[WSIS CS-Plenary] plenary minutes (?)

[Amali De Silva]

Excellent reporting and thank you!
 
Amali 

Veni Markovski <veni at veni.com> wrote:

>
>Veni, would it be possible to summarize your observations from the discussion?

yes. here they are:

discussion on 2 key points in the Declaration of principles (DP) re:

45, South Africa a) "at the technical field": (no economic)
b) delete "domestic"
add c) "the role of the civil society"
proposed new text for 46 (don't have it in writing)

US disagrees with 46 as it is
"Policy should be open to ALL stakeholders"

Tansania: open 46 to other stakeholders

Argentina: the proposal of South Africa should remain. Changes by Brasil 
are even better. It's an issue about the digital divide!
Kenya: there should be consultative process which governments take when 
discussing policy issues. Governments can not achieve ICT millenium goals 
alone, they need the support of the civil society...

Canada:1st centence is OK, but we agree with Kenya, that these policy could 
be done only in cooperation with civil society and private sector and this 
has to be written more clearly. We have a problem with the final sentence, 
which is perscriptive (?), the WSIS doesn't allow equal participation of 
private and public. If we delete last sentence and edit the first one, we 
may support it.

Zimbabwe: timeframe is important, the technical work, civil society (unclear)

Mauricius: Fully support South Africa proposal and Brasil. The Internet has 
taken a new dimension and has potential to take poor countries to more 
developed stage.

Venezuela: Support S.Africa. Information Society should include civil 
society, but the issue of Internet should be discussed on intergovernmental 
level with both sectors that created this, but leading role - government'

India: alternative 46 and 14e-i from the Action Plan are linked. This 
intergovernmental plan should be written in the Action Plan, where there's 
inclusive process of private sector and civil society. Intergovernmental 
process should be within the UN WSIS, as outlined in the Action Plan.

China: Internet development and management should be inclusive, and we 
support this. The proposal by S.Africa solves some of the concerns of the 
delegations. 45a) has exact role of the private sector. Now we need text 
for governmental participation in the process. China would like to consider 
this proposal.

Iran: Support S.Africa, but the intervention from China is a very credible 
one, because we have paragraph for civil society,therefore we need a 
paragraph for governmental involvement.

Japan: We support 1st and 2nd sentence, but we don't understand the 3rd 
(WSIS within UN) sentence, and we support Canada

EU: This is very important topic. We see entirely different opinion, from 
the facilitator, which suggests participation from all stake holders. We 
suggest that further discussion are left for the WG.

Mexico: at this stage we are not able to understand the issue. I think a 
lot of indepth work needs to be done to deepen our knowledge. A lot of work 
by the stakeholders, and if we don't do it, we will not be able to solve 
the issue.

Syria: S.African proposal is consensus to the meeting, so let's make it a 
general one. Let it be a foundation for future discussion.

South Africa: Thank you all, and we know it's difficult you didn't have it 
in writing. This issue is very important to us as a developing country, and 
we have had bad experience because of the lack of such governance mechanism 
(bingo, then ICANN is not a governance body?!), therefore we should decide 
the issue on that WSIS meeting, and not leave it for the future.

Vietnam: Support S.Africa

Ecuador: we need to see the text and consider it, and most likely we won't 
be able to change the negotiations; secondly as we see merit in including 
civil society, thirdly we need to find a solution for [....governance?] and 
I endorse interventions made by EU and Mexico

Brasil: the process should be inclusive, but we think states, CS and 
private sectors are stakeholders, but have different rights and 
responsibilities. We believe that this is the first time we address this 
issue globally. Internet has developed for 20-30 years, but it's important 
to take this into account (the addressing globally) to reach a mutually 
agreeable and acceptable solution to the governance issue. Governments are 
stakeholders that have under their responsibilities the public interest, 
and they have to protect it. We can not address governments as just another 
stakeholder, and we can't address them as such an usual stakeholder.

moderator: we have to address the question,and it needs further reflection. 
this is clear. The other clear thing is that we need to include all 
stakeholders. We can't go in the Action Plan in details; we can stay on our 
opinions and then nothing will happen, we will not have a declaration, so 
we are doomed to find a compromise. I will suggest after supper to have a 
breakup group in room 24, where we'll discuss this further. And we'll have 
the S.Africa proposal distributed by then.

======
notes from WG meeting, Dec. 5th, 2003, time: 21:00 hours

S.Africa, US [missed notes]

Korea: alt. 46 - how to combine the Internet governance not excluding the 
current system (ICANN)? All delegates think that governments should have 
key role, but we should have cooperation with private sector, therefore 46 
b should be changed.

Saudi Arabia: thank the US representative; the Internet needed special 
environment to reach that high level; but sitting in this room doesn't mean 
the next level will be achieved with us [?]; we recognize the role of the 
private sector, the question is how to do more. Governments need a forum to 
talk about Internet. I see in that proposal another forum - an 
international one.

Croatia: the point by the US delegate is important. We must be fully aware 
what do we mean under "Internet governance". Do we mean IP addresses, DNS, 
[root] servers, content stored in one country by companies resided in other 
countries.... With more and more people on the Net, governments have their 
right to protect their policy. So, it can not be a domestic policy of any 
country, because Internet is global, policy should be international, too. 
But we need to define what problems we are trying to solve, and then look 
for solutions. Many countries see that IP addresses are not fairly 
distributed. And they are scarce resource.

Japan: we should not discourage private sector to invest in Internet.

Zimbabwe: what is the position that technology presumes [?]. Internet 
should be inclusive, incl. all nations, in the sence that countries need to 
say in providing guidance, directions as to facilitate its growth and 
development. And the S.Africa proposal continues the participation of the 
civil society in the development of the Internet. We hope that other 
delegates can recognize that we do not in anyway deny the role of private 
sector, but we'd like Internet to be inclusive in any respect - governance, 
etc. We think that the examples given are sufficient to indicate what 
people are thinking about in discussing this. Let's look at the structure 
of the paragraphs 44, 45, 46, 47.

Brasil: I have the .br ccTLDA with me, but where does Brasil has power in 
that area? If we are unfairly treated in the management of Internet 
tomorrow, to whom are we going to claim our right. That's a problem we 
have. We can admit and accept to have a structure, based on triple leg 
(civil society, private sector, government), but our government must have 
an international instance, intragovernmental organization to which we may 
bring our case.

EU (Italy): There are clearly different views, and as European position, we 
consider of most importance involvement of all stakeholders in a process 
that will lead us to whatever decision we will find. At this stage we do 
not use language that means we are preempting some result, or gives 
impression that some stakeholders are not involved in the process. We would 
have specific comments, we feel that at this stage and this late hour (10 
p.m.) we have more possibilities to find an agreement on Monday evening - 
we'll have more time to consider all ideas.

China: what's the reason for the hostile attitude of both sides? If we 
recognize ICANN is a private sector, it will be represented. If it's civil 
society, it has its status, too. Another problem I don't understand is why 
do you say "we should have an inclusive mechanism". I don't think our 
proposal refuses such an inclusiveness. There's a need to have a new 
entity. The intergovermental is not instead of the existing mechanism, but 
a suplimentary. ICANN doesn't have the resouces to do it. ICANN has a clear 
mandate. It has DoC MoU, it's specifially used with technical and 
coordination issues with DNS and addresses. But it has no capability to 
deal with public policy, arising from those duties. We want to promote the 
development of Internet. I am the first person to use Internet in China in 
1995, and it was restricted to the University network. Now it has extended 
to many aspects of social activities - governments, banks, etc. So, there's 
need of someone to coordinate the Internet issues of their countries, and 
on international level there's need of a place to discuss issues of the 
Internet.

Canada: see 14-e of the AP. In para 44 of the DP we have consensus, this 
text is excellent. If we believe that the AP is a good process, then we may 
conclude discussion on the DP.

Mauricius: I've been following all PrepComs... and there was not a problem 
until today. There are lot of problems on the table, as China says, but now 
we find out we don't know what the problems are about?! We don't know what 
"Internet governance" means?! What's the problem of developing countries? 
We have invested 100s of millions to create a cybercity, then we have 1 
gentleman, who holds .mu ccTLD. And we beg to him to give the DNS to the 
people who want to invest. People don't want to see shadows when they 
invest, and then we are faced with one individual who we have to beg. The 
Internet is so complicated, that governments will not be able to manage 
it?!? This is really strange.

Senegal (Mouhamet): it's harder than we thought before. let's try to focus 
on the consensus - we all agree there are so many stakeholders in the 
process. It's the first time to work like that in the UN platform. We want 
to get something done through partnership. UN is asking for private sector 
to come and join efforts in achieving the Millenium Goals. The WSIS is the 
first process to have civil society and private sector to join. In the DP 
we have devided the IG in 3 parts - recognition who are the stakeholders; 
the role of the governments; define policy framework. I see 2 points - 
national and international, but I ask for a 3-rd level: cyberspace. It's 
not under soveirgnity of any government. Is there one country responsible 
for gTLD? No. I appreciate the South Africa proposal, but are we going from 
one extremism to another one? I don't think so. If we take the proposal of 
S.Africa, then it will be only the UN in control. But we agree that it 
should be a multistakeholder initiative. All comments are that there's a 
relation between policy and technology. We can't say that governments will 
talk only about policy, but who will be the standardisation body for 
Internet? Who is today? IETF. Are we going to tell them to go away and wait 
for governments to decide? We all agree there's a vacuum, and we need to 
talk about a solution that will help to solve problems on a broader area 
(spam, content issues, etc.). I don't think that just by saying 
"governments are legitimate" solve the problems. We have to find a new 
process for solving a new problem. We don't need to use old solution to 
solve new problems.

US: Canada and Iran brought me to a more simple solution. Perhaps we can 
find a short cut? Everytime we go beyond para 44 we look for the perfect 
text there... We are trying to polish a diamond that doesn't need it. Let's 
take 44 and come to full stop and go to the AP with text along these lines 
"Invite the UN Secretary General to organize a UNDP/WIPO/UNICTTF/UNESCO 
with a relevant technical bodies to have technical simposiums to share 
perspective about Internet governance, related to privatisation, 
liberalization, [....] We could spend an equal amount of time discussing 
variations of 45, 46 and 47 as up to now. The chances of having a consensus 
are very slim. But if we set up a path for future cooperation in the AP, 
that will be a good achievement.

BG: Coming from a country in development, I can speak, to say it, from 2 
points of view. On one hand, we understand quite well what developing 
countries feel like when talking about Interent governance; however, on 
another hand, we have been having a strong civil society participation in 
the development of the Internet in Bulgaria. In fact the non-governmental 
sector has actively participated, sometimes with cases in the Supreme 
Court, sometimes by sending experts to the Parliament and exact texts 
(articles) in the preparation of the new Telecommunications Law, which is 
defining what are the government responsibilities towards Internet. E.g. IP 
addresses and Internet domain names are outside of the control of the 
Naitonal Regulatory Authority, but IP (phone) numbers are not. ISPs are not 
subject to licensing, but they have the duty to offer full help and support 
to the police for tracking hackers, computer criminals, etc. That gives us 
a balance between governmental and civil society interests. We believe such 
a balance should be looked for in the declaration and the action plan.
We support the EU position, and believe that, as we say, "the morning is 
wiser than the evening", and hope to have more time to look into the 
proposal of South Africa, and try to find a mutually agreeable solution by 
Monday.

Australia: What Canada suggested is good. Taking para 44 and then look into 
the AP is a good idea. We support the Canadian proposal.

South Africa: We wanted to facilitate the process, not to stop it. We 
appreciate the inputs in that process. We are ready to go along. The Summit 
has to say something substential. We've listened very careful during the 
Summit, and we ask for understanding this is an important issue to us. When 
you come from a country where there's electricity, etc. of course you will 
not see the problem. And there's a society that doesn't know there's a 
problem. As Mauricius mentioned, we'd like to have good sleep tonight, but 
we have sleepless nights trying to deal with that issue. Many of us depend 
on the UN system, and not OECD. The legitimacy of the UN system is what 
makes us bring it in the UN, not because we want more bureacracy. We've 
tried to discuss ITU policy issues, but we've been stopped by one 
administration. It's documented. We are not saying governments should 
govern the Internet. We just need a forum for discussion, like this one. 
And we don't say private sector should not have role. It could be advisory 
role. The problem is the majority of the world can not participate in the 
policy matters. Par. 44 doesn't talk about framework, ICANN is recognized 
in para 44. South Africa is a member of GAC, active, so we know what it is. 
We are not saying everything should be resolved here.

text achieved at the end:
44. The Internet has evolved into a global facility available to the public 
and its governance should constitute a core issue of the Information 
Society agenda. The international management of the Internet should be 
multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of 
governments, the private sector, civil society and international 
organizations. It should ensure an equitable distribution of resources, 
facilitate access for all and ensure a stable and secure functioning of the 
Internet, taking into account multilingualism.
45. The management of the Internet encompasses both technical and public 
policy issues and should involve al stakeholders. In this respect it is 
recognized that:
a)policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the 
sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for 
international Internet-related public policy issues;
b) the private sector has had and should continue to have an important role 
in the development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic fields;
c) civil society has also played an important role on Internet matters 
especially at community level and should therefore play a role in this 
important task.
46. International Internet-related public policy issues should be 
coordinated through appropriate and relevant intergovernmental and 
international organizations and forums. To this end, an intergovernmental 
reflection process should be initiated within the UN framework as part of 
WSIS. This process should be open and inclusive, involving also the private 
sector and civil society.



_______________________________________________
Plenary mailing list
Plenary at wsis-cs.org
http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary


Amali De Silva-Mitchell MSc.

Tel: 1-604-736-9012 & Email: amalidesilva at yahoo.com

 

 

 





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/plenary/attachments/20031206/5a094489/attachment.htm