The
Working Group on Internet Governance
(
WGIG) was a
United
Nations multistakeholder
Working
group initiated after the 2003
World Summit on the
Information Society (WSIS) first phase Summit in Geneva to
agree on the future of
Internet
governance.The first phase of World Summit on the Information
Society (WSIS) agreed to continue the dialogue on Internet
Governance in the Declaration of Principles and Action Plan adopted
on 12 December 2003, to prepare for a decision at the second phase
of the WSIS in Tunis during November 2005. In this regard, the
first phase of the Summit requested the United Nations
Secretary-General to establish a Working Group on Internet
Governance (WGIG).
The WGIG was asked to present the result of
its work in a report "for consideration and appropriate action" for
the second phase of the WSIS in Tunis
2005.
The main activity of the WGIG was "to investigate and make
proposals for action, as appropriate, on the governance of
Internet by 2005."
The WGIG was asked to present the result
of its work in a report "for consideration and appropriate action
for the second phase of the WSIS in Tunis
2005."
It was asked, inter alia, to deal with the following issues:
- Develop a working definition of Internet Governance;
- Identify the public policy issues that are relevant to Internet
Governance;
- Develop a common understanding of the respective roles and
responsibilities of governments, existing international
organizations and other forums as well as the private sector and
civil society from both developing and developed countries.
A few weeks before the release of the WGIG Report the U.S.
reiterated its claim of
ICANN and stated that
it wished to "maintain its historic role in authorizing changes or
modifications to the authoritative root zone file"
[160989].
Membership
The chair of WGIG was
Nitin Desai, and
the executive coordinator was
Markus
Kummer.
The 40 official members are listed in the final report; in
addition, there were many people attending the meetings to
contribute their views.
View of Internet governance
The report of the WGIG divided Internet Governance into four
sections:
Proposals
Four
options for the management of Internet-related public policy issues
were proposed in the Final Report of the WGIG, finalised during their
fourth meeting, and presented to stakeholders on 18 July 2005 in preparation for
the November 2005 meeting in Tunis, Tunisia
.
These proposals all include the introduction of an open
Multi-stakeholder based Internet Governance forum to give greater
influence to the stakeholders around the world, including civil
society, private sector and governments. Each model also included
different strategies for the oversight role, currently held by the
United States Department of Commerce.
The proposed models were:
- Create the Global Internet Council (GIC)
consisting of governments and involved stakeholders to assume the
U.S. oversight role of ICANN.
- Ensure that ICANNs Governmental Advisory Committee is an
official forum for debate, strengthening its position by allowing
for the support of various governments.
- Remove the U.S. oversight of ICANN and restrict it to the
narrow technical role, forming the International Internet
Council (IIC) to manage most aspects of the Internet
administration.
- Create three new bodies:
- The Global Internet Policy Council (GIPC) to
manage "internet-related public policy issues"
- The World Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers (WICANN) to take over from ICANN
- The Global Internet Governance Forum (GIGF), a
central debating forum for governments.
Timeline
Analysis
Some critics have hinted that the idea that the world's countries
require a more "equal" say in Internet governance, masks the desire
by some governments to conduct
censorship
or monitor their citizens more effectively (
EFF on Internet Governance).
Fears that increased "governance" will bring with it more
regulation and fees have been expressed. IT experts have expressed
doubts that a U.N. body that does not necessarily know enough about
the Internet will effectively coordinate the Internet
technologically. The director of ICANN has expressed concerns that
some of the changes proposed represent a government-focused
"top-down" philosophy, and that this is incompatible with the
current "bottom-up" structure of the Internet mandated by US
policy. The U.S Government's negotiating position in Tunis Prepcom
3 was flexible on the principle of global involvement, very strong
on the principle of multistakeholder participation, but inflexible
on the need for US control to remain for the foreseeable future in
order to ensure the "security and stability of the Internet". This
generally showed itself in U.S. support for proposals allowing
other governments to have a larger role in the management of their
ccTLDs, but no change to the management or control of the root zone
file.
The majority of stakeholders want to avoid a politicisation of the
Internet, and some consider the effort of the WGIG as launching a
set of alien and dangerous terms and ideas. Others believe that it
has been an important forum for discussion of the often contentious
issue of Internet Governance, as well as a model for
multistakeholder cooperation.
Some feel that either of the alternatives is better: a division of
the Internet or a defense of the status quo. The United States has
traditionally considered its function as a defender of citizens'
rights worldwide, which is one reason it wants to keep the Internet
free for private individuals rather than overly regulated by
governments or international organisations. Some of the options
presented in the WGIG Report may be seen by some as too
government-oriented, while one option reflects the status quo, and
may be seen as being too US-centric.
The final agreements reached in Tunis
The Tunis Agenda (paras 29-82 concern Internet
Governance) and the
Tunis Commitmentinclude the formation of the
Internet Governance Forum. No agreement was reached on the
oversight function.
See also
References
External links
Wikis
Map
Search
