[WSIS CS-Plenary] Quick notes from Geneva

[Vittorio Bertola]

I'm sending a quick report with my take on the two days of meetings in
Geneva about the establishment of the WGIG. Please pardon the form, I've
just got home now and I am definitely tired. Possibly others will
correct/complete my notes.

First day, focused on "what is Internet Governance?". Everyone takes place
in the big UN room, panelists at the centre, governments in the first rows,
everyone else behind. You can recognize non-governmental people because
they're the only ones with laptops - unfortunately the wireless LAN does not
work and there are just three power outlets in a 300-people room. Make note:
let's send a message to Kummer and stress that we need Internet-age
instruments to work. I'd have liked to be online on an IRC channel to chat
with whoever wanted to follow remotely.

Morning session starts one hour late, due to the quite inefficient UN
accreditation system which kept most participants out in queue for one hour
or so. First introductions, then Tunisia (ccTLD rep) and China (government).
Then presentations - first focused on mapping issues and principles (Drake,
Kurbalija, Mueller), then giving stakeholder perspectives (including Karen
Banks from APC and Olivier Nana Nzepa with an African perspective, both much
appreciated). Bill's "soft power" concept (you shouldn't rule the Internet
by force, but by consensus and moral suasion) will be often quoted in many
interventions.

Lunch break, then general discussion. First two hours almost completely
occupied by country statements, then floor is also given to private sector
and civil society. Most governments discuss whether the definition to be
used is the narrow one (ie almost just ICANN) or the broad one (ie all the
rest, including IPR, privacy, spam etc etc). Most speakers seem in favour of
the broad one - surprisingly, even ISOC agrees. Many governments, UN
agencies etc. exploit the opportunity to tell the world how well they are
doing in ICT. Many governments already hint at the composition, and while no
one seems to doubt that the group has to be multi-stakeholder, almost all
governments push for governments to have at least half of the group. (More
on this below)

I speak towards the end of the afternoon, and try to shake the audience up a
little by waving high my Creative Zen and a copy-protected audio CD and
complaining that real IG issues are the ones about which real people care -
such as buying stuff that doesn't work due to anticopy protections. Oh well,
the audience seemed to like my little show - at least I countered the WIPO
intervention, that said that there are plenty of NGOs participating there,
so everything is ok with IPR.

Other good CS speeches by Izumi Aizu, Alex Pisanty, Wolfgang Kleinwaechter
(about a distributed hierarchical network of institutions, I liked the
concept) and certainly others I'm forgetting (pardon me, it's midnight now
here). Nice final intervention by the Youth Caucus rep, who introduces their
contribution. Other people and entities who signed up to speak, including
Bertrand de la Chapelle and Joseph Sarr (and ICANN...), are deferred to the
following day.

At the end I chat a bit with a former Ambassador from Jamaica, he's a little
disappointed because no one mentioned Internet connection charges, which are
a huge cost for developing countries - he's right, we have to push this
issue as well. Some governmental people complain that too few governments
were on the panels :/ I also grab Mr. Kurbalija and tell him he should not
use the term "hacking" to mean "cybercrime", he promises to update his
presentation.

Second day, focused on composition and working methods of WGIG. A couple of
governments present their positions, then Lynn St. Amour for ISOC (she
explains the IETF and the other I* entities), then Jeanette (Hofmann) with a
great presentation about the IG caucus statements. Many governments
expressed appreciation for what she said, and I think we're establishing
ourselves as smart people.

Nonetheless, in the following discussion, most governments seem to agree
that WG should have 40 members (other say 20 or 30), of which at least half
should be governments (some, such as the EU, even say that UN agencies such
as ITU etc do not count as governments, but should be counted in the other
half). Many of us try to lobby their own governmental delegations to push
for the "one third, one third, one third" subdivision we have been proposing
in our statement. Informal feedback is: no way, but you're likely to get one
fourth, possibly 6-10 people depending on the final size of the group.

Anyway, even if in substance differences between countries are not huge,
there are significant differences in wordings and attitudes. I take the
floor again to make the case for the equal subdivision of the WGIG among
stakeholders, mentioning DVD and Jon Johansen as an example of what happens
if you make policies without involving users and taking into account what
they need; also stress the importance of including Internet users and young
people in the group. Unfortunately China takes the floor soon after me and
stresses that equal number of members is absolutely unacceptable (but, as I
said, in fact also the EU and other countries seem to agree on that). Other
CS speakers include Izumi again about open meetings and multilingualism, and
Veni Markovski stressing the need for money. Oh, and some governments' only
core message was "we want to be represented in the group".

There also seems to be more or less agreement on the usefulness of a
separate "advisory group" (or "second tier") with experts on the specific
issues.

Session ends at 5:40pm, let's shake hands and thank Kummer for the fact that
we actually had good opportunities to take the floor (much more than, say,
in the NY meeting in March). I bring Adam and Izumi to the airport, then
drive back through the Alps down to my home in Turin. Mont Blanc tunnel was
fine today, but wish there were less roadworks - I get home at 10pm.

What next? Kummer presented a tentative timeframe, which is: by October,
group is composed (which means that CS should submit its suggested names in
the next ten days at latest); preliminary report to be released for
PrepCom-2, possibly with a two days open consultation in Geneva just before
PrepCom-2 starts; final report out in June, so to be considered for
PrepCom-3. WGIG should possibly meet four times (late Nov, Feb before PC2,
April and June), with regional/online consultations in the middle. Egypt
already is planning one of them. Also saw announcements of a Public Voice
meeting in Cape Town just after the ICANN meeting.

I surely forgot people, things, plenty of other stuff. Excuse me about that.
-- 
vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg...