Tuesday, September 23, 2003
Cyber security debates heat up Prepcom3
By Emrakeb Assefa - Highway Africa News Agency - Geneva
As the third WSIS preparatory committee enters its second week, Internet security is one the most contentious issues currently under debate in Geneva. Government representatives and civil society are meeting in Geneva from September 15 to 26 to come up with a draft Declaration of Principles and a Plan of Action to be tabled to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in December.
Pushed by the US, Swedish and Pakistan representatives, a proposal on the action plan was endorsed today that stressed the role of the governments in building confidence, trust and security in the use of Information, Communication Technologies (ICTs). The amended version of the Plan of Action says that policy framework for information society should takes steps to promote cooperation between governments and all stakeholders at all appropriate multilateral forums to develop guidelines that enhance user confidence, build trust, and protect both data and network integrity.
“The US and Pakistan proposal to change ‘all stakeholders’ into ‘governments and other stakeholders’ was accepted because it is really the governments that do everything in security matters in ICTs,” Ntsundeni Mexdzunya, South Africa’s government representative said.
The debates on the role of the governments and the issue of cyber security took up the whole of yesterday and today. The Russian delegation succesfully managed to have the cyber security clause deleted from the document in the face of strong support for the provision from the US camp. The provision now reads as saying “governments and all stakeholders will take appropriate action at national and international levels on spam".
The amendment made in the Action Plan also removes the expectation that all stakeholders should promote the efforts of only the United Nations on ICTs and calls on them to promote the efforts at ”all appropriate multilateral forums.”
Clause C5 of the draft Plan of Action mentions confidence, trust and security as prerequisites for the Information Society. It acknowledges that a global culture of cyber-security relies not only on technology but also on education and training, policy and law as well as international cooperation.
The draft action plan looks to promote international cooperation to tackle information networks security issues. It also aims to promote cooperation between governments and all stakeholders at all appropriate multilateral forums.
(0) comments
By Emrakeb Assefa - Highway Africa News Agency - Geneva
As the third WSIS preparatory committee enters its second week, Internet security is one the most contentious issues currently under debate in Geneva. Government representatives and civil society are meeting in Geneva from September 15 to 26 to come up with a draft Declaration of Principles and a Plan of Action to be tabled to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in December.
Pushed by the US, Swedish and Pakistan representatives, a proposal on the action plan was endorsed today that stressed the role of the governments in building confidence, trust and security in the use of Information, Communication Technologies (ICTs). The amended version of the Plan of Action says that policy framework for information society should takes steps to promote cooperation between governments and all stakeholders at all appropriate multilateral forums to develop guidelines that enhance user confidence, build trust, and protect both data and network integrity.
“The US and Pakistan proposal to change ‘all stakeholders’ into ‘governments and other stakeholders’ was accepted because it is really the governments that do everything in security matters in ICTs,” Ntsundeni Mexdzunya, South Africa’s government representative said.
The debates on the role of the governments and the issue of cyber security took up the whole of yesterday and today. The Russian delegation succesfully managed to have the cyber security clause deleted from the document in the face of strong support for the provision from the US camp. The provision now reads as saying “governments and all stakeholders will take appropriate action at national and international levels on spam".
The amendment made in the Action Plan also removes the expectation that all stakeholders should promote the efforts of only the United Nations on ICTs and calls on them to promote the efforts at ”all appropriate multilateral forums.”
Clause C5 of the draft Plan of Action mentions confidence, trust and security as prerequisites for the Information Society. It acknowledges that a global culture of cyber-security relies not only on technology but also on education and training, policy and law as well as international cooperation.
The draft action plan looks to promote international cooperation to tackle information networks security issues. It also aims to promote cooperation between governments and all stakeholders at all appropriate multilateral forums.
Internet governance: Who coordinates?
By Rebecca Wanjiku in Geneva
A major rift, between developed countries and African governments, over who controls the Internet could herald a new era in the information society.
African delegates attending the WSIS third preparatory committee have sought to dilute the role of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) through the establishment of an intergovernmental body within the UN framework. ICANN is the organisation that currently coordiantes and manages top-level domain names.
African delegates argue that the proposed UN body set to replace ICANN will have the interests of all governments and Internet users at heart while the California based non profit body says that is not feasible because the American government and other interested parties have made substantial investments to make it what it is today.
The chairman of the Internet governance sub committee, Francis Wangusi, says that ICANN should not be allowed to control Internet matters alone because it is controlled by the Commerce Department of the United States. He argues that Internet governance should be controlled by an intergovernmental body rather than a single country - in this case the USA.
Ann Rachel Inne, a policy analyst at ICANN describes this argument as 'misdirected' because ICANN is a non-profit organization with corporate status. In this regard, she claimed that ICANN is independent from the US department of commerce.
The rift stems from a provision in the draft Declaration of Principles at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) which states that countries have the liberty to elect the coordinator of international Internet issues. In terms of the Draft Declaration (still in square brackets) delegates have been invited to choose whether Internet affairs should be coordinated by governments and other interested parties, intergovernmental, organizations under the UN framework, or international organizations.
African countries such as South Africa, Kenya and Namibia have openly supported the establishment of an intergovernmental body within the UN framework. This proposition has received intense criticism from capitalists who feel that governments may not provide the necessary infrastructure.
The argument by African delegates is that they need protection from their respective governments especially in the area of domain ownership and control. They do not want to be answerable to USA over the creation and ownership of certain domain names.
“ICANN wants to entrench itself as an international organization while its operations are under the US department of commerce. The rights of member states should not be dictated by one country,” said Wangusi.
Inne said however, that ICANN does not deal with public policy issues but with technical issues. She stressed that ICANN has entered into various forms of agreements with different governments for the maintenance of Internet registries, registers and root servers.
Inne is confident that ICANN will receive overwhelming support from developed nations such as Canada, European Union countries, Australia and Japan because “they understand what ICANN is all about and the implications of the suggestions.”
Steve Katjiuanjo from the Namibian government also shares the opinion that the final declaration should provide for an intergovernmental body. He contends that a regulatory body has to be established for the arbitration of Internet related disputes. "If we allow private entities under certain governments to regulate our domains, we will have a similar case of Microsoft where it is stifling development over the sale of its software,” said Katjiuanjo.
The draft declaration is currently still between square brackets because not all countries have agreed on the specific wording.
If the proposal by African governments is added to the final declaration, then ICANN will have to search for other roles to play in the ICT field. However, Inne does not foresee such a situation because: “eighty two governments are represented in ICANN and WSIS is only a vision.” According to her, African governments should strengthen their role in ICANN and use it to benefit their countries other that asking for immediate prerogatives through the declaration.
(0) comments
By Rebecca Wanjiku in Geneva
A major rift, between developed countries and African governments, over who controls the Internet could herald a new era in the information society.
African delegates attending the WSIS third preparatory committee have sought to dilute the role of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) through the establishment of an intergovernmental body within the UN framework. ICANN is the organisation that currently coordiantes and manages top-level domain names.
African delegates argue that the proposed UN body set to replace ICANN will have the interests of all governments and Internet users at heart while the California based non profit body says that is not feasible because the American government and other interested parties have made substantial investments to make it what it is today.
The chairman of the Internet governance sub committee, Francis Wangusi, says that ICANN should not be allowed to control Internet matters alone because it is controlled by the Commerce Department of the United States. He argues that Internet governance should be controlled by an intergovernmental body rather than a single country - in this case the USA.
Ann Rachel Inne, a policy analyst at ICANN describes this argument as 'misdirected' because ICANN is a non-profit organization with corporate status. In this regard, she claimed that ICANN is independent from the US department of commerce.
The rift stems from a provision in the draft Declaration of Principles at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) which states that countries have the liberty to elect the coordinator of international Internet issues. In terms of the Draft Declaration (still in square brackets) delegates have been invited to choose whether Internet affairs should be coordinated by governments and other interested parties, intergovernmental, organizations under the UN framework, or international organizations.
African countries such as South Africa, Kenya and Namibia have openly supported the establishment of an intergovernmental body within the UN framework. This proposition has received intense criticism from capitalists who feel that governments may not provide the necessary infrastructure.
The argument by African delegates is that they need protection from their respective governments especially in the area of domain ownership and control. They do not want to be answerable to USA over the creation and ownership of certain domain names.
“ICANN wants to entrench itself as an international organization while its operations are under the US department of commerce. The rights of member states should not be dictated by one country,” said Wangusi.
Inne said however, that ICANN does not deal with public policy issues but with technical issues. She stressed that ICANN has entered into various forms of agreements with different governments for the maintenance of Internet registries, registers and root servers.
Inne is confident that ICANN will receive overwhelming support from developed nations such as Canada, European Union countries, Australia and Japan because “they understand what ICANN is all about and the implications of the suggestions.”
Steve Katjiuanjo from the Namibian government also shares the opinion that the final declaration should provide for an intergovernmental body. He contends that a regulatory body has to be established for the arbitration of Internet related disputes. "If we allow private entities under certain governments to regulate our domains, we will have a similar case of Microsoft where it is stifling development over the sale of its software,” said Katjiuanjo.
The draft declaration is currently still between square brackets because not all countries have agreed on the specific wording.
If the proposal by African governments is added to the final declaration, then ICANN will have to search for other roles to play in the ICT field. However, Inne does not foresee such a situation because: “eighty two governments are represented in ICANN and WSIS is only a vision.” According to her, African governments should strengthen their role in ICANN and use it to benefit their countries other that asking for immediate prerogatives through the declaration.
Civil Society considers protest action at WSIS
Steven Lang - Geneva - Highway Africa News Agency
Tuesday – 23 September 2003
Members of Civil Society, representing NGOs from around the world, could walk out of the preparatory meetings of the World Summit for the Information Society (WSIS) in Geneva. A walk-out is only one of several actions under consideration to protest against the way governments have ignored Civil Society input at the third Preparatory Committee for the WSIS.
An NGO representative said this morning that the inter-governmental drafting committee had totally ignored 49 of the 86 Civil Society recommendations for the Declaration of Principles. He said this was indicative of the dismissive governmental attitude toward Civil Society. He noted that while 12 recommendations were included, most others were diluted into more general formulations in the latest edition of the draft declaration published on the Internet last Friday.
Alain Modoux, an advisor to the WSIS, said that the July edition of the declaration, running into 54 paragraphs on 12 pages, was too long and uninspiring. The September 19 version that offends Civil Society has been reduced to 50 paragraphs on seven pages – much shorter - but still unwieldy as far as conference declarations go.
The tension between Civil Society and governments stems from the initial commitment that the WSIS would be different from previous UN summits, in that Civil Society would be treated as an equal partner in the process of drawing up a Declaration of Principles and a Plan of Action. Adama Samassekou, president of the Preparatory Committee, reiterated this promise at the beginning of the meetings when he said that the multi-stakeholder approach would be moved forward “from input to impact”.
In a statement released this morning, Civil Society said it had proposed “to put people at the centre of the Global Information Society” while the latest version of the declaration was described as a “bureaucratic document with more emphasis on technology and economics than on individuals and communities.”
In the corridors of the Geneva conference centre, Civil society members are now debating how to deal with their frustrations. Protest actions are against the rules of the Prepcom meeting, but a walk-out could conceivably be acceptable. Other proposals, only half-seriously put forward, include requiring civil society members to roll off their chairs at a given signal.
A proposal that is being taken very seriously is that of a Civil Society alternative declaration or document. The argument goes that if the governments do not take Civil Society input seriously then a new document has to be put forward. Enthusiasm for a new drafting process is tempered by the understanding of how long and drawn out such a process could be. Many members of Civil Society have devoted considerable time and effort to the governmental declaration and could easily wilt from “drafting burnout.”
There is further recognition of the difficulties in reaching consensus among the various stakeholders. These differences are currently receiving less attention because of the focus on the Civil Society – governmental split.
The governmental Draft Declaration of Principles is still entirely between square brackets – UN speak meaning that not everyone agrees with it. On most paragraphs the differences are slight, but there are still square brackets within the square brackets. It is therefore possible that even without the dispute with Civil Society, governments might not be ready on time.
Unless there are some important breakthroughs in the next two days, Prepcom Three will not have a Draft Declaration to present to the World Summit in December. There might even be two competing documents – neither of which enjoys the full support of their constituents.
There are already calls for a Prepcom Four or a second sitting of Prepcom Three to help finalise the documents ahead of the December Summit, but no-one has planned or budgeted for yet another meeting, so these proposals might not enjoy much support. Another proposal floated at caucus meetings would see a final Prepcom sandwiched into the week before the WSIS. Delegates would then be under pressure to produce complicated documents in the few days before the arrival of the heads of state.
The above scenarios do not bode well for the December Summit, as Tracey Naughton, head of Civil Society's Media Caucus said, "The whole Summit is at risk!"
World leaders might not be willing to attend a meeting that would be remembered for its inability to come to any kind of agreement. Heads of government want to be associated with success and so they will only come to Geneva if they have confidence in its ability to come up with a useful product.
(0) comments
Steven Lang - Geneva - Highway Africa News Agency
Tuesday – 23 September 2003
Members of Civil Society, representing NGOs from around the world, could walk out of the preparatory meetings of the World Summit for the Information Society (WSIS) in Geneva. A walk-out is only one of several actions under consideration to protest against the way governments have ignored Civil Society input at the third Preparatory Committee for the WSIS.
An NGO representative said this morning that the inter-governmental drafting committee had totally ignored 49 of the 86 Civil Society recommendations for the Declaration of Principles. He said this was indicative of the dismissive governmental attitude toward Civil Society. He noted that while 12 recommendations were included, most others were diluted into more general formulations in the latest edition of the draft declaration published on the Internet last Friday.
Alain Modoux, an advisor to the WSIS, said that the July edition of the declaration, running into 54 paragraphs on 12 pages, was too long and uninspiring. The September 19 version that offends Civil Society has been reduced to 50 paragraphs on seven pages – much shorter - but still unwieldy as far as conference declarations go.
The tension between Civil Society and governments stems from the initial commitment that the WSIS would be different from previous UN summits, in that Civil Society would be treated as an equal partner in the process of drawing up a Declaration of Principles and a Plan of Action. Adama Samassekou, president of the Preparatory Committee, reiterated this promise at the beginning of the meetings when he said that the multi-stakeholder approach would be moved forward “from input to impact”.
In a statement released this morning, Civil Society said it had proposed “to put people at the centre of the Global Information Society” while the latest version of the declaration was described as a “bureaucratic document with more emphasis on technology and economics than on individuals and communities.”
In the corridors of the Geneva conference centre, Civil society members are now debating how to deal with their frustrations. Protest actions are against the rules of the Prepcom meeting, but a walk-out could conceivably be acceptable. Other proposals, only half-seriously put forward, include requiring civil society members to roll off their chairs at a given signal.
A proposal that is being taken very seriously is that of a Civil Society alternative declaration or document. The argument goes that if the governments do not take Civil Society input seriously then a new document has to be put forward. Enthusiasm for a new drafting process is tempered by the understanding of how long and drawn out such a process could be. Many members of Civil Society have devoted considerable time and effort to the governmental declaration and could easily wilt from “drafting burnout.”
There is further recognition of the difficulties in reaching consensus among the various stakeholders. These differences are currently receiving less attention because of the focus on the Civil Society – governmental split.
The governmental Draft Declaration of Principles is still entirely between square brackets – UN speak meaning that not everyone agrees with it. On most paragraphs the differences are slight, but there are still square brackets within the square brackets. It is therefore possible that even without the dispute with Civil Society, governments might not be ready on time.
Unless there are some important breakthroughs in the next two days, Prepcom Three will not have a Draft Declaration to present to the World Summit in December. There might even be two competing documents – neither of which enjoys the full support of their constituents.
There are already calls for a Prepcom Four or a second sitting of Prepcom Three to help finalise the documents ahead of the December Summit, but no-one has planned or budgeted for yet another meeting, so these proposals might not enjoy much support. Another proposal floated at caucus meetings would see a final Prepcom sandwiched into the week before the WSIS. Delegates would then be under pressure to produce complicated documents in the few days before the arrival of the heads of state.
The above scenarios do not bode well for the December Summit, as Tracey Naughton, head of Civil Society's Media Caucus said, "The whole Summit is at risk!"
World leaders might not be willing to attend a meeting that would be remembered for its inability to come to any kind of agreement. Heads of government want to be associated with success and so they will only come to Geneva if they have confidence in its ability to come up with a useful product.
