[WSIS CS-Plenary] WSIS Papers Newsletter - September 2005 No. 11 - Internet governance: Everybody's business in the Information Society
WSISPapers
inescamp at chasque.net
Thu Sep 1 18:09:37 BST 2005
-------------------------------------------------------
WSIS Papers Newsletter - September 2005 No. 11
-------------------------------------------------------
In this issue: INTERNET GOVERNANCE: EVERYBODY'S BUSINESS IN THE
INFORMATION SOCIETY
Content:
- Internet governance: Some conceptual tools
- The current governance model
- ICANN meets the WSIS
- Towards a new model of Internet governance
- Some responses to the WGIG report
- Civil society: A key player in Internet governance
- Information resources on Internet governance
Available online at:
http://wsispapers.choike.org/
-------------------------------------------------------
The first phase of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)
held in Geneva in December 2003, launched two critical issues with
regards to the information society, which were to be analysed and
debated during the inter-summit period and solved at the second phase
to take place in November 2005 in Tunis.
The first issue aims at developing global financing strategies for
information and communication technologies (ICTs) devoted to the
promotion of digital inclusion in the least developed countries. The
second issue is related to the Internet governance system, that is to
say, to the development and application by governments, the private
sector and civil society of shared principles, norms, rules, decision
making procedures and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the
Internet. The definition and distribution of Internet domain names and
numbers, inter-country data bandwidth cost settlements, rights of
access to infrastructure (universal access) and information, freedom of
expression, cultural and linguistic diversity, privacy, cyber security
and use of free and open source software represent only a few in a long
list of issues that should be dealt with in terms of Internet
governance.
Within this framework, the UN - mandated by the WSIS Declaration of
Principles and Plan of Action - established in 2004 a Working Group on
Internet Governance (WGIG). The group was made up of 40 members from
different countries and sectors (governments, private sector, academics
and organized civil society) with the main purpose of investigating and
making proposals for specific actions regarding Internet governance.
Among the central tasks of this working group were: to build a "working
definition" of Internet governance, identify public policy issues
relevant to the topic and develop a common understanding of the
respective roles and responsibilities of governments, intergovernmental
and international organizations, as well as the private sector and
civil society, from both developing and developed countries.
The debate on Internet governance, updated through the creation of the
above-mentioned working group, oscillates between two polar views. On
the one hand, there are those who insist that modifications to be made
should be launched within the current governance structure,
characterized by being private-sector based and ruled by ICANN (a
non-profit US-based corporation, which manages domain names and IP
addresses), thus avoiding substantial changes within the system. On the
other extreme, there are those who suggest that functions currently
falling under ICANN's sphere, should be gradually transferred to the
International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a position that is
reinforced by the active participation of the ITU in the creation and
coordination of the WGIG.
The issue of jurisdiction frameworks for Internet governance is of
utmost importance since to a large extent determines the relative
degrees of autonomy of the different countries and the capacity for
participation of the different sectors in such respect. In this sense,
the current managing configuration is far from being global or
participative: ICANN is an organization that is subject to US laws and
its Internet governance powers are mainly based on a Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU) involving the US government, ICANN and the main
operator of the global domain name system, a private company called
Verisign. Although the position to be adopted by the US government upon
the expiration of the MoU in September 2006 is still uncertain, the
clear fact is that within the current system it has full powers to
direct Internet governance at its own convenience, given the lack of
global and intergovernmental regulations in such respect. In fact, one
of the main arguments calling for an urgent global debate on Internet
governance is the need to establish true global forms of organization
that should be autonomous from any particular government; a structural
principle pointed out by the WGIG and shared by the United Nations.
Following months of intense work, the WGIG issued its final report on
July 15 2005, expecting it to be used as reference to conduct debates
in the preparatory process of the second phase of the WSIS. The report
includes a consensual definition with regards to the concept of
"Internet governance" but since it was not possible to achieve consensus
in terms of a unique governance model, four alternative models were
proposed and can be found within the report.
One of the main critiques made of the models proposed is that these are
excessively focused on the current governance forms and, therefore, on
the ICANN system and the coordination of names and numbers, leaving
aside crucial aspects such as inter-country data bandwidth cost
settlements, the access to information, the freedom of expression,
privacy and cyber security. Likewise, it is worth pointing out that all
models relegate civil society organizations, the private sector and the
academic community to an observer or advisory passive role, in spite of
the fact that the WGIG acknowledges the adoption of multilateral,
transparent and democratic coordination mechanisms as one of the basic
principles that should be guiding Internet governance. In this sense,
the WGIG has expressed the idea that a new type of organization - such
as a multistakeholder global forum - is essential to deal with all
those issues related to Internet governance in a more transparent and
democratic way. Civil society organizations have been constantly
monitoring debates carried out within the WSIS and the WGIG and have
admitted the importance of the report as input for the ensuing debates,
while at the same time they have considered the wide working definition
of Internet governance established by the Group as a positive fact. The
importance of the WGIG has also been highlighted as an example of
multistakeholder participation mechanism, which thus turns it into a
significant antecedent and possible model to be followed in other UN
processes.
<i>Based on the document prepared by Carlos A. Afonso for WSIS Papers:
<a href="http://wsispapers.choike.org/internet_governance.pdf">Internet
Governance: A Review in the Context of the WSIS Process</a></i>
----------------------------------------------------------------
Internet governance: Some conceptual tools
----------------------------------------------------------------
* Does Internet governance concern you?
Source: Net Dialogue
Net Dialogue is a joint project between Harvard Law School's Berkman
Center for Internet and Society (Berkman Center) and Stanford Law
School's Center for Internet and Society (CIS). The project bridges the
high-tech communities of Boston and Silicon Valley and the
international policymaking community of Geneva, Switzerland. Net
Dialogue aims to promote transparency and informed debate on Internet
governance by providings ummaries of international rules and guidelines;
information on organizations involved; a conceptual framework for
understanding the emerging system; links to further information and
online discussion forums for public dialogue.
--> http://www.netdialogue.org/
* Internet governance: What are we talking about?
Raúl Echeberría
Source: Monitor Políticas TIC Y Derechos en Internet en América Latina y
el Caribe
This article attempts to clarify the different positions that exist in
relation to Internet governance, while at the same time trying to
contribute to a better understanding of the meaning of this extremely
ambiguous and imprecise term.
--> http://lac.derechos.apc.org/cdocs.shtml?x=17555
* Questions and answers about the Internet and Internet governance
Karl Auerbach
Source: CaveBear
This note is designed to address certain questions that commonly arise
in discussions of Internet governance. Is divided into several
sections: definitions, Internet governance, Internet bill of rights and
Internet technology.
--> http://www.cavebear.com/rw/igov-qa.html
* Internet Governance: A grand collaboration
Source: UNICTTF (United Nations Information and Communication
Technologies Task Force)
These papers, contributed to the United Nations Information and
Communication Technologies Task Force (UN ICT TF) "Global Forum on
Internet Governance" provide useful information on how many different
organizations are already managing the Internet and its effects on
society. At the same time, the papers suggest that a number of important
issues are not being addressed effectively, and that in some areas
there is an urgent need to put in place new arrangements to counter real
and present threats to the stability and utility of the Internet. PDF
format.
--> http://unicttaskforce.org/perl/documents.pl?do=download;id=778
* Which Internet governance model?
Loic Dalimaville
Source: AFNIC
The first part of this document describes the main Internet governance
approaches, while the second one presents Internet governance
structures, players and objectives, in order to provide an overview of
the issues to be addressed and the way in which different players
interact. PDF format.
-->
http://www.afnic.fr/data/divers/public/international-college-wsis.pdf
* Internet Governance. Issues, actors and divides
Eduardo Gelbstein, Jovan Kurbalija
Source: DiploFoundation
This paper presents the evolution of the "Internet governance" concept
and its impacts on economic, social and developmental issues, as well
as the debate around the Internet governance that emerged at the first
phase of the World Summit on the Information Society. PDF format.
-->
http://textus.diplomacy.edu/textusbin/env/scripts/Pool/GetBin.asp?IDPool
=641
* Internet governance. Definition, governance tools, global
multistakeholder entity
Klaus W. Grewlich
Source: UNICTTF
The author states that "governance" is not the final objective in terms
of a "final regulatory regime" but an exploratory notion for the
present step by step process towards an "effective international rule of
law". In this process States still are actors of primary importance but
in competition with foreign, international and private governing
authorities or joining them in hybrid efforts. PDF format.
--> http://unicttaskforce.org/perl/documents.pl?do=download;id=828
* Internet governance perspectives from Cambodia
Norbert Klein
Source: UNICTTF
This paper reflects on the cambodgian experiences by sharing steps and
milestones, combined with related public policy issues and the roles
and responsibilities of different stakeholders involved, "in the hope of
lifting up some guideposts of wider relevance for other countries on
the way towards an Information Society, and the efforts to clarify what
Internet governance implies". PDF format.
--> http://www.unicttaskforce.org/perl/documents.pl?do=download;id=426
* Internet Governance: A Discussion Document
George Sadowsky, Raul Zambrano, Pierre Dandjinou
Source: UNICTTF
This paper is aimed primarily at those issues in the "Internet
governance discussion" that, authors consider, are important and
relevant to developing countries. Authors state that a good portion of
what has been discussed using the label "Internet governance" is
perhaps of little relevance to countries that have larger problems than,
for example, how top-level global domain names are chosen or
implemented. They claim that issues of governance, policy and
implementation vis-à-vis developing countries matter because they allow
for harnessing the new technologies in a more effective fashion in
targeting social and economic goals. PDF format.
--> http://wsispapers.choike.org/internet_gov_discussion_document.pdf
----------------------------------------------------------------
The current governance model
----------------------------------------------------------------
* Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Source: ICANN
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is a
private sector initiative to assume responsibility for overseeing the
technical coordination of the Domain Name System (DNS), which allows
Internet addresses (for example, web pages and email accounts) to be
found by easy-to-remember names, instead of numbers. Incorporated and
headquartered in California and subject to US laws, ICANN is a
non-profit corporation that reflect the historical evolution of the
Internet.
--> http://www.icann.org/
* Internet Governance: The state of play
Marc Holitschert, John Mathiason, Milton Mueller, Hans Klein
Source: Internet Governance Project
Concept paper by the Internet Governance Project. It analyzes the state
of play in Internet governance in different forums, with a view to
showing what issues are being addressed; by whom; what are the types of
consideration that these issues receive and what issues are not
adequately addressed. PDF format.
--> http://dcc.syr.edu/miscarticles/MainReport-final.pdf
* Who rules the Internet? Understanding ICANN
Source: PANOS
Internet governance is becoming an influential factor in the way we
access, consume, produce and exchange information. In preparation for
the work of the WGIG, Panos London launched the first brief of its WSIS
media toolkit, focused on the ICANN system. PDF format.
--> http://www.panos.org.uk/files/wsistoolkit1.pdf
* ICANN Watch
Source: ICANN Watch
News and discussion site devoted to ICANN and names-related issues.
ICANNWatch.org is a collaborative effort. We hope that this forum will
provide an occasion for us all to think broadly at times about how to
ensure that this communicative tool we call the Internet remains free,
accessible, and best able to contribute towards human welfare.
--> http://www.icannwatch.org
* ICANN, legitimacy and the public voice: Making global participation
and representation work
Source: NAIS (NGO and Academic ICANN Study)
NAIS was an international project to review the nature of public
representation in ICANN. Over fifteen months of activity, the NAIS team
played a number of different roles in the debate over ICANN's structure
and governance. In August 2001, NAIS issued its major report - the only
one of its kind - examining the 2000 At-Large election at every level,
from local and regional organizing to central coordination provided by
ICANN.
--> http://www.naisproject.org/report/final/
* The Internet Society (ISOC)
Source: ISOC
The Internet Society (ISOC) is a global not-for-profit membership
organisation founded in 1991 to provide leadership in Internet-related
standards, education, and policy issues. ISOC goals include ensuring the
open development, evolution and use of the Internet for the benefit of
people throughout the world.
--> http://www.isoc.org/
* Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Source: Internet Engineering Task Force
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) sets the underlying technical
standards for the Internet. It describes itself as "a loosely
self-organised group of people who make technical and other
contributions to the engineering and evolution of the Internet and its
technologies." Membership of IETF working groups is open to anyone who
chooses to participate via email. These working groups develop
technical specifications based on "rough consensus and working code".
The Internet Society (ISOC) plays a prominent role in overseeing IETF
activities.
--> http://www.ietf.org/
* World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Source: World Wide Web Consortium
W3C sets standards for the World Wide Web (accessibility, user
interface, architecture, etc) through defining such things as HTML
specifications. Its structure differs fundamentally from the IETF in
that participation is restricted to member organisations willing to pay
annual membership fees or to "invited experts".
--> http://www.w3.org/
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU)
Source: ITU
Established in 1865, the ITU is an international organization within the
United Nations system. It coordinates global telecom networks and
services for governments and the private sector; it is responsible for
standardization, coordination and development of international
telecommunications. This site gathers resources related to ITU Internet
governance related activities as a contribution to the WGIG process.
--> http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/intgov/index.phtml
----------------------------------------------------------------
ICANN meets the WSIS
----------------------------------------------------------------
* Internet governance: A review in the context of the WSIS process
Carlos Afonso
Source: WSIS Papers
This document provides information on the current Internet governance
transition processes, discussing some of the approaches being submitted
to public discussion, and reviews the final report of the WGIG. It also
provides brief historical and reference information on the current
global governance system specifically created for the Internet. In
addition, it presents a review of the perspectives on Internet
governance from the point of view of the organized groups of civil
society organizations who have been involved in the corresponding
discussions both within and outside the WGIG. PDF Format.
--> http://wsispapers.choike.org/internet_governance.pdf
* Internet governance and the World Summit on the Information Society
(WSIS)
Adam Peake
Source: Association for Progressive Communications (APC)
The purpose of this paper is to describe the debate about Internet
governance in WSIS, and to examine the main policy issues that are
being considered in that discussion. The paper also suggests
opportunities for developing nation stakeholders to contribute to the
processes that are defining the Internet governance landscape. PDF
format.
--> http://rights.apc.org/documents/governance.pdf
* Beyond ICANN vs. ITU? How WSIS tries to enter the new territory of
Internet governance
Wolfgang Kleinwächter
Source: UNICTTF
The author states, on the relation between WSIS and Internet governance,
that "the Internet Governance WSIS controversy is insofar much more
than a classical interest conflict among two or more governments. It is
a fundamental conceptual and philosophical conflict among different
stakeholders about the question, how the global Internet should be
organized, or even more, how the global information society, which is
based on the Internet as its main infrastructure, should be governed".
PDF format.
--> http://www.unicttaskforce.org/perl/documents.pl?do=download;id=422
* ICANN, the ITU, WSIS and Internet governance
Geoff Huston
Source: CISCO
This opinion piece looks at the various range of views about the ICANN
and its rationale and role over its brief history. It is considered
that no look at Internet governance would be complete without also
looking at the role of the International Telecommunications Union
(ITU), as well as the broader background to this topic.
-->
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_8-1/int
ernet_governance.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
Towards a new model of Internet governance
----------------------------------------------------------------
* Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG)
Source: WGIG
The first phase of WSIS agreed to pursue the dialogue on Internet
governance in the Declaration of Principles and Action Plan adopted on
12 December 2003 in Geneva, with a view to preparing the ground for a
decision at the second phase of the WSIS in Tunis in November 2005. In
this regard, the first phase of the Summit requested the UN
Secretary-General to establish a Working Group on Internet Governance
(WGIG). The WGIG has been asked to present the result of its work in a
report "for consideration and appropriate action for the second phase
of the WSIS in Tunis 2005." The WGIG fInal report proposes four
possible models for Internet governance. Three of the four models call
for the formation of a UN-linked body. Depending on the proposal, the
new body would either replace or complement the ICANN. PDF format.
--> http://www.wgig.org/
* Power, Legitimacy, and the Future of the Internet
Source: Heinrich-Böll Foundation
The Working Group on Internet Governance has fulfilled its mandate from
the Geneva information society summit. What can be learned from this
innovative multi-stakeholder process, and how are the chances “Internet
governance” does not end up as the struggle between the United States
and some Southern governments about the control of ICANN and the root
zone file?
--> http://www.worldsummit2003.de/en/web/771.htm
* Reframing Internet governance discourse: Fifteen baseline propositions
William Drake
Source: ITU
This paper suggests fifteen baseline propositions that could help
advance the development of a discourse on IG. They are generally of a
definitional and process-oriented nature, and are intended to be
reasonably neutral with respect to the policy choices governments and
other stakeholders may make about the substantive rules that define
particular governance mechanisms. PDF format.
--> http://www.itu.int/wsis/preparatory2/wgig/drake.pdf
* A new model for global Internet governance
Zoe Baird, Stefaan Verhulst
Source: UNICTTF
This article argues that a new paradigm of rule-making is needed, not
only with respect to Internet governance. Some essential components of
this new model would be that: it must be international, capable of
operating across borders; it must be multi-sectoral, including a wide
variety of voices and participants; and finally, in a search for
multi-sectoral governance, civil society must be accorded an equal
voice alongside governments and industry. PDF format.
--> http://www.unicttaskforce.org/perl/documents.pl?do=download;id=467
* What to do about ICANN: A proposal for structural reform
Hans Klein, Milton Mueller
Source: Internet Governance Project
This document aims at identifying concrete policy options for Internet
governance as a contribution to the WSIS process. Authors consider that
any initiatives in this area must address the criticisms targeted at
ICANN since, although the international community has defined "Internet
governance" in a way that goes beyond ICANN's control of domain names
and addresses, ICANN nonetheless remains central to many issues. PDF
format.
--> http://dcc.syr.edu/miscarticles/IGP-ICANNReform.pdf
* A plan to Reform ICANN: A functional approach
Karl Auerbach
Source: CaveBear
This document presents a plan for the ICANN rebuilding. It begins by
looking at the desired functions of a new ICANN. From that starting
point a modular structure is articulated that is considered to be a
capable and appropriate framework for the performance of those
functions.
--> http://www.cavebear.com/rw/apfi.htm
* Summary of the Global Forum on Internet Governance
Source: UNICTTF
The Global Forum on Internet Governance, organized by the UN ICT TF, was
designed as a contribution to a process of consultations that would
lead to the establishment of the WGIG. In terms of its substantive
outcome, the Global Forum succeeded in identifying important areas
where commonalities existed, as well as in outlining workable approaches
to issues that remained controversial. The Forum produced a broad
agreement on several major areas where there was a clear and urgent
need for international cooperation in developing globally acceptable
solutions: spam, network security, privacy, and information security.
--> http://www.unicttaskforce.org/perl/documents.pl?do=download;id=565
* Internet governance: Main directions and priorities
Source: UNICTTF
ESCWA (Economic and Social Comission Western Asia) contribution to the
Global Forum on Internet Governance. This document considers the issues
from a high level perspective in the form of a problem, alternative
strategies for tackling it and a proposed strategy. Efforts are made to
simplify the presentation of points of agreement and others of
disagreement, wherever relevant, while focusing on priority messages.
PDF format.
--> http://wsispapers.choike.org/escwa_paper_internet_governance.pdf
* UNESCO Position Statement on Internet governance
Source: UNESCO
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) stresses that Internet governance mechanisms should be based
on the principle of "openness" encompassing interoperability, freedom of
expression and measures to resist any attempt to censor content. PDF
format.
--> http://wsispapers.choike.org/unesco_internet_gov.pdf
* OECD report on Internet governance
Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
The OECD has prepared a report as an input to the WGIG. According to
OECD's website, this report "presents an overview of the major benefits
that the developments of the Internet and ICTs provide to both OECD
economies and non-OECD countries’ economies; briefly reviews the
evolution of the Internet and the parallel evolution of Internet
governance from the 1960s until today; provides the OECD’s perspective
on the factors that were instrumental to the successful development of
the Internet; and finally, provides information on the relevant work
conducted by the OECD on policy issues related to Internet governance
as per the "Internet governance" public policy areas identified by the
WGIG".
-->
http://www.oecd.org/site/0,2865,en_21571361_34590630_1_1_1_1_1,00.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
Some responses to the WGIG report
----------------------------------------------------------------
* Contributions on Internet governance
Source: ITU
This webpage contains all comments and contributions on the report of
the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). As of 29 August
2005, comments and contributions had been received from 11 Governments
(including a contribution from the 25 EU States plus 2 acceding Member
States), and from Ghana for the Africa region; 7 Business Entities; 3
International Organisations; 18 Civil society and non-governmental
organisations and 4 Miscellaneous, including members of the WGIG)
-->
http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/listing.asp?lang=en&c_event=wg|ig&c_ty
pe=co|
* WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus Response to the WGIG
Report
Source: WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus
The WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus states in this
declaration that the WGIG achieved the mandate set for it by the WSIS
Geneva Declaration of Principles and Plan of Action, and hopes that the
multi-stakeholder approach as explored by WGIG will become a reference
model for future WSIS discussions. PDF format.
--> http://wsispapers.choike.org/wsis_igcaucus_wgig_final.pdf
* Initial comments by the European Union on the report of the WGIG
Source: ITU
The European Union welcomes the WGIG report as a framework to guide
discussion for the WSIS Tunis phase and advocates a new co-operation
model, in order to concretise the provisions in the WSIS Declaration of
Principles regarding the crucial role of all actors within Internet
Governance, including governments, the private sector, civil society and
international organisations. PDF format.
--> http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/contributions/co19.pdf
* Comments of the government of the United States of America on the WGIG
Report
Source: US Department of State
In its response to the WGIG report, the US government highlights "a
fundamental area of public policy", which is considered to be absent
from the WGIG report: "the role of an enabling environment in Internet
development and diffusion". "To maximize the economic and social
benefits of the Internet", US government states, "governments must focus
on creating, within their own nations, the appropriate legal,
regulatory, and policy environment that encourages privatization,
competition, and liberalization".
--> http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/othr/2005/51063.htm
* Internet Governance: Quo vadis? A reponse to the WGIG Report
Source: Internet Governance Project
Concept paper by the Internet Governance Project. It states that the
WGIG final report succeeded in supplying a consensus definition of
Internet governance and in identifying a range of important public
policy issues. On the key problems of defining roles and
responsibilities of actors and proposals for action, however, the WGIG
Report provides less clear guidance, according to the authors. PDF
format.
--> http://dcc.syr.edu/miscarticles/IGP-quovadis.pdf
* Who should run the Internet?
Source: World Peace Herald
Interview with Paul Twomey, president and chief executive officer of the
ICANN about the WGIG outcomes.
--> http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050801-092013-4925r
* Number Resource Organization (NRO) comments on the WGIG Report
Source: NRO
The Number Resource Organization, congratulate the WGIG on their work
and understand that important conclusions are represented from its
report. The WGIG has opted for a broad definition of Internet
Governance. This definition firmly establishes that fact that Internet
Governance is much more than Internet Resource Management. It is only
with this definition that any analysis of Internet Governance models
and systems can take place.
--> http://www.nro.net/documents/nro26.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
Civil society: A key player in Internet governance
----------------------------------------------------------------
* WSIS civil society Internet governance caucus
Source: WSIS civil society Internet governance caucus
Civil society organizations interested in Internet governance started a
discussion process at the occasion of the second preparatory meeting
for WSIS phase one, in February, 2003 that led to the formation of a CS
caucus. The IG caucus' initial goals were to help ensure that not only
organizations but also individuals participate in the WSIS process; to
help set up language communities and let them be connected to the
relevant parties for globally available resources and to critically
monitor ICANN contracts, processes and activities. Since then, a lot of
new ground has been covered by the caucus in a far more sophisticated
debate, embracing nearly all themes of WSIS itself.
--> http://www.net-gov.org/
* Internet governance debate: civil society can make the real difference
Karen Banks
Source: APC
This report was produced on March 2005 by Karen Banks, APC's focal point
for WSIS and member of the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG).
At a time of global malaise, indifference and lack of faith and
legitimacy in many of the global and national governance institutions,
the Internet governance debate is one where civil society advocates can
make a real difference, concludes this report which covers the main
developments in the Internet governance debate. PDF format.
--> http://rights.apc.org/documents/internet_gov_0305_EN.pdf
* A user’s point of view on international and national Internet
governance
Vittorio Bertola
Source: ITU
This paper provides information on the current state of international
and national Internet governance and their relationships, seen from the
point of view of a user of the system who has been active in a number of
Internet governance forums at different levels. PDF format.
--> http://www.itu.int/itudoc/itu-t/workshop/cctld/cctld049.pdf
* ICANN, WSIS and the making of a global civil society
Geert Lovink
Source: Circle ID
Interview with Milton Mueller, professor at the School of Information
Studies, Syracuse University (NY) and director of the Convergence
Center. He has widely published about regulatory issues in the global
telecommunications industry. He is also editor and regular contributor
to the ICANNwatch website and one of the members of the Internet
Governance Project.
--> http://www.circleid.com/article/1106_0_1_0_C/
* ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)
Source: ALAC
ALAC is currently responsible for considering and providing advice on
the activities of the ICANN as they relate to the interests of
individual Internet users (the "At-Large" community). It has been
observed that ALAC is not being successful in attempting to change its
constituency from individual users to a structure of associations of
users assembled in a regional configuration, which renders it
ineffective in the adequate follow-up of the ICANN processes.
--> http://alac.icann.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------
Information resources on Internet governance
----------------------------------------------------------------
* Internet Governance Project (IGP)
Source: IGP
The Internet Governance Project (IGP) is an interdisciplinary consortium
of academics with scholarly and practical expertise in international
governance, Internet policy, and information and communication
technology. The Project is conducting research on and publishing
analysis of Internet governance. Some of the work is intended to
contribute to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), and
the United Nations Working Group on Internet Governance, as well as
related debates at the international, regional and national levels.
--> http://www.internetgovernance.org/
* APC: Internet governance
Source: APC
APC believes all decision making on Internet standards must be open and
accessible and allow participation and scrutiny by all stakeholders,
particularly from civil society and from the developing countries. The
rapid expansion of the Internet means new standards are being set that
involve major decisions determining the whole direction it will move in,
and the interests of civil society and of developing countries need to
be fought for against the attempts of corporate organisations and the
more powerful governments to dominate Internet governance and produce
standards that entrench their domination.
--> http://www.apc.org/english/news/igov_index.shtml
* Worldsummit2005.org coverage and background information on Internet
governance
Source: Heinrich-Böll Foundation
Heinrich-Böll Foundation website section devoted to IG. It includes a
complete collection of documents and press releases on the WGIG, as
well as links to other IG resources.
--> http://www.worldsummit2003.de/en/web/688.htm
* CPSR Working Group on Domain Names and Internet Governance
Source: Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR)
This page describes the activities of CPSR's working group on Domain
Names and Internet governance. The management of Internet domain names
and addresses has become a major issue in the question of Internet
governance. CPSR has been active in this policy area since its earliest
days.
--> http://www.cpsr.org/prevsite/dns
* Diplo Foundation: Internet Governance
Source: DiploFoundation
DiploFoundation is a non-profit organisation which works to assist all
countries, particularly those with limited human and financial
resources, to participate meaningfully in international affairs, through
education and training programs, research, and the development of
information and communications technologies for diplomatic activities.
This section in the website includes links to IG resources.
-->
http://textus.diplomacy.edu/Portals/ISL/Default.asp?FilterTopic=/44690
* People for Internet responsibility (PFIR)
Source: PFIR
People For Internet Responsibility (PFIR) is currently a global, ad hoc
network of individuals who are concerned about the present and future
operations, development, management, and regulation of the Internet in
responsible ways. The main goal of PFIR is to provide a resource for
individuals around the world to gain an ability to impact these crucial
Internet issues, which will affect virtually all aspects of our
cultures, societies, and lives in the 21st century.
--> http://www.pfir.org
* Circle ID-Internet Governance
Source: Circle ID
CircleID is a collaborative intelligence hub fort the Internet's core
infrastructure & policies. You can find a complete collection of news
and resources on IG in its Internet Governance section.
--> http://www.circleid.com/channel/index/C0_1_1/
* Global Internet Policy Initiative
Source: GIPI
The Global Internet Policy Initiative supports adoption in developing
countries of the legal and policy framework for an open and democratic
Internet. The project works with local stakeholders in consultative,
coalition-based efforts to promote the principles of a decentralized,
accessible, user-controlled, and market-driven Internet.
--> http://www.internetpolicy.net/
* Internet Standards, Technology & Policy Project
Source: Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT)
CDT has created the Internet Standards, Technology & Policy Project,
intended to increase public interest input into the standards
processes, and to increase communication and understanding between
Internet technologists and public policy makers and advocates. This Web
site and CDT's Standards Bulletin are intended to provide the public
policy community with a clear and understandable window into the
Internet technical standards processes and the possible impact of new
technical standards on issues of public concern.
--> http://www.cdt.org/standards/
More information about the Plenary
mailing list