[Lac] [Fwd: [governance] Minutes of WGIG Consultations Part 4 - Sept 21 afternoon]

[Beatriz Busaniche]

-----Mensaje reenviado-----
From: Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE <lachapelle at openwsis.org>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: [governance] Minutes of WGIG Consultations Part 4 - Sept 21 afternoon
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:50:11 +0200

This is part 4 of the minutes of the WGIG Consultations - 
Sept 21 afternoon.

Formated text attached.

Bertrand de La Chapelle
wsis-online.net
________________________



India

(incomplete transcription .....) 

There is no reason why a larger involvement of governments 
in Internet Governance should impact on the functionning of 
the Internet. 

The Working group should be an inclusive process with the 
involvement of all stakeholders. 

A smaller, informal core group might be necessary at a later 
stage for drafting. It should be balanced in its 
composition. 

The formal composition of the Working Group might not be 
restricted.

A formal process of selection for the working group would 
necessarily produce a feeling for some governments of being 
excluded. We therefore recommend that it remains open-ended 
to allow the participation of all governments and other 
stakeholders. 

Consultations on the process itself should be conducted 
online before even the first meeting of the Working Group.  

(some comments not recorded)
.........


Mauritius

There is no going back on what has already been achieved. 
Many organizations are already involved in addressing those 
issues. 

The WGIG must not fall prey to the temptation of inventing a 
new structure. 

Main stumbling blocks in the way of this Group are :
•	Time constraints
•	Carving out an acceptable definition
•	Different levels of understanding among states.

The Group should be innovative. 

Do we really need to previously agree on a definition or can 
we move forward otherwise ? 

Internet Governance is a big receptacle for all issues to be 
listed. 

The Mauritian delegation suggest to identify the issues that 
at present are considered by actors as being within the 
premisses fo Internet Governance. 

A classification can be drawn according to which matters can 
be addressed by specialists, which by governments, etc...

Mauritius recommends the creation of sub-groups to address 
those specific issues individually. 

Mauritius has launched a national initiative on Internet 
Governance, creating in particular a national 
multistakeholder entitiy to manage the .mu domain name. 

Mauritius will organize the first face to face consultation 
on Internet governance on December 5-8th.


Izumi AIZU – Internet Governance Task Force of Japan

The composition of the Working Group can draw lessons from 
the IG TF of Japan.

The Internet Governance Task Force of Japan is a multi-
stakeholder group; the government of Japan is an advisor but 
not a formal member of the TF.

Users and providers should be involved in the WGIG.

We suggest 15-20 members, plus an additional 15-20 members 
as an advisory committee. 

Members of the WGIG should have strong connections with the 
broader internet community. 

An important issue is languages. During meetings, oral 
interventions should be displayed on screen in real-time, as 
its is done in ICANN meetings for instance. This helps 
particpants  who do not have english as their native 
language to better follow the dabates. 

Any language (not only UN languages) should be usable to 
make wrtitten contributions. They should be archived, to 
constitute a resource and a testimonial for future 
generations. This is an issue the IG TF of Japan is 
particularly sensitive to as Japanese is not an official UN 
language. 

If full translation services are not possible, the WGIG 
should provide the capacity for individual people to 
translate and post online the contributions they find 
interesting. 



Jovan Kurbalija – Diplo Foundation

(parts of contribution not recorded)

The negociation of the convention of the law of the sea 
lasted 15 years. 

A six weeks course on Internet governance will be organized 
by Diplo and the South Center to provide capacity building. 


Vittorio Bertola, Chairman ICANN’s AtLarge constituency

Making the case for an equal representation of the 
constituencies in the WGIG. 

Not only because of  legitimacy, but also because of 
efficiency.

As an example, governments and the private sector took a 
long time to negociate IP agreements without taking users 
into account 

The working group should be also taking into account real 
internet users, including the younger generation which is 
actually the most active in developing new usages.


Bob Kramer, CompTIA

The business and private sector is not monolithic. 

The WGIG should represent this diversity. 2 representatives 
for the private sector is clearly not enough. 

The WGIG should focus on a narrow agenda, given time 
constraints.


Netherlands (on behalf of the European Union)


This working group needs credibility and ownership. But it 
should not be too large. Once again, the EU estimates the 
core group should not be more than 40. 

The core WGIG should be composed at least of half government 
representatives. 


Argentina

(contribution not recorded)  


Saudi Arabia

We have begun the consultation phase. But we are a bit short 
on time and should be speeding up our work. We should focus 
on geographical balance and we are satisfied this has been 
repetitively stressed. 

We want input from all the stakeholders. 

The existence of this working group is a compromise coming 
out of the Geneva phase. 

To be able to represent all stakeholders, we need to turn to 
the regional organizations. 


ILO

Two suggestions :

There is a clear need to emphasize the participation of 
internet users in the WGIG, including consumers, scientific 
users, companies and workers. 

The ILO stands ready to provide support should the WGIG 
recommend to adopt an architecture similar to its tripartite 
model, as Brazil suggested. 


Canada

The quality of civil society contributions in this meeting 
clearly demonstrated the merits of their participation in 
this process. 

15-20 people is a maximum for the WGIG. We are very much in 
line with the recommendation of the WSIS CS IG caucus in 
that matter.

We understand there will be some closed meetings, that 
should be reflected on the WGIG website and we trust the 
secretariat to take the appropriate measure to ensure this 
transparency. 

We appreciated Brazil’s contribution and have now a better 
understanding on what is the Brazilian position even if we 
do not share it.

We do not believe we can solve the many issues identified 
before Tunis but the WGIG can initiate a process that could 
be continued partly beyond Tunis. 


Cuba

Cuba believes open ended meetings (like the present one) 
should be held to let the members of the WGIG be submitted 
to the scrutiny of all interested stakeholders. 


South Center

The WGIG should not be decoupled from the WSIS process. 

A key aspect should be the empowerment of developing 
countries. 

The more open-ended the WGIG, the more credibility and 
legitimacy it will get. 

The ISOC model should be followed. 


United States

We agree with those who said there are two key principles :
•	Transparency and openness 
•	Internationnally balanced in its composition

Two layered approach :
•	The United States supports a smaller group for the 
drafting; we have no magic number to recommend and leave it 
to the wisdom of the UN SG,
•	We believe this group should be linked to a larger 
consultation process open to all, taking the same form as 
the meeting we have had the last two days.

Any definition of Internet Governance should be broad. The 
United States are impressed by the interventions advocating 
constructing a matrix of issues, and would support this 
approach. 

We are coming out of phase 1 and have accomplished a great 
deal. The Declaration and Plan of Action form the basis for 
this WGIG. 

We also noted with interest the interventions mentionning 
national experiences. Theses experiences should be taken 
into account. In particular, experiences from Brazil, 
Mauritius and Japan should be noted. 

Similarly, the international experiences of ICANN, IETF and 
other should be also taken into account.

We also support the emphasis on development. One of the main 
contribution of the WGIG is to see how we can bring the 
benefits of the information society to the developing 
countries. 


ISOC Bulgaria

Without contributions from govrnments and non governments 
the WGIG will not be able to function properly.

What do governments and international organiztions usually 
regulate in the telecom evironment ? Governments regulate 
what is dangerous for human life or what is scarce. The 
Internet is neither. 

We are supposed to help counties have access to bandwith at 
affordable prices. The Internet requires much more attention 
that only one working group. The process will not end up in 
Tunis next year.

ISOC Bulgaria was an advisor to the Bulgarian Government on 
its new telecommunication legislation. 

There should be a group of about 20-30 people composed of 
members in a position to contribute a significant amount of 
time to this task. 


China

The WGIG should have a balanced representation of the three 
constituencies, which does not mean we should divide its 
number of members equally.

The group should contain more representatives from sovereign 
countries. The WGIG is a decision of WSIS, which is an 
intergovernmental process. 

Among governmental delegations, there should be a balance 
beween developing and developed countries. 
Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE
Director
wsis-online.net
lachapelle at openwsis.org
tel : 33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

About wsis-online.net
wsis-online.net is the community platform for all actors willing to implement the WSIS Action Plan. It offers a calendar of WSIS-related events, promotes people, organizations and projects and offers online consultations, all of them indexed along a list of Summit Themes. use it to promote your own activities at : www.wsis-online.net

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