[WSIS CS-Plenary] SubCommittee A, 15 Nov - morning session

[Jette Madsen]

SubCommittee A, 15 November 9:00-12:00
Minutes by Jette Madsen, CONGO

Third reading of document DT15-E

(I missed the interventions by stakeholders and Internet Society (ISOC))

Ghana (African Group): small delegations have not been able to particiate
effectively in drafting groups yesterday. Will preserve right to go back to the
previous document.

Chair: Today last 6 hours. Can see three approaches
1)	we do not get anywhere and stop negotiations at noon
2)	divide into small groups to reach compromises
3)	success is not reflection of your own views, but to find common ground
(chair’s favoured approach)

para 62 (existing arrangements have worked effectively):
Russia: suggests deletion
US: recognition of existing mechanism, decentralization and the role of private
sector are fundamental points. Therefore, para should be retained.
Iran sees 62 in the context of a text under negotiation. Wants to keep it in
square brackets.

63:
Australia: proposes removal of brackets in both 63 and 64
Russia: 62,63 and 64 only mentions positive elements and signals that no change
is necessary. Wants square brackets retained.
Chair: brackets or deletion?
Russia: prefers deletion.
Canada: paras define the context – should be retained

65:
Canada: was agreed yesterday in their group
Russia: wants “reliability and quality of service” amended
Australia: oppose the Russian proposal.
Russia: reliability and quality of service are extremely important.
Algeria: prefers to keep text as it is. “Inter alia” signals that list is not
exhaustive.
Chair: proposes to take out text and insert it as a separate para
Russia: willing to follow chair’s suggestion

66:
agreed

67:
Ghana: insert “actively” before continue.
Iran: would like the three alternatives read aloud.
Canada: no problems with original text.
South Africa: would like to clarify why there are alternative. Supports alt1
together with Iran. Alt3 was made as response to alt2.
Iran’s problem with alt2: supports the notion of continuity. Ongoing evolution
within the existing framework. Can not be the case from our point of view.
Uruguay:
Australia: alt 2 - would like to make it clear that the existing structure HAS
evolved over time.
US: associate with Australia – can except addition of “actively”  and also “with
full participation”. Supports alt2 with amendment
Chair: “We are convinced that there is need to initiate or reinforce a
progressive (delete evolutionary) a transparent
”
Constitutes a subgroup to be chaired by Egypt.

68:
Australia: IG should be responsive. Propose insertion of “responsive”.

69:
South Africa: Reservation on text yesterday. We have moved from oversight to
improved, would like to use “mechanism” instead of “framework”.
Venezuela: would like either a new para between 68 or 69 or to include end of
para 48 of the Geneva principles in the end of para 68.
Chair: is already included in para 39.
Venezuela: framework or mechanism replaced with “internet management”
Australia: framework vs. mechanism. South Africa proposed a global change to
mechanism forward yesterday in drafting group. Framework reflects that several
institutions are involved in IG. Proposes that the wording is kept in square
brackets.
UK: Would like to add “in diverse ways” underlining that they do not want to
standardize the way it ccTLDs are managed.

70:
Chair proposes deletion.

71:
Chair proposes deletion “of further development of”.
Brackets are removed.
Saudi Arabia: both parts should be maintained in square brackets.
Chair: what is important is to keep the concept of gTLDs – please come up with
language
Saudi Arabia: delete brackets and keep both – would satisfy all.
Agreed.

72:
Saudi Arabia: insert “which reflects their interests” after Governance
Agreed.

73:
Chair proposes deletion of evolutionary and keep progressive.
Iran: is not sure what a progressive approach means – want the word in square
brackets.
Chair proposes deletion.
Is deleted.

74:
Chair: delete evolutionary and retain “progressive manner”
Iran: would like to retain brackets around “progressive”. Insert “regarding IG”
after Geneva Principles. Take out last sentence and put it in a seperate para.
Australia: reserves its position until it has seen the outcomes of negotiations
of para 67.
Argentina: Balance between the elements in para 49 in Geneva Principles.
Stability and security is mentioned three times, whereas none of the others are
mentioned. Proposes amendment “ensuring equitable distribution of resources,
active participation for all, multilingualism, stability and security
”
Egypt proposes to delete progressive manner. Ghana does not agree
Australia to Argentinean proposal: should be at least be kept in. Originally
para was dealing with critical internet resources, not human resources.
Chair will set up a WG on this.

New 74B (former 74A):
Saudi Arabia: Amend “should” before “have an equal role”.
Iran: conceptual problem with first part. All stakeholders have a responsibility
to secure the stability of internet.
UK: “in relation to” instead of “for” – does not suggest full responsibility

75:
South Africa: amend “a new cooperation model”. Delete “arrangements”, because it
is not clear.
UK proposes new 75B:

“We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the future, building
on existing structures, to enable governments on an equal footing to carry out
their roles and responsibilities in international public policy issues
pertaining Internet Governance, not in day-day or technical operation. Such
cooperation should include development of globally applicable
 Associated with
coordination and management of critical internet resources
In this regard, we call on the organizations responsible for essential tasks
associated with the internet to contribute environment that facilitate this
The
process towards enhanced cooperation will start by the end of first quarter of
2006, will involve all stakeholder, will proceed as quickly as possible
consistent with legal process and will be responsive to evolution.” (Quoting
incomplete)

US: Proposes in beginning: “Using existent relevant organizations
”
Uruguay: We have not answered who will be responsible for implementing this
mechanism
Russia: support US amendment to 75B and propose amendment of “international” so
that it reads: “Using existent relevant international organizations
”

Group convened by Switzerland will negotiate 74 and 75.

Paragraphs on forum:

76:
Chair asks US to withdraw its reservation on UNSG.
US: reservation stands. Its decision on 76 is pending on paras 67, 74, 78 and
79. UN does not have a oversight or regulatory function for national policies.
Therefore, US wants brackets placed by Algeria in 78 removed (The IGF would
have no oversight function).
Chair asks Algeria if it can accept removal of brackets?
Algeria: won’t accept – its position on  78 is depending on 67
Chair: Nobody has ever said that forum should have an oversight function and
brackets in 78 is now blocking agreement on UNSG.

Australia recognizes that ISOC will not get support, but UNSG should be provided
with guidance in terms of the forum. Proposes new para 76B:
“We encourage UNSG to examine a range of options for the establishment and
operation of the forum, including non-UN organizations with established and
recognized roles in Internet issues, including development and multistakeholder
partnerships.”

Brazil: As US seems to be against oversight, not the UN itself, Brazil proposes
two changes to 76: “convene” could replace “establish” and after 2006 amendment
of “a meeting of the Forum.”
US: find proposal helpful, but the para is still pending on other paras

Chair asks again Algeria to remove brackets in 78.
Algeria can accept it, but with not go along with the Australian proposal
Chair asks Australia to withdraw proposal, but Australia is not prepared to do
this.

US: we are mixing the concepts. There is the issue of oversight, the helpful
proposal from Brazil and third, the question of non-governmental participation
in forum.

Algeria is not against that UNSG consult all stakeholder, but against
introduction of new paragraph.

Uruguay: supports removal of brackets in 78 and the Brazilian proposal for 76.
76 could be improved without Australian proposal. Proposes instead amendment to
77a dealing with stakeholder participation.

Ghana appeals to Australia to withdraw its proposal.

China: We reached a compromise text on 76 yesterday. Australia tabled useful
proposals that were accepted by the group. Does not understand why they make a
new proposal now.

Chair suggests that they find a separate place to aks UNSG to recognize
nongovernmental and non-UN participation.
Australia will be flexible to find another place.

US accepts removal of brackets around 76 conditioned on the outcomes of 67, 74
and 79.

Para 77 was not discussed, as the working group did not discuss it yesterday.

Switzerland will convene a drafting group on 67, 74 and 75,
Singapore will convene a group on 76-69
Canada will convene a group on the preamble, except 67.

SubCommittee A reconvenes at 4 pm.


Jette Madsen
CONGO - WSIS CS Secretariat
11, Avenue de la Paix
CH-1202 Geneva
Tel: +41 22 301 1000
Fax: +41 22 301 2000

E-mail:wsis at ngocongo.org
Website: www.ngocongo.org

The Conference of NGOs (CONGO) is an international,
membership association that facilitates the participation
of NGOs in United Nations debates and decisions. Founded in
1948, CONGO's major objective is to ensure the presence of
NGOs in exchanges among the world's governments and United
Nations agencies on issues of global concern.  For more
information see our website at www.ngocongo.org