Re: [Governance] Comment for ALAC discussion on WSIS
Dear all,
I support all main points in Adams statetment.
Next to the issues (I have my doubts whether the proposed language will be
supported by PrepCom4 and I expect a blablaisized paragraph for the whole
issue) the procedure is as well important.
If there is no chance to have a substantial agreement in December 2003 there
are two options:
a. a moratorium, that is doing nothing until Tunis (would be not so bad, but
unrealistic)
b. to launch a process.
If option B appears, than the main questions are
i. what is the mandate of such a process (here we need good questions),
ii. where it will take place and who fill facilitate this process (neither ITU
nor ICANN but a trusted third party? UN ICT TF? an open multistakeholder
informal WSIS group? A comission of wise men (Carl Bildt?)
iii. how to secure a multistakeholder approach?
iv. what would be the timetable? Are there milestones (workshops, conferences,
online discussion lists , websites etc.)?
Additionally it would make sense to consider that while different
constituencies within the ICANN community have different ideas on different
issues, within the WSIS context all these (non-governmental) groups are sitting
in the same basket and are treated as observers. It would make sense to
coordinate actions and strategies among different ICANN constituencies, to
speak with from different corners with one voice during PrepCom4 and to
stimulate a targeted lobbying of specific governments by members of ICANN
constituencies with special relationship to the relvant ministries in relevant
key countries.
Best
wolfgang
From: Adam Peake <ajp@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: committee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Send: 05:41 PM
Subject: [Governance] Comment for ALAC discussion on WSIS
Just found a description and Agenda for the ALAC's meeting on WSIS
<http://www.icann.org/carthage/wsis-agenda.htm> Not on the
ALAC
website or mentioned anywhere else ALAC that I can see.
I hope the following comments will be useful for 29th evening's meeting.
I think you are framing the discussion in the wrong way:
"So ICANN is to persuade governments that they can handle the public
policy matters in open and transparent manner - but how? Perhaps the
At Large, through a more substantial role for the individual users
than the one in the current framework, could help to reach this
objective."
This is not the question being asked in WSIS. The governments in
WSIS that are demanding a change to the current regime could not care
less about "open and transparent" policy processes, they are
concerned with two things: (1) ending the US Governments unilateral
control of the root, and (2) taking greater control for themselves of
the root, of all TLDs, and IP address allocation.
(1) we should agree that the US Government's continued control of the
root is unacceptable, not just to China, Brazil and the many other
(mainly) developing nations that are demanding change, it's not a
viable situation ongoing for any govt. ICANN was created to change
this situation and the US Government needs to re-state its commitment
to ending its unilateral control. Without such a restatement, I
don't think we can expect to see progress.
(2) the other demands should be challenged, they are irrelevant to
the process, they have not been explained with any clarity, they
require significant changes to a system which while not prefect,
works and is evolving.
Relevant text of the current draft of the WSIS declaration is copied
below. Note, this document is intended to be a declaration of
principles expressing our common vision for information society. It
is to be signed by heads of state. It should be relevant today, and
also be forward looking. It should not be used to demand that the
property of one government be taken away, or that resources managed
the private sector be inter/nationalized.
The most significant proposed change is that "Internet issues of an
international nature related to public policies should be coordinated
through/by appropriate intergovernmental organizations under the UN
framework."
Countries identified as supporting this statement at WSIS PrepCom3,
September '03, include Mali, Mauritius, China, Uganda, Brazil, Saudi
Arabia, Zimbabwe. A significant number of other developing nation
governments in WSIS also support this proposal (Kenya and South
Africa. ALAC members who attended PrepCom3 will know more.)
Other paragraphs, e.g. "41. Policy authority for Internet-related
public policy issues should be the sovereign right of countries", are
equally troubling. None of these nations has explained why such
drastic changes to an essential, working system are required. No
written document or even coherent spoken statement during a plenary
session of any PrepCom (2 or 3 or the intersessional meeting, i.e.
almost 5 weeks of discussion), has been given to explain how such
changes would be carried out, or what the end state would be.
Until such time as those demanding changes are able to present
reasons why such changes are required, how these changes will be
achieved, and some justification as to how the end result will be an
improvement, paragraphs 40, 41 and 42 have no place in a document to
be put before heads of state.
That is not to say that there are not genuine concerns within WSIS
about the current Internet "governance" regime. Countries are of
course concerned that ICANN has not been able to take policy control
over the root, unilateral US control is a key problem. ICANN's
mishandling of its relationship with ccTLDs,what I believe was seen
as a series of heavy-handed attempts to take control from the
national level to ICANN [California, USA] has raised concern within
governments that they need to assert authority over what many see to
be sovereign rights.
In addition, there is confusion over what it is they that is being
discussed: few know what root servers do (massive telecom-like
Internet traffic switches?), one government representative said his
country needed to control IP address allocation [so take of the RIRs]
so they could stop Voice over IP which was killing the incumbent
monopoly state-owned dollar producing PTT. Many seem worried about
the "digital divide" in IP address allocation, that nations of the
South don't get their fair-share of IP numbers, and these IP numbers
are being hoarded by the North. This myth seems to be promoted by an
intergovernmental organization. Too many representatives requesting
these changes were happy to say privately that they did not
understand what they were asking for, let alone what the implications
might be.
We (you) can spend hours discussing what words in the draft text need
replacing, wondering if "multilateral" might mean
"intergovernmental"
[it probably does in some WSIS government minds], or what the
consequence of allowing "sovereign" might be for the "local
Internet
community". But all this just serves to hide the obvious, that the
disputed text of the WSIS declaration is not worthy of consideration
by our heads of government. It is not appropriate for a UN
declaration of principles.
Please focus on paragraph 39 and making a clean statement about the
DNS (Internet identifiers, root, etc.) and how it should be cared for.
Apologies for the lengthy note (too late for concise thoughts)
Thanks,
Adam
Text from the declaration
<http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=1013|1014>:
"39. The Internet has evolved into a global facility available to the
public and its governance should constitute a core issue of the
Information Society agenda. The international management of the
Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the
full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society
and international organizations. It should ensure an equitable
distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and ensure a
stable and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into account
multilingualism.
40. The management of the Internet encompasses both technical and
policy issues. The private sector has had and will continue to have
an important role in the development of the Internet [at the
technical level].
[Alternative 40. The management of the Internet encompasses
both technical and public policy issues. The private sector has had
an important role in the development of the Internet. The private
sector should continue to play an important role at the technical and
commercial levels.]
41. Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues should
be the sovereign right of countries.
42. [Internet issues of an international nature related to public
policies should be coordinated
Alternatives:
a) between governments and other interested parties.
b) through/by appropriate intergovernmental organizations under the
UN framework.
c) as appropriate on an intergovernmental basis.
d) through/by appropriate international organizations.
e) through appropriate and mutually agreed international
organizations.]]"
END
--
_______________________________________________
Governance mailing list
Governance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance