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

[Fullsack Jean-Louis]

Hallo Wolfgang
Besten Dank für deine beiden Berichte ("Schattenboxen ..." und den folgenden
Report) ; für alle nicht Teilnehmende eine klare und verstândliche
Erstattung.

En francais ci-dessous

Hi Wolfgang
Many thanks for your very clear report from the NY Internet Gouvernance (IG)
meeting.
I'd just comment on point 5a ("There will be no single organisation with an
overall responsibility for the Internet..."). Your german Report
"Schattenboxen am East River" is more explicit about this point, by
mentioning a bottom-up "growing consensus" among the stakeholders for it.
Thus you write that "such a network needn't a unique/homogenous decision
centre"  (...) "but such a system requires a lot of consultation,
coordination , cooperation (3C)".
Hence my questions : is this opinion also shared by CS meeting participants,
and particularly by the CS IG Caucus ?
And what is the complete rationale about this statement ?
During PrepCom-3 and Summit I the opinion mainly prevailing in our CS
meetings didn't exclude a control of the Internet by a multilateral body,
generally linked to the UN system, and ITU was considered by a large part of
us (see our statements about that in our Declaration) as a possible body to
include Internet gouvernance in its management and standardisation scope.
Furthermore I'd stress the strong support for this position of our
colleagues from DCs.
In my opinion this is one of the most crucial issues we have to deal with
during WSIS and therefore needs more debate in our groups (mainly C&T
group).
Another critical issue will be the actual capacity of the ITU, struggling
with its top management and financial crisis. That's why I did some
proposals for an urgent ITU reform for returning to its basic functions -and
the Internet is part of them- and for giving it the means to cope
efficiently with them. Unfortunately these proposals weren't included in our
Declaration.
Notwithstanding these difficulties, I am quite sure that a majority of the
C&T group members favor the ITU solution as the most suitable compromise,
both in terms of gouvernance and tranparency. There is still the big issue
of CS inclusion in ITU working groups, but this could be solved by a
specific settlement agreed on by the ITU Council and approved by the next
ITU Plenipotentiary conference. For me this CS inclusion would be one of the
most concrete advances of the WSIS process.
Best regards
Jean-Louis Fullsack
CSDPTT-France

Salut Wolfgang
Merci beaucoup pour ton compte-rendu tres clair de la reunion de NY sur la
gouvernance Internet (GI).
Je voudrais juste faire une remarque sur le point 5a ("Il n'y aura pas une
organisation unique avec une totale reponsabilite de l'Internet ..."). Ton
compte-rendu en allemand intitule "Boxe de l'ombre sur les rives de l'East
River" est plus explicite sur ce point en evoquant un consensus grandissant
"du bas vers le haut" parmi les partenaires sur ce point. Ainsi tu ecris "un
tel reseau n'a pas besoin d'un centre de decision unique/homogene (...) mais
un tel systeme requiert une importante consultation, coordination et
cooperation (3C)".
D'ou mes questions : ce point de vue est-il aussi partage par les
participants de la SC à cette reunion et en particulier par son caucus sur
la GI ? Et quel est l'argumentaire complet sous tendant une telle
declaration ?
Pendant PrepCom-3 et le Sommet n°I le point de vue qui prevalait
generalement dans nos reunions n'excluait pas le controle d'Internet par un
organisme multilateral, generalement en relation avec l'ONU, et l'UIT a ete
consideree par une large part d'entre nous (voir nos affirmations sur ce
point dans notre Declaration) comme un possible organisme qui inclurait la
gouvernance, la gestion et la normalisation d'Internet dans son champ
d'activites. En outre je voudrais souligner le très fort soutien de nos
collegues des PeD pour cette position.
A mon avis il s'agit la de l'un des problemes les plus cruciaux dont nous
avons a traiter pendant le SMSI, et pour cette raison il exige plus de debat
dans nos groupes de travail (principalement le groupe C&T).
Un autre probleme critique est la capacite reelle de l'UIT, qui se debat
dans sa crise de direction et financiere. C'est pour ca  que j'avais fait
des propositions pour que l'UIT revienne d'urgence sur ses fonctions de
base -et l'Internet est une d'elles- et pour lui donner les moyens de faire
face a celles-ci de maniere efficace. Ces propositions n'ont malheureusement
pas ete retenues dans notre Declaration.
En depit des difficultes, je suis sur qu'une majorite des membres du Groupe
C&T est en faveur de la solution de l'UIT comme le compromis le plus adapte,
a la fois en termes de gouvernance et de transparence. Il reste le gros
probleme de l'inclusion de la SC dans les groupes de travail de l'UIT, mais
celui-ci pourrait etre resolu par un reglement specifique resultant d'un
accord du Conseil de l'UIT et approuve par sa prochaine Conference
Plenipotentiaire. Pour moi, cette inclusion  de la SC serait une des
avancées les plus concretes du processus du SMSI.
Bien cordialement
Jean-Louis Fullsack
CSDPTT-France


----- Original Message -----
From: <wolfgang at imv.au.dk>
To: "William Drake" <wdrake at ictsd.ch>; " Chris Chiu" <CCHIU at aclu.org>; "
Rikke Frank Joergensen" <rfj at humanrights.dk>; <rikp at earthlink.net>;
<karenb at gn.apc.org>; <jane at una.dk>; <bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de>;
<ajp at glocom.ac.jp>; <lachapelle at openwsis.org>; <dcogburn at umich.edu>;
<vb at bertola.eu.org>; <yjpark at myepark.com>; <bchaffers at bic.org>;
<wellings at epic.org>; " Meryem Marzouki" <marzouki at ras.eu.org>
Cc: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; "Milton Mueller" <Mueller at syr.edu>;
<plenary at wsis-cs.org>
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 10:36 AM
Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] AW: RE: Report from Breakout Groups at Internet
Governance Forum, 26 March


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