[WSIS CS-Plenary] Comments on the draft CS document

[YJ Park]

Dear Meryem,

Thank you for your comments on Global Governance section.
Firstly, Internet Governance caucus has been working through 
governance at lists.cpsr.org list since April.

Internet Governance caucus is to meet at the Fontenoy on July 15
after CS plenary session aroud at 7:30 pm.

Best,
YJ  

> 1/ "Global governance" section
> 
> 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. 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.
> "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.
> 
> 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? I 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.
> 
> 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. 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. 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."