[Lac] [Fwd: [governance] Minutes of WGIG consultations Part 3 - morning Sept 21]

Wed Sep 22 17:28:00 BST 2004

-----Mensaje reenviado-----
From: Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE <lachapelle at openwsis.org>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: [governance] Minutes of WGIG consultations Part 3 - morning Sept 21
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:38:55 +0200

This is part 3 (sept 21 in the Morning). Formated text 
attached. 

Bertrand

_______________

Brazil

Internet Governance is much more than management of domain 
names and IP addresses.

Data protection, spam or cybersecurity are also IG issues. 

Intellectual property and the digital divide are also IG 
issues.

But governments lack the means to coordinate their 
positions. 

Brazil proposes the creation of an Intergovernmental forum, 
a space where governments can discuss internet issues. Not a 
substitute to other institutions. 

Such Forum would provide a space for developing countries 
that find difficult to follow the numerous ongoing processes 

By multilateral we mean a space for representation of 
governments on an equal footing, which is clearly not the 
case in ICANN.

Transparency is essential. It should facilitate the 
participation of all stakeholders in the WGIG. 

Internet Governance is first and foremost a political issue. 
(Repeated to stress). The WGIG is a political Group to be 
established under the auspices of the UN SG. But we 
aknowledge others may think otherwise. 

Brazil recalls its previous comment : there are two schools 
of thought on IG, one favorable to the status quo, the other 
one wanting to  democratize Internet Governance. 

The first step to constitute a legitimate working group is 
to compose it with a political balance between these two 
schools of thought. 

This does not mean that all stakeholders should have the 
same number of representatives in the WGIG. WSIS is first 
and foremost an intergovernmental process. The main deficit 
in Internet Governance lies in intergovernmental 
consultation. 

Governments are a special category of stakeholders : if only 
because they are the ONLY ones mandated also to speak on 
behalf of other stakeholders. 

Brazil has formed an Internet Steering Committee at the 
national level composed of government, private sector and 
civil society. 

Japan

We should organize the working group to be efficient and 
balanced. 

Japan welcomes the concept of setting up a core group. It 
should be large enough for credibility. Optimum size is 
around 40 members, half of which should be governments, and 
within them, half should come from developing countries.

Japan proposes an advisory meeting comprised of global 
leaders on the technical and social policy aspects. 

Lynn St Amour, President ISOC

Key features of the IETF process should be considered as we 
set up the WGIG. IETF started 18 years ago, not as a 
standards making body, but as a gathering of concerned 
individual actors.

IETF has no members, no members fees. Funded by the private 
sector through meeting fees and contributions. 

It hosts 120 – 150 working groups; hundreds of mailing 
lists. Each working group has formally approved charters. 

Level of consensus on some items :
-	Internet Governance should be defined in a broad 
sense
-	The WGIG should be multistakeholder
-	The Internet is a network of networks
-	That the WGIG should foster open and transparent 
processes
-	Cybercrime and other similar issues require the 
cooperation of all actors

Innovative models providing parallel processes for different 
issues should be preferred to the traditional model of 
working groups that seems to be envisaged today (high level 
group and one serie of consultations).

The WGIG should be considered as a steering committee and 
facilitator for cooperation and communication between 
actors. 

An appropriate articulation is necessary with the other 
groups addressing similar issues in different frameworks. 

Jeanette Hofmann, Co-coordinator, WSIS Civil Society IG 
Caucus

A key challenge for the working group is legitimacy. No 
matter whether it is composed of 20 or 40, there is no way 
it can be representative. We face a potential conflict 
between efficiency and legitimacy. 

It is impossible to achieve legitimacy through the 
traditional mechanisms of representation. 

The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus main 
recommendations are  :

The WGIG should be independent from the WSIS preparatory 
committe meetings. Members of the WGIG should serve as peers.

The WSIS Ccivil Society Internet Governance Caucus favors a 
two tier approach with WGIG as facilitator, with broad 
consultations; the second tier could consist of expert 
advisory groups and ad hoc expert consultations. 

On composition and structure : the WGIG should be formed at 
working level and not at high level; membership should be 
balanced between the different categories, whithout any one 
taking precedence over the other. 

We recommend 6 to 10 participants from each constituency, 
with one chair or co-chairs.

As much as possible, representation from all sectors should 
be balanced regionally.

Operational principles : the WGIG should respect the 
governance principles inscribed in the Déclaration of 
Principles and Plan of Action. 

The chair or co-chairs should be from civil society or 
private sector to ensure independence, with at least one 
coming from a developing country. 

(full contribution available online) 

Markus Kummer, Head WGIG Secretariat, on the WGIG timeline 

The WGIG is a multi-faceted and multi-dimensional process. 
With many consultations.

The calendar of the WGIG is dictated by WSIS, with the 
report delivered at PrepCom3. 

Three phases :

Preparatory phase up to October 2004 : setting up of the 
working group

Second phase (November 2004-June 2005) : drafting of the 
report. The first meeting should take place in the second 
half of November or first week of December. 

Months of December and January should be devoted to online 
consultations

15-16 February 2005 : Open-ended consultations with all 
stakeholders will take place back-to-back with PrepCom2
17-18 February : second meeting of WGIG to finalize drafting 
of preliminary report. Between 21-25 February : presentation 
of preliminary report to PrepCom2.

March 2005 : further online consulations

April 2005 : third meeting of WGIG

Third phase : explaining the report and preparing the summit

All members of the WGIG will be asked to reach out to their 
respective constituencies. 

Translation is not cost-neutral. In addition, any document 
to be translated should be made available ten weeks in 
advance. 

(full presentation online)

Bertrand de La Chapelle, Director, wsis-online.net

Wsis-online.net is the community platform for all 
stakeholders following the WSIS process. It hosted an online 
consultation prior to the Open Forum on Internet Governance 
organized by the UN ICT Task Force in March 2004. It stands 
ready to support the activities of the WGIG and facilitate 
its outreach efforts. 

The consultations conducted by the WGIG should invite all 
stakeholders to identify their “issues of common concern or 
interest”. These are issues where all actors do not 
necessarily agree on the solutions or even the way to 
address them but nonetheless agree that they should be 
addressed.

This list of issues should then be sorted in three baskets : 
•	Issues all actors agree are policy issues relevant 
to Internet Governance, and are within the scope of the 
WGIG; 
•	Disputed issues some actors would like to see 
addressed by the WGIG and others do not, at least at that 
stage;
•	Issues all actors agree should be left out of the 
scope of the WGIG, at least at that stage. 

For each of these issues, it is necessary to identify 
the “concerned actors” that either have an impact on it or 
are impacted by it, to form “issue networks”.

The “respective roles of the different categories of 
stakeholders” (the third mision of the WGIG according to its 
mandate) should be determined on an issue by issue basis, as 
the balance between actors vary according to the different 
themes. 

The WGIG should mainly act not as a prescriptor group but as 
a facilitator. It should organize or facilitate an iterative 
consultation and drafting process, using an appropriate 
combination of open physical meetings and publicly archived 
online call for comments. 

Internet Governance is both an Agenda and a Process. The 
responsibility of the WGIG is also to provide a methodology 
for addressing the issues it identifies, including beyond 
Tunis. 

Paul Verhoef, ICANN 
(note : this speaker may have spoken at another moment; 
separate notes were taken without noting the exact moment of 
intervention; but transcript is accurate)

Issues addressed by ICANN are only a small part of the whole 
Internet Governance Agenda.

ICANN’s focus is on how the Internet works, not on how it is 
used. And the management of the unique identifiers is itself 
a subset of how the Internet works. 

ICANN was formed only in 1998. It is now in a transition 
phase to become a full international organization. 

It is important to understand the dynamics of its 
development rather than to look at a fixed picture taken at 
a given time : in the early 90’s, it was a one man’s 
operation under a research contract with one government; in 
2000, ICANN had 5 US staff and a Government Advisory 
Committee of 30 members; in 2004, the first office outside 
the US has opened, ICANN has an international staff of 30 
and the GAC has 130 members; in November 2006, ICANN will be 
moving towards a fully autonomous and accountable 
international body. 

Such a transition is difficult : ICANN is not and cannot be 
a static organization. It is a multi-stakeholders effort 
gathering those interested in the Domain Name system (DNS).

There are issues ICANN does not and should not address. 

Transparency and full consultation are critical. 

UNDP 

UNDP is launching an “open regional dialogue on Internet 
Governance”, particularly in Asia Pacific, based on the July 
consultation conducted in Kuala Lumpur on the occasionof the 
ICANN meeting. 

It will launch country surveys to identify their national 
priorities, in order to map the priorities from the bottom-
up. Conducting consultations at the local level will also 
help consultation in a diversity of languages.

Members of the WGIG should be encouraged to organize local 
consultations. 

Desiree Milhosevic

The WGIG should not only address conflicts, but also issues 
of common interest.

It could also produce its own instrument, be it in the form 
of a treaty or not. 

(incomplete record .......)

Azerbaïdjan

Azerbaïdjan endorses the notion of a two-tier approach, with 
a process open and transparent at all stages. 

WGIG is formed of multiple layers and mechanisms. 

Azerbaïdjan will organize a regional conference in November 
and another one in the beggining of 2005.

Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago

Without having a specific number in mind, the WGIG should be 
large enough to be representative and small enough to be 
efficient. Therefore a two-tier structure is an appropriate 
framework. 

We would like to see the group established at the earliest 
moment possible. 

(Some missing contributions) 

.........

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