1. DEFINITIONS :
·        The internet
·        Governance
·        Internet governance
 
  1. ISSUES :
·        Root servers
·        Domain Name system
·        Dispute Resolution
·        Content control
·        Consumer Protection
·        Privacy
·        Cryptography
·        Security of information Systems and networks
·        Cyber-crime
·        Taxation of e-commerce
·        Customs duties on electronic transactions
·        Contractual issues
·        Electronic authentication
·        Intellectual Property Rights
·        Infrastructure development and management
·        Education
·        Technical coordination
·        Exchange of internet traffic
·        Multi-lingualization of IDNS
·        Further technology development
·        Funding agreements
·        Developed vs. developing balance
·        Competition rules
·        Cross-border disputes
·        Secrecy rules
·        Privacy rules
·        Vo IP rules
·        Domicile
·        Rights of vested interests
·        How far to liberalize and privatize
·        Civil society role
·        Future agreement negotiations
·        Relationship to the telecommunications networks
·        Internet for social benefits
·        Human right to the internet
·        Spam
·        Broadband
·        WIFI rules
·        Roles of stakeholders
·        Jurisdiction
·        Internet costs
 
 
 
3.    DISCIPLINE :
 
·        What legitimacy
·        What enforcement discipline
·        What mandate
·        What jurisdiction
·        What structure
·        What legal entity
·        What domicile
·        What constituencies
 
 
4.    CONSIDERATIONS :
 
·        Being aware that many issues are presently governmental by existing expert organizations, is the envisaged governance body expected to take over such functions or is it to govern them while they continue to be performed as is and if so under what governance mechanism?
 
·        How to develop an implementation plan including ownership and management roles of all stakeholders.
 
·        Will industry invest in what it does not manage and own in such a plan.
 
  • How will the exercise be funded on an indefinite sustainable basis (beyond the initial two million dollars budgeted up to Nov 2005)
 
·        Knowing that binding agreements are the product of intergovernmental negotiations (without real independent business participation), there is no way that business (the creator and main user of the technology) and community at large can be equal partners in the “open and inclusive process” stipulated for in the WSIS Declaration of Principles. Transparency and inclusivity often jeopardize the negotiation positions.
 
·        Surely some sort of governance body can be envisaged but at what cost politically, technically, socially, and financially? Are the costs of governance justifiable against the anticipated objectives?
 
 
 CONCLUSIONS
 
·        Yes, if it is not broken do not fix it. But it is equally true that if it’s not broken    make sure that it does not break. Hence some “maintainance”, “coordination”, “service” and “development” mechanism is inevitable. Tomorrow is as important as today. The rapid progress in Internet technologies and unforeseen developments can and should be addressed in an “open and inclusive” forum as urgently as they emerge.
·        Expert bodies should participate in all further substantive discussions at the international level on issues within their remit in order to avoid duplication and to continue to build on successes and to address better the challenges and the concerns of all people all over the world.
·        Governments worldwide are exercising and shall continue to exercise governance rales in different ways over their own private sectors.
·        There is need for a UN related forum or convener for discussions of internet issues by all stockholders worldwide continuously and consistently at the national, regional and global levels. Such a vibrant and dynamic environment requires an equally agile mechanism to address the endelessly evolving issues.
  • The proposed mechanism can serve the objective of beneficial governance only if operated on principles of non-binding soft-law cooperation of a network of governance bodies. New specialized governance bodies may be established should it become apparent that there is a need for them.
·        The Internet is a unique global asset, which functions beyond borders, in a highly decentralized and dynamic mode and should be allowed to continue to do so.
  • The owners of the Internet are the present and future world information-society members. This includes governments, organizations and people from developed and developing countries rich and poor – all inclusive.
  • Such a complex structure needs complex disciplines. Over-simplifications will not work.
  • All structures in this network should work together in harmony, synergy, coordination and interoperability.
  • Public policy issues must be driven by governments TOGETHER with all stakeholders.
  • There is no single governance body in the air space domain. Similarly, the case should be in the cyberspace. Air travel would not be better with a single governance body. Similarly, the Internet wouldn’t be.