[alac] Contribution to the WGIG preparatory meeting

[Vittorio Bertola <vb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This is the final version (no comments / objections received to the last
draft).


ALAC Contribution to the 
Consultations on the Establishment of the WGIG

13 September 2004


This document represents the contribution of ICANNâs At-Large Advisory
Committee to the âConsultations on the Establishment of the Working
Group on Internet Governanceâ to be held in Geneva on September 20-21,
2004.



Nature and scope of Internet Governance

We think that the scope of âInternet Governanceâ cannot be defined once
for ever, but that the most important long term result of this process
should be the creation of a permanent multi-stakeholder table where
every stakeholder may raise Internet-related issues as necessary and
discuss whether they need governance and at which level, or whether the
current governance framework for such issues is satisfactory. Moreover,
this table should define standard models for the inclusion and
consultation of all stakeholders, that can be used as a blueprint for
the governance of any new issue that might arise in the future.


While aiming at this bigger result, the working group should also
conduct broad consultations so that a first list of issues to be
considered is built from the bottom in an inclusive manner; the working
group should then prioritize this list and understand where each issue
can be best dealt with.


As a starting point, existing governance frameworks, such as those
pertaining to naming and addressing, intellectual property protection,
e-commerce, privacy protection, standards development, should be
examined so to ensure that they meet the requirements put forward by the
WSIS Declaration of Principles, and that a truly multi-stakeholder
approach is implemented in each of them, while ensuring that the present
functionality of the network is not broken by hurried changes.




Composition and structure of WGIG

The working group should be kept to an inclusive but manageable size
(20-30 members). All three main stakeholder groups (governments, private
sector and civil society) should offer the same number of members.


Members should be chosen for their individual skills and profile and for
the added value that they could contribute to the work, rather than for
their affiliation or for the entity that proposed their name. Members
should have a broad background and the ability to understand different
points of view and different issues; they should not see themselves as
representatives of any entity, but rather as individuals that should act
in the general public interest.


The composition of the group should be diverse not just in terms of
geography and gender, but also in terms of social and professional
background, past experiences, age, language and culture. It is
particularly important to ensure an adequate presence of non-native
English speakers. However, balance principles should be applied flexibly
and with common sense, and not become an obstacle in ensuring that all
necessary expertise and points of view are included in the group.


The group should operate at the working level; its members should
consider this task as one of their main priorities for the next year,
and be available to devote a significant amount of time to do actual
work. Active and enthusiastic people should be preferred over busy
gurus.


For what regards civil society members, care should be taken so to
ensure that they are not in fact affiliated with any of the other two
stakeholders; they should be representative of the broad set of NGOs and
academic, technical and consumer groups that have been participating to
WSIS and to past Internet governance efforts, and ultimately of the
final users of the Internet.


It is extremely important for the success of the working group that at
least some of its civil society members are not governance
professionals, but actual users. In particular, the Internet has grown
mainly thanks to the personal initiative of a generation of young and
enthusiastic people who have been founding companies, creating websites,
inventing applications and releasing open source software; people from
such generation must be included in the group.


We stand ready to propose a few names of people meeting these criteria,
if considered useful.




WGIG working methods

The working group should try to experiment innovative ways to allow for
remote participation of all interested parties, including those who
cannot afford physical participation to meetings. For example,
compatibly with available resources, public meetings should be webcast
over the Internet, and any party, including individuals, should be
allowed to pose questions or make statements during specific âopen
timesâ, either in person or by e-mail and other electronic instruments.


Particular care should be taken in ensuring effective participation by
non-English-speakers. Public meetings and documents should be translated
at least in the three official languages of the WSIS, and support should
be given to volunteers wishing to provide translations in other
languages.


In particular, civil society members, with adequate practical support by
the Secretariat, should commit to the active dissemination of up-to-date
news and information about the process, for example through weblogs, and
to an open and transparent discussion among Internet users and civil
society participants to the WSIS about the themes and proposals of the
working group.


Sub-groups should possibly be established to work on specific issues, to
ensure that the working group is not overloaded with the practicalities
of each of them, and that all of them can be addressed in a timely
manner. Such sub-groups should include some members of the working group
as well as other experts to be appointed by the working group itself.


Document drafting should happen in a truly multi-stakeholder way, for
example with the procedure used in the Tokyo preparatory meeting for
WSIS. All official documents of the working group should then be
published as drafts for public comment. Everyone should be allowed to
submit comments; the working group should ensure that any proposed
changes are broadly discussed in the Internet community, so that
consensus can be created around them.
-- 
.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo vb.
Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu.org
(((f1tt3r h4pp1er))) @ http://tmp.bertola.eu.org/