---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 15:54:54 +0900 (KST) From: Chun Eung Hwi <[log in to unmask]> Reply-To: [log in to unmask] To: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask] Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Unofficial personal report of Sub-com II Yesterday Afternoon session Yesterday afternoon, I was in Sub-Committee II meeting. In my view, that time was one of highlights of this 3rd PrepCom of WSIS, because many governments showed up what their positions were for a few most contentious paragraphs of the draft Declaration of Principle Document. My observation is that in a word, it presented a very ruthlessly cold reality of the present world as it is. This is one unofficial personal note, but not a monitoring report of civil society group. However, this short note could be helpful for your understanding what is happening in PrepCom III of WSIS. Afternoon session dealt with para. 34 to 54 ( last part Declaration of of Principle Document) - here a few contentious issues which were representing the most conflicting views of governments such as IPR, internet governance, and financial source proposal of solidarity fund are contained. Most comments of governments were very short because for most governmental delegations, only a few modification seemed to be required to the draft document, but they felt to show up the necessity of clarifying what their positions were on those contentious issues - contrasting views were very clear-cut or the draft text have some sharply contrasting bracketed alternative phrases. 1. Regarding solidarity fund (ph. 53)- UNESCO mentioned that they don't want to make new fund for ICT support and the existing financial mechanisms like World Bank or IBRD and etc. should be used for this purposes. And this position was strongly supported by most advanced countries including the U.S., Japan, Canada. Canada delegate added that we had so many financial mechanisms and they are supporting many ICT development projects. Whereas most African countries and developing countries strongly supported the proposal of solidarity fund which could be used for building up the communication infrastructure of developing countries. 2. Regarding internet governance (ph. 44 and alternative phs. 1 or 2) - Draft document have three options - contentious points are two - one is whether new governing body should come up or not and whether it is international or intergovernmental one, the other one is whether the policy authority of country code top level domain should be the sovereign right of each country or not. Option one of "international, intergovernmental organization" (definitely means ITU) and ccTLD policy authority in the hands of national sovereignty (alternative 1st of 44) was supported by Middle East countries including Syria, Vietnam, Indonesia and many African countries. Whereas the other option demanding only more transparency and geographical diversity (alternative 2nd of 44) and seemingly supporting the present ICANN was supported by Japan, Malaysia (the present Chair of Government Advisory Committee of ICANN is Malaysian) and finally EU. China chose the present article of 44 which is being supported by most countries but Chinese delegate added that they want to use the word of "intergovernmental" rather than "international" organization. (the present text has the bracketed words of [intergovernmental/international]. The chair of ICANN GAC - Mohamed Sharil Tarmizi clarified recently as follows - "International by definition means everyone is involved, from governments to private sector and civil society. Whereas intergovernmental gives an indication that only governments are involved and not necessarily the people.'' (Refer to http://news.com.com/2102-1028_3-5077101.html ) 3. Regarding intellectual property right (ph. 40c) : Most advanced countries and even some developing countries argued to add one more sentence implying that the existing intellectual property right regimes like WTO TRIPs or WIPO treaty should be kept. Most developing countries including Cuba, Brazil, India and Indonesia supported ph. 40C emphasizing the balance between owners and users of intellectual property. Walking out from the meeting place after the end of afternoon session, I met one friend of civil society group and I said to him "Wake up from your dream! It could be helpful for your healthy." ------------------------------------------------- Internet governance related phrases of Draft Principles Document 44. [The international management of the Internet should be democratic, multilateral, transparent and participative with the full involvement of the governments, international organisations, 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 the 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 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] organisations.] alternative text 1 for 44 [Internet governance must be multilateral, democratic and transparent, taking into account the needs of the public and private sectors as well as those of the civil society, and respecting multilingualism. The coordination responsibility for root servers, domain names, and Internet Protocol (IP) address assignment should rest with a suitable international, inter-governmental organization. The policy authority for country code toplevel-domain names (ccTLDs) should be the sovereign right of countries.] alternative text 2 for 44 [The international management of the Internet should be democratic, multilateral and transparent. It should secure a fair distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and ensure a stable and secure functioning of the Internet. It should respect geographical diversity and ensure representativeness through the participation of all interested States, including public authorities with competence in this field, of civil society and the private sector, with due respect to their legitimate interests]