Thông tin tài liệu
Copyright © 2005 United Nations ICT Task Force
All rights reserved. Except for use in a review, the reproduction or utilization of this work or
part of it in any form or by electronics, or other means now known or hereafter invented,
including xerography, photocopying, recording, and in any information storage, transmission
or retrieval system, including CD-ROM, online or via the Internet, is forbidden without the
written permission of the publishers.
The views expressed in this book are those of their individual authors and do not necessarily
reflect the views or positions of the United Nations ICT Task Force, the United Nations
itself, any of its organs or agencies, nor of any other organizations or institutions mentioned
or discussed in this book, including the organizations to which the authors are affiliated.
Published by
The United Nations Information and Communication Technologies Task Force
One United Nations Plaza
New York, NY 10017
unicttaskforce@un.org
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude to the many people who make this publication possible.
Markus Kummer, the Executive Coordinator of the Secretariat supporting the Working Group
on Internet Governance (WGIG), was an early and enthusiastic supporter of the project and
provided guidance and the requisite resources. The former members of the WGIG and of its
Secretariat staff who contributed chapters did so on short notice and in good cheer, even when
this meant dragging laptop computers on their summer family holidays. The staff of the United
Nations ICT Task Force Secretariat, located in the Department of Economic and Social Affairs
of the United Nations, provided excellent and equally rapid support in the copy editing and
production phases.
Special thanks go to Sarbuland Khan and Sergei Kambalov for their trust and support in
opening the United Nations ICT Task Force Series to this project, Enrica Murmura who
skillfully oversaw these efforts, and Serge Kapto who dedicated his technical skills to the
production of this book. Thanks too to the Graphical Design Unit of the Outreach Division of
the Department of Public Information for providing the cover design. Finally, very special
thanks go to my wife, Michiko Hayashi, for her support and equanimity about yet another
“working vacation.”
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface vii
NITIN DESAI
Introduction 1
MARKUS KUMMER
The Dynamics of Multistakeholder Collaboration: WGIG and Beyond 7
A Brief History of WGIG 9
DON MACLEAN
A Reflection from the WGIG Frontline 25
FRANK MARCH
The WGIG Process: Lessons Learned and Thoughts for the Future 31
TAREK CHENITI
Internet Governance: Striking the Appropriate Balance Between all Stakeholders 35
WILLY JENSEN
WSIS, WGIG, Technology and Technologists 41
AVRI DORIA
The Current Landscape of Internet Governance: Selected Issues 47
Internet Names and Numbers in WGIG and WSIS: Perils and Pitfalls 49
ALEJANDRO PISANTY
Multilingualism and the Domain Name System 67
KANGSIK CHEON
International Internet Connections Costs 73
BAHER ESMAT AND JUAN FERNÁNDEZ
Intellectual Property, e-Commerce, Competition Policy, and Internet Governance 87
C. TREVOR CLARKE
Internet Governance and International Law 105
JOVAN KURBALIJA
Internet Governance: Strengths and Weaknesses From a Business Perspective 117
AYESHA HASSAN
Self-Regulation After WGIG 129
PENG HWA ANG
The Development Dimension 135
Driving the Public Policy Debate: Internet Governance and Development 137
HOWARD WILLIAMS
Encouraging Internet Public Policy Development and Capacity Building in
Developing Countries: Lessons from the FLOSS Community 149
CHENGETAI MASANGO
The Case for National Internet Governance Mechanisms 155
WAUDO SIGANGA
vi
Challenges for Africa 161
OLIVIER NANA NZEPA
Challenges for the Caribbean 169
JACQUELINE A. MORRIS
Options for Institutional Change 175
The Need for International Internet Governance Oversight 177
ABDULLAH A. AL-DARRAB
Internationalized Oversight of Internet Resource Management 185
QIHENG HU
A Scenario for a New Internet Governance 193
CARLOS AFONSO
De-Mystification of the Internet Root: Do we need Governmental Oversight? 209
WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER
Oversight and multiple root server systems 227
VITTORIO BERTOLA
Proposal for the Establishment of an Internet Governance Forum 235
CHARLES SHA'BAN
Conclusion 247
Why the WGIG Process Mattered 249
WILLIAM J. DRAKE
Annex 267
About the Authors 269
PREFACE
Or, more accurately, an afterword on how we got there
Nitin Desai
The Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) was an experiment that worked. That
much is clear from the compliments heaped on its report by the participants in the Preparatory
Committee (PrepCom) of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). How did this
unlikely combination of forty individuals from very diverse backgrounds, each with strong
views on what needs to be done or not done, end up producing a unanimous report? Now that
the exercise is over, as the Chairman of this Group I feel more able to respond, at least partially
to this question.
The Group was fortunate in that the Office of the United Nations Secretary-General allowed it
to work without interference. It was also very fortunate to have in Markus Kummer an
Executive Coordinator who brought to bear his knowledge of the issue, his substantial skills as
a diplomat, and his typically Swiss efficiency. All this helped. But I believe a large part of the
answer lies in the sequencing of work and the ease with which those who were not in the
group could keep track of and contribute to its deliberations.
The first challenge was to ensure a genuine dialogue in the group. When a group with very
divergent views converses, the biggest hurdle is to get people to listen rather than just talk.
Ideally, one wants a good faith dialogue that each person joins not to convert, but to be
converted. The WGIG’s discussions did not quite meet this standard. But the conversation
definitely moved beyond a dogmatic statement of set views. Everyone made an effort to
explain the logic behind their view and put their argument in terms that could convince others.
To do that they had to listen and respond to the doubts and questions raised. Instead of talking
at one another, the members started talking with one another.
The members of the group were there as individuals. But they had been chosen to reflect a
balance across regions and interest groups. There was always a risk that what any person said
would be dismissed on ad hominem grounds like, “what do you expect from someone who
comes from such-and-such country,” or “that person is bound to reflect the views of such-
and-such vested interest.” These sentiments may well have been felt but they were never
expressed or allowed to distort the basic protocol of treating every argument on its merits.
The primary credit for this constructive protocol for the dialogue within the group rests with
its members. I hope that as a chair I helped it along as I asked questions to educate myself
about the intricacies of Internet governance. I believe that a crucial difference was made by the
viii
substantial academic presence in the group, as these members brought to the group the ethic of
treating every debater with respect. Of course, this did tend to make every conversation a little
longer than it would have been in a more business-like group! But as a chair, I welcomed this
because it reinforced the mutual respect between the group members.
The WGIG also decided against getting into the difficult issue of making recommendations
too early. In fact members began their work with a thorough exercise in problem definition.
This phase was crucial in creating a sense of joint responsibility. More than that, by
deconstructing the problem, they shifted the terms of the debate away from rhetoric, slogans
and simplifications to very precise organizational, institutional or policy issues. For example,
the discussion of root zone file changes looked at all the steps involved and focused on the
authorization function. The deconstruction exercise helped greatly in separating public policy
functions from operational and technical management issues.
The analysis and deconstruction of the problem was a very collaborative exercise. Group
members connected with one another through voluminous e-mail and other means and
produced group drafts. The analysis was largely factual, but getting people to agree on a
description of how things actually work was often enough to resolve differences about how
they should work. More than that, the group members who had put in so much hard work
developed a vested interest in the success of the process.
Much of the work done by the WGIG on problem definition and deconstruction is contained
in the Background Report rather than in the Main Report of the Group. The Background
Report is not an agreed report in the sense that every member of the group has not signed off
on everything said therein. But the report is a product of a collaborative exercise, so one may
think of it as a report by the group but not of the group. It has been made available so that the
raw material that was used by the group in developing its Main Report is widely accessible.
The group had reached this stage of problem definition by February 2005, but it had not yet
started any systematic discussion about the recommendations that it would make. This posed a
minor problem as the WGIG, which was launched in November 2004, was required to submit
a preliminary report to the February 2005 WSIS PrepCom. We did present our assessment of
what we saw as the public policy issues, but little or nothing on matters like the definition of
Internet governance, roles and responsibilities. My job as the chair was to take the heat from
the PrepCom and allow the group to pace its work in a manner that would maximize the
chances of a unanimous report.
Throughout the process the WGIG followed a very transparent process for connecting with
the wider constituency outside. Every meeting of the group included an open consultation. The
ix
documents that were considered within WGIG were put on-line before these meetings so that
all stakeholders could send in their comments, and many did.
These open consultations were part of the original design. They were necessary to meet the
concerns of those countries that did not want a small group process, but rather a full
intergovernmental meeting. In practice the open consultations proved particularly valuable in
affording an opportunity not just to governments but also to other stakeholders to find out
where the WGIG was heading and try to push it in the directions they preferred. The scale and
level of participation in these open consultations was truly extraordinary. I would particularly
note the full and committed participation of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers (ICANN), the Internet Society (ISOC), and other entities involved in Internet
management at present. Hopefully, their presence reassured both the governments and the
private sector.
The openness helped to maintain the interest of the Internet community and media outside the
PrepCom. It gave them material to report and comment on. I believe it also stimulated
academic interest in places like the Berkman Center at Harvard University, the Oxford Internet
Institute, and the Internet Governance Project at Syracuse University in New York.
The open consultations had the paradoxical effect of reinforcing the WGIG’s sense of self-
identity. Group members did refer to the views presented at the open consultations. They were
influenced by the weight behind different positions as evidenced in these open meetings. But
they became increasingly conscious that their job was to write their report, not a report on the
views expressed in the consultations.
By April 2005 the Group had started talking about recommendations, but the real discussion
was to be at the final June meeting. Usually the group met in the United Nations’ premises in
Geneva. This allowed a certain amount of informal interaction between group members and
other stakeholders. However when it came to drafting the final report, a more secluded
environment seemed necessary. The WGIG had in any case shared so much with the
stakeholders that no surprises were in store. The secretariat arranged to take everyone to a
conference centre on the outskirts of Geneva.
Well before the group met in Chateau de Bossey in June 2005, it had developed a camaraderie
and team spirit. People knew one another and what they could expect in an argument. There
was a real sense of ownership, and a commitment to get an agreed report despite the
differences that remained. The atmosphere in the Chateau helped in promoting a certain
bonhomie. The group members, thrown together not just for the meetings but also for all meals
and convivial evenings in the fine garden, became friends who had differences on substantive
x
matters but who were prepared to find a way through out of a sense of responsibility and
friendship.
The discussions at the Chateau were intense and tempers occasionally frayed. My job as the
chair was to keep the process moving, cajole people toward compromise, lighten the mood
when the going got rough, and once in a while simulate anger! But the Group members rose to
the task and practically everyone pitched in contributing some text to the final product.
The most difficult issue was that about institutional arrangements for global public policy
oversight. It soon became clear that a single view would not emerge and would in fact be
misleading, as it would not reflect the diversity of opinions within the group and in the wider
community outside. We correctly decided that we were not a substitute for the political process
in the WSIS PrepCom and that our duty was to spell out options clearly rather than to find a
compromise. Had we presented just a single option, then all those outside who disagreed with
that option might have rejected the rest of the report, which contained valuable suggestions.
In the end the WGIG produced a unanimous report. There was no note of dissent. It was not
a report that replaced the need for a broader political process. But it was a report that made it
possible for such a process to start further down the road to the ultimate compromise.
The WGIG began with forty experts who were often suspicious of one another. It ended as a
group of forty collaborators who were convinced that they had fulfilled their duty and were
proud of what they had wrought. The challenge now is to reproduce in the wider community
the same sense of engagement, dialogue, understanding and constructive compromise.
[...]... progress on the basis of the documentary record, as contained in papers published on the WGIG web site and in e-mails exchanged among the members of the group A concluding section provides some personal views on the principal themes that flowed throughout the WGIG process, the 10 | Reforming Internet Governance: Perspectives from WGIG main factors that shaped the working group s story, and the kinds... join the group of the dates for the first meeting at the beginning of the month so that they could make travel arrangements In line with the decisions of WSIS-I, the forty members of WGIG who assembled in the Palais des Nations represented government, the private sector and civil 1 See Markus Kummer, The Results of the WSIS Negotiations on Internet Governance, ” in Don MacLean, ed., Internet Governance: ... participants once multi-stakeholder processes are over? The history of WGIG may have as much to say about these kinds of questions as it does about Internet governance 24 | Reforming Internet Governance: Perspectives from WGIG A REFLECTION FROM THE WGIG FRONTLINE Frank March Other contributors to this book outline the history of the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), how and why it was established,... that had guided the development of the Internet, as well as the WSIS principles that had guided the working group in carrying out its terms of reference Since these principles would be presented in the Introduction to its Final Report, the group concluded that they would not need to be repeated in the chapter dealing with the definition of Internet governance, and that the definition therefore should... coordinate Internet governance at the national level To facilitate action in response to these current governance challenges and others that arise in the future, there was a general feeling among WGIG members that it would be useful to have a global Internet governance forum where all stakeholders could meet on an equal footing However, although there was general agreement in the group on the main Internet governance. .. function; an oversight function; a function to improve coordination of existing international governance mechanisms; and a function to improve coordination of national governance mechanisms WGIG members were encouraged to use the Plone work space to post their replies to the questionnaire, to keep track of their colleagues’ answers, and to continue their discussions In addition, a separate version of the. .. its discussions the group reached consensus on the general meaning of the term governance as distinct from “government”, and on the range of issues, actors, organizations, and activities that would need to be captured in order to have a satisfactory working definition This progress was duly reported to PrepCom-213 In addition to beginning work on the definition of Internet governance, the group took... appropriate, on the governance of the Internet by 2005 The group should, inter alia: i) develop a working definition of Internet governance; ii) identify the public policy issues that are relevant to Internet governance; iii) develop a common understanding of the respective roles and responsibilities of governments, existing intergovernmental and international organizations and other forums as well as the private... to the internal version of the questionnaire23 In addition, four governments and seven WGIG observers responded to the public questionnaire24 Writing the Report The fourth and final WGIG meeting, which took place from 14-17 June 2005, began with open consultations at the headquarters of the International Telecommunication Union, which are across the street from the Palais des Nations in Geneva When WGIG... drawn from the Preliminary Report, as well as from the draft working papers on Internetrelated public policy issues and existing governance arrangements In addition, as agreed at the third meeting the document included sections on the general principles that had guided the development of the Internet since its inception and on the WSIS principles that had guided WGIG’s work, as well as a draft chapter on . in the success of the process.
Much of the work done by the WGIG on problem definition and deconstruction is contained
in the Background Report rather. that the other stakeholders involved in the discussions on Internet
governance had a valid contribution to make their competence gave them legitimacy.
The
Ngày đăng: 22/03/2014, 21:20
Xem thêm: Reforming Internet Govermernance- Perspectives from the Working Group on Internet Governance pptx, Reforming Internet Govermernance- Perspectives from the Working Group on Internet Governance pptx