Cracks appear in Fortress Internet
EU proposal rocks "status-quo" camp
The European Union signaled a radical shift of position on its
support for maintaining the Internet governance status quo, tabling a
bold new document on Wednesday night that proposed a new public-private
governance model, including an international multi-stakeholder forum.
Taking the floor half-way through Wednesday evening’s meeting of
Sub-Committee A, the UK delegate’s placid delivery belied the
ground-shaking import of the proposal, which represented a clear
departure from the “status quo” camp led by the US.
As proposed, the new model would foster development of public policy
principles, and include provision for equitable global IP number block
allocation, procedures for changing the root zone file system to
provide for insertion of new top-level domains and for changes of ccTLD
managers. It also includes open support for a new public policy forum
that would work with existing institutions and organizations to address
multi-dimensional and interrelated public policy issues without trying
to “dominate issues already dealt with elsewhere” or performing
oversight functions.
In an attempt to quell the buzz generated by the intervention, the
US delegation moved quickly to clarify its own position: any model must
ensure stability and security, be founded on a competitive market-based
approach, recognize private sector leadership, and support local
innovation at the edges of the network. “Under no circumstances”, the
US delegate said, would his country “take any action that would
adversely impact the security and stability of the Domain Name System,
and will maintain its historic role in authorizing changes to the root
zone file.”
Drafting groups strive for consensus
Egypt had made good progress on multilingualism. Several civil
society organizations took the floor to make statements. The Disability
Caucus stressed the need for accessibility guidelines that promote
disabled access to ICTs. The Cultural Diversity/Indigenous Peoples
Caucus advocated the inclusion of much more language on cultural
diversity and the needs of indigenous communities. “Cultural
diversity,” noted the speaker, is about much more than just
multilingualism.”
Face-off over implementation
Delegates faced-off against each other on the question du jour: who should be mandated to organize the WSIS follow-up?
At the regional and national levels, agreement was easily reached on
strengthening the role of regional commissions, with governments tasked
with organizing regional WSIS follow-up conferences. Delegates also
reaffirmed the importance of participation from civil society, business
and other stakeholders. However, follow-up at the international level
came under intense discussion.
Citing UN General Assembly Resolution 57/270B of July 2003 on the
implementation of UN summits, the UK, on behalf of the European Union,
opted for a WSIS implementation mechanism in the tradition of other UN
summits.
While no new agency would be envisaged under the EU plan, the UN
Secretary-General would act as the focal point for the coordination of
implementation efforts conducted by existing UN agencies. The USA,
Norway and others supported this proposal, while New Zealand called for
the UN Secretary-General to present an annual report on the WSIS
follow-up to ECOSOC or the General Assembly.
Key role for ITU?
On the other side of the fence, several countries favoured the
establishment of a special WSIS follow-up body - modalities to be
defined by the UN Secretary-General - to coordinate implementation,
conduct evaluation, and provide annual progress reports.
“If we don’t have a clearly defined body or person for coordination,
we would have failed,” said the delegate from Saudi Arabia, speaking on
behalf of the Arab group. “ITU is the entity best equipped to be a
coordinator.” Switzerland, host of the first phase of the Summit,
suggested that such a coordination body should be in place and working
by 2006.
The Nigerian delegate made an appeal for an effective and
well-coordinated implementation process to help alleviate hardships in
developing countries, while Ghana, speaking for the African group,
suggested a link to the follow-up of the Millennium Development Goals.
Chairman Shope-Mafole noted the UN system’s responsibility to
provide a specific follow-up mechanism. The question now, she said,
would be “to find a balance in the context of this resolution
(A/RES/57/270B)”, which contains a somewhat vague reference to
“relevant follow-up mechanisms”. Ms Shope-Mafole proposed taking the
issue to an ad hoc working group, as this is “probably the most
important point of the WSIS outcome. Let’s take some time,” she said,
“so that the result is a good one.”
Parallel events
Internet Governance Oversight Function
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR)
This second CPSR meeting, designed to foster dialogue on two of the
WGIG report’s most pressing issues - the forum and oversight
functions - began with a brief overview of the four models
proposed in the WGIG report. While Model 2 was identified as the option
favoured by a majority of civil society groups, it was noted that WSIS
discussions are only focused on a small subset of the many complex
issues that make up the debate.
Attempting to come to grips with some of these, panelists looked at
what oversight really means, whether ICANN could really become a global
organization, and which approach represents the best way forward. The
importance of involving all stakeholders on an equal footing, and of
encouraging cooperation, was emphasized.
Communication Rights and a Rights-Based Approach
Lutheran World Federation
Hosted by the Lutheran World Federation (LWF), this event made a
strong case for considering communication not only as an essential
human right, but also as an indispensable process in the promotion of
sustainable development and the realization of other basic human
rights, such as education, health and participation in cultural and
scientific activities. The panelists noted that the Information Society
is grounded on the right to communicate, which includes freedom of
expression and access to information through any media, but expands
into many other economic, cultural and political activities. In this
regard, Peter Prove of LWF noted that existing legislation already
provides powerful tools to promote communication rights.
During the session, members of LWF shared their experiences in
implementing a rights-based approach to promote the participation of
civil society in policy-making processes in El Salvador and to support
children rights to education and health in rural communities in India.
More at the WSIS web-site. |