[ga] APC's Recommendations to the WSIS

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

For those of you interested in WSIS initiatives, the
following just appeared:

APC's Recommendations to the WSIS on Internet
Governance, November 2005 

1. Summary

APC has participated extensively in the internet
governance process at the World Summit on Information
Society. Out of this participation and in
collaboration with other partners, including members
of the WSIS civil society internet governance caucus,
APC has crystallized a set of recommendations with
regard to internet governance ahead of the final
Summit in Tunis in November 2005.

APC proposes specific actions in each of the following
five areas:

1. The establishment of an Internet Governance Forum;

2. The transformation of ICANN into a global body with
full authority over DNS management, and an appropriate
form of accountability to its stakeholders in
government, private sector and civil society; 

3. The initiation of a multi-stakeholder convention on
internet governance and universal human rights that
will codify the basic rights applicable to the
internet, which will be legally binding in
international law with particular emphasis on clauses
in the universal declaration of human rights
specifically relevant to the internet, such as rights
to freedom of _expression, freedom of association and
privacy. 

4. Ensuring internet access is universal and
affordable. The internet is a global public space that
should be open and accessible to all on a
non-discriminatory basis. The internet, therefore,
must be seen as a global public infrastructure. In
this regard we recognize the internet to be a global
public good and access to it is in the public
interest, and must be provided as a public provision.

5. Measures to promote capacity building in developing
countries with regard to increasing developing country
participation in global public policy forums on
internet governance.

2. INTERNET GOVERNANCE - A Recent History 

On July 1, 1997, as part of the Clinton
Administration's Framework for Global Electronic
Commerce, the President directed the Secretary of
Commerce to privatize the management of the domain
name system (DNS) in a manner that increases
competition and facilitates international
participation in its management.1 

The U.S. Government (USG) is committed to a transition
that will allow the private sector to take leadership
for DNS management. 

DNS management includes:

a. Establishment of policy for and direction of the
allocation of IP number blocks;  


b. Oversight of the operation of the authoritative
root server system;  


c. Oversight of the policy for determining the
circumstances under which new top level domains would
be added to the root system;

d. Coordination of the assignment of other internet
technical parameters as needed to maintain universal
connectivity on the internet. 


The US agreements with ICANN, IANA and Verisign and
the WSIS Working Group on Internet Governance 

In 1998 the U.S. Government entered into a Memorandum
of Understanding with the Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names2 and Numbers (ICANN), which was
incorporated in 1998 

Also that year the US transferred the agreement
between Verisign (then Network Solutions) and the US
NSF for operation of the root zone registry to the USG
Dept. of Commerce. The USG government also has
established a contract with ICANN for the operational
support functions of internet names and numbers
performed by IANA.3

The terms of the MoU were that ICANN would undertake
to complete a series of tests and procedures to
demonstrate that it was capable of undertaking DNS
management. Once ICANN could demonstrate this full
responsibility for DNS management would be transferred
to ICANN. The timelines for handover have been
extended several times since 2000 and the current date
is September 30 2006. 

As the Internet Governance Project points out, "one of
the destructive myths surrounding the current dialogue
is that there is currently no political oversight over
the Internet." The USG exercises oversight of ICANN
"using three instruments:

The ICANN Memorandum of Understanding 
The IANA contract 
The US Cooperative Agreement with VersiSign, Inc 
These contracts are held together by a fourth element
:

A sweeping U.S. assertion of policy authority over the
DNS root" 4 
Internationalization was one of the aims behind
creating ICANN. That it hasn't happened might be
viewed as a promise not kept. There seems to have been
an agreement regarding ICANN?s internationalization in
1998, that the USG hasn't yet completed with other
governments.

The terms of the MoU were that ICANN would undertake
to complete a series of tests and procedures to
demonstrate that it was capable of undertaking DNS
management. Once ICANN could demonstrate this, full
responsibility for DNS management would be transferred
to ICANN from IANA. The timelines for handover have
been extended several times since 2000 and the current
date is September 30 2006. 

At the end of phase one of the World Summit on the
Information Society (WSIS) in December 2003,
governments adopted a Declaration of Principles and a
Plan of Action which established a Working Group on
Internet Governance (WGIG) to investigate the issue of
internet governance.

WGIG: Internet Governance oversight function, forum
function and development Objectives 

In its report of June 20055, the WGIG included a
working definition of internet governance:

?Internet governance is the development and
application by Governments, the private sector and
civil society, in their respective roles, of shared
principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures,
and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the
Internet.?

Oversight Function 
The WGIG proposed the following principles for the
governance function/oversight function:

No single Government should have a pre-eminent role in
relation to international internet governance. 
The organisational form for the governance function
will be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with
the full involvement of Governments, the private
sector, civil society and international organisations.

The organisational form for the governance function
will involve all stakeholders and relevant
intergovernmental and international organisations
within their respective roles. 
The WGIG mentioned four different models for oversight
which differed in the extent of government involvement
in oversight, from no government oversight to
extensive government oversight but was unable to
recommend any particular model.6 

Internet Governance Forum 

The WGIG also made the case for an Internet Governance
Forum as follows:

The WGIG identified a vacuum within the context of
existing structures, since there is no global
multi-stakeholder forum to address internet-related
public policy issues. It came to the conclusion that
there would be merit in creating such a space for
dialogue among all stakeholders. 

Such a space or forum for dialogue (hereafter referred
to as ?the forum?) should allow for the participation
of all stakeholders from developing and developed
countries on an equal footing. Gender balance should
be considered a fundamental principle with the aim of
achieving an equal representation of women and men at
all levels. Special care should be taken to ensure
diversity of participation as regards, inter alia,
language, culture, professional background,
involvement of indigenous peoples, people with
disabilities and other vulnerable groups.

The forum should preferably be linked to the United
Nations.,

The forum should be open to all stakeholders from all
countries; any stakeholder could bring up any internet
governance issue. The forum would be reinforced by
regional, subregional and national initiatives and
supplemented by open online mechanisms for
participation. It should support the information and
communication technologies for development (ICT4D)
agenda emerging from the WSIS and Millennium
Development Goals (MDG) processes. 

It could assume, inter alia, the following functions:

Interface with intergovernmental bodies and other
institutions on matters under their purview which are
relevant to internet governance, such as IPR,
e-commerce, trade in services and
internet/telecommunications convergence. 
Identify emerging issues and bring them to the
attention of the appropriate bodies and make
recommendations. 
Address issues that are not being dealt with elsewhere
and make proposals for action, as appropriate. 
Connect different bodies involved in internet
management where necessary. 
Contribute to capacity-building for internet
governance for developing countries, drawing fully on
local sources of knowledge and expertise. 
Promote and assess on an ongoing basis the embodiment
of WSIS principles in internet governance processes 
Develop partnerships with academic and research
institutions to access knowledge resources and
expertise on a regular basis. These partnerships
should seek to reflect geographic balance and cultural
diversity and promote cooperation among all regions. 
Development Objectives

The WGIG also made extensive recommendations on the
issue of the internet and development particularly
with regard to issues affecting universal internet
access and affordability such as inequitable
interconnection costs, capacity building in developing
countries and supporting developing country
participation in global decision-making regarding
global public policy on the internet. 

WSIS Prepcom III negotiations (September 2005) 

Prior to the release of the WGIG report in June 2005,
the US National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) stated that:

?The United States is committed to taking no action
that would have the potential to adversely impact the
effective and efficient operation of the DNS and will
therefore maintain its historic role in authorizing
changes or modifications to the authoritative root
zone file.?7 

At Prep-Com 3 in Geneva in September 2005, the
European Union proposed a new co-operation model8 for
oversight that should include the development and
application of globally applicable public policy
principles and provide an international government
involvement at the level of principles over the
following naming, numbering and addressing-related
matters:

Provision for a global allocation system of IP number
blocks, which is equitable and efficient; 
Procedures for changing the root zone file,
specifically for the insertion of new top level
domains in the root system and changes of ccTLD
managers; 
Establishment of contingency plans to ensure the
continuity of crucial DNS functions; 
Establishment of an arbitration and dispute resolution
mechanism based on international law in case of
disputes; 
Rules applicable to DNS system. 
The US Government rejected the EU proposal in Geneva
and once more affirmed that it would maintain its
control over the authoritative root zone file. The USG
did consider the proposal of Argentina favorably.

The Argentina proposal9 recommends an evolutionary
approach to existing arrangements which aims to ensure
that they operate in an efficient, transparent, and
democratic multi-stakeholder fashion, and also to
ensure equitable resource distribution leading to
internationalized functions of the internet, in
particular with the following actions: 

The reinforcement of the role of Governments in ICANN
decision making with regard to relevant internet
public policy issues; 
The reinforcement of the Internet Regional Resource
Management Institutions, to ensure regional autonomy
in internet resource management; 
The continued internationalisation of ICANN and its
functions; 
The strengthening of the participation of developing
countries in specialised institutions for the
technical management and standardisation internet
bodies. 
PrepCom-3 ended without any agreement on oversight and
the matter will again be addressed at a resumed
Prep-Com in Tunis in November 2005.

In October 2005, a resolution was tabled in the US
Congress that states that it is the sense of Congress
that the authoritative root zone server should remain
physically located in the United States and the
Secretary of Commerce should maintain oversight of
ICANN so that ICANN can continue to manage the
day-to-day operation of the internet's domain name and
addressing system well, remain responsive to all
internet stakeholders worldwide, and otherwise fulfill
its core technical mission. A similar resolution was
also tabled in the US Senate.

The Current State of Play 

As the second phase of WSIS enters its final phase
there remain five policy outcomes regarding oversight:

The USG retains oversight over ICANN and continues to
control the root zone file. 
The USG proceeds with the privatisation of ICANN, in
the terms of its MoU, and DNS management, including
control of the root zone file, is transferred to ICANN
on September 30 2006. This seems to be the thrust of
the Argentina proposal. 
The EU new co-operation model prevails, which provides
for greater multilateral government oversight of
ICANN. This is inferred because the EU does not
propose setting up any new structures of governance. 
There is no agreement with regard to oversight at the
WSIS in Tunis and the matter is referred for further
consideration by the proposed internet governance
forum or the matter is referred to a process of
developing an Internet Governance Framework Convention
or a combination of the two. 
There is no agreement on oversight and no agreement on
the creation of a forum. This will lead to increased
tension and alienation of much of the international
community which could lead to greater interest in the
creation of alternate root systems, increasing the
technical challenges involved in keeping a single
internet. 
At this point in the WSIS process there is almost
universal acceptance of the need for an Internet
Governance Forum, with the exception of the USG and
elements of the private sector.

There is almost universal acceptance that measures
need to be taken to promote universal and affordable
access to the internet in developing countries.

There is universal agreement that developing countries
need support with regard to capacity building to
enable them to participate actively in global public
policy forums on internet governance.

3. APC?s Recommendations on Internet Governance 

Background
In 2002, APC developed an Internet Rights Charter that
attempted to capture a core set of rights applicable
to the internet. 10 These include:

The right to communicate and access to the internet 
Diversity, ownership and control of content 
Free and open source software, technology development
and intellectual 
      property rights

Privacy 
Global, regional and national governance of the
internet 
Awareness, protection and realization of rights. 
We continued to explore the linkages between human
rights and the internet in a document published in
September 2003: Involving Civil Society in the
Information Society: the World Summit on the
Information Society11. We identified several articles
in the universal declaration of human rights that
should be given specific consideration in governing
the use of the internet.

Related to the right to communicate securely and
privately via online mediums without the threat of
undue interception and surveillance:

Article 7

All are equal before the law and are entitled without
any discrimination to equal protection of the law

Article 10

Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing

Article 12

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference
with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor
to attacks upon his honour and reputation

Related to freedom of _expression when using ICTs:

Article 18

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought,
conscience and religion?

Article 19

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and
_expression; this right includes freedom to hold
opinions without interference and

to seek, receive and impart information and ideas
through any media regardless of frontiers.

Related to the right to meet and organise using ICTs:

Article 20

Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly
and association.

Related to education and capacity-building to enable
people to use and develop ICTs:

Article 26

Right to education. Education shall be directed to the
full development of the human personality and to the
strengthening of respect for human rights and
fundamental freedoms.

Related to rights to create and access diverse content
(cultural and linguistic) on the internet and other
electronic media:

Article 27

Everyone has the right to participate in the cultural
life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share
in scientific advancement and its benefits.

In September 2004, APC made an input to a meeting12 on
internet governance in Geneva along the following
lines:

APC is of the view that the proper goal of internet
governance at the current time is to develop a
framework or programme consisting of the following
elements, as a basis for short to medium term
transition and longer term sustainability beyond Tunis
in 2005.

1) Create an independent, distributed
multi-stakeholder body which could eventually replace
ICANN and perhaps play a monitoring and coordinating
role with respect to a broader internet governance
framework as described below, though not necessarily
having sole responsibility for all tasks

 
2) Develop an internet governance framework that fully
identifies the scope of internet policy issues and a
method of allocating responsibility for such policies
in the complex web of institutions, which are
currently involved in managing the internet

3) Use this framework as a basis for conducting public
interest oriented monitoring and analysis of the
relevant activities of both intergovernmental and
"self-governance" bodies including, inter alia, the
ITU, the WTO, WIPO, the UN Conference on International
Trade Law, the OECD, the Hague Conference on
International Private Law, the of Europe, APEC, Free
Trade Agreements and ICANN.

4) Assess and solicit stakeholder input on the
conformity of such decision-making with the stated
objectives of the WSIS agenda;

To some extent, the multi-stakeholder body mentioned
here (apart from the reference to replacing ICANN)
resembles the internet governance forum proposed by
WGIG. The APC position also looked at transitional
arrangements to remove ICANN from US control and be
replaced by a multi-stakeholder body.

The replacement of ICANN by another body is unlikely,
but it is not unreasonable to argue for the
transformation of ICANN into a global body free of its
umbilical cord to the USG and globally accountable to
its stakeholders in governments, the private sector,
civil society and citizens. APC?s proposal in 2004 for
developing an internet governance framework could well
be seen in terms of developing an internet governance
convention.

Taking account of all the these factors, APC proposes
specific actions in each of the following five areas: 

1. The establishment of an Internet Governance Forum;

2. The transformation of ICANN into a global body with
full authority over DNS management, and an appropriate
form of accountability to its stakeholders in
government, private sector and civil society; 

3. The initiation of a multi-stakeholder convention on
internet governance and universal human rights that
will codify the basic rights applicable to the
internet, which will be legally binding in
international law with particular emphasis on clauses
in the universal declaration of human rights
specifically relevant to the internet, such as rights
to freedom of _expression, freedom of association and
privacy. 

4. Ensuring internet access is universal and
affordable.

5. Measures to promote capacity building in developing
countries with regard to increasing developing country
participation in global public policy forums on
internet governance.

Recommendations
1. Internet Governance Forum 

APC recommends13 that the UN Secretary General to
initiate a forum that incorporates the Geneva
principles for significant multi-stakeholder
participation. We recommend that the forum not be
anchored in any existing specialised international
organisation, but rather be organised as a legally
free-standing entity. Stakeholders from all sectors
must be able to participate in such a forum as peers.

Scope and Function

We recommend that the forum provide the following
functions:

inclusive dialogue, with a differentiated architecture
allowing for peer-level interaction. 
comparative, cross-sectoral analysis of governance
mechanisms, with an eye toward "lessons learned" and
best practices that could inform individual and
collective institutional improvements 
assessment and monitoring of horizontal issues
applicable to all internet governance arrangements,
e.g. the promotion of transparency, accountability,
inclusion, and other guidelines for "good governance,?
such as the WSIS principles; 
identification of weaknesses and gaps in existing
governance mechanisms, especially multidimensional
issues that do not fall neatly within the scope of any
existing body; 
efforts to promote enhanced coordination among
existing governing bodies  
provide a clearing house for coordination and resource
mobilization to supporting meaningful developing
country participation and capacity building; 
release recommendations, best practices, proposals and
other documents on the various internet governance
issues. 
develop partnerships with academic and research
institutions to access knowledge resources and
expertise on a regular basis. These partnerships
should seek to reflect geographic balance and cultural
diversity and promote cooperation among all regions. 
We recommend that operations are designed in such a
way that physical attendance is not strictly required
and disadvantaged stakeholders (developing countries,
civil society organisations, individuals) are
proactively supported. 

We recommend the forum have clear organisation and
decision-making procedures. It is also important that
the structure that will be given to the forum is able
to produce practical results.

The forum will not have a mandate to negotiate hard
instruments like treaties or contracts. However, in
very exceptional circumstances when all stakeholders
agree that more formal arrangements are desirable, the
forum could request an appropriate international
organisation to negotiate such instruments. The forum
focuses on the development of soft law instruments
such as recommendations, guidelines, declarations,
etc. in addition, the scope of the work of the Forum
should address the application of existing
international human rights instruments in the area of
internet governance and related public policy.

In addition, the scope of the work of the Forum should
address the application of existing international
human rights instruments in the area of internet
governance and related public policy.

In the context of the evolving public and technical
policy landscape of the internet there will be a need
to concretise binding international agreements that
relate to ensuring that nothing in existing or
emerging internet governance and related public policy
development impair, restrict, or contradict human
rights, as they are spelled out in the UDHR and
international law. The forum should monitor this
evolving landscape with a view to the initiation of a
process to concretise such international agreements.

Anchorage and legal identity 

We propose that initially the Forum NOT be anchored in
any existing international organisation.

We propose that the Forum be constituted as an
independent international organisation incorporated
under national law in any country that provides for
the legal establishment of international
not-for-profit institutions.

We propose that the process of convening and formally
constituting the Forum, as a free-standing legal
entity, take place under the oversight of the
Secretary General of the UN. 

Constituting the membership 

We propose the following steps, under the oversight of
the SG of the UN:

Establish transparent membership criteria that is
consistent with: 
The Geneva Principles on participation from multiple
stakeholder groups (paragraph 48 of the WSIS
Declaration of Principles) 
The technical, legal, public policy and other areas of
expertise required to respond to the range of issues
related to the BROAD definition of internet governance

Regional and linguistic diversity and the disparities
that exist in relation to economic development and
access to the information society, within countries
and between countries 
Convene a public nomination process that is open to: 
Governments 
Business entities 
The technical community 
Academic and educational institutions 
Civil society organisations 
Community based organisations and grassroots
communities 
At large committees of individual users, (or
'netizens'). These could either be formed on a
regional basis or some other basis, e.g. subject
matter affinity. 
Structure and functioning 

We endorse paragraph 46 of the WGIG report that
emphasizes a lightweight support structure.

Coordination of the work of the Forum can initially be
provided by a Forum Formation Team supported by a
small secretariat. The Team could consist of eight
members made up of two each from the three WSIS
sectors ? governments, private sector and civil
society and two from the community of actors involved
in technical aspects of internet development and
management. One of the two in each sector should be
from a developing country. The Team could have a one
year non-renewable mandate to work with the
secretariat to build the Forum. The Forum should be
established within four months of the Tunis summit.

The Team?s mandate could include: 

Drafting the member structure  
Developing an operational budget 
Resource mobilisation 
Identifying scope of work and mission of the Forum 
Calling on people to populate sub-groups so that work
could begin on specific issues while the Forum?s
membership and structure is being finalised 
Members of the Forum can self-organise into thematic
working groups on an as needed basis to respond to
both existing and emerging internet governance and
public policy challenges.

Meetings of the Forum
Meetings of the Forum and thematic working groups can
take place face-to-face and online.

An annual meeting should take place, face to face, and
be combined with a public event that maximizes sharing
of information, learning and good practice. The venue
should rotate. 

Access to the work of the Forum, and its thematic
working groups, should be facilitated by online tools
for example as is done by the IETF (Internet
Engineering Task Force).

Rotational and thematic meetings: 

In order to avoid creating a large supporting
structure to organize meetings, the Forum could work
with existing organisations to arrange meetings.
Depending on the issue being discussed and on a
rotational basis for yearly meetings, the work of the
Forum could be hosted by the participating
organisations, working in pairs, e.g. UNESCO and ITU,
OECD and a regional African entity like NEPAD?s
eAfrica Commission, W3C and IDRC or GKP. It should be
understood that this would not subordinate the agenda
of the Forum to the hosting organisation, but rather,
would constitute a donation in kind to the forum. The
notion of donation in kind to the forum could extend
beyond meeting organisation to other organisational
requirements, e.g. office arrangements for the
secretariat or printing costs.

2. Transformation of ICANN into a global
multi-stakeholder body

APC supports the transformation of ICANN into a global
multi-stakeholder body through the following measures:

The US government agreed in its June 30 Statement that
governments have legitimate public policy and
sovereignty concerns with respect to the management of
their ccTLD, and has welcomed the opportunity for
further dialogue on these issues. In keeping with
those statements, the US government should make a
formal and explicit commitment that it will take no
action to unilaterally remove a ccTLD from the root,
alter ccTLD root zone files, or contradict or veto
root zone file alterations approved by independent and
legitimate ICANN processes.

The full transfer of DNS management (including
oversight of the root zone file) to ICANN from the USG
on 30 September 2006. 
Appropriate commitments by the government of the
country that hosts ICANN should provide privileges and
immunities to ICANN to ensure that it is able to
provide a global service in accordance with its agreed
mission, being careful to retain those aspects of
ICANN's current articles of incorporation that enhance
its accountability to the global internet user
community. 
A process of further discussion (if agreement cannot
be reached at the Tunis Summit) about the question of
ICANN?s accountability to all its stakeholders as an
independent global body and an agreement to be forged
that would be incorporated into ICANN?s bylaws by 30
September 2006. 
Provision for the IANA function to be performed by
ICANN should be made by 30 September 2006. 
Change the VeriSign Cooperative Agreement and transfer
the coordinating functions to ICANN by 30 September
2006. 
3. Multi-stakeholder Convention on Universal Human
Rights and Internet Governance 

One of the questions running through the debate on
internet governance has been the extent to which there
should, or should not be, any legally binding
commitments agreed between governments and
stakeholders. The Geneva Declaration of Principles and
Plan of Action and the forthcoming Tunis outcomes
document are not legally binding on governments. They
constitute policy guidelines for building an
?Information Society?.

There have been sharp disagreements on the issue of
oversight and a simplistic reduction of internet
governance issues to a tussle over who should have
oversight over ICANN, which has been cast in terms of
whether control should lie with the USG or the UN. 

A great deal of anxiety has been generated over the
risks of governments having anything to do with
directly governing the internet. This position, held
by the US and echoed by the private sector and many in
civil society, believe that direct government
involvement can cause the internet?s stability and
security to be compromised. This reductive approach to
issues of stability and security has masked threats to
the internet posed by governments which routinely
violate human rights (with respect particularly to
freedom of _expression and the right to privacy on the
internet) with a panoply of laws and controls
excercises at national level. 

It is in this context, that consideration needs to be
seriously given to a legally binding agreement or
convention between governments with the participation
of other stakeholders, which can elaborate a human
rights framework for the internet.

Building on the APC Internet Rights Charter, APC?s
position on human rights in the information society14,
the WGIG report, the Internet Governance Project's
concept paper: A Framework Convention: An
Institutional Option for Internet Governance15 and the
Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public
Participation and Access to Justice in Environmental
Matters16, a multi-stakeholder Convention on Universal
Human Rights and Internet Governance could contain:

A definition of the internet 
A delineation of the human rights applicable to the
internet such as freedom of _expression, association
and the right to privacy as well as social and
economic rights such as the right to access the
internet. 
Agreements on when negotiations should take place,
which could lead to additional legal agreements in the
form of protocols to the Convention. 
Guidelines on public participation in decision-making
regarding policy-making on the internet with respect
to global, regional and national institutions, which
would include the participation of civil society and
the private sector. 
Guidelines for administrative decisions made by any
global, regional and national institution responsible
for internet governance to be subject to judicial
review at the instance of any person affected by the
decision. This would guarantee access to
administrative justice regarding the governance of the
internet. 
4. Ensuring Universal and Affordable Access to the
Internet: the 'global public good' concept 

Apart from being a logical infrastructure, the
internet is a physical network that connects people
and enables them to use it for achieving their full
potential in promoting their sustainable development
and improving their quality of life (Geneva DOP). 

The issues of universal access to physical
infrastructure for all people therefore comprise a
core issue that need to be addressed at the level of
global internet governance17.

The internet is a global public space that should be
open and accessible to all on a non-discriminatory
basis. The internet, therefore, must be seen as a
global public infrastructure. In this regard we
recognize the internet to be a global public good and
access to it is in the public interest, and must be
provided as a public provision.

The fact that since the internet is emerging as both
the principal commercial infrastructure, a platform
for the delivery of goverment services and interaction
between governments and citizens, as well as an
important social and developmental infrastructure,
means that the issue of its financing and the pricing
of services presents a peculiar challenge. If it is
priced on purely a commercial basis, the
socio-development possibilities of the internet will
be greatly compromised. 

With the convergence of platforms, and the resulting
?packaging? of internet access with commercial
services such as television and telephony there is a
risk that people who cannot afford commercial rates
for such services will be deprived of access to what
should be a global public service.

The digital divide should be converted into a digital
opportunity and ensuring harmonious, fair and
equitable development for all by building a ubiquitous
network society in which the internet can reach its
potential as a global public good, connecting the
world through the universal extension of the internet.


The following steps should be taken to ensure that
internet access is universal and affordable: 

Reducing international internet costs 
by redressing the uneven sharing of burden of costs
for international internet connectivity 
by eliminating exploitative monopolistic practices for
backbone provision 
by supporting the establishment of national and
international internet exchange points; 
by building local demand for national, regional and
international backbone networks; 
by reducing costs charged by backbone providers; 
b) Encouraging relevant organisations, including the
research sector, financing institutions and civil
society organisations, to continue the study of the
question of International Internet Connectivity (IIC)
and to develop appropriate recommendations;

Through public initiatives for backbone and internet
provision that, inter alia, leverage existing public
infrastructure like electricity and railway networks
and existing under utilised fibre and satellite
networks; 
Through regulatatory frameworks that encourage the use
of emerging technologies, such as wireless networking,
to close the last mile and extend access to
underserved areas; 
d) Eliminating exploitative monopolistic practices
that affect the provision of IP-based services,
including VoIP;

e) Exploring an open network access approach to
extending internet access in communities, particularly
through the promotion of SME and community networking;

f) Reconfiguring the mandate of national Universal
Access Funds to support internet connectivity,
applications and content development and capacity
building;

g) Exploring the development of local initiatives for
content and applications development;

h) Exploring the use of free and open source software,
especially for the provision of public services in
areas such as education, governance and health;

i) Promoting free-share or open content paradigm for
socio-development content on the internet, and
recognizing it as distinct from commercial content
that may require different IPR regimes. 

k) Developing low-cost equipment, especially for use
in developing countries. 

5. Measures to promote capacity building on internet
governance in developing countries 

The following measures need to be adopted to promote
capacity building in developing countries with regard
to increasing developing country participation in
global public policy forums on internet governance:

The technical internet community should increase its
funding and programs for capacity building initiatives
regarding internet governance in developing countries 
Donor agencies should increase their support for
capacity building on internet governance in developing
countries. 
A system of internships and exchanges should be
promoted to expose people dealing with internet
governance in developing countries to enhance their
knowledge and experience of internet governance
regionally and globally. 
Research and training centres on internet governance
in developing countries should be twinned with those
in developed countries to promote a transfer of
knowledge and skills. 
Support for persons in developing countries to attend
and participate in global internet governance fora
should be made available by donor agencies, ICANN and
ISOC. 
Academic and research institutions should be brought
into the process in terms of developing programmes to
further the goals of the Forum and of capacity
building in Internet Governance. Where programs
already exist, they should be consulted for their
expertise from the initiation of the project 
Contact Details:

Willie Currie, APC Communications and Information
Policy Programme Manager, wcurrie@xxxxxxx 

Karen Banks, APC Networking and Advocacy Coordinator,
karenb@xxxxxxxxxx 

http://www.apc.org 

http://www.apcwomen.org




1 
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/6_5_98dns.htm




2 
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/icann.htm




3 
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/domainhome.htm




4  See Internet Governance Project Concept Paper:
Political Oversight of ICANN: A Briefing for the WSIS
Summit, p3 www.internetgovernance.org 




5 
http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=1695|0




6  See Appendix for graphical representation of the
four models




7
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/USDNSprinciples_06302005.htm




8  http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/working/dt21.doc




9  http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/working/dt18.doc




10  http://rights.apc.org/charter.shtml




11 http://www.apc.org/books/policy_wsis_EN.pdf




12 http://www.apc.org/english/news/igov_index.shtml




13 Adopted from GLOCOM presentation at PrepCom-3 on
behalf of the Internet Governance Caucus of Civil
Society
http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/contributions/sca/GLOCOM-27.doc




14  Outlined on pages 13-14 in ?Involving civil
society in the information society?, APC, 2003.
http://www.apc.org/books/policy_wsis_EN.pdf 




15  http://www.internetgovernance.org/




16  http://www.unece.org/env/pp/documents/cep43e.pdf




17 See IT for Change and Bread for All submissions on
behalf of Informal Coalition on Financing to PrepCom-3
http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/listing.asp?lang=en?&c_event=pc2|3&c_type=co|scb





__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com