Here's a good report on the results of the European Commission's latest IG forum. We must continue to be vigilant and insist on civil society's role in managing ICANN's remit should not be reduced but improved, deepened and institutionalized. Y'all can thank Wolfgang K. Carlton Samuels ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Date: 2009/5/8 Subject: [governance] EC IG Hearing To: governance@lists.cpsr.org Dear list additionally to Christopher Wilkinsions short first report here are some additional reflections about the hearing: 1. the good thing is that the Commission is now moving, although it is still unclear in what direction. My impression is that the High Level Group, where only the 27 member states are represented, have no consensus and are searching for a unified position. Insofar the Hearing was a good opportunity to let them know what the various stakeholders think about it. 2. Multistakeholderism is still not internalized into the Commission approach. While in theory the Commission supports the principle it has difficulties to translate this principle into their own internal procedures and understandings of PDP. There is also a mixed approach to civil society. They want to have them in but they do not have a real clue and strategy how and who. 3. There is a broad and 100 per cent consensus amont member states and the european community (at least the groups represented in the room) that the IGF is a good thing, is an innovation in international politics and should be further strengthened (also by a more intensive involvement of European governments and parliamentarins) 4. There was no support for any new type of intergovernmental mechanism for IG (neither G 12 nor IG 20 nor ITU). The GAC was seen as the main channel where governments can express their positions. However there was no room to discuss this more in details, inter alia how to improve and enhance the procedures for interaction among GAC and ICANN Board, in particular with regard to issues with a public policy dimension (veto right for the GAC? On which basis? Quroum for GAC participation etc.) 5. There was some criticism on ICANN with regard to accountabilty and internationalization however ICANN was seen as the best of all the bad solutions. There was a clear feeling that ICANN has to improve further, in particular with transparency, accountability, internal multistakeholder mechanisms and internationalization. 6. There was no clear proposal for a post JPA arrangement. There was also no idea how to deal with the IANA contract. The proposal by the Commissioner was not discussed in detail, but it got mixed reaction and was atered down as a "personal reflection" and a "contribution to the debate". 7. Security and DNSSEc plaid an important role. Also IPv6. The contributions came here from the tehcnical community and there was no opposition to their statements. In my interventions I raised a number of issues including * more transparency in the work of the High Level Group * more practicial implementation of the multistakehooder princpal in practical EU PDPs * stronger support for European CS by the Commission (also a concept how to enable CS (and ressource them) to make the European CS voice heard in the IGF and ICANN context. * support for the EURODIG concept as an all-European platform which would go beyond (but include) commission, council and parliament. Lets wait an see what the effect of the hearing will have in the coming weeks. Best regards Wolfgang I was also in Lisbon but had no time to report back,. The best report is the article by Monika Ermert in Intellectual Property Watch. http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/04/28/2009-world-telecom-policy-forum-al...; http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/04/28/2009-world-telecom-policy-forum-al...
BTW Lisbon was just for governments and private sector members. Individual Internet users were allowed to listen but not to speak. When I asked the chair whether he woukld allow me to speak he (it was my fellow man Abdullah from Saudi Arabia a formerWGIG member) told me that I can send a written contribution which will be posted on the website but I had no right to speak. It was even worse than WSIS 2002.