From: Chun Eung Hwi <chun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: plenary@xxxxxxxxxxx, <ct@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Sixth Unoffical personal report of ad-hoc
working group of Internet
Governance, PrepCom III, WSIS
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 00:15:34 +0900 (KST)
Five minutes is not enough for arguing something, but it is very possible
time for effective communication rather than biting so much time for
duplication and repetition of the same words in the name of country
delegation. And now we are talking about global information and
communication society meaning more feasible, more desirable, more
efficient, more valuable communication rather than the discommunication
arising from cliche. Will government delegates know this?
Even today, Bertrand Chapelle demonstrated this effective case of
communication for making better world. Only for five minutes allowed for
civil society group, he commented once again on key points of the issue.
Maybe, those who read my fifth unofficial report may have the compromise
text as one outcome of ad-hoc working group of Internet Governance. He
made three comments on that text.
The first one was to point out the word - "multilateral" still surviving
even after his repeated comments should be replaced with multi
stakeholder, and the participation of all stakeholders in the
international management of Internet should be kept at the first bullet
sentence.
Regarding the 3rd bullet sentence, he expressed one surprise that the
prior "ccTLD" (country code top level domain name) related phrase had
completely disappered and the present text is saying more broader and
expanded scope of "Internet-related public policy issues" language
replaced it. Anyhow, he reiterated the importance of the decision or
participation of local internet community (LIC), (but not simply by
governments)
Again, today, he pointed out bullet sentence 1 and bullet sentence 4 are
intercontradictory because bullet sentence 1 is saying the all
stakeholders' participation, but bullet sentence 3 and some phrases of 4
is saying only governments.
By leaving out of the meeting place, Bertrand requested to be called on
when ten minutes briefing is to be held before the closing time. And he
put down his mobile phone number to the secretariat. I asked the
secretariat person when the predefined closing time is. Then, his answer
was that it is open-ending meeting, so we cannot guess it, but it might be
around five o'clock. (The beginning time of this session was two o'clock.
Today, even though Friday, in the morning all comments on draft Action
Plan document has finished. So, there is no afternoon session. And
tomorrow and Sunday, we don't have any session. So, many frinds of mine
have already left for looking around the city. But unfortunately, due to
my small self-decision for recording what is happening in Internet
Governance working group of PrepCom III, WSIS - seemingly very foolish
decision, now I am keeping the gate of the meeting room. Bertrand left
because he had two more promised meeting. He was not sure whether he could
come back or not. I could be only one watchdog here. At the front of my
desk, one African guy is sleeping in his seat. Is WSIS a torture to him?
In the midst of his sleeping, he might communicate with their family
members free from this torturing world.
After looking around the gate a couple of minutes, I decided to enter into
the meeting place. If I would not intervene with the meeting, I would not
be recognized. As I entered into the meeting place, the most heating
debate has already gone away. With regard to hot debate point, I could
hear only one speech of Brazil delegate. He said that together with all
other countries like Egypt, Iran, Bangladesh, China ¡¦, we respect the
private sector. Private sector has their own affairs. They can do that by
self-regulation. On the other hand, each government have their own public
policies, and for the coordination with other governments, governments
should do their own affairs. We have no intention to disturb private
sector's affairs. We, as governments, want to do our own affairs. This is
very legitimate
And the other discussion was concerned with multilingual domain name.
Indian delegate proposed the specific language of "internationalized
domain name" rather than "multilingual domain name registration" for the
bullet sentence 5. And for the time being, there was some confusing talks
on this - somebody wanted to use the term of "regionalism" and some
confusion of RIR (regional internet registry) and domain name, confusion
of language and technical code scheme. Sharil (Chair of GAC/ICANN)'s
clarification ¡¦ Diop's technical explanation (Diop was the national
delegate of Senegal, but he was financially supported by ICANN for this
participation, he is now one of board members of ICANN. I have already
described him in my 3rd Unofficial personal report. After very confusing
long discussion, all participants agreed to the addition proposal of
"taking into account multilingualism" at the end of the first bullet
sentence. For the time being, there was chaos talks on multilingualism and
internationalized domain name.
After the closing of the meeting, Bertrand came back and asked some
questions to the Chair. He raised up the severe danger of the bullet
sentence 3 - because it could be abused as contents regulation by state.
He also requested the change of situation of observers' attendance at
least next week. Chair promised to try to do so, but still the answer was
very unclear.
I don't know what happens in the discussion among governmental
delegations. Fortunately, one lady is present in the meeting as a member
of national delegate. She disclosed what is happening in the other mailing
list for Internet Governance. It shows up one severe schism - one bloc of
U.S. EU, Japan, Norway, Canada, Malaysia, Senegal, (prefer
multistakeholder and "international") and the other bloc of Mali,
Mauritious, China, Uganda, Brazil, Saudi Arabia (prefer
"intergovernmental") In closing remark, Chair reminded the spirit of WSIS,
bridging the gap of digital divide and appealing the narrowing down the
gap between extremes, and to seek compromise. And Closed. Bye bye up to
next week Monday.!!!!!
------------------------------------------------------------
Chun Eung Hwi
General Secretary, PeaceNet | phone: (+82) 2-2166-2205
Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81 | pcs: (+82) 019-259-2667
Seoul, 158-600, Korea | eMail: chun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "jeanette hofmann" <jeanette@xxxxxxxxxxxx>To:
governance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx: jeanette@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
wsis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx: [Governance] report of governance
working groupDate: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 16:00:41 +0200
Hi, everyone,
The crucial bone of contention of today was
item/bullet point 4, which was already very
controversial yesterday. Below you find the
different versions discussed yesterday:
4.Internet issues of an international nature
related to public policies should be coordinated
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.]
List of countries that spoke up on this issue today:
EU: a or d
Japan: d
Canada: d
Norway: a or d,
Mali: b
Mauricius: b
China: b
Uganda: b
Brazil: b
Australia: a
Saudi Arabia: b
US: a (only)
Mexico: a
Zimbabwe: b
Senegal: a or d
As you can see, no consensus was possible. As a result, item 4 is
put into additional square brackets. All in all, there are now 2 levels
of square brackets. One applies to the whole paragraph 44, the
other to item 4. For option c and e, a third level of brackets was
discussed but finally dismissed. Now, the whole para will go back
to plenary next week. I don't see that another plenary discussion
will be of any help.
I am most likely not allowed to post this information, please keep it
confidential and by no means forward it with my name or email
address attached. Also, no guarantee that I got all the votes right,
we have a language problem here and just Richard Hill (surprise,
surprise, as an interpreter.
Best, je
_______________________________________________
Plenary mailing list
Plenary@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary