[WSIS CS-Plenary] proposed list of speakers for Tunis

[lissjeffrey at sympatico.ca]

Could I please get a reply on my previous query on what the Cdn candidates 
proposed here had to say about the issues discussed on the Canada position 
(notably on IG but opther issues also)? Are they  all aware of these issues?

I am sure Professor Charles Taylor is too busy, however he is a preeminent 
and globally recognized philosopher deeply committed to human rights and 
identity issues, and steeped in the understanding of balancing community 
based as well as individuual rights issues.

He is also an eloquent speaker, fluently bilingual and a native of Montreal.

I too was a bit troubled at the lack of any Canadians.
Some of the names listed were present at Wsis 2003, but not Taylor nor 
deKerckhove.
( FYI Derrick is the former director of the McLuhan Program. We do not have 
a director at the moment. But that should not matter.)

Can I pls confirm who makes this decision? I thought the list that we 
received was final?
Is it CS Bureau?

Pls reply so we can continue to develop a Prep Com 3 post mortem analysis in 
the wsis c2c Canadian CS site (new site launching around October 19th at 
wsis.ecommons.ca).

Thanks for all your hard work everyone. Those of us out here in CS cyberland 
and on the ground in our home bases are now working on the circulation of 
materials from Prep Com 3 2005. We will also instigate some lobbying of the 
Canadians in our own home turf.
==============

Here is a sampler of current circulations (just FYI):

From: Liss Jeffrey, PhD
eCommons/agora electronique
director, McLuhan global research network
adjunct professor, McLuhan Program, University of Toronto

To: CPI-US (coalition for public information/ universal access list, 
moderated by Dr Michael Gurstein)
Civil society (overall) not impressed - some details
Hi all:
Observing Wsis at a distance online feels kind of like whale watching from 
the shore. If you have been whale watching, it is somewhat easier to 'get 
it', and if not, or in this instance if you have not been through the Wsis 
summitry process, it is hard to imagine, much less judge coherently.

This is especially true if you are non aligned, and trying hard to keep an 
open mind about Wsis effectveness, accomplishments, where Civil Society (CS) 
and Canada stand, and what comes next for the Tunisia phase.

Here is a great report, already online from the indefatigable German CS crew 
at the Boell Foundation:
http://www.worldsummit2003.org/
[ presumably they will change their url soon, but it is correct]

Here below are two major eye witness accounts, posted to the CS lists online 
this morning, hot off the press, in that breathless, nearly sleepless moment 
before spin kicks in and further calculating analysis and motivated 
reflection gets going.
=====
Small Canada note:
Our C2C civil society site <wsis.ecommons.ca>

will start analysing the Wsis 2005 process next week.
There was active reporting from many on the site, and commentary from 
various local people and sites. Canadians were on all sides of this, and 
some of us in CS on the ground here are not happy with what our government  
led delgation proposed and agreed to in the end.

Here is a bit more info, below, live from today's post mortems; there will 
be more to come on our wsis Canadian civil society site (you are welcome to 
sign on in our open source easy to use drupal site), watch the Boell site as 
they really are into this and have resources (which we do not), and if you 
want to gather info and get busy on a non official CS response, let us know 
at ecadmin at ecommons.net
(Amelia, Greg, Robert, Fraser, Fariborz, Oleg, David, Liss all are on the 
Wsis beat here)

Key player notes below are from Bill Drake (USA) and Wolfgang Kleinwächter 
(Germany)
There are many others, and lots of great women too, whose voices we will 
post on the Wsis C2C site.

	===================================
>From : 	William Drake <wdrake at ictsd.ch>
Reply-To : 	plenary at wsis-cs.org
Sent : 	October 1, 2005 8:58:04 AM
To : 	"Plenary" <plenary at wsis-cs.org>
Subject : 	[WSIS CS-Plenary] [governance] Post mortem and next steps on IG
	snip
	_______________________________________

Subject: [governance] Post mortem and next steps on IG

Hi,

We are all probably pretty burnt out on this and could use some time off to
focus on other things.  But somewhere in not too distant future it will be
necessary to explore options for an IG [internet governance - LJ] Caucus 
response to the PrepCom
'outcomes.'   Some thoughts for when that moment rolls around...

1. As everyone probably knows by now, there will be an Intersessional
"open-ended" negotiation group to negotiate the chapters on Implementation
(Chapter 1), Financial Mechanisms (Chapter 2) and Follow-up (Chapter 4),
and to finalize the political part of the document. "Open ended" in this
context means all governments can participate.  If I heard correctly,
civil society and the private sector are out in the cold, although
Karklins said there'd be regular reporting out.  Woop de doo.  WSIS
multistakeholderism revealed.

2.  Chapter 3 on IG will be taken up in a resumed crisis session of the
PrepCom in Tunis just prior to the summit.  I'm not clear on what the
modalities of participation will be, if someone else here is please
inform, but would presume it'd be the same wonderful conditions we got at
PC-3.

3.  Unless everything falls apart in rancor, the Internet Governance Forum
(IGF---it has a name, even) is a done deal.  One bit of good news and a CS
win, methinks.

4.  In its press office spin, below, the ITU characterizes the situation
on oversight as a "breakthrough."  To put it mildly, this is not obvious.
It is true that the EU finally put its cards on the table and allowed its
position to be folded together with the Like Minded Group, and
specifically endorsed Khan distributing his Food for Thought doc and
having it forwarded alongside others to Tunis.  But the story obviously
does not end there.  As the EU president of the moment and chair of the EU
discussions, the UK rep presumably was not really free to press his
government's views in their meetings.  There could now be some push back.
I'm a little puzzled by the stances of some of the other European
governments that generally lean more toward more neoliberalism and/or
currying favor with the US, and wonder whether they might not join in if
the UK moves.  And certainly they will all be hearing from Washington.
(BTW it's pretty surprising to see the David Gross telling the press that
the EU position was a bolt out of the blue; if we knew were they were
heading, how could he have not?  Can it really be that there was no prior
consultation, as has been claimed, or is this just disingenuous playing to
the US domestic political scene?)  So one would guess that the EU stance
is still in flux, the coalition could soften, and the alignment with the
LMG could be more apparent than real.  And Japan, Canada, and Australia
backed the US, plus the others who signed onto the Argentine 'middle
ground' text...

5.  Whatever happens in the intergovernmental haggling over the next six
weeks (which will be offline and utterly non-transparent), it would be
useful if the caucus could come to a shared view and issue a declaration
in advance of Tunis.  This would require confronting the question of where
we stand on government oversight---institutional form, substantive scope.
Prior efforts to start that conversation didn't really pan out, but now
that we have a concrete proposal to refer to, perhaps it will be easier to
focus.  If we can't come to a unified view, then as previously suggested,
a sign-on declaration would seem the logical choice.  I believe Milton
said IGP could post something.

So when we're in the mood to stomach all this again, a view on the Council
vs internal GAC reform will be needed.  The Food paper specifies the
former in seemingly rather expansive terms.  Obvious options would be for
us to say

a. Yahoo, what a great idea, let's have the Chinese, Saudi, Iranian, et al
governments drive discussions of binding agreements on WHOIS and privacy,
the Taiwanese domain, etc etc--rather unlikely to be a widely shared view;

b. We can live with a discussion about the possible establishment of a
Council if there are up front guarantees that its mandate will be
specified in a very narrow and non-threatening manner;

c. Stop, this is madness, let's just improve GAC, and we can continue to
discuss and clarify the governance of core resources in the non-binding
IGF.

The latter being the closest evolution to our PrepCom-3 statement.

The Food and ITU below, for those who've not seen...

Ok, time to change channels,

Bill

---------

A NEW COOPERATION MODEL

67. For coordination and management of critical Internet resources, we
will strive to establish a phased transition to the elaboration of a new
public-private cooperation model. That model could include the development
and application of globally-applicable public policy principles and
examine the feasibility of the involvement of governments, in an
international setting, at the level of overarching principles in matters
related to naming, numbering and addressing. These could include:

a)      A global allocation system of IP number blocks, which is equitable
and efficient;

b)      Procedures for the root zone file, specifically for new top-level
domains and changes of country-code top level domains ;

c)      Contingency plans to ensure the continuity of crucial domain name
system functions;

d)      Arbitration and dispute resolution mechanisms, based on
international law in case of disputes;

OVERSIGHT

68.       We call for, at the conclusion of the transitional period,
examination of the establishment of an Inter-Governmental Council for
global public policy and oversight of Internet governance. Such a Council,
if and when established, should be based on the principles of transparency
and democracy with the involvement, in an advisory capacity, of the
private sector, civil society and the relevant inter-governmental and
international organisations. Such a Council could be anchored in the UN
system and deal with the following issues:

a)      Public policy development and decision-making on international
Internet-related public policy issues;

b)      Oversight relating to Internet resource management including IP
addresses, generic top-level domains and country-code top-level domains;

c)      Global coordination of Internet governance through dialogue
between governments, the private sector, civil society and international
organisation.

-----------

NEWSROOM : NEWS RELEASE

Tunis ‘Summit of Solutions’ Now in Sight

ITU Secretary-General Utsumi praises achievements,
but stresses need for greater effort:“We cannot fail”

Geneva, 30 September 2005 - The third Preparatory Committee (PrepCom-3) of
the Tunis phase of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)
closed its doors at 21:00 tonight after a gruelling two weeks of day and
night sessions that saw agreement on large sections of the Summit text,
some major developments in the international community’s approach to
Internet governance, but ultimately disappointing progress on a raft of
contentious issues.

With just six weeks to go before the Summit opens in Tunis, ITU
Secretary-General and Secretary-General of WSIS, Mr Yoshio Utsumi, urged
delegates to focus their hearts and minds on arriving at consensus
solutions that would assure a credible outcome document that will serve as
an effective instrument for promoting ICT development and access
worldwide.

Speaking after the close of PrepCom-3’s final Plenary session, Mr Utsumi
praised delegates’ hard work, but said more effort is needed. “During the
last two weeks we have seen enormous political will to develop meaningful
texts that will serve as a solid foundation for tomorrow’s Information
Society,” he said.

“If some issues remain unresolved, this is a testament to delegates’
refusal to compromise on the principles they believe to be fundamental to
promoting access to ICTs. A strong Summit outcome is the goal of all
delegates – and we must all continue to work hard to achieve this. If we
wish to build a just and equitable Information Society, this Summit cannot
be allowed to fail.”

New round of meetings planned
In the face of lack of agreement on small but controversial sections of
the Summit outcome document, delegates will now reconvene in Geneva ahead
of the Tunis event to try to resolve some of the sticking points, which
include provisions for implementation and follow-up of the WSIS Action
Plan, and the wording of the political document outlining participating
member states’ political commitments.

In line with formal procedures, PrepCom-3 will be suspended and an
intersessional open-ended negotiation group will be set up under the
chairmanship of Ambassador Janis Karklins, Chairman of the Tunis Phase of
the PrepCom process. This group's mandate will be to negotiate the
chapters on Implementation (Chapter 1), Financial Mechanisms (Chapter 2)
and Follow-up (Chapter 4). It will also finalize the political part of the
document.

Chapter 3 on Internet Governance will be considered during a resumed
session of PrepCom-3, to be held back-to-back with the Summit in Tunis.

PrepCom-3 agreed that the Summit negotiation group will hold two sessions
of 2 – 3 days each in Geneva in October to conclude negotiations: one
session to finalize the political document and agree on the outstanding
parts of the chapter on financing mechanisms, and the other to try to
reach agreement on the outstanding issues contained in Chapters 1 and
Chapter 4.

PrepCom-3 agreed to entrust the WSIS Bureau, or steering committee, to
decide on the place, date and modalities of the resumed PrepCom meeting.
It also agreed to split the Summit outcome into two – a political document
and an operational document.

Breakthrough on Internet governance
The PrepCom-3 Internet governance debate centered around the report of the
multi-stakeholder Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), set up
following the Geneva Phase of WSIS to investigate and make proposals on
the future governance of the Internet. The group’s final report released
in Geneva on 18 July, along with comments on the report by all
stakeholders, served as a source of inspiration for discussions over the
two-week period.

After a slow start characterized by strongly polarized positions, the pace
picked up substantially in Week 2 following the release of a draft
document by the Chair, which saw delegates knuckle down to the task of
brokering agreement and drafting new text on issues ranging from spam and
cybercrime to interconnection costs and — most crucially — management of
critical Internet resources such as the domain name and IP addressing
systems.

While many delegations from the developing world had been vocal on the
urgent need for new management and oversight mechanisms to better reflect
the global nature of the Internet, others, led by the US, had presented a
relatively united front generally supportive of the status quo.

That scenario changed, however, two days before the end of PrepCom, when
the UK delegation, speaking on behalf of the European Union, tabled a new
proposal that marked a clear departure from its earlier position.
The proposal outlined a new framework for international cooperation that
would see the creation of a new, multi-stakeholder forum to develop public
policy, and — most significantly — international government involvement in
allocation of IP addressing blocks and procedures for changing the root
zone file to provide for insertion of new top-level domain names and
changes of country-code top level domain name (ccTLDs) managers.

Other countries added their suggestions, and with eight proposals now
tabled, informal consultations will continue to be held from now until the
back-to-back meeting in Tunis.

Implementation and follow-up
The other key agenda items for PrepCom-3 included finalization of
arrangements for financing of WSIS Action Plan commitments, and the
setting out of future mechanisms for implementation of the Action Plan and
the follow-up of the Summit.

Following adoption of the Plan by 175 countries during the Geneva Phase of
the Summit, clear arrangements setting out responsibility for ensuring
that the Plan’s targets are implemented and monitored are considered
essential, not only for the successful outcome of the Tunis phase, but
also for ensuring that deliverables are met.

Under proposals tabled at PrepCom-3, many delegations support the
establishment of a multi-stakeholder coordination approach made up of one
or more lead UN agencies, with responsibility for each action line
allocated to each agency according to its specific area of expertise.
Others preferred that the United Nations’ Secretary-General be charged
with managing the coordination process.

A main stumbling block in negotiations remains the precise role of
different agencies, including ITU, in ongoing WSIS activities. The
reporting mechanisms and the relationship between the WSIS follow-up
mechanisms and the review process of the implementation of the UN
Millennium Declaration also proved problematic for some delegations.

ICT financing mechanisms
The problem of effective financial strategies to promote the development
of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in the world’s
under-served regions was raised during the WSIS Geneva Phase. Without
consensus on the best way to address the issue, the first phase of WSIS
requested UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to establish a Task Force on
Financial Mechanisms (TFFM).

The group’s final report tabled at PrepCom-2 served as a basis for the
discussions. PrepCom-2 largely agreed on the text of Chapter 2, with only
a few paragraphs to be approved by PrepCom-3.

Acknowledging the key role played by the private sector, the text already
agreed by PrepCom-2 endorse the focusing of financial resources in areas
including:

ICT capacity-building programmes
Regional backbone infrastructure and Internet Exchange Points
Assistance for Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing
States to lower transaction costs related to international donor support
Integration of ICTs into the implementation of poverty eradication
strategies, particularly in the health, education, agriculture and the
environment
Funding of Small, Medium and Micro Enterprises (SMMEs)
Fostering of local ICT manufacturing in developing countries
ICT regulatory reform
Local government and community-owned initiatives that deliver ICT services
to communities
The meeting also stressed the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach
and coordination between government and business.
While there was no major impediment to consensus, due to lack of time,
PrepCom-3 did not finalize Chapter 2.

Political commitments
In addition, the political part of the Tunis document proved more
difficult to negotiate than expected.

Disagreement centred around whether text from the original Geneva
Declaration should remain unchanged or reinforced in the Tunis output,
given that the first PrepCom had agreed not to reopen what had been
adopted in Geneva.

Discussions were also intense over issues such as open source and
proprietary software, free access to information and the handling of
harmful content, the importance of human rights and fundamental freedoms
for the Information Society, trade liberalization and debt relief to
bridge the digital divide, and the regulatory role of governments.

At the close of PrepCom-3, with no consensus on around 50% of the text,
the document will tackled again by the negotiating group.


Sub-Committee A
Internet governance

Chairman: Ambassador Masood Khan (Pakistan)

PrepCom-3 Output Text Chapter 3 and proposals.

Key achievements during PrepCom-3:

Starting from scratch, around 80% of Chapter 3 of the WSIS outcome
document was drafted and agreed
Ground-breaking consensus on the need for a coordinated international
approach to spam, e-commerce, cybercrime, international Internet
connectivity charges, multilingualism, and ICT capacity-building, for
which no international treaties yet exist
Remaining focus of negotiations between now and the Summit:

Management of critical Internet resources (IP names and addresses and root
zone file system)
The governance function
The proposed creation of a forum

Sub-Committee B
Implementation, financing mechanisms, follow-up and the political document

Chairman: Ms Lyndall Shope-Mafole (South Africa)

PrepCom-3 Output text Chapters 1 and 4 and chapter 2
Looking Ahead to Tunis
In addition to Summit Plenary sessions, a number of roundtables,
High-Level Panels and an Exhibition, as well as media events, are planned
during the three days of the Summit (16-18 November). This innovative
format will emphasize the role of the private sector and civil society in
shaping the new Information Society, providing Heads of State and
Government with the opportunity to engage in public discussions on the
future of the Information Society with prominent business and civil
society leaders.

In addition, more than 230 separate Parallel Events are planned by civil
society organizations, business entities and national delegations,
comprising debates and presentations on a whole spectrum of issues
relevant to the Summit agenda.


PrepCom-3 participants

1’925 participants attended the two-week event, of which;

1’047 delegates represented 152 governments and the European Community;
635 participants represented 200 NGOs or Civil society entities;
152 participants from 54 entities representing International organizations
73 participants from 36 entities representing business entities
18 participants representing six entities with standing invitation from
the United Nations General Assembly
For a full summary of debates during PrepCom-3, see the meeting Highlights


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*******************************************************
William J. Drake  wdrake at ictsd.ch
President, Computer Professionals for
   Social Responsibility www.cpsr.org
Senior Associate, International Centre for Trade
   and Sustainable Development www.ictsd.org
   Geneva, Switzerland
http://mitpress.mit.edu/IRGP-series
http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake
Morality is the best of all devices for leading
mankind by the nose.---Nietzsche
*******************************************************
_____
unedited - LJ
__________________________________________

From
Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
NEXT

_______________________________________________
Plenary mailing list
Plenary at wsis-cs.org
http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary

Dear Bill and everybody,

exhausted like all of you (and still struggling with a cold) I shaRE MOST OF 
THE
VIEWS OF bILL:

Here are some additional points:
1. EU vs. US. As far as I know, there was indeed no prior detailed 
information
before David did read the statement in the Plenary. The way how it was 
perceived
by the US (and by the US Press) has put the whole story on a higher 
political
level and we will see now that the Internet issue will be handeled on a 
similar
level like Kyodo Protocol, International Criminal Court etc. And wheh higher
political levels are involved, the subject will bevome more complex (and 
less
flexible). I agree with Bill, it is rather unrealistic that we will see
consensus on an intergovernmental council. Procedurally, is there an option 
to
have a voting on the issue?

2. The more interesting point is, that China was rather silent in all the
debates. It made clear statements, but wateched the debate with patience and 
no
own proposal for Chapter 5. The original EU plan, to wait until the US vs. 
China
confronation is boiling and than to enter as a broker, failed because China 
did
not jump. Now we have US vs. EU with China in an waiting position.

3. The EU has now a difficult diplomatic task. It has to distance itself a
little bit from supporters like Iran and Saudi Arabia, it has to convince 
the US
that governments should play a greater role and it has to specify more in 
detail
where the border line is between "the level of principle" and the "day to 
day
operation". The EU will have to explain, that its model will be different 
from
the procedure it has used to establish a governmental oversight for the .eu
Domain. A small white governmental cloud on a blue sky over the Internet
landscape is okay, but if this cloud will become full of rain drops and 
falling
rain will "water" the ground, this is different. And the EU paper, as it 
stands
now, is open both for a "light cloud" and a "raincloud". Eu argues, that the
"definition of the cloud" is the subject of negotiations. But this 
negotiations
will be not only with the US but also with China. Insofar I share Bill´s 
point,
that the Chairs "Food for Thought" paper is far away from a breakthrough.

4. I think we have achieved a consensus in the caucus and in the CS Plenary 
to
produce our own "CS IG Tunis Declaration". The statements made during 
PrepCom3
are a sufficient basis. We need a little bit more for Forum and Oversight, 
but
this can be done online with a final reading in Tunis. Adam and jeanette 
could
you take the lead again (and once thanks for the great coordination work and
jeanette, congratulations for the quatation in the IHT).

5.In the Food forThought Paper", apara 68, is an interesting point, which 
takes
a proposal we made in the EU-CS consultation on Thursday.  The parasays, 
that an
"Inter-Governmental Council, if and when established, should be based on the
principles of transparencyand democracy with the full involvment, in an 
advisory
capacity, of private sector, civil society ...". As you remember, I asked 
Martin
Boyle about a "Civil Society Advisory Committee" for the body, proposed by 
the
EU and his first reaction was that the original plan is to have  
"governmental
only zone". The proposal by Khan looks a little bit like an ICANN 1.0 which 
is
turned around. Now the private parties, provider and users of services, are 
in
an advisory position (like the GAC in ICANN). Should we discuss this issue a
little bit more in detail on the list? How a "Civil Society Advisory 
Council"
could work in such a new cooperative model, learning from the ALAC 
experiences
within ICANN?

Best regards and enjoy the weekend.

wolfgang

=========================================================

One last thing, from the Boell Report online today.
This is good news, as some of us remained very worried and sceptical after 
the Winnipeg meeting where official Tunisian representatives were invited in 
ample numbers, while some civil society organizations active in this space 
were excluded.
(On relevance to the access question, the attempt to develop infratsructure 
for an 'information society' seems worth comment on our CPI list.)
Dr J
wsis.ecommons.ca

===========================================

[snip - last para]

Western Group and EU challenge Tunisia

Canada, speaking also on behalf of the European Union, United States and a 
number of East European Countries, at the beginning of the closing plenary 
made a strong statement and criticised the human rights situation in 
Tunisia. It explicitly referred to the right to freedom of expression and 
said it expects Tunisia “to eliminate all grounds for concern that had been 
raised after recent incidents” in Tunisia, but also during the PrepCom. The 
Western Group demanded from Tunisia to guarantee the “unhindered 
participation of all NGOs and their members”. This would be the “only way to 
make sure that this will be a summit in Tunisia, not on Tunisia”.

http://www.worldsummit2003.org/
Boell Foundation report on Prep Com 3 Oct. 1, 2005