WSIS PREPCOM-3 Report 17/10/05
BACKGROUND
The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) is the result of an initiative from The United Nations (UN) and International Telecommunication Union (ITU) relating to the " Information Society" , especially as their collective vision applies to the "Digital Divide" issues. The objective is to create two main WSIS documents, the " Declaration of Principles" and the " Plan of Action" .
The UN and ITU seem to have their own view of the global " problems" created within the Information Society, and propose somewhat radical solutions, apparently based on consensus decision making.
Increasing importance is being given to Information and Communication Technologies (ICT' s), and the impact of ICT' s on people and communications. At the core is the Internet, primarily through the enablement of email, VOIP, IRC and other technologies for communications, and the World Wide Web (www) for information acquisition and electronic commerce.
The "Information Society" apparently provides new social organisation, based on information providing the key power. It is at least contestable that ICT' s do impact on the transformation of society and its behaviour.
The UN agency UNESCO commissioned the MacBride Commission Report (Many Voices : One World) in 1980, seeking to develop an understanding of the " Information Society" .
WSIS is part of the ongoing Information Society debate, and traces its roots to the1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. Not surprisingly, the ITU have subsequently taken the lead in organising the WSIS work undertaken in recent years, as it has become increasingly aware of the threat of Internet based technologies to their traditional main business model relating to telecommunications.
Since the UN' s " Millennium Goals" , this organisation has seen its WSIS role as one of facilitation.
RECENT WSIS PROGRESS
The WSIS process in recent years has been as follows:
FIRST (GENEVA) PHASE
PrepCom-1 July 2002
PrepCom-2 February 2003
PrepCom-3 Sept, Nov, Dec 2003
Geneva Summit 10 –12 December 2003
- " Geneva Declaration of Principles"
www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi-en-1626|0.asp
SECOND (TUNIS) PHASE
PrepCom-1 June 2004
PrepCom-2 February 2005
WGIG Report July 2005
www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=1695|0
PrepCom-3 September 2005
- Sub Committee A –Internet Governance
www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=2130|0
- Sub Committee B –Everything else
www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=2129|0
With PrepCom-3 having concluded, with perhaps more unfinished work than when it started, time is of the essence if useful final documents are to be available for the November Tunis Summit. It appears there will be 2 –3 days of additional activity immediately prior to the already scheduled 16 –18 November Summit. While the Summit was appearing to be a " Heads of State" congratulatory process for the WSIS work, it appears the drafting work will continue in haste at the 11 th hour, and possibly not reach a conclusion in time for the Summit.
While much of the WSIS work, such as Digital Divide, Cybercrime, Spam, multilingualisation etc. appears to have valid goals and outcomes, and in need of a structure to offer controls, the issues at the absolute core for UN and ITU relate to the root services of the Internet, which has evolved to become the true WSIS battleground. Without control of the Internet core services, there is no readily available funding model for UN / ITU to undertake the related work.
ICANN is the authority established by the US Government, to control the root services of the Internet. ICANN, and the IANA function are controlled through a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between that body and the US Department of Commerce (DoC).
From www.icann.org/tr/english.html:
ICANN- The global Internet community working together to promote the stability and integrity of the Internet
What is ICANN?
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is an internationally organized, non-profit corporation that has responsibility for Internet Protocol (IP) address space allocation, protocol identifier assignment, generic (gTLD) and country code (ccTLD) Top-Level Domain name system management, and root server system management functions. These services were originally performed under U.S. Government contract by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) and other entities. ICANN now performs the IANA function.
As a private-public partnership, ICANN is dedicated to preserving the operational stability of the Internet; to promoting competition; to achieving broad representation of global Internet communities; and to developing policy appropriate to its mission through bottom-up, consensus-based processes.
The initial MoU can be found at www.icann.org/general/icann-mou-25nov98.htm
The primary contention from UN and ITU is the legitimacy of ICANN to continue in its role, based on the fact that the US Government still authorises changes to the IANA database. The argument promoted is that no single Government should have a preeminent role, and secondarily, that sovereign rights of nations are improperly overridden by this preeminence.
PREPCOM-3 - MAJOR ISSUES
The core battles on Internet Governance centre around:
- The preeminent role of the US Government
This is purely political, and common sense suggests that it is inappropriate for the US Government to retain sole rights in perpetuity to authorise changes to the IANA database. But as the Internet is " managed" mostly within the constraints of technical security and stability, it seems doubtful that a UN / ITU / multi-Governmental solution could avoid keeping political issues in the background, and the ramifications of political issues overriding technical requirements should be of major concern.
- The sovereign rights of governments
Again, this issue is more political than pragmatic. The interpretation of the term " sovereign rights" is contentious. How far sovereign rights should be extended is also hotly debated, as some Governments see IP addressing, gTLD policies and other issues all being the subject of sovereign rights and decision making.
- Public Policy development globally and nationally
Some Governments want Public Policy development to be a requirement for all nations, truly seeking the " one size fits all" solution. Such stalwarts of freedom of expression, including China, Saudi Arabia and Iran seem most disposed to the requirement for global binding policy.
- Control of the IANA function, and therefore:
- Entry and updating of gTLD and ccTLDs in the IANA database
- IP address allocation processes
It seems difficult to imagine how political bodies like the UN or the ITU could manage a technical process of authorisation to the IANA database, especially for the ccTLDs. For example, China' s attitude to Taiwan within ICANN is one of acceptance, yet when projected into the UN / ITU arena, there would be no such latitude. Also, with around 193 UN " nations" and 240 ccTLDs, it is difficult to envisage a methodology the UN or ITU would adopt to deal with those 47 ccTLDs who don' t have Governments.
IP numbering is also a significant issue, with some Governments insisting that IP numbers are a matter of sovereign right, and the need for distribution on population or similar bases. There seems no regard for the logical, technical driven aspects of international routing created through the existing RIR mechanisms. There also appears to be a desire from some Governments to control, restrict or deny access for some citizens to IP numbers.
- Control and deployment of the 13 Internet Root Servers
There appears to be little understanding of the existing Internet architecture. The wide deployment of more than 100 mirror root servers in geographically diverse locations, along with the potential for many further deployments, has been welcomed by the technical community globally, yet seems to be an unacceptable solution to some Governments. Some Governments feel that as the US is home to most of the 13 root servers, this must be an undesirable preeminent US role.
Within WSIS there is a low level of knowledge and understanding of technical aspects of the above topics, and what the actual technical issues and existing practices are. Even though many players don' t understand what " it" is, they just don' t want the US Government to have control of " it" (whatever " it" is), justifying their stance on the basis of " it" being a matter of " sovereign rights" .
www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=2130|0 documents the current working draft of the Principles. The clauses in Chapter 3a should be of greatest concern to InternetNZ:
3a) Infrastructure and management of critical Internet resources
48. We call for the reinforcement of specialized regional Internet resource management institutions to guarantee each region' s right to manage its own Internet resources, while maintaining global coordination in this area.
49. We recognise that, for historical reasons, the authorisation of changes in the root zone file system of the Internet has rested with a single government. We express our appreciation for the way in which this task has been handled and w e recognize that all governments have an equal role and responsibility, for international Internet governance and for ensuring the stability, security and continuity of Internet. We also recognize the need for development of public policy by governments in consultation with all stakeholders.
50. We commit to the effort to reduce and eradicate all existing barriers to multi-stakeholder participation in international Internet governance and, in particular, to ensure:
- Transparency, openness and a participatory process.
- Participation in inter-governmental organizations, especially for developing countries, indigenous peoples, civil society organizations and small and medium sized (SMEs), at proportionate cost.
- That content produced by some inter-governmental organizations and other international organizations is not limited to members only and is available at an affordable cost.
- That the frequency and location of venues of global policy meetings allows stakeholders from more remote areas to participate.
- Establishment of a global mechanism for participation by governments, especially from developing countries, in addressing multi-sectoral issues related to global Internet policy development.
51. We seek to further extend the root server system to ensure its equitable distribution and to facilitate access and to improve the internationalization of the root server system.
52 . We recognize the need for legitimate, multilateral, transparent and democratic public policy setting and oversight over the root zone system and its future development.
53. We recognize the need for further development of public policies for generic top level domain names.
54. We further recognize that each government shall have sovereignty over its respective country code top level domains.
55. We seek to ensure an equitable distribution of IP addressing resources.
56. We recognize and acknowledge the vital role played by many existing organizations in the technical [management/development] of the Internet .
57. We strive to enhance/establish a new model/mechanism of international public policy cooperation and development relating to these critical internet resources, which builds on current structures and which implements fully the Geneva Principles.
58. Institutional arrangements for Internet governance should be founded on a democratic, transparent and multilateral basis with a strong emphasis on the public policy interests of all governments and taking into account the respective roles and responsibilities of other stakeholders as clarified in paragraph 49 of the Geneva Declaration of Principles .
59. Policies need to respond to the development of the Internet and other new information and communication technologies and systems.
The discussion on the models and mechanisms was laboured, and none of the 4 Internet Governance models proposed in the WGIG report appeared to receive any significant support.
David Gross, a senior US State Department official put forward the contention that the US Government did not intend to modify its current approach to Internet Governance. Details of the statement are at www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/USDNSprinciples_06302005.htm
The meeting deteriorated rapidly at this point, and in an attempt to provide some form of compromise, a number of new Internet Governance models were promoted, the extensive list of which is located at:
www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=2135|2136|2137|2138|2139|2140|2141|2142|2143
From further discussions, there appeared to be 4 emerging models that received support, the first being the US Government position (" business as usual" )
The next model that attracted attention was the EU/UK model (primarily sponsored by Germany and France), www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/working/dt21.doc, which was considered the " Europeanised ICANN" model.
The next model that seemed to gather useful support was the Argentine Model, www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/working/dt18.doc which is an " Enhanced ICANN" model, which primarily looked to strengthen ICANN's Government Advisory Committee (GAC).
Perhaps because of the growing support of the Argentine Model (and its disregard for involvement by the UN and ITU), the Chair of the Internet Governance Committee (Ambassador Masood Khan from Pakistan) promoted what he believed to be a compromise, but appears to actually be the most radical of any of the suggested models. The " Chairs Model" is located at www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/working/dt15.doc and the suggestion is that Pakistan will promote this model at the re-convened WSIS sessions.
WHERE TO FROM HERE?
From www.itu.int/wsis/preparatory2/pc3/index.htm:
Intersessional negotiation work
Under the Chairmanship of the President of PrepCom of the Tunis phase of WSIS, a Negotiation Group will meet in two consecutive sessions from 24 to 28 October 2005.
In its first session, on 24 and 25 October 2005, its objective will be to finalize the negotiation on the Political Chapeau and on the paragraphs remained in brackets of Chapter two of the Operational Part. In its second session, from 26 to 28 October 2005, the Negotiation Group will aim to finalize the negotiations on Chapters one and four of the Operational Part of the final documents of the Tunis phase.
It will be an intergovernmental negotiation process, to be held every day from 10.00 - 13.00 and from 15.00 - 18.00 hours in the Palias de Nations, Room XX, Gate 40. Interpretation in the six UN working languages will be provided. After each session, the President of PrepCom will inform the observers on the advancement of the work.
The concept of multi-stakeholder, consensus based decision making appears to have been overlooked in establishing this process, as these final drafting negotiations will solely involve Governments.
Resumed PrepCom-3 back to back to the Tunis Summit
The Prepcom Bureau decided that PrepCom-3 of the Tunis phase of WSIS will be reconvened on 13 November 2005, at 10.00 hours, in Tunis, for a three-day session (13-15 November 2005). The modalities of work of the resumed PrepCom-3 will follow the Rules of Procedure of the PrepCom, including the participation of observers in Plenary and Subcommittee meetings.
So after having the 4 further Geneva days with Government only input, the reconvening at Tunis is likely to include agreed Government text, which will therefore be difficult to challenge or modify by non-Government attendees at Tunis.
The actual Tunis Summit runs from 16 to 18 November.
RECOMMENDATIONS
That this report be received.
