[Chapter-delegates] Update from WSIS PrepCom in Tunis

[shears at isoc.org]

Dear all,

Please find below a report on the highlights from yesterday's sessions in
Tunis.

Should you have questions, comments, don't hesitate.  Also please share
any insights, intelligence.

And if you are at WSIS, don't forget to come by the Internet Pavilion.

Best,

Matthew

--------------------------------------------------------------


PrepCom 3 Resumed in Tunis, 13 November 2005.

Sub-Committee A on Internet Governance

After brief opening comments, the session moved straight into
Sub-Committee A, picking up where the discussion had left off in Geneva.
Opening statements from the CCBI and the Chinese delegation left no doubt
in the minds of others present that the diversity of views had not
lessened since Geneva.   As was to be expected, a number of countries
talked about, inter alia, a role for the UN,  either with regarding the
Forum or oversight mechanisms, the need for recognition of the legitimate
concerns of governments regarding ccTLDs, while others called for
safeguarding the security and stability of the Internet.

After an hour of general statements the Chair took the temperature of the
room by summarizing the debate at that point.  He noted that the group
worked on a basis of consensus and that they only had some 13 hours of
negotiating time left.  He noted the polarized range of views and used
this to focus on the common ground, seeking to move forward in that area.
A number of delegations agreed with this approach going forward and the
Chair asked Canada and a smaller group of countries to work up a list of
consensus areas.  During the Canadian-led discussion there was general
agreement on the need for some sort of a Forum function, among others, BUT
this was qualified by recognition that the agreement was subject to
further discussion and reaching agreement on its mandate.

Sub-Committee B on the Political Chapeau, Financial Mechanisms and
Implementation and Follow-up (thanks to Sebastian Ricciardi from the ISOC
Argentinean chapter for his report).

While not as contentious perhaps as the discussion on Internet governance,
and with text closer to finalization, discussion in Subcommittee B
revolved around a cluster of sensitive issues: human rights, freedom of
expression and sovereignty.  Recognizing the diversity of views on these
issues, Iran and Norway were asked to enter into informal consultations
and come up with a language for read-out the following day.

Discussion of other complicated and wide-ranging issues such as the gender
divide, corporate responsibility of transnational corporations and
assistance to children followed, although in the latter case it was not
possible to address them in any specificity.  Another area of controversy
related to technology transfer with suggestions that “preferential terms”
should be used in international documents – the United States, among
others, said that most technology transfer is done by the private sector
and that they should determine the terms under which such transfers should
be undertaken.

As to implementation of WSIS follow-up, two schools of thought became
apparent regarding detailing the stakeholders who would undertake such
follow-up.  The group that proposes a full listing of involved parties and
their respective roles – largely UN/ITU and other intergovernmental
organizations – one the one hand, and the group that wishes to be less
prescriptive and more flexible as to how does what on the other.  Concerns
related to multi-stakeholder participation were also raised in this
context, with a focus on not prejudging who might implement that
follow-up.

Finally, there was agreement for the need for a World Information Society
Day, date to be decided.