[Chapter-delegates] Update from WSIS - Monday 14 November

[shears at isoc.org]

Dear all,

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

Best,

Matthew


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


Sub-committee A on Internet Governance

The discussion opened with Canada giving a read-out on the points of
consensus that had been agreed the night before.  As was expected the
discussion quickly turned to oversight and new models after a number of
statements related to ccTLDs and the role of government.  The discussion
turned to ICANN and the role of the GAC in particular, with a number of
delegations suggesting that change was not moving fast or far enough.
Other countries also suggested that new rules were needed for gTLDs,
mentioning the XXX domain name issue.   The Chair called the meeting to a
close and suggested that he distribute a new Chair’s paper for the section
related to follow-up mechanisms.  The paper was introduced in the
afternoon after two presentations by ICANN, one from the President and one
from the Chair of the GAC addressing the proposed evolution of the GAC and
its role in ICANN.

The Chair’s paper (see link below) built on the Canadian group areas of
consensus and also elaborated considerably on the Forum function, moving
directly to a proposal for an Internet Governance Forum.  There were a
range of comments from delegations from outright support to immediate
bracketing (not agreed) of significant portions of text.  It was at this
juncture that Australia, Canada and the United States indicated their
concern with the role of the UN Secretary General in establishing the
Forum and proposed that ISOC be considered in that capacity.  Shortly
thereafter the meeting was adjourned and split into three working groups
to address different parts of the Chair’s text.  Upon read-out of the
working groups, and specifically the working group reviewing the Forum
text, there appeared to be no consensus for ISOC’s role, but this issue is
not yet closed.   We understand that comments supportive of ISOC’s role in
the Forum (rather than convener) were made by a number of delegations.
Discussions continued but were characterized by significant bracketing of
text.  The meeting was adjourned and a new text was to be prepared for the
following morning.  It is not yet clear what the outcome of these
discussions will be as much is still in play.

Additional information:  there is a continuous effort to downplay the role
of the existing players with the intent of marginalizing their role going
forward.  This position is usually accompanied by the call for some need
for additional (government) oversight.

http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=2125|2247|2246|2255