[WSIS CS-Plenary] Note from Today's Plenary on Internet Governance

[AIZU]

Here follows is my informal note taken today from the
Plenary Meeting herein Hammamet on the subject
of Internet Governance.

After Mr. Kummer made his report/presentation,
many govenrments, led by India and other developing
countries, gave questions and comments asking him to
make the Internet Governance Working group as an
"open-ended" one, not a restrictive one. Very interesting
discussion.

Note: these are just wha tI heard, but no guaranatee
of accuracy. (and sorry for cross-posting).

izumi
---------

Report on Internet Governance
Markus Kummer
I have two hats:
  Swiss ministry and UN hat
But as of July 1 - head of the secretariat on Working Group of Internet 
Governance

Process be open and inclusive with full participation of governments, 
private sector and civil society from both developed and developing countries

Expectation is high
The result of Geneva:
  -the beginning of broad-based multilateral process on Internet governance;
  mandate to UN SG to setup WGIG
  WGIG is to report to the second phase of the Summit in Tunis in Nov 2005
Adapting global governance to the needs of the 21st Century
  That allow all stakeholders to participate
Basis for WGIG
  Principles enshrined in Geneva Declaration
   Now is a global facility, should be multiliaterla, transparent and democratic
  The manamgement should involve fully governments, civil society, private sector

Two schools of thought
  First school
  With the legitimacy of UN system,
  Not replace nor infringe the existing institution
It relates to national sovereignty

Other school
  Present system works well, if itain't broken, don't fix it
System I private sector driven,

Agenda of WGIG
  WGIG will have to decide on the scope of its mandate
   Narrow, technical definition vs broad definition

Two documents of Geneva adopted set the reference
  Identify public policy issues
  Take stock on who does what

Process
  Be "open" and "inclusive" and ensure full participation of government and 
all stakeholders
  No single organization in charge: - direct mandate from WSIS to UNSG
Open and inclusive character of the group:
Stakeholders, and governments
	WG as part of WSIS process not accepted, WSIS process not satisfactory for 
private sector and civil society - to give more inclusive
UN ICT TF -^ as possible model  - given equal access
  Strong emphasis on open-ended, but this group is not for negotiation, but 
gathering facts and come up with solutions
Balance between efficiency and legitimacy
  Interact with all stakeholders, we may need two-tier system,
  Alternate from closed WGIG and open-ended consultations,
  Expert be invited
Developing country participation is essential, including but not limited to 
travel funding
  Process to Tunis reflect these priorities

The Secretariat
  To provide support to UN SG

3 phases
  1 - July - October 2004
  start from small group, to become fully operational,
  with appointment of Chairperson,
  to composition of WGIG, profile of its work
  important: balanced composition
   region,
composition of WGIG be complete by Oct 2004

Second phase:
To start Nov 2004
   To set own agenda
  3 meetings will be needed, in between, open-ended consultation, 2 or 3 rounds
First meeting - Nov or Dec 2004,
  Make use of gathering in PrepCom, back to back to the PrepCom
Further round April or May

To setup advisory board, on eminent person and expert

Report will be issued no later than July 2005

Third phase - after publication of Report
The WGIG and a core group of Secretariat will accompany the process until Tunis
Secretariat will scale down

Main priorities for the first phase and preliminary conclusion
Need for broad based consultation on structure of WGIG and profile of its members
Need to make sure all government and major stakeholders feel represented by 
the WGIG
WGIG can only successful if all stakeholder will recognize themselves in 
the final report

Question

Brazil
Reasoning on organization of the Group
  You can read out the document  your reading is not exactly our reading
"but this group is closed" -
  get fact and try to come up with recommendation
how are you going to UN SG, to decide who is going to take part?
That is why Brazil is requesting the group be open-ended, not limited member

India
Report be submitted - to intergovernmental process
To delay as late as July is unwise
  Not sufficient to insure that outcome of the report is fully reflective
Why this process cannot be - much more inclusive and open-ended, and not 
available to member states and others - sufficiently ahead of Summit in November

OEC?
What status is foreseen for the document submitted by WGIG?
Consensus document? - WSIS process is consensus process
  What happens if WGIG is rejected by PrepCom?

Saudi Arabia
1)	Timetable
2)	Participation in WG
  Many discussion to the last minute at Geneva
  Conclusion - a group as few members as possible - we fear, once again we 
will have same question in Tunis
It might not be better that it might be in open group - all persons 
interested can participate
Time Table - when the report is presented - last minute - we will be under 
pressure
  Preferable to give this in advance  - so that it be submitted to the PrepCom

Iran
Share concerns with India and Saudi Arabia
  PrepCom3 will be late time to receive the report of WGIG
PrepCom3 be overloaded - by other issues, danger for less time for PrepCom3 
for the result of WG
In your slide presentations - "process ahead"
  Reference of open and inclusive mechanism
Interpretation - to separate of mechanism from the work of WG - is the impression
  That is source of concern

You refereed the concept of "global governance"
  Clarification on that point

Kummer
The text of Geneva is open to interpretations
  Global governance - in UN reform, governance meeting with civil society 
involvement
  Internet Governance - same discussion where government, private sector 
and civil society is finding new way for their cooperation - as other WSIS

3 concerns:
  Character of this WG: we were not given any concrete approach of this WG
  All thinking about the continuation of WSIS process in open-ended mode, 
but the text doesn't say that - it has qualifiers,
  WG itself is not, but is done in open-ended process
Text was sent to SG, NY
  We lost the ownership of the text, and NY has a legitimate claim, SG office,
  In the tradition of similar WG, Panels, setup of UN SG
Concern by UNDP on finance is same concern
Why SG is asked to setup WG - clearly felt that smaller group is more efficient
Number floating around is maybe 15 to 20 person manageable
  Documents-  all other qualifier - fully and open participation

  Close group -to move process forward, with open-ended meetings,
But this is not negotiating session, but fact-finding session and exchange views
  IGOs and International forum of course have ways to input, use vide conference,

The timing of Report - we did agree in Geneva, I remember - discussing with 
the possibility
It should be ready well-before Summit, - summer break - in July
Even first draft be available by PrepCom2, but can use PreopCom2, back o back
For fact finding and listen to the views
Report - should not come with major surprise,

PrepCom and Summit can do whatever they want to the report, reject or adopt

I am ready and interact with smaller groups,

India
There is nothing in the language - restrictive of open-ended working group
On finance mechanism - involve various experts,
  No compelling force of restrictive group on Internet Governance
While all stakeholders involved is important, but idea of rather restricted 
member, expert group - with report with very little time - give us unease -
Developing countries to be involved well
I cannot understand how one can do well, with the open-ended process
We like to have some clarification - whether SG does have different point of view
  Proactive in Geneva that is truly open-ended process, rather than limited 
body of people
Is it cast stone- looking at small group, or larger open-ended group?

USA
WG that supports the participation of all stakeholders,

Brazil
Idea expressed by Kummer is fruitful, and we need in deep understanding
We share the view by India,
We like to ask Kummer, actual status of idea - restricted group?
Is this decision already taken by UN SG, or idea proposed by you, 
Ambassador Kummer?
Member be 15 to 20. Is this idea - you have intention of inviting members, 
to be part of this 15 members, or only experts, but not representing 
governments, NGOs, but just specialist on that matter?

Greece
Nihsimoto has said - not negotiation document, but facilitate consultation
  Nishimoto - contain packages, but not include negotiated document
To Kummer, could you make same statement?

China
We have listened carefully to the report by 2 chairs on Financing and IG
  And listened to delegate
We agree with India, Pakistan and Brazil, this group should be open and inclusive
15 to 20 - how are you going to choose the member, we like to know the detail
we like to know the outcome as soon as possible before next PrepCom, before March
the report is supposed to give information to the PrepCom or to the Final 
meeting, Nov 2005
Status of IG WG, we also listened to Mr. Utsumi's prepsentation
  Thematic meeting
What is going to be the status of resource of regional and thematic meetings
I like to know the details

South Africa/Lindall
We like to ssociate with concerns and comment raised by India, Pakistan, 
Brazil and China
We have somewhat lost the ownership - when we gave it to SG
Given the broad and common understanding - to make sure this group is 
composed be satisfied with us
Concerned about the Calendar
We are concerned - that start in November, one year almost after the summit

Ireland
Mr. Kummer made one statement - WG is only successful when all stakeholders 
feel with their views -^ can you come back after tomorrow's session?

Kummer
India, nothing prevent to setup open-ended, or the other way
I can report this back to NY
It is very much idea, central of SG office, that this group be in 
traditional work of SG
In WSIS process - who is in charge of preparing the document
If we have open-ended group, we still have the question - who is going to 
create the document? Drafting group?  It is our intention to make the 
process as open and inclusive, but there is a need for small group to drive 
process
Write a report on complex matter in open-ended process
Profile status of Group - experts or government people- this is very much 
we need to discuss to reach common understanding we like
We need government representatives with sufficient political overview, we 
also need from Private sector, with technical community  - it will be very 
mixed membership to gain credibility
US asked all stakeholders participation - we need all stakeholders to be 
represented;
  Government, civil society, private sector who would participate on equal footing
But government representative would be a more acceptable solution
Parallel to TF on Financing Mechanism
It will not be a negotiated report, but hopefully it is consensus report

China and Brazil asked about the selection criteria, but like the Finance, 
SG will nominate the member, but we can do dialogues - with regional group 
and stakeholder
They can write proposals, chairperson,
At this stage, I don't like to invite candidates, but rather discussion
Needs for speed , but practical question of having structure setup and 
question of resources
Text is not clear - if WG report back to Summit, but that does not make sense,
This report be last PrepCom
By next Prepcom - this be steep task in such complex issue

Last comment: when looking at other WG, eminent people- they usually give 
much more time - but the important part is setting up time
I discussed with World Commission of Dams? -^
They devoted lengthy period of consultation when setting up

Morocco
We have specific proposal - to get out of this deadlock -
Basic membership - could be 2 host countries, Switzerland and Tunisia
  And countries organized regional conferences
Basic group, but open to others, as well

Kenya, Canada, India, Mexico, Selvia Montenegro followed,
and Kummer made final statement/answer that he will report
to SG about these comments, but emphasised again that
WG Process is open and inclusive, but WG itself has
limited memberhsip in order to to efficinetly function as a kind
of Drafting Group.