutheran World Federation
Hosted by the Lutheran World Federation (LWF), this event made a  
strong case for considering communication not only as an essential  
human right, but also as an indispensable process in the promotion of  
sustainable development and the realization of other basic human  
rights, such as education, health and participation in cultural and  
scientific activities. The panelists noted that the Information  
Society is grounded on the right to communicate, which includes  
freedom of expression and access to information through any media,  
but expands into many other economic, cultural and political  
activities. In this regard, Peter Prove of LWF noted that existing  
legislation already provides powerful tools to promote communication  
rights.

During the session, members of LWF shared their experiences in  
implementing a rights-based approach to promote the participation of  
civil society in policy-making processes in El Salvador and to  
support children rights to education and health in rural communities  
in India.




-------------- next part --------------
Skipped content of type multipart/related