WSIS PrepCom Seen Likely to Remain Divided on Internet Governance
Internet governance issues won’t be solved in Tunis during the 2nd World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) this year, officials said last week after a preparatory meeting in Geneva. The issue was the subject of heavy PrepCom 2 debate, with the group divided even on who should prepare a preliminary draft agreement.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
While some delegations urged PrepCom Chmn. Janis Karklins to present a draft in order to start negotiations at PrepCom 3, other delegations, including the U.S., were strongly opposed. “We should have a document from the Working Group on Internet Governance [WGIG] that would make proposals for action, full stop”, said the U.S. State Dept.’s Richard Beaird for the U.S. delegation. The WGIG report is to be given in Geneva on July 18 and discussed at PrepCom 3. But some delegations already presented their preferred models for the future organization of Internet governance during PrepCom 2’s 2-week session that just ended in Geneva.
The most radical proposal comes from U.S. critic Brazil. “We are ready to come to an agreed Declaration of Principles in Tunis as we are also ready to take action in Tunis to launch negotiations on an international treaty on Internet governance specific issues,” said the Brazilian delegate during the Thurs. plenary discussion. Several delegations aligned themselves with Brazil, many complaining about the “absence of any internationally agreed regulatory regime,” as the Iranian representative put it, for global Internet infrastructure issues like operation of the root zone file. The Internet was developed in a jurisdictional vacuum and it’s now time to remedy that under WGIG guidance, he said.
Algeria recommended a World Council of Internet Governance. The Council concept, styled after the ITU, would have an oversight body consisting of volunteering govts. and an executive body selected by the World Council to carry out the work between the Council’s sessions. Wolfgang Kleinw?chter, a prof. at the U. of Aarhuus and WGIG member, said he could envision a U.N. Internet Nations Internet Governance Communication Group, Unig.cog, that would yearly to report to U.N. member states through the U.N. secretary general. The U.N. Assembly then could take action if problems were identified. Compromising with the many WSIS delegations that want international govts. and the U.N. more involved, Kleinw?chter said the proposal is a way to implement the so-called multistakeholder model. Civil society groups already are pressing for participation in any post WSIS actions.
According to Kleinw?chter, ICANN is still clearly supported as the organization for domain name management by the U.S. and would be more acceptable to govts. if the question of internationalization were solved.
Last week, a representative of the Swiss Regulatory Body Ofcom had asked for international follow-up to the current ICANN MoU. Unlike previously, there wasn’t much debate about the role of ICANN’s Govt. Advisory Committee (GAC) on one side or ITU’s role on the other. Karklins during a press conference Fri. said that what made the situation difficult was that public law determines relations between govts., and international private law governs relations between companies that manage the Internet: “So how can we create this interface between the 2 systems of law?”
What is clear, according to insiders, is that the Internet governance issue won’t be solved in Tunis. “We should be realistic,” said Karklins.