[WSIS CS-Plenary] SubCommittee A, 14 Nov - afternoon session

[wsis at iprolink.ch]

Dear all,

Please find notes from this afternoon's meeting in SubCommittee A below.

Best regards,
Jette Madsen
CONGO / CSB Secretariat


SubCommittee A, 14 November 16:00-19:00

In this session of SubCommittee A conducted a first reading of the chair’s
paper on section 5 concerning oversight and a possible forum on Internet
Governance. In the beginning of the meetings there was two interventions
from CS and ICANN and GAC spoke after requests from the chair. 

Gender Caucus:
Gender equality as stated in Geneva documents is not reflected in chapter
three.
Supports interngovernmental mechanism with participation of CS and private
sector. 

Wolfgang Kleinwächter on behalf of IG Caucus:
Oversight function: no governmental involvement in day-to-day technical
management, also no US involvement. Though US position has not been
misused, it is a source of mistrust

ICANN representative: 
Governments have been asked twice on how they would like to participate in
GAC
At founding of ICANN and again in 2001 (reform process). Meeting in
December: discussions on what measures need to be taken to make cooperation
more effective, including participation of developing countries. ICANN wish
to engage in a dialogue with governments on reform. Governments are
encouraged to participate in the meeting in Vancouver in December.

Chair of GAC:
ICANN’s bylaws recognize that governments have a role. In 2000 developed
guidelines and principles for ccTLD’s. Regarding gTLD, ICANN is calling for
in-depth government involvement. Invite delegations to join the GAC meeting
in Vancouver.


1st reading of new chair’s paper on section five (numbers refer to paras in
DT15 (rev.1)-E. 
In the end of the meeting it was stated that paper with incorporation of
the comments made at the meeting would be posted online soon, but at the
time where this e-mail was sent, I was not able to find them on the website.

Para 62 and 64: 
Russia would like these placed in square brackets

Para 65: 
Brazil: Delete “issues dealt with by ICANN”
Columbia: wants a listing of stakeholder roles
China: issues concerning public policies. The list here is shorter than in
the WGIG report, would like more issues included.
Chair responds: some issues have already been addressed in earlier parts of
the document.

66:
India rephrasing: “we further recognize that current structures do not
sufficiently address cross-cutting international public policy issues.”
Australia proposes “could better address”
Senegal: We should find common denominators; otherwise, we will go into
endless discussions. 

67: 
Ghana: African Group proposed a progressive approach – different from
evolutionary

Iran is also critical to evolutionary approach.  

Saudi Arabia: agree with Iran on its concerns regarding the evolutionary
approach
67: amendment after organizations “in their respective roles”
74: does not cover all Geneva principles
75: wants “building on existing structures” in square brackets + delete “or
arrangements”

US:
67: No need for a new multilateral framework. Propose deletion of “new” and
new wording: “a need to continue the evolutionary process towards
”
71: “development of public policies for gTLD” - want para in square
brackets.

China:
On US proposal on 67: could be interpreted as there is no need to continue
process.
70 and 71: in square brackets – what institutions will do this?
75: “need for enhanced cooperation in the future” – too weak, we need to
take action now. Suggests “enhanced cooperation in the future” in brackets.

Cuba:
Wants para 49 from DT10 inserted between 74 and 75.

Chair: overlap between section 3a and 5. Language in 3a will be revised
when we have finished section 4.

UK (EU): 
75: EU would like to propose amendment later in drafting group.

India: 
68: amend “should be inclusive”
75: Amend “decisions” to discussions

Chair: the reason that there is no mentioning of decisions is that there
was no agreement.

Brazil:
71: Quotes letter from Gallagher in August regarding .xxx domain. We must
pay attention to public policies for gTLDs – para should be maintained
(responding to US).

South Africa:
would like to see para 69 in brackets. Different meaning of “framework” and
“mechanism”.
71 – has been covered by Brazil
75: we need something more than enhanced cooperation – need for a body +
should involve decicions as well as discussions (supports India)

Saudi Arabia:
75: does not just want discussions, but also decisions. 
Propose new language that would cover all issues: “Such cooperation would
address international Internet public policy issues.”

Indonesia:
70: Amendment after guarantee: “the national interests and right of
countries within regions” (delete “each region’s rights”)

Switzerland:
71 on gTLDs: proposes “strengthened cooperation among stakeholders”
Sees “enhanced cooperation in the future” as an acceptable compromise.

Venezuela proposes amendments of “multilateral” in paras 74 and 75


Comments on paras 76-82 (Forum):

Greece offers to host the first meeting of the Forum in its facilities for
the Olympic Games.

Brazil responds: If Greece has so good facilities maybe they can host the
first of the oversight function also?

Ghana:
76a: replace “discuss” with “review in-depth the general policies of IG”
76g: comments that “make recommendations” will mean that other
organizations decide.
76k: replace misuse with abuse

Algeria:
Suggests establishment of forum as first step in a progressive approach.
Among the attributes of the forum would be the power to continue discussion
on IG. Next step would be the establishment of an IG mechanism.

Australia:
Its support to a forum depends on that there will be no new bodies + there
should be a clear mandate to the forum.
Does not like the title “Internet Governance Forum” . The title suggests
governance decisions, but the forum is not going to make decisions on
oversight. Proposes “Internet Dialogue Forum” as an alternative.
Serious consideration should also be given to other organizations. Proposes
that Internet Society (ISOC) could host the Forum.

China: Reporting from the UNSG back to member states (ECOSOC) is missing in
the draft.
Opposes the review after five years – the forum should decide its own
existence.
Opposes “Internet Dialogue Forum” – we have been talking about IG
everywhere else.

Russia: New external structures will delay the process. Proposes structure
within ITU with an amendment to para 79: “IGF could be organized on the
basis of ITU”. 

Canada has a problem with inviting UNSG to establish the forum. Unlike
WGIG, the forum is not looking at a discrete issue. Para 79 mentions a
“small, lean and cost-effective Bureau”, but it will still be rather
costly. Does the UNSG have the economical resources. UN has no good record
of sunsetting organisations.
Support Australian proposal about ISOC.
First quarter of 2006 is a deadline for those who are going to set up the
forum – more time should be given.
If ISOC takes on the task, there is also a question of resources.
The forum should include largest possible number of developing countries.
Will demand fellowships. Again a matter of funding.
Would also have problems with ITU because of the question of resources.

US reserves right to express their view on the forum until they know the
outcome of negotiations of paras 72-75.
Associate with Canada and Australia: forum should be dedicated to discrete
issues, but with a flexible agenda.
Concerns regarding the UN institution: Forum under the auspices of UNSG
should be seen in the light of the UN reform.
Applaud 79, but notes that it is not clear where resources shall come from.
Supports the idea of ISOC as facilitator.

Chair will consult with ISOC.

Sudan: Regarding costs the different conditions of countries should be
taken into account.

Egypt proposes new text in para 76: “a new space for multi-stakeholders to
exchange views on all matters and policies related to Internet Governance,
called the Internet Forum.

Equador: Knows the modes of operations for the UN, would like to have the
same information about the alternatives.

Three working groups were set up in the end of the meeting:

Group chaired by Canada will negotiate paras 62-75
Group chaired by Singapore will negotiate 76-77
Group chaired by Mexico will negotiate 78-82.

SubCommittee A would reconvene again at 9 pm.




--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .