, 27 July 2005 World Bank Washington DC, 27 July 2005 Markus Kummer Executive Coordinator Secretariat of the Working Group on Internet Governance The Report and Process of the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG)

The WGIG mandate -A fact finding mandate: -“To investigate and make proposals for action, as appropriate”. -Core: -What is it all about and who is or should be doing what. -Not a mandate to make a proposal for a sweeping regime change

The focus of the report -The WGIG core mandate: -Addressing three questions: -What is it all about? -What are the issues? -Who does what?

What is it all about?  “Internet governance is not just Internet names and addresses.” The term ‘Internet governance’: >“…includes other significant public policy issues, such as critical Internet resources, the security and safety of the Internet, developmental aspects and issues pertaining to the use of the Internet.”  “…reinforces the concept of inclusiveness of governments, private sector and civil society in the mechanisms of Internet governance…”

Working definition “Internet governance is the development and application by governments, the private sector, and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet.” *****  Governance means more than governments and involves all stakeholders.

Guiding principles -WGIG recognizes some guiding principles and factors: -“in particular, the WSIS principle relating to the stable and secure functioning of the Internet”; -“the open and decentralized nature of its architecture and the underlying techno- logical development of its core standards, as well as the management of names and numbers”.

One cross-cutting WGIG priority: development -WGIG to be placed in WSIS and MDG context. -Two aspects: -Effective and meaningful participation in Internet governance arrangements; - Building of capacity to address Internet governance issues.

Identifying public policy issues -Broad approach, no potentially relevant issue excluded. -Issues grouped into four key public policy areas. -Report brings list of highest priority issues to the attention of the WSIS, such as: -Administration of the root zone files and system; -Allocation of domain names; -IP addressing; -Interconnection costs; -Internet stability, security and cybercrime; spam; -Multilingualism; -Data protection and privacy rights; consumer rights; IPR -Freedom of expression; -Developmental priorities: capacity building and meaningful and effective participation.

The different roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders -Roles and responsibilities can vary according to issue or function of the problems that are being addressed. -“…each group will have different interests, roles and participation, which in some cases will overlap”. -The academic and technical communities “make a permanent and valuable contribution to the stability, security, functioning and evolution of the Internet.” -“The WGIG also […] noted that there is scope to improve coordination…” between IGOs and other institutions.

Recommendations (1): Forum function -Report identifies a vacuum within the context of existing structures -Proposal to create a space for dialogue among all stakeholders to address Internet related issues that: -are cross-cutting and multi-dimensional, as well as emerging issues; -either affect more than one institution, are not dealt with by any institution, or are not addressed in a coordinated manner.  Based on cooperation with academic institutions;  Contribution to capacity building in developing countries.

Recommendations (2): Oversight function -Further internationalization based on WSIS principles: Multilateral, democratic, transparent. -Should not interfere in day-to-day operations. -Four options for oversight arrangements with varying degrees of government involvement, ranging from: -No new government oversight organization; -Internationalized, but limited oversight; -Strengthened government oversight (two different options).

Recommendations (3): Institutional coordination -Improve coordination between existing institutions at all levels: - Intergovernmental organizations such as ITU, WIPO,UNESCO; - Internet institutions, such as ICANN, ISOC / IETF, W3C, NRO, RIRs, CENTR.

Recommendations (4): National policies Importance of national policies and coordination among all stakeholders. >relationship between ccTLDs and governments; >shaping of “Internet friendly” policies; > models for national Internet governance arrangements (Internet Steering Committees); >Methods: peer review and best practices.

Recommendations to address Internet-related issues Recommendations on priority issues: -some addressed to the various Internet governance mechanisms, -some not attributed to any specific institution. -List of issues: -Administration of the root zone files and root server system of the domain name system; -IP addressing; -Interconnection costs; -Internet stability, security and cybercrime; spam; -Freedom of expression; -Meaningful participation in global policy development; -Data protection and privacy rights; consumer rights; -Multilingualism.

The Background Report The WGIG also produced a more comprehensive background report. -Complementary to report, not the same status (non-consensus report). -Sums up discussions throughout WGIG process. -Incorporates comments made by stakeholders.

Importance of process -Process was as important as substance – process was the major issue in WSIS negotiations. -Process from the conception of WGIG aimed to be in line with WSIS: - “open and inclusive”; -“full and active participation of all stakeholders”. -WGIG developed a process that allowed all stakeholders to participate on an equal footing in open consultations.

Way forward? Maybe the WGIG report and process (the WGIG “acquis”) can provide the basis for: -Continuation of a structured multi- stakeholder debate on Internet related public policy issues? -Setting the agenda for the future debate?