Dear colleagues,
Thanks Israel and Alexey for sharing Rev1 and for the analysis comparing it with the Zero Draft.
The Rev1 clearly reflects progress shaped by active and constructive government inputs from many countries. Wearing my second hat as part of the Lebanese delegation to the WSIS+20, I want to share that several positive input from the joint contribution of Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan have been taken into account, notably the reference to the NETmundial+10 Guidelines.
These developments signal a welcome shift where regional perspectives are gaining traction and helping shape a more balanced and inclusive outcome. It's worth noting that Lebanon will also be represented at the regional WSIS+20 High-Level Meeting and Open Consultation for the Arab region in Dubai tomorrow and Wednesday, continuing to engage on Rev1 and the WSIS+20 process.
_______________________________________________Israel,
Thank you for this comprehensive comparison between the Zero Draft and Rev 1. Also, in preparations towards the WSIS+20 review Open Door Session 1 and 2 on 12 November please find attached our initial take on the text of the Rev. 1:
Removed text in para 87:
We reaffirm the principle agreed in the Geneva Declaration of Principles that the management of the Internet encompasses both technical and public policy issues and should involve all stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international organizations, within their respective roles and responsibilities, as set out in paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda. We reaffirm that effective Internet governance must preserve the open, free, global, interoperable, reliable and secure nature of the Internet, and reject models of state-controlled or fragmented Internet architectures.
Comment: Removing the first sentence is not a problem, as Geneva Declaration of Principles are reconfirmed in the introduction, but the removal of the last few words from the last sentence is not a good development; I guess they decided to remove text that was controversial for some of the UN Member States. We might see if the fragmentation of the Internet architectures could be introduced in new para 89 (see below).
Changed text in para 88From: We recognise the need to promote greater participation and engagement in Internet governance discussions of Governments, the private sector, civil society, international organizations, the technical and academic communities and all other relevant stakeholders from all countries.
To:
We recognize the need to promote greater participation and engagement in Internet governance discussions of all stakeholders from all countries.
Comment: while the removal of the stakeholders might seem important, the technical community is mentioned in three other instances (para 53, 57 and 103).
Combined text from different paras into a new one, 89:
From:
106. We recognize that the Internet is a critical global facility for inclusive and equitable digital transformation. To fully benefit all, it must be open, global, interoperable, stable and secure.
107. We recognise that the open, interoperable nature of the Internet has underpinned the development of an extraordinary range of services and applications, reaching across the range of human society including governance, economy, development and rights. We reaffirm the need to promote international cooperation among all stakeholders to prevent, identify and address risks of fragmentation of the Internet.
To:
89. We recognize that the Internet is a critical global facility for inclusive and equitable digital transformation. The open, interoperable nature of the Internet has underpinned the development of an extraordinary range of services and applications, reaching across the range of human society including governance, economy, development and rights. To fully benefit all, it must be open, global, interoperable, stable and secure. We reaffirm the need to promote international cooperation among all stakeholders to prevent, identify and address risks of fragmentation of the Internet.
Comment: mostly editorial changes, but opens the possibility to ask them to change “fragmentation of the Internet” to “fragmentation of the Internet architectures” and maybe the sentence “To fully benefit all, it must be open, global, interoperable, stable and secure” to “To fully benefit all, it’s technical functioning must be open, global, interoperable, stable and secure”.
New para 93:
We take note of the NETmundial+10 guidelines for multistakeholder collaboration and consensus-building, endorsed in April 2024, as a contribution to strengthening Internet governance through inclusive participation, balanced representation and openness.
Comment: it’s good NETmundial+10 is mentioned, seems like Brazil’s contribution.
New text for the IGF in para 100: The Internet Governance Forum should continue to serve as an inclusive platform for dialogue among all stakeholders, while further strengthening the engagement of governments and other stakeholders from developing countries in discussions on Internet governance and emerging technologies.
Comments: seems like a good addition, as asking for increased engagement of governments and other stakeholders, in particularly from the developing countries.
There is no change in the decision to make the IGF a permanent forum.
Comment: that’s good.
The disappointing points are:
• IMSB is not mentioned (they did a lot of work);
• para 73 deleted reference to "refraining from undue restrictions, such as Internet shutdowns, arbitrary and unlawful surveillance or online censorship" that could be found in para 88 and 89 from the Zero Draft; and
• recognition of "the management of the Internet as a global facility includes multilateral, transparent, democratic, and multi-stakeholder processes" to describe Internet governance in para 87 was also deleted (it was previously in para 104 of the Zero Draft).
Attention should also be paid to the following points:
- enhanced cooperation pp. 90 and 91 are in the Section on Internet governance. In the WSIS+10 outcome document the enhanced cooperation was moved to a separate subsection 4.1 This signified its separation from “4. IG Section”. Some member states with the codified, civil law system (Russia, China, most of South America, Africa, Europe, etc.) may also view this as a significant development.
- On Building confidence and security in the use of ICTs Section please note that member states are introducing a term: “critical Internet infrastructure”, – that is new to the WSIS terminology. Tunis Agenda mentions "Critical Internet Resources", WSIS+10 does not mention this at all. Inclusion of this terminology into the confidence and security section could influence how the states may view the discussions in the UN 1st Committee on the new ICT Convention.
Best,
Alexey
From: Israel Rosas via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org>
Reply-To: Israel Rosas <rosas@isoc.org>
Date: Saturday, November 8, 2025 at 10:06 AM
To: Alejandro Pisanty via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org>
Subject: [wsis20] Re: Rev1 is released
As a follow-up, in case it’s useful, please find attached an *unofficial* comparison between the Zero Draft and Rev1 in track changes.
Isra Rosas, Director, Partnerships and Internet Development
Internet Society
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20
Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/
_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.