diglib: Fwd: [IFLA-L] Governance of Internet

[Carol Hixson <chixson@darkwing.uoregon.edu>]

Some of you are probably aware of the controversy over the
governance model. In any case, this is worth being aware
of.

Carol


> Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 10:55:22 +0200
> To: ifla-l@infoserv.inist.fr
> From: Danielle Mincio <Danielle.Mincio@bcu.unil.ch>
>
> -->
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> The 3rd PrepCom of the SMSI will be held in Geneva 19-30 september 2005.
> The main subject will be the governance of Internet and the choice between 
> 4 models or the creation of a new model (combination of the 4 models). The 
> Internet governance is fundamental for the libraries and for the future of 
> the information Society.
> You'll find behind the 4 models in Englis with a glossary. You'll find the 
> complete text on 
> http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=1695|0 in all 
> the UN languages (french, spanish, russian, chinese and arabic.
> If you have comments or proposition don't hesitate to send those to the list.
>
> Kind regards
> Danielle
>
> Model 1
> This model envisages a Global Internet Council (GIC), consisting of 
> members from Governments with appropriate representation from each region 
> and with involvement of other stakeholders. This council would take over 
> the functions relating to international Internet governance currently 
> performed by the Department of Commerce of the United States Government. 
> It would also replace the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC).
> The functions of the GIC should include:
>         o       Setting of international Internet public policy and 
> providing the necessary oversight relating to Internet resource 
> management, such as additions or deletions to the root zone file, 
> management of IP addresses, introduction of gTLDs, delegation and 
> redelegation of ccTLDs.
>         o       Setting of international public policy and coordination 
> for other Internet-related key issues, such as spam, privacy, 
> cybersecurity and cybercrime, which are not being fully addressed by 
> other existing intergovernmental organizations.
>         o       Facilitating negotiation of treaties, conventions and 
> agreements on Internet-related public policies.
>         o       Fostering and providing guidance on certain developmental 
> issues in the broader Internet agenda, including but not limited to 
> capacity-building, multilingualism, equitable and cost-based 
> international interconnection costs, and equitable access for all.
>         o       Approving rules and procedures for dispute resolution 
> mechanisms and conduct arbitration, as required.
> The relationship between the GIC and technical and operational Internet 
> institutions, such as the reformed and internationalized ICANN, should be 
> formalized. In this model, ICANN will be accountable to GIC.
> The GIC should be anchored in the United Nations.
> For the issues dealt with in this body, the governmental component will 
> take a leading role. The private sector and civil society will participate 
> in an advisory capacity.
>
> Model 2
> There is no need for a specific oversight organization.
> It may be necessary to enhance the role of ICANN's Governmental Advisory 
> Committee (GAC) in order to meet the concerns of some Governments on 
> specific issues.
> The forum, as proposed in section V.A.1 above, with full and equal 
> participation of all stakeholders, could, in addition to the various 
> functions set out therein, provide coordination functions for 
> participating stakeholders and produce analysis and recommendations on 
> some issues.
> This forum would provide a coordination function for participating 
> stakeholders by creating a space in which all issues involving the 
> existing Internet governance organizations could be openly discussed. 
> These discussions will be enabled by the transparency of the participating 
> organizations and participation should include a commitment to transparency.
> The forum would also interact with or create specific issue initiatives to 
> produce analyses or recommendations on different Internet-related issues. 
> The initiatives should include all the stakeholders involved in the issue 
> and would make recommendations to the forum and to the stakeholders.
>
>
> Model 3
> For policy issues involving national interests, given that no single 
> Government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international 
> Internet governance, an International Internet Council (IIC) could fulfil 
> the corresponding functions, especially in relation to ICANN/IANA competencies.
> In addition, its functions might include international public policy 
> issues relating to Internet resource management and international public 
> policy issues that do not fall within the scope of other existing 
> intergovernmental organizations.
> For those issues, the governmental component of the IIC will take a 
> leading role, with the private sector and civil society providing advice.
> Equally, the IIC could perform a fostering role for certain developmental 
> issues on the broader Internet agenda.
> The new body could make the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) redundant.
> This internationalization should be accompanied by an adequate 
> host-country agreement for ICANN.
>
> Model 4
> This model brings together and addresses three interrelated areas of 
> Internet policy governance, oversight and global coordination, and 
> proposes structures to address the following challenges:
>         o Public policy development and decision-making on international 
> Internet-related public policy issues led by Governments.
>         o Oversight over the body responsible at the global level for the 
> technical and operational functioning of the Internet led by the private 
> sector.
>         o Global coordination of the development of the Internet through 
> dialogue between Governments, the private sector and civil society on an 
> equal footing.
>
> The Global Internet Policy Council (GIPC)
>         o Responsible for international Internet-related public policy 
> issues", and contribute public policy perspectives to Internet-related 
> technical standard-setting.
>         o Government-led mechanism that encompasses issues addressed by 
> existing intergovernmental organizations and other public policy issues 
> that currently do not have a natural home or cut across several 
> international or intergovernmental bodies.
>         o Participation by the private sector and civil society, both in 
> an observer capacity.
>
> World Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (WICANN)
>         o Responsible for the "development of the Internet in both 
> technical and economic fields" (a role similar to that performed by 
> ICANN). Private-sector-led body made up of a reformed internationalized 
> ICANN linked to the United Nations.
>         o In this body, Governments will have two distinct and separate 
> functions.
>         o The oversight function over the body responsible, at the global 
> level, for the technical and operational functioning of Internet (ICANN). 
> This is the role currently performed by the Department of Commerce of the 
> United States Government. This role would be played by an Oversight 
> Committee appointed by and reporting to the intergovernmental body (the 
> Global Internet Policy Council). The oversight function would not be of 
> an operational or management nature.
>         o The second function is advisory, as currently played by the 
> ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC).
>         o Participation of Governments and civil society in an 
> observer/advisory capacity.
> WICANN would have a host-country agreement.
>
> The Global Internet Governance Forum (GIGF)
>         o Responsible for "facilitating coordination (and discussion) of 
> Internet-related public policy issues".
>         o Participation on equal footing by Governments, the private 
> sector and civil society.
>
> Glossary
>
>
> APEC    Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
> ASCII   American Standard Code for Information Interchange; seven-bit 
> encoding of the Roman alphabet
> ccTLD   Country code top-level domain, such as .uk (United Kingdom), .de 
> (Germany) or .jp (Japan)
> DNS     Domain name system: translates domain names into IP addresses
> GAC     Governmental Advisory Committee (to ICANN)
> gTLD    Generic top-level domain, such as  .com, .int, .net, .org, .info
> IANA    Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
> ICANN   Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
> ICT     Information and communication technology
> ICT4D   Information and communication technology for development
> IDN     Internationalized domain names: web addresses using a non-ASCII 
> character set
> IETF    Internet Engineering Task Force
> IGOs    Intergovernmental organizations
> IP      Internet Protocol
> IP Address      Internet Protocol address: a unique identifier 
> corresponding to each computer or device on an IP network. Currently there 
> are two types of IP addresses in active use. IP version 4 (IPv4) and IP 
> version 6 (IPv6). IPv4 (which uses 32 bit numbers) has been used since 
> 1983 and is still the most commonly used version. Deployment of the IPv6 
> protocol began in 1999. IPv6 addresses are 128-bit numbers.
> IPRs    Intellectual property rights
> IPv4    Version 4 of the Internet Protocol
> IPv6    Version 6 of the Internet Protocol
> ITU     International Telecommunication Union
> IXPs    Internet exchange points
> MDGs    Millennium Development Goals
> NAPs    network access points
> NGN     Next generation network
> OECD    Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
> Registrar       A body approved ("accredited") by a registry to 
> sell/register domain names on its behalf.
> Registry        A registry is a company or organization that maintains a 
> centralized registry database for the TLDs or for IP address blocks (e.g. 
> the RIRs - see below). Some registries operate without registrars at all 
> and some operate with registrars but also allow direct registrations via 
> the registry.
> RIRs    Regional Internet registries. These not-for-profit organizations 
> are responsible for distributing IP addresses on a regional level to 
> Internet service providers and local registries.
> Root servers    Servers that contain pointers to the authoritative name 
> servers for all TLDs. In addition to the "original" 13 root servers 
> carrying the IANA managed root zone file, there are now large number of 
> Anycast servers that provide identical information and which have been 
> deployed worldwide by some of the original 12 operators.
> Root zone file  Master file containing pointers to name servers for all TLDs
> SMEs    Small and medium-sized enterprises
> TLD     Top-level domain (see also ccTLD and gTLD)
> WGIG    Working Group on Internet Governance
> WHOIS   WHOIS is a transaction oriented query/response protocol that is 
> widely used to provide information services to Internet users. While 
> originally used by most (but not all) TLD Registry operators to provide 
> "white pages" services and information about registered domain names, 
> current deployments cover a much broader range of information services, 
> including RIR WHOIS look-ups for IP address allocation information.
> WSIS    World Summit on Information Society
> WTO     World Trade Organization
>
>
> --
> Danielle Mincio
> Conservateur des manuscrits
> Responsable PAC
> Bibliothèque cantonale et universitaire
> Bâtiment central
> CH 1015 Lausanne Dorigny
> Tél +41 21 692 47 83