15 World Summit on Information Society:
Internet Governance
| (27466)
8841/06
COM(06) 181
| Commission Communication: Towards a global partnership in the information society: follow-up to the Tunis phase of the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS)
|
| Legal base | — |
| Department | Trade and Industry
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 23 April 2007
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 34-xxxi (2005-06) para 28 (14 June 2006)
|
| Discussed in Council | 8 June 2006 Telecommunications Council
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared, but further information requested
|
Background
15.1 The December 2003 Geneva World Summit on Information Society
(WSIS) was the first global event concerning the "Information
Society", involving over 150 countries and some 11,000 participants
from public entities, civil society and the private sector. It
adopted a Declaration of Principles, embodied in a Plan of Action,
as the basis of a common approach to the Information Society by
all UN Member States. This included key human rights, such as
freedom of opinion and expression; access to information and the
media; combating the "Digital Divide"; and the potential
of the information and communication technologies (ICT) for achieving
the UN Millennium Development Goals.[38]
15.2 Three earlier Commission documents on the World
Summit on Information Society outlined general objectives for
the first phase;[39]
assessed the outcome of the Geneva Summit;[40]
and summarised the results of the first phase and described how
they could be transformed into specific outputs during the run-up
to the second WSIS.[41]
15.3 We considered a fourth related Commission Communication
on 13 July 2005,[42]
which sought to prepare the EU's position ahead of that second
WSIS, to be held in Tunis in November 2005 during the UK EU Presidency,
focussing on the outstanding issues — Internet governance
and financing — and implementation of the Plan of Action.
The Commission Communication
15.4 The Summit endorsed two documents that set out
further steps for what the Commission described as "the policy
debate on the global Information Society":
- The Tunis Commitment
(TC) which "recalls the Geneva Declaration of Principles
(GDoP) and Geneva Plan of Action (GPoA), and upholds the fundamental
principles underlying the common vision of the Information Society".
World leaders reaffirmed their "desire and commitment
to build a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented
Information Society" that would be based on the respect
of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom
of expression and the freedom to receive and impart information;
and
- The Tunis Agenda for the Information Society
(TAIS), which "goes even further by identifying the main
challenges and showing ways to address them. In particular, it
acknowledges the scale of the digital divide and the need to address
it through different and complementary ways. As regards Internet
governance, the TAIS set out a way to carry forward the discussions.
Finally, it shows how governments, regional and international
organisations, as well as other stakeholders can implement the
commitments they have undertaken".[43]
15.5 Against this background, the Communication contained
an assessment of the principal Summit results, indicated the EU
priorities and made proposals as to how the EU could help follow
up the WSIS process, where the Commission and the EU as a whole
wished "to remain driving forces in the process and to build
on the success achieved during the second phase".
15.6 In her helpful 24 May 2006 Explanatory Memorandum,
the Minister of State for Industry and the Regions (Margaret Hodge)
said that a compromise was found on the subject of internet governance,
and a process of enhanced cooperation launched by the UN Secretary
General "to better deal with international public policy
issues pertaining to the Internet, whilst an internet governance
forum was created as a new forum for multi-stakeholder policy
dialogue".
15.7 Concerning internet governance, the Commission
highlighted that EU members had suggested that Spam and relevant
security-related aspects of the Internet, as well as multilingualism,
would be appropriate and substantive topics for the first meeting
of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). It further mentioned the
role of ENISA (the European Network and Information Security Agency)
in preserving the security and stability of the Internet. "Enhanced
cooperation around international internet public policy should
be light and efficient".
15.8 As for the wider follow-up, the Minister said
that the EU successfully argued that it should be done as part
of the integrated follow-up to UN Summits, within existing mechanisms
and within existing approved resources; and that the Commission
"reaffirms the EU's desire for an open follow-up involving
all stakeholders and, importantly, the private sector". The
UK supported the EU's overall understanding of the conclusions
and success of the second phase of the WSIS. She would "continue
to ensure that the follow-up process for the Summit remains focussed
and efficient, and in line with UK priorities"; the UK was
also "keen to underline the need for changes in governance
and regulation in developing countries, rather than external funding,
as the most fruitful vehicle for bridging the Digital Divide";
and "also anxious that further work and in particular 'enhanced
cooperation' around public policy issues related to present Internet
Governance arrangements, involve all relevant stakeholders and
produces recommendations, which provide viable regulatory and
self-regulatory options, which do not stifle development of the
Internet". Her officials would continue to work with the
Commission and other Member States through EU working groups and
in UN fora to ensure that UK views were fully reflected in further
discussions of Community positions and of follow-up to WSIS, such
as the first IGF which was due to take place in October 2006 in
Athens. She would also continue to "work with partners around
the world to foster a cooperative atmosphere in the follow-up
to WSIS, and build bridges between different groups, such as the
US and EU".
15.9 In clearing the Communication, we asked the
Minister to keep us informed in the run-up to and, particularly,
about the outcome of this first IGF. Though she did not elaborate
on the differences between the EU and US, we assumed this related
to the pre-Summit debate on the question of continuing US control
of the master directory of internet addresses worldwide, operated
by the not-for-profit Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
and Numbers (Icann). Given developments on controlling internet
access in the People's Republic of China, it seemed to us more
important than ever that the EU and US, who had pioneered the
loosely controlled, market-driven approach to the Internet that
had made it what it is, should stay united, particularly if the
fine sentiments of the Tunis Commitment —a World Information
System based on the respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
including the freedom of expression and the freedom to receive
and impart information — were to be made a reality.
The Minister's letter
15.10 The Minister has now responded, somewhat
belatedly, in her letter of 23 April 2007 about the first IGF
meeting, which took place between 30 October and 2 November
2006, as follows:
"The IGF is a multi-stakeholder framework established
to address international public policy concerns associated with
the cross-border nature of the Internet. It is not intended to
be a negotiating forum or to have any decision-making powers.
While the UK sees this as useful in helping inform decisions,
some governments are obviously dissatisfied and want a more conventional
intergovernmental negotiating framework.
"Nominet UK and the Oxford Internet Institute
both held workshops in preparation for the IGF. Along with the
event "The Parliament and the Internet: Workshop on Internet
Governance", these contributed to raising awareness and improving
understanding of the issues being addressed in the IGF and helped
ensure active participation by UK industry and NGOs.
"The first meeting of the IGF was widely seen
as a success, with perhaps 1,600 people attending. However greater
credibility for this structure would be achieved if there was
better government involvement.
"Details of the Athens meeting can be found
on http://www.intgovforum.org/. The meeting focussed on four themes:
openness (free flow of information and access to information and
knowledge); security (including issues concerning authentication
and identification); diversity (including access to content in
languages other than English); and access (promoting investment,
infrastructure capacity building, developing technical skills).
"The meeting led to the creation of a number
of 'dynamic coalitions' to continue the work in preparation for
the second meeting of the IGF on issues including:
- Privacy and digital identity;
- An 'Internet bill of rights' (setting out the
rights and duties of Internet users);
- Access to knowledge; and
- Freedom of expression and of the media.
"DTI chaired a working group that launched the
Anti Spam Alliance, bringing together the OECD, ITU, APEC, the
Contact Network of Spam Authorities, and the London Action Plan:
this initiative gathers together information on combating Spam
and will provide easy access to resources and information about
the main anti-Spam initiatives.
"Much of the first meeting of the IGF was aimed
at relationship building between the various communities. Future
meetings are expected to benefit from the work of the dynamic
coalitions and we can expect a more detailed and focussed dialogue
at the second IGF, due to be held in Brazil in November 2007".
Conclusions
15.11 It is plain from what the Minister says
that there is still some pressure for a formal negotiating forum,
and that what she cryptically calls a number of 'dynamic coalitions'
will be preparing a second IGF meeting in November 2007 that will
be focussing on key issues which, one way or the other, could
have important consequences for Internet development.
15.12 It is not clear from the Minister's letter
if, between now and then, there are to be further discussions
of Community positions ahead of this meeting. We should therefore
be grateful if, in good time before the meeting, the Minister
would outline what developments have taken place in the interim
and her views thereon, and would let us know if there is to be
any overall EU position and, if so, whether it coincides with
that of the USA.
15.13 In the meantime, we are reporting this further
information to the House because of the widespread interest in
Internet issues.
38 Theeightgoals,in2000,thattheUNsetitselftoachieve,mostby2015:
eradicateextremepovertyandhunger;achieveuniversalprimaryeducation;
promotegenderequality;reducechildmortality;improvematernalhealth;
combatHIV/Aids,malariaandotherdiseases;ensureenvironmentalsustainability;
developapartnershipfordevelopment. Back
39
COM(03)702. Back
40
COM(04)111. Back
41
COM(04)480. Back
42
See(26619)9848/05:HC34-ii(2005-06)para16(13July2005). Back
43
COM(06)181,page2. Back
|
