Re: [ga] APC's Recommendations to the WSIS

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

As for myself this portion out of the WGIG says everything we have been saying regarding the re-establishment of the GA and ALAC;
 
"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." 


Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.


=== message truncated ===
		
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.