WSIS: Geschafft?

Angeblich Einigung beim Gipfel in Tunis

In aller Eile: Die fünfte Fassung des Dokuments WSIS-II/PC-3/DT/15 trägt überall den Vermerk „Agreed“. Sollte dies tatsächlich die Einigung über Internet Governance sein? Jamie Love berichtet aus Tunis, es gäbe einen endgültigen Text.

(Google News zum Thema)

Hier das oben erwähnte Dokument im Wortlaut — ein wichtiger Nachtrag: die vorangestellten Nummern haben sich mittlerweile bereits geändert.

62. We recognise that the existing arrangements for Internet governance have worked effectively to make the Internet the highly robust, dynamic and geographically diverse medium that it is today, with the private sector taking the lead in day-to-day operations, and with innovation and value creation at the edges. (Agreed)
63. The Internet remains a highly dynamic medium and therefore any framework and mechanisms designed to deal with Internet Governance should be inclusive and responsive to the exponential growth and fast evolution of the Internet as a common platform for the development of multiple applications. (Agreed)
64. The security and stability of the Internet must be maintained. (Agreed)
65. We recognise that Internet Governance includes more than Internet naming and addressing. It also includes other significant public policy issues such as, inter alia, critical Internet resources, the security and safety of the Internet, and developmental aspects and issues pertaining to the use of the Internet. (Agreed)
New 65A. We recognise that Internet Governance includes social, economic and technical issues including affordability, reliablity and quality of service. (Agreed)
66. We further recognize that there are many cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms. (Agreed)
67. We are convinced that there is a need to initiate, and reinforce, as appropriate, a transparent, democratic, and multilateral process, with the participation of governments, private sector, civil society and international organizations, in their respective roles. This process could envisage creation of a suitable framework or mechanisms, where justified, thus spurring the ongoing and active evolution of the current arrangements in order to synergise the efforts in this regard. (AGREED)
68. We emphasize that any Internet Governance approach should be inclusive and responsive and should continue to promote an enabling environment for innovation, competition and investment. (Agreed)
69. Countries should not be involved in decisions regarding another country’s ccTLD. Their legitimate interests, as expressed and defined by each country, in diverse ways, regarding decisions affecting their ccTLDs, need to be respected, upheld and addressed via a flexible and improved framework and mechanisms. (Agreed)
[70. Deleted.]
71. We recognize the need for further development of, and strengthened co-operation among, stakeholders for public policies for generic top-level domain names (gTLDs). (Agreed)
72. We underline the need to maximise the participation of developing countries in decisions regarding Internet Governance, which should reflect their interests, as well as in development and capacity-building. (Agreed)
[73. Deleted].

Implementation of the Geneva Principles
74. In view of the continuing internationalization of the Internet and the principle of universality, we agree to implement the Geneva Principles regarding Internet Governance. (Agreed)
New 74A. We agree, inter alia, to invite the UN Secretary-General to convene a new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue. (Agreed)
New 74B (ex para 49). We recognize that all governments should have an equal role and responsibility, for international Internet governance and for ensuring the stability, security and continuity of the Internet. We also recognize the need for development of public policy by governments in consultation with all stakeholders. (Agreed)
Alt 75B. Using relevant international organisations, such cooperation should include the development of globally-applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources. In this regard, we call upon the organisations responsible for essential tasks associated with the Internet to contribute to creating an environment that facilitates this development of public policy principles. (Agreed)
Alt 75C. The process towards enhanced cooperation, to be started by the UN Secretary-General, involving all relevant organisations by the end of the first quarter of 2006, will involve all stakeholders in their respective roles, will proceed as quickly as possible consistent with legal process, and will be responsive to innovation.
Relevant organisations should commence a process towards enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders, proceeding as quickly as possible and responsive to innovation. The same relevant organisations shall be requested to provide annual performance reports. (Agreed)

76. We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations, in an open and inclusive process, to convene, by the second quarter of 2006, a meeting of the new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance Forum (IGF).The mandate of the Forum is to:
a) Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet Governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet;
b) Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body;
c) Interface with appropriate inter-governmental organisations and other institutions on matters under their purview;
d) Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, and in this regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific and technical communities;
e) Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world;
f) Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing and/or future Internet Governance mechanisms, particularly those from developing countries;
g) Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations;
h) Contribute to capacity-building for Internet Governance in developing countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise;
i) Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes;
j) Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources;
k) Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse of the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users;
l) Publish its proceedings. (Agreed)
77. The Internet Governance Forum, in its working and function, will be multilateral, multi-stakeholder, democratic and transparent. To that end, the proposed IGF could:
a) Build on the existing structures of Internet Governance, with special emphasis on the complementarity between all stakeholders involved in this process – governments, business entities, civil society and inter-governmental organisations;
b) Have a lightweight and decentralised structure that would be subject to periodic review;
c) Meet periodically, as required. IGF meetings, in principle, may be held in parallel with major relevant UN conferences, inter alia, to use logistical support. (Agreed)
New 77A. We encourage the UN Secretary-General to examine a range of options for the convening of the Forum, taking into consideration the proven competencies of all stakeholders in Internet Governance and the need to ensure their full involvement. (Agreed)
New 77B. The UN Secretary-General would report to UN Member States periodically on the operation of the Forum. (Agreed)
New 77C. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum participants, within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard. (Agreed)
78. The IGF would have no oversight function and would not replace existing arrangements, mechanisms, institutions or organisations, but would involve them and take advantage of their expertise. It would be constituted as a neutral, non-duplicative and non-binding process. It would have no involvement in day-to-day or technical operations of the Internet. (Agreed)
79. The UN Secretary-General should extend invitations to all stakeholders and relevant parties to participate at the inaugural meeting of the IGF, taking into consideration balanced geographical representation. The UN Secretary-General should also:
a) draw upon any appropriate resources from all interested stakeholders, including the proven expertise of ITU, as demonstrated during the WSIS process; and
b) establish an effective and cost-efficient bureau to support the IGF, ensuring multi-stakeholder participation. (Agreed)
80. Diverse matters relating to Internet Governance would continue to be addressed in other relevant fora. (Agreed)
81. We encourage the development of multi-stakeholder processes at the national, regional and international levels to discuss and collaborate on the expansion and diffusion of the Internet as a means to support development efforts to achieve internationally-agreed development goals and objectives, including the Millennium Development Goals. (Agreed)
82. We reaffirm our commitment to the full implementation of the Geneva Principles. (Agreed)
New 83. We welcome the generous offer of the Government of Greece to host the first meeting of the IGF in Athens no later than 2006 and we call upon the UN Secretary-General to extend invitations to all stakeholders and relevant parties to participate at the inaugural meeting of the IGF. (Agreed)

Ein Kommentar