[WSIS CS-Plenary] WGIG Report presentation and EU statement

[Adam Peake]

At 5:39 PM +0200 7/29/05, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote:
>Dear Europeans, dear all
>
>I'm surprised that more than a week after the 
>WGIG meetings at Geneva, there isn't any comment 
>from our mailing-list on the (WGIG) Report 
>presented and discussed during these meetings.
>
>As far as I'm concerned I wrote a report of the 
>20 July "open" meeting which can be found on 
>CSDPTT website 
>(<http://www.csdptt.org/>www.csdptt.org). Of 
>course, the report is in french.



Jean-Louis, thank you.

Sorry to say I can't find your report on the 
CSDPTT sire, could you tell us the URL.

Kind regards,

Adam




>But it requires from you, fluent english 
>speaking people, only a small part of the effort 
>I'd to make during three hours, in listening to 
>mainly "high level Internet academicians" who 
>were speaking as fast as they use to do with 
>their campus fellows. Anyway, those who are 
>interested and willing to make an effort, my 
>report is attached to this mail.
>
>Just some reminders to the content and comments 
>upon the "Statement by the UK on behalf of the 
>EU of the EU - Presentation of the WGIG report, 
>18 July 2005", the only (!) document that was 
>displayed at the room entrance table for our 
>information.
>
>This statement says that the EU position on 
>Internet Gouvernance (IG) has been outlined by 
>the EU Council of Ministers, and states that 
>"The question of internationalisation of the 
>management of the Internet's core resources, 
>namely the domain name system, IP addresses, and 
>the root server system, are the main issues in 
>this debate". Ascertaining that "the existing 
>IG mechanisms should be founded on a more solid 
>democratic, transparent and multilateral basis", 
>it asks for stronger emphasising public policy 
>interests of all gouvernmemnts, and for 
>clarifying the "respective roles of the 
>international and intergouvernmental 
>organisations in the field of IG". It adds that 
>EU "encourages" cooperation between 
>international and intergouvrernmental 
>organisations.Finally, it proposes a "new 
>cooperation model" based on "current bottom-up 
>public-private partnership" and providing "a 
>platform for policy dialogue in the interest of 
>all gouvernments in a light, fast reacting and 
>flexible approach".
>
>So far, so good. But when it comes to define the 
>basing principles of this "new cooperation 
>model", the first one states that it "should not 
>replace existing mechanisms", but "build on the 
>existing structures of IG". That seems perfectly 
>contradictory with the innovative feature of the 
>"new cooperation model". The second 
>principle tries to complete somehow the 
>definition of the "new model", in specifying 
>that it is a "new public-private co-operation 
>model" which should "contribute to the 
>sustainable stability and robustness of the 
>Internet by addressing appropriately public 
>policy issues related to key elements of IG".
>
>In the second part of its statement, the EU document stresses
>
>- the specific mission and responsibility of 
>governments and their role within the new 
>cooperation model focused on policy issues (no 
>operational ones);
>
>- the importance of respecting the architectural principles of the Internet;
>
>- the high priority to be spent on security and spam issues ;
>
>- the importance of ICTs for a competitive 
>industry and the need for "an active involvment 
>of the private sector in the IG discussions, and 
>finally
>
>- the commitment of rhe EU in working "towards a 
>positive outcome of the IG discussions in the 
>WSIS framework" ; furthermore the EU encourages 
>the implementation of the Tunis results through 
>"multistakeholder involvment".
>
>At no place in this two pages document the CS is 
>even cited, nor is its role highlighted. The EU 
>simply forgot the CS, encouraging only the 
>private sector to an "active involvment" in "IG 
>discussions during the second phase of 
>WSIS". This is an unacceptable beheaviour of the 
>EU, incomprehensible for all those of us who did 
>appreciate the good relationship we had with the 
>EU representatives (Presidency, Council and 
>Commission) during last PrepCom-2. I therefore 
>strongly suggest the EUC to react accordingly.
>
>To sum up : a "flat" contribution, a weak "new 
>cooperation model" proposed, and an unacceptable 
>missing of the CS.
>
>Another point to be raised : "multilateral" 
>-which is central to international cooperation 
>issues dealing and settlements-  is just 
>mentioned once in these two pages. No reference 
>either to UN agencies and the role the EU wants 
>them to play. But the the WGIG "open" meeting 
>even beated this bad performance : during its 
>three hours debate, multilateralism was never 
>mentioned, nor were the ITU or other UN bodies 
>cited. Instead of that, "multistakeholder" was 
>probably the most (ab)used term, mentioned by 
>all the "stakeholders" : gouvernments, private 
>sector and CS. After having heard the latter 
>during this meeting I always wonder if "we are 
>playing on the same playground" ... or in the 
>same league.
>
>Best regard
>
>Jean-Louis Fullsacl
>
>CSDPTT- France
>
>
>
>
>Attachment converted: MacOS 
>X:=?UTF-8?B?UsOpdW5pb24gaW#2456F6 (    /    ) 
>(002456F6)