[WSIS CS-Plenary] IPR : Strategic priorities for WGIG [clarification]

[William Drake]

Hi,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org]On
> Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola

> This point of view has already been exposed and discussed in the various
> forums (WSIS, UN ICT Task Force etc) in the last couple of years... its
> foremost supporters were the developing countries alliance that really
> wanted the debate to focus only on ICANN (and, partly, on how to transfer
> its functions to ITU), and the private sector, which feared changes in
> presently unregulated or favourably regulated markets (from IPR to
> interconnection and peering costs). In the end, this point of view was
> eventually rejected during the creation process for the WGIG.

It is true that this view has been rejected, but to clarify, there has not
been a developing country alliance in favor of focusing only on ICANN.  A
few countries, most notably China, have stated that this is their
overarching priority to which nothing else comes close, but far more
developing countries, most notably in Africa, have said that there is a need
to look at the broad topography of Internet governance public policy issues,
and that there is a need for some sort of new forum or mechanism that is
truly global that can do this.

Unfortunately, very few developing countries are further arguing that such a
body must be multistakeholder; they want a strictly intergovernmental
approach.  In contrast, the USA (believe it or not) maintains that any new
body would have to be multistakeholder.  Indeed, it is primarily because
they took this position (along with Japan, with the EU and Canada seconding
but not leading) that we got included in WGIG.  Most of the developing
country governments didn't want us in the room.

All of which is to suggest that the tactical dimensions are complex.  On
some substantive issues, CS is probably closer to the developing country
positions, on some we are closer to the industrialized government positions.
On the procedural aspects, things may line up differently.

Best,

Bill