[WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [WSIS-CT] Comments on the draft CS document

Sat Jul 12 09:28:42 BST 2003

Hi Meryem,

I (wolfgang) am the main responsible person for the final language of the governance paragraph. I tried to bring all discussed positions on a extrem complex issue into some simple key points. This simplification opens unfortunately the door for misinterpretation. The points you have raised are not in contradiction with the proposed language and I see no basic problem, to harmonize the two approaches. (see my comments below)

First of all, the second paragraph of this section (on the definition 
> of a "Global Internet Governance") is completely contradictory with the 
> whole CS vision reflected not only in this draft document, but also in 
> all the CS document endorsed by a wide number of organizations since 
> the beginning of the WSIS process. As it is, this paragraph means that 
> the undersigned organizations are in favor of establishing special 
> rules for a "cyberspace" (what the hell could this be?!), different 
> from the common rule of law. 

The proposed paragraph does NOT say that the rules should be different from "common rule of law". In contrary, it says that CS should be in favour of "the common rules of law" for the cyberspace. And even more, in cases, where new or revised or enlarged rules are needed (eCommerce, IPR, InfoSec/Privacy etc.), citizens should be involved directly in the policy development and the rule making. 

This is in particular contradictory with 
> the priorities set by the Human Rights caucus. What is proposed in this 
> paragraph is to establish and/or follow special rules and regulation in 
> the "cyberspace".
> This is unacceptable because this would open the door to non democratic 
> process, or open it more than it is already, "thanks to" entities like 
> ITU, ICANN, WTO, WIPO, etc.

This is a misinterpretation. The proposed language is in favour of "multi-stakeholder" approach, that is the inclusion of civil society (as one main stakeholder) into global communication negotiations. With other words, the proposed paragraph critisizes ITU, WTO, WIPO and also ICANN, because these are organisations, where NGOs and CSOs and ALMs play so far only a limited or no role. It invites WTO etc. to open the doors for CS groups and to offer them a seat on the negotiation table.  

> "Content regulation, free speech, access, privacy, information 
> security, data protection, e-commerce, intellectual property rights, 
> information infrastructure development etc." should by no mean be 
> governed in such thing as a "global internet governance" framework but, 
> on the contrary, should be dealt with, taking into account the 
> peculiarities of such issues, in the framework of national and 
> international common rule of law and specially in reference to UN 
> International Covenant on both civil and political rights and economic, 
> social and cultural rights.

Here I fully agree. This is a "friendly amendment" and I would fully endorse the references both to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (1948) and the two covenants (1966). 

> Therefore, I'm asking for the complete withdrawal of this paragraph 
> from the "Global governance" section.
> 
> Secondly, I have never seen - and certainly not on the governance 
> working group list - any consensus to affirm that "global governance in 
> information societies should be based on a multistakeholder bottom-up 
> policy development process (buPDP)" [first paragraph of this section], 
> specially since this "global governance" goes far beyond the sole issue 
> of Internet names, numbers and protocols. Moreover, what does "(buPDP) 
> should be open in particular to stakeholders most closely concerned by 
> a certain policy" mean? Is it a call for global governance (not only 
> Internet governance) made by groups of lobbyists promoting their 
> particular interests? 

Multi-stakeholder approach within the WSIS process means a "tripartite approach", that is governments, civil society and private industry. I would CS organisations not describe as "lobby groups", but there are certainly "lobby groups" among the three stakeholders.  

lI thought there was, on the contrary, a CS 
> consensus on democratic, inclusive, transparent, and publicly 
> accountable process. This is not at all what is meant by this paragraph.

Here I also agree with the amendments. "Democratic, transparent, inclusive etc." can be easily added and does not contradict the proposed text.  

> 
> Although I share Bill Drake's concern to deal in this document not only 
> with Internet governance but also with global governance, it is obvious 
> that, as it is written, the "global governance" section raises strong 
> objections and doesn't not even correspond to Bill's suggestion made on 
> the governance list. Since we obviously don't have the time now to 
> discuss such complex issues as global governance, it is then preferable 
> to concentrate this section only on Internet governance, and to rewrite 
> it in a way that would allow wide consensus. 

My understanding form the discussion was, that the reduction / concentration of "Internet Governance" in the sense of "Governance of Internet identifiers" (that is ICANN) would be too limited and shuld be broadend. And in fact, while ICANN (fortunately) has rejected to deal with public policy related aspects of Internet Governance, there are at the moment only established inter-governmental organisations (like the ITU) or industry groups (likle the GBDe) which claim to overtake the "leading" or "central" role in policy development. The propoised paragraph calls for a broader approach, that is the inclusion of civil society in policy develoment and decision kaing on public policy issues, which are related to the further development of the Internet and its various applications. 

Here is an alternative 
> proposal for that:
> 
> ==========
> "Internet governance
> 
> An information and communication society good governance must be based 
> on the values of participation, transparency, accountability and the 
> rule of law. This particularly implies the democratic management of 
> international bodies dealing with ICTs. Given the borderless 
> characteristics of ICTs, decision making bodies should ensure the 
> respect of principles of democracy and openness, as well as of legality 
> and sovereignty.
> 
> In particular, the management of the core resources of the Internet, 
> that are the Internet protocols, standards and identifiers such as 
> domain names and IP addresses, must serve the public interest at the 
> global, national and local levels.
> 
> To this end, the current management of Internet names and numbers 
> should specially be revised, taking into account the possibility of the 
> coexistence of multiple root servers, provided that a strict 
> international regulation be defined and enforced for their good 
> articulation and global consistency. 

I have my doubts whether it makes sense to call for a "revision" of the current system of names and numbers management. The risk here is that you will get support from "false friends" :-(

Furthermore, any decision made on 
> protocols and standards should be compatible with international human 
> rights standards, and specially the rights to freedom of expression, to 
> privacy, and the principle of non discrimination. Such decisions should 
> also allow a better balanced flow of information."

Here I agree again 100 pro :-)

Best 

wolfgang

______________________________________________________________________________
Werden Sie kreativ! Jetzt HTML-Mails nicht nur schreiben - nein -
GESTALTEN, bei WEB.DE FreeMail! http://freemail.web.de/features/?mc=021141