[WSIS CS-Plenary] AW: RE: Report from Breakout Groups at Internet Governance Forum, 26 March

[wolfgang at imv.au.dk]

Dear List,

Here is my brief evaluation from the UN ICT TF Forum in New York, March 2004, and some proposals for next steps.

1. It was clear from the beginning, that the Forum was not a "negotiating body". The interesting point here is, that in the absence of a negotiating body, a bottom up policy development process (PDP) has started (already with the ITU Workshop) in which a rough consensus is emerging and essential principles are defined. A forthcoming negotiating body will have difficulties to ignore these principles. Already in Geneva during the final stage of WSIS, there was a discussion whether the group should be organized as a "formal (small) group" or as an "open process" with a small secretariat as a “facilitator” and "collector" of positions. Probably we see now a combination of both. The secretariat will develop certainly a life of its own. It is one possibility that the secretariat becomes the stimulator and moderator of "the process", while "the group" will have no other option than to build on what has been already expressed in the process und to communicate the results to “the top”
 , that is Kofi Annan and the Intergovernmental WSIS Bureau. The idea of a "multi tiered group", with a small number of "Gurus" in the center and a broader mixture of "representatives" of the different stakeholders around them would further stimulate, that the "process" is more important than formal groupings and negotiations. And BTW, the Kofi Annan Group has no mandate "to negotiate". Its task is to make recommendations to the next phase of the summit. Formal Negotiations, if any and needed, will start, at the earliest, after November 2005.   


2. Vint Cerfs Leitmotivs, "if it is not broken, do not fix it" and "make no harm" did certainly impress a majority of governments. The statement by the Brazilian representative, where he differentiated "government" from "governance" and raised only key issues related to sovereignty like the national ccTLD and its relationship to the Root Server, indicated, that the WSIS rhetoric of some governments comes down to earth. On the other hand I have no idea, how impressed the Chinese government was. In the official list of participants, among 285 people listed, was only one rep from China: a Vice Minister. But she remained silent the whole two days. Adam mentioned a statement of a Chinese rep in the Saturday meeting of the UNICTTF. Could Adam be a little bit more specific? Who was it? What he/she said it?. 


3. On the other hand, Karl Auerbachs criticism against the "if it is not broken do not fix it" impressed as many other stakeholders. The need for more experimentation and the option to go beyond existing structures was taken as a very serious challenge which would open the door for new, still unknown developments and achievements. It was interesting to see, how the two “fathers of the Internet”, 30 years after the invention of TCP/IP, presented themselves. While Vint Cerf had a more conservative approach, Bob Kahn was more future oriented. I do not know whether it was by chance that Vint Cerf opened the meeting and Bob Kahn had the last word. But is was interesting to note, that Figueiras linked the “Internet 1.02” to Vint while he linked the “Internet 1.07 or 1.08” to Bob. This is indeed a challenge and the CS IG Caucus should think about this. This is supported also by the brilliant speech of Kofi Annan. One of his key sentences was: "In managing, promoting and protecting i
 ts (the Internet) presence in our lives, we need to be no less creative than those who invented it. Clearly, there is a need for governance, but that does not necessarily mean that it has to be done in the traditional way, for something that is so very different."

4. I think it is unavoidable that some intergovenmentsal treaty arragements will emerge in the years ahead. I see here two directions: 

4a. One is on the application layer, that are issues like Spam, Cybercrime, eCommerce, Content and Culture etc. This has nothing to do with "Internet Governance" in a narrow defintiion, but these are pressing issues for governments, which governments relate themselves (correctly or incorrectly) to their understanding of "Internet Governance". It will be important to single out these issues as soon as possible and to find relevant negotiating body for these subjects. (Council of Europe for Cybercrime? OECD for Spam? WTO for eCommerce? UNESCO for Content and Culture?). My impression is, that nobody challenges here the leading role of governments. Even the private sector indicated clearly, that they expect that governments will do something to clean the Information Highways from Criminals and Spammers and offered "technical support". Here it would be important, that the Caucus is developing the key issues and interests, important for users. And it has to ask for more openness an
 d transparency in these intergovernmental bodies as well as for a "multistakeholder approach" with substantial access and participation in the negotiations. 

4b. The other issue is the Root Server question. This is related to the governmental understanding of "Sovereignty" and has a lot of symbolic meaning in it. To substitute the existing "trust system" by a "treaty system" will be another key issues for the years ahead. But the issue is complicated, both politically and legally. Politically the issue is primarily not the DoC but the US Congress, which will have in the end to ratify a contractual arrangement. Do you remember the GAO report from August 2000, where the GAO asked the question, whether the DoC was justified to hand over some responsibilities to ICANN and raised the point, whether there is "american property", because the research and development which has led to the Internet, was financed by US taxpayers money? So even if the DoC would agree to share the responsibility for this simple "checking function" of zone files and the power to authorize publications in the root, it will be doubtful, if the Congress would agre
 e. But also legally it is not easy to start a process. Should it be done via a UN codification conference? Then you need a mandate from the UN General Assembly.  It could be started within the GAC (probably only by a limited number of interested governments). Or the USG/DoC could invite interested governments to informal multilateral "consultations". It would be also useful to think about another "legal option", below a treaty under "international law", a MoU or something like this which would avoid ratification procedures. Because the issue is more symbolic, a flexible solution could be found, if the political will is there. The decisive date here is not Tunis 2005 but October 2006, when the MoU between ICANN and the DoC is terminating. 

5. From the discussion so far I see the emergence of at least three principles, where a "rough consensus" is growing:

5a: There will be no single organisation with an overall responsibility for the Internet, but a network of different bodies and mechanisms, governmental and non-governmental.

5b: The Multistakeholder approach is more or less accepted as a basic principle. The open question here is, how to distribute functions and "power" among the stakeholders.

5c: There will be no "big bang". It will be and will remain a "process" with some landmarks, a never ending story of searching for a global mechanism for Internet Governance.  


6. What does this mean for the CS IG Caucus? I repeat what I already proposed to the list, replying to Vittorio:

6a: We should bring our knowledge and expertise to the table and write clear and well founded innovative papers on relevant issues

6b: We should, where possible, organize a series of thematic workshops and conferences, inviting other stakeholders. 

6c: We should develop a short "Internet Governance Position Paper", similar to the ICC Paper. 

6d: We should closely collaborate with the Secretariat in Geneva, asking to link our papers and conferences to the "process" and insist into a representative representation in the Working Group. 

Best regards

Wolfgang