1 / 22

WSIS Geneva Unresolved Issues

This article discusses the unresolved issues in internet governance, including the scope of governance and responsibilities of stakeholders, as well as financing mechanisms. It also explores the roles of ICANN and the United Nations in internet governance and the need for meaningful participation of developing countries. The article highlights the establishment of the Working Group on Internet Governance and its role in addressing these concerns.

mlonnie
Télécharger la présentation

WSIS Geneva Unresolved Issues

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. WSIS Geneva Unresolved Issues Adam Peake GLOCOM Tokyo http://www.glocom.ac.jp

  2. WSIS Geneva: Unresolved Issues • Internet Governance = UN SG Working Group: • what is IG; public policy issues involved; who should be responsible • Financing Mechanisms = UN SG Task Force: • review existing mechanisms; recommend improvements; assess feasibility of a Digital Solidarity Fund

  3. Internet Governance • Confused discussion: • over the technology of the Internet • the organizations involved in "governance" • and what problems were to be addressed • But a focus on ICANN • With concern over general public policy issues and impact of the Internet. Policy being made and many not present or aware (meaningful participation of developing countries in ICT policy processes)

  4. Outcome: Working Group on Internet Governance • No agreement so asked the UN Secretary General to setup a working group to: • Develop a working definition of Internet Governance • Identify the public policy issues relevant to Internet Governance • Develop a common understanding of the respective roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders • Issue a report for the Tunis phase

  5. The Summit Explained • 2 Camps on 2 issues in the final negotiations • Scope of Internet governance: • Narrow Definition of the Internet (ICANN and technical issues) • Broad Definition on the Internet (Internet pricing and interconnection, spam, network security, privacy and trust, etc.)

  6. The Summit Explained • Responsibility for Internet governance: • Internet Governance handled by an Inter-governmental Organization under the UN (ITU?) • supported by mainly developing nations • Status quo, the current system works • supported by mainly developed nations • Positions haven't changed very much • Why the working group? WSIS too closed, UN gives the authority of governmental process

  7. WGIG - Civil Society • Independent: The Working Group on Internet Governance should be independent of the WSIS preparatory meetings (PrepComs) • Membership balanced between sectors • Members should serve as peers • Balanced between participants from developing and developed countries • Open and trasnsparent processes

  8. WGIG established • Chairman Nitin Desai + 39 members • Balance: 18 Government, 6 Private Sector, 15 Civil Society • 21 from developed countries • 9 Female • IGO, etc. as observers? • WGIG 1st meeting Nov. 23, 24, 25 • ACSF WGIG Video Conference, 2:30 Room A

  9. What's wrong with ICANN • ICANN's contract to administer the root servers specifically prohibits ICANN from making any "modifications, additions, or deletions to the root zone file or associated information that constitute delegation or redelegation of top level domains" without permission of the US Department of Commerce. • Implications for appearance of TLDs in the root and who runs a ccTLD are significant (my ccTLD may disappear… I can't decide who runs it.)

  10. WGIG Consultation (09/20-21) • Brazil "It is a myth that there really is such a thing as independent, private sector management of the Internet addressing system. In fact ICANN's MoU with the US Dept Commerce reveals that it is closer to a government"

  11. WGIG Consultation (09/20-21) • China: • Time to move from private sector leadership to government leadership and control, with private sector and civil society participation • The biggest problem of today's Internet is the lack of legitimate organization under the UN

  12. Internet Governance beyond ICANN:Spam • Destroying the Internet, 80%+ of all email • ITU is a major player • Working Group and WSIS as a means to encourage national coordination and international collaboration • OECD, ICPEN, others? • Civil Society needs to decide how to engage

  13. Internet Governance: Cyber-crime • Model law: Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime • First comprehensive attempt at a truly global approach to cybercrime, scope that includes everything under the definition of online criminal activity • Some very significant weaknesses • Multi-stakeholder WGIG might bring a comprehensive global view to the problems and identify needs for revision/improvement

  14. Internet Governance: broadly • Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) and language • Interconnection and Internet Pricing • Network and Information Security • Intellectual Property • More?

  15. WSIS Financing Mechanisms • Prep Com 2, February 2003, President of Senegal suggestion on the transfer of resources from North to South: • Digital Solidarity • Digital Solidarity Fund based on voluntary donations • Promoting South-South cooperation for the development of infrastructure, applications, services and capacity building

  16. Digital Solidarity: reaction • Strong support from across the developing world, particularly Africa, also China, Brazil and India • Strong resistance from US, EU and Japan • Exisiting mechanisms fine, and don't revisit Monterrey Concensus • Private Sector also objected to the creation of new funding mechanisms, particularly any tied to the ITU

  17. Outcome: Task Force • Geneva Summit asked the UN Secretary General to convene a Task Force to • review existing financial mechanisms • recommend improvements • assess the feasibility of a Digital Solidarity Fund • Report by December 2004 and submit to WSIS for government political negotiation

  18. Task Force on Financing Mechanisms: progress • APC paper by Johnson and Accuosto • Task Force launched 4 October 2004 • Scope mainly to analyze existing mechanisms • Consultations held prior to launch, physical and online(http://www.wsis-online.net) • Civil Society is not well represented and the process not transparent • Not sure what the output will be: • findings or recommendations

  19. Task Force Report • Highlights financing gaps and opportunities, e.g. • Backbone infrastructure • Access/last mile issues • Capacity development • Pro-poor licensing and regulatory reforms • Review of main financing mechanisms

  20. Digital Solidarity Fund • Launched by city governments, December 2003 • Re-launch as a formal organization and fund, scheduled for November 17. Postponed after the crisis in the Ivory Coast. • Founders as of October 1st 2004 Republic of Senegal, Dominican Republic, City of Dakar, City of Geneva, City of Lyon, City of Paris, City of Santo Domingo, City of Curitiba, Province of Torino, Province of Rome, Urban Community of Lille, Basque Country

  21. Digital Solidarity Fund? • Unclear if this is the Fund discussed in WSIS? • Organizers say it is! • Website http://www.dsf-fsn.org/ • Report will be published by end December: real debate may begin then

More Related