Thanks Al for your continued coverage. We are too busy here in Paris...
Following is the final language presented from the Government Working Group
to the Chair yesterday. As you see, there is now no direct reference to Domain
Name and IP address management. If you read this carefully you may find some
contradicting elements. Actually, the Working Group members had thought
they reached to a consensus for the last paragraph, according to Japan, EU,
Australia and UK delegations, to use only "international" but not
"intergovernmental"
but the final draft appeared in the official document added
"intergovernmental" and
put them into square brackets. EU delegate pointed out in the plenary that this
was not the consensus document, but the chair took it as is and the debate will
be continued in PrepCom 3 in Geneva.
[44. International Internet management:
The international management of the Internet should be democratic,
multilateral, transparent and participative with the full involvement of
the governments, intergovernmental organizations, private sector and civil
society. This management should encompass both technical and policy issues.
While recognizing that the private sector has an important role in the
development of Internet at the technical level, and will continue to take a
lead role, the fast development of internet as the basis of information
society requires that governments, take a lead role, in partnership with
all the other stakeholders, in developing and coordinating policies of the
public interests related to stability, security, competition, freedom of
use, protection of individual rights and privacy, sovereignty, and equal
access for all, among all the other aspects, through appropriate
[intergovernmental/international] organization.]
The Working Group on this matter was held the night before yesterday,
and Observers (Civil Society, private sector) were allowed to participate,
including some interventions which were appreciated by chair and most
members, received no objection by any government delegate. Being informal
and with expert comment, it was very interesting and constructive we thought.
But I am sure the debate will continue, perhaps even after PrepCom3, as there are
clear frustration to the overall framework of ICANN, especially that they
have MoU
with US Government that is interpreted as American domination over Internet
core resources. I do not agree with that interpretation, but more efforts
should be
made from ICANN/USG side to make ICANN process much more accountable,
open, with appropriate and proactive outreach and publicity programs, at least.
And, much more attention should be paid to the civil society participation
to ICANN process - which is almost too late, but still needed.
izumi
At 09:54 03/07/18 +0800, you wrote:
>FYI
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Bill McIver <mciver@albany.edu>
>To: <ct@wsis-cs.org>; WSIS CS Plenary <plenary@wsis-cs.org>
>Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:38 AM
>Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Civil Society Priorities Document (7/15)
>
>
> >
> > All,
> >
> > Participants agreed to remove the last
> > paragraph of the Governance section.
>
>Al: For those not in the plenary lists, there was a lively debate on
>reference to internet governance and the dynamics of ICANN. The main debate
>centered on text referring to the shortcomings of ICANN (which is widely
>accepted) but apparently linked to an agenda by some governments to take it
>over and have probably ITU govern the domain name/numbers system.
>
>There was no consensus, and the time was very short. Not sure if this was
>extensively discussed in the CS Plenary in Paris. Apparently, the solution
>for now is to drop the questionable paragraph. (You can refer to the last
>draft before this sent out to the list.)