[WSIS CS-Plenary] Quick notes from Geneva

[karen banks]

hi vittorio,

This is a great report, thanks for doing it so quickly.

Milton Mueller has also posted a report which is a good compliment to yours.
http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/21/1812238&mode=thread

For those interested, i really recommend reading over the papers Vittorio 
noted from the priority setting session. They lay out the matrix of Global 
ICT governance issues, governance mechanisms, bodies involved, type of body 
etc. This is very useful when thinking about the 'basket of issues' the 
WGIG should take on.

references:

Bill Drake: http://www.itu.int/wsis/preparatory2/wgig/drake.pdf
Reframing Internet Governance Discourse: Fifteen Baseline Propositions*

Internet Governance Propject (Milton Mueller et al):
http://www.itu.int/wsis/preparatory2/wgig/ig-project1.pdf
Internet Governance, The State of Play

Jovan Kurbalija (Diplo) presentation based on the quite well known 
'Information society governance - under construction' cartoon: 
http://www.diplomacy.edu/Diplo/Calendar2004/img/governance.jpg
and the IS Governance cube: 
http://www.diplomacy.edu/activities/wsis/governance/cube.swf

>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.

Yes - that is true, almost everyone did. But the real debate i think, will 
be which of these issues might be included in a working definition, and 
what mandate, if any, the WGIG would have to reommend/advocate policy 
change in the various bodies involved eg WTO, WIPO, ITU etc. (The WTO was 
absent i believe from the meeting - unlike WIPO and the ITU who were quite 
actively involved).

Many of the interventions acknowledging the need for a 'broad definition' 
also noted that the WGIG should only deal with issues in other spaces which 
are 'not being dealt with effectively'. And where they are not being dealt 
with effectively, what kind of changes could be recommended.

If the WGIG does indeed take on a broader working definition of internet 
governance, it would be very interesting and important for civil society 
groups to articulate which existing governance mechanisms are 'not working 
effectively' and why. We already have many partners and colleagues active 
around WTO, WIPO and other processes - working together is going to be very 
important.

i think this kind of work needs to happen even if the WGIG didn't take on 
this broader definition

This is where i found a section of Bill Drake's background paper very 
useul. It defines many of the governance bodies according to certain 
'attributes' and then proposes to add more 'value' based criteria such as 
transparency, inclusiveness, fairness and accountability - as a 'lense' to 
assess the governance body/mechanism. We have talked also about doing an 
assessment of the extent to which various governance bodies are inclusive 
and open to meaningful civil society participation.

on the comment from the former ambassador from Jamaica re no comment on 
inter-connection prices, i thought olivier (africa caucus) did raise this?, 
and it is certainly in the APC paper and a great concern to our members - 
he was very right in raising it..

karen