[alac] Fwd: [WSIS CS-Plenary] WGIG
- To: alac@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: [alac] Fwd: [WSIS CS-Plenary] WGIG
- From: Izumi AIZU <aizu@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 00:43:49 +0900
This gives a good summary of what happened at WGIG
last week in Geneva.
Vittorio may add your own observation, perhaps.
From: Wolfgang Kleinw臘hter <wolfgang.kleinwaechter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus <governance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
as promised here is again another report from inside the WGIG. It is a
personal report from the 3rd WGIG meeting, which ended yesterday evening
and I do not speak on behalf of other members of the group. .
1. in the open consultation on Monday there was a strong pressure by some
governments from developing countries, in particular India and Syria, to
consider the establishment of an intergovenrmental body or, with regard to
estimated costs of such a new body, to strengthen the role of the ITU.
Chinas underlined again the principle of sovereignty but did not support a
move towards ITU. The EU made a short but interesting statement,
signalling that they could consider the creation of something like a
public-private body for the oversight of some functions of the Internet.
The US said once again, that the existing system is result of history not
of conspiracy and that the US will terminate its MoU with ICANN in October
2006. But the USG was again not specific about its plans beyond 2006. It
was also interesting, that the India delegate, whih was very clear and
outspoken in favour of a new body. made clear, that such anew body should
not interfere into the day-to-day operation of the Internet and should not
deal with issues of a technical nature. Not all issues would make their
way to such an organisaiton, he said, but did not specify, where he draws
the line between "political" and "technical" issues.
2. The Cluster Papers, published on the WGIG website, has helped to move
the discussion forward and to get a better understanding of the complexity
of Internet Governance. The decision taken by the WGIG in its first
meeting, to develop a "broad working definition" was very helpful. So the
group could go far beyond the ICANN issues. As a result of the debate -
from the issue papers to the cluster papers - the members of the group
started to realize, that there is an overexaggeration of the role of ICANN
and the importance of the management of the core resources. The "real
issues" for the users and other stakeholders are on the second and third
layer - from Cybercrime and Spam to e-Commerce and IPR . The first layer
- core ressources - are more and more seen as an "enabler", which should.
not be "controlled" but "protected" so that the Internet can continue to
function in a stable and secure manner and could remain robust. This shift
from "control" to "protection" is an important one and is more than
"language". It changes the perspective with regard to the hidden but
overexaggerated "power struggle". There is no so much "power" on layer one
(if it is compared with the problems on layer 2,3 and 4) and the majority
of the layer 1 issues are indeed of a technical nature (with a well
recognized public policy dimension).
3. The main critical issues on Layer 1 is the authorization of the
publication of root zone files (this has first priority for the
overwhelming majority within the group). Proposed improvements circle
around the key words "independence" and "internaitonalization". Other
Layer 1 issues are important but not so dramatic.
Here we have
a. the "stabilization" of the voluntary arrangements of the root server
operators (both the 13 of the athoritative root and the 90+ of anycast);
b. the issue of additonal allocation systems for IP addresses (which is
rather controversial in the group and in my reading a majority of WGIG
members reject the idea to have NIRs)
c. the procedural clarification for the introduction of new gTLDs
d. the fomalization of arrangements between ICANN/IANA and ccTLD
Registries (taking into account the recently adopted new GAC principles)
e. iDNS (here the proposal is to delegate this back to the "language
families", that they continue to work this out on the basis of the ground
work, done by IETF and ICANN sofar.
The general mood is here evolution not revolution, simple not complex,
minimal and maximal.
4. The critical issue of Layer 2 is Spam. This discussion has shown, that
there is no single body at the moment, dealing with this issue. It has
also shown that national legislation is not enough to deal with Spam.
There is no clear concept so far what to recommend and how to deal with
this in the future. Probably a "new mechanism" will be proposed. Probably
"Identity Theft" (including phishinf and pharming and spoofing) will get a
similar status in the debate in the weeks ahead. The Cybercrime Convention
is seen critical, but as one existing mechanisms. There was not detailed
discusison sofar, how the convention could be further developed. It was
also clear, that while govenrments have to take the lead in fighting misue
of the Internet, all stakeholders has to become involved.
5. The critical issue of Layer 3 is IPR and eCommerce. It is unclear how
far WGIG should go into the terrain of WIPO and WTO and UNCITRAL, OECD,
6. The critical issue of Layer 4 is capacity building, and here both
access and training/education.
7. With regard to "formal and informal arrangements" - Chapter 6 of the
outline of the final report - there seems to be an rough consensus on the
7.1. establishment of a "Forum" (I call it the United Nations Internet
Governance Communication Group/UNIG.cog) which could function as a
discussion platform for policy development and as a wachdog. Such a Forum
would not have decision making capacity (however it could recommend
actions to other institutions which have decision making capacity in their
special arena of responsibility). Such a forum should be based on the
principle of "multistakeholderism" and organized as a network, with a
small "maultistakeholder core group" in the center of such an "Internet
Spider Net". The Group could have an annual meeting under the umbrella of
UN Secretary General. It could publish a annual World Internet Report.
7.2 establishment of an intergovernmental oversight body for the root.
This body would have a very limited mandate for decision making, mainly to
authorize modifications, deletions or additions of political controversial
zone files in the root. Such an body (or an "Internet Security Council")
could be work on an ad hoc basis, that is it would meet only if
controversial cases pop up. It could be established by the GAC, or by the
UN or by interested governments.
7. 3 recommendations to improve the performance and coordination of
7.4 eventual recommendations to develop new mechanisms (probably for Spam
or Identity Theft).
All this is still work in progress. This report is done in my own name
and I do not speak on behalf of other members of the group. So take this
as my individual reflection and conclusion form the 3rd meeting. I welcome
any critical remarks and input which will be helpful for the final online
discussion and the offline endgame in mid June.
Plenary mailing list