---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 15:05:09 +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] 3rd Unofficial personal report of Government's ad-hoc group for Internet Governance Yesterday evening, at 6:30 P.M. I attended again to the governments' working group meeting for Internet Governance in wondering how much time I could be there. Then, fortunately I could be present there until the ending time. But assuming I could be in the next meeting only for 5 minutes, I want to record this in detail as much as possible. At the beginning, there was a briefing/introduction on ICANN, which was presented by Dr. Paul Twomey, President/CEO of ICANN. I remember around 25 minutes was used for his presentation. And in my feeling, as expected, his presentation was impressively successful. When he introduced himself and ICANN at first, he emphasized he had worked in government of Australia and one leader of GAC(Government Advisory Council ) of ICANN. He described that ICANN is international and at that time introduced Mr. Mouhamet Diop, one board member of ICANN and CEO of one ICT company of Senegal. I don't know why he came here and why only he was invited here among many ICANN board members. He didn't say even any one word there, but his African traditional clothes was very beautiful and enough good to demonstrate or persuade that ICANN is truly international (?). Anyhow, in my understanding, ICANN may be international, but precisely speaking there is no change in the fact that it is legally one non-profit foundation based on California State law of the U.S. Paul Twomey emphasized that ICANN is seeking public-private partnership in describing GAC and although I suspected momentarily my ear and I also don't know well of it, he described that GAC has 86 member countries. His presentation had five points - what ICANN is, what ICANN is not, Public-Private Partnership, Redelegation procedure of ccTLD (country code top level domain) transition, the future of ICANN. Regarding the procedure of ccTLD transition, Paul Twomey said that is very cautious process and its transition procedure depends on each country's rule or their internet community. He said that each government is always important in this transition process. But there are many different ways applied because of different and diverse situation of countries. Although I forgot most of his very succinct and clear explanation, he emphasized ICANN's scope is very narrowly technically defined and its function has worked from its earlier date of Internet and for a couple of decades. But his last point regarding the future of ICANN - it seemed to be very attractive to most governments and even to myself because I have rarely heard such an explanation before. If my memory is correct, over last many ICANN meetings, many people asked questions on this, but only poor and very vague answers had been got back. But Paul Twomey explained very clearly and firmly on this part even to an extent that nobody could have any suspect on that point. Given the importance of his explanation on this part, I copied his last presentation slide as it was written. Of course, when transition could be done remained very ambiguous even in his clear words. ----------------------------------------------- Completing the transition from the U.S. - final step - further internationalization - staff, materials, education, skills transfer, presence - transition from US backstop function ------------------------------------------------ There were two question and answers on his presentation. The first question was very good. It was "You just said that ICANN's scope is very technical one, but the creation of new gTLD (generic top level domain like .com, .net, .org) is so technical?" Paul Twomey's answer was very excellent. Yes, it may have many aspects of ICT business and even some public policy. Regarding business aspects, there is one issue of monopoly of gTLD. ICANN's principle is to promote competition to this business. And in relation to public policy aspect, that is why public-private partnership is so important in ICANN. GAC's - governments' opinion on public policy related issues has always been very seriously being taken into account at ICANN Board. The other question came from Uganda delegate - "Concerning on each ccTLD, what ICANN can do for its technical skill?" His answer was that ICANN doesn't have enough resources and but there is such a school that ICANN should provide for something to those needs. Such an issue might be discussed in WSIS context. Due to the limited time span, after two questions, the chair requested some people who have more questions to go outside and ask him directly. Some people went out together with Dr. Paul Twomey. Maybe, since afternoon session, that working group organized one team for drafting compromise document. And they submitted one new draft and disseminated it to all participants. It is just discussion draft, but I rewrite it here as it is - It is very short. New TEXT - The international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments as well as the participation of the private sector, the civil society and international organizations. The management of the Internet encompass both technical and policy issues. - The private sector has had and must continue to have a lead role in the development of the Internet at the technical level. - Public policy authority for country-code top-level domain names (ccTLDs) should be the sovereign right of countries, and its management should rest with the respective government or with a relevant public authority. - International issues related to public policies and to the national interest should be coordinated, as appropriate, on an intergovernmental basis, under the UN framework. That document was put on the table and participants' comment was open. One delegate requested to add one more bullet sentence as the fourth one. - "Facilitating the multilingual domain name registration" Next speaker was Chinese delegate. (Horrible to all observers in hearing its country name called and such an expectation has never been betrayed even this time) His short remark reminded the chair of rules of procedure that make observers leave in negotiation process. Chair quickly responded by requesting observers to leave out. Alas! So, I should leave. Then, abruptly, one person of civil society participants rebuffed the chair's request. "Depending on rules of procedure, at least five minutes should be given to observers for speaking their concerns". That argument was very correct, and so chair allowed observers use ten minutes. He made a very good comment on the draft document. His point was two. One is that at the first bullet sentence, "multilateral" is inappropriate word. Multi stakeholder concept should be clearly described there. And secondly, regarding ccTLD (third bullet sentence), multistakehoder principle should be reformulated even to national level. Later, I confirmed the speaker was Bertrand Chappelle. Momentarily, in my brain, Meryem's comment that multistakeholder concept is not yet a consensus of civil society community was reminded, but anyhow I think his short comment was very important and valuable at the meeting. When I slowly put materials in my bag for leaving, Brazilian delegate made new proposal. His request was very interesting. "We, Brazil, and some other countries which are taking common position on this issue should discuss together and I have not yet consulted with my government. Therefore, I propose to have another comment session tomorrow morning" He mentioned some countries - Cuba, South Africa, China and at least two more countries (unfortunately I forgot it) sharing the same position. Chair accepted his request and declared to close the meeting. This morning, I will attend to the working group meeting again, but definitely I must be kicked off after five minutes attendance. -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Chun Eung Hwi General Secretary, PeaceNet | phone: (+82) 2-2166-2205 Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81 | pcs: (+82) 019-259-2667 Seoul, 158-600, Korea | eMail: [log in to unmask] ------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Plenary mailing list [log in to unmask] http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary