Strasbourg, January 17th, 2008 (revised)
- Presentation of the draft Resolution of the Commission on the results of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Rio, November 2007,
by Commissioner Megiena Kuneva (Commissioner of Consumers protection) !
See document B6-0041/2008 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=B6-2008-0041&language=EN
- Open discussion
- Conclusion of the Commissioner
Some personal comments on the Resolution itself
Nothing very new appeared in this Resolution, reporting on the results of the IGF which was attended by 5 Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), including Catherine Trautmann, who chaired the EP delegation.
Question : Is Internet governance a “consumer issue” for the Commission ? Why didn’t Commissioner Reding (Info society and Media) present this Resolution to the European Parliament (EP) ?
Positive points to be mentioned :
- Promotion of a regional (European Union, EU) and of national IGFs, thus following WSIS Action plan resolution ; a national IGF is already in function in United Kingdom.
- The “multilateral” frame (= multi- stakeholdership ?) is stressed. However the actual inclusion of CS isn’t expressly mentioned.
- Organization of a “European IGF” to be held before the 3rd IGF meeting in New Delhi.
- Lithuania to convene the FGI in 2010
Questionable and/or negative points :
- No reference made to the CS Declarations of Geneva and Tunis.
- Some very “abstract” terms such as “a positive context … on the future of the Internet”, an “independent Internet”, a “neutrality between technology and development” (?).
- Problem of terminology : is multilateral synonymous with Multi-stakeholder ?
- A dogma rather than a reality : “ICT are essential to achieving the MDGs”.
- No vision nor concept of the issues and solutions of global Internet governance for Developing Countries, specifically for the ACP Countries..
-
The Commission is delighted with the outcomes of the 3rd IGF ; it was a real exchange of opinions. IGF to be maintained. Guaranties multi-stakeholderism and a no restrictive nature.
Thanks to the MEPs who participated in the IGF. Digital divide and children protection are our main objectives. The EU will continue its support of IGF. We now have to act. There were no document to negotiate at the close (of the IGF) : this was its force (sic!) because there were no constraints (sic). This allowed a dynamic approach. Information needs to be protected. Thanks to the parliamentarians for their support.
Speaker of European People’s Party (EPP)
Insists on the rapid evolution of the Internet ; our whole society is concerned; new opportunities for the future.
The strength of the Internet is its independence (sic!) : this is highly important. So is the Internet for achieving the MDGs and for bridging the divides. The EU has an important role to play in supporting the FGI as a no constraining process. The Commission should be more dynamic. EU must attend the New Delhi IGF, with its partners such as the civil society (CS), and ensure liberty of expression.
Catherine Trautmann (European Socialist Party, ESP, chairperson of the EP delegation at Rio)
More than 2 000 attendees for this 2nd IGF ; all the stakeholders were present. IGF created a favourable context for researching solutions for the still ongoing WSIS process. Open reflection, anticipating the limits of the Internet. Main goals : bridge the digital divide, ensure liberty of expression, protect the children. Take in account the RFID technology in the course of evolution towards the Internet of objects. Other issues : digitisation of cultural goods. EU must stay as a leader in this process.
Finally, she appealed to undertake a new phase in this process with the creation of a European IGF. As the chair of the EP delegation she thanks all the stakeholders for the job done at Rio, and asks for a stronger participation of the different EP Committees in this future phase. She expresses the support of her colleagues to Mrs Reding (NB : the Commissioner for Info Society and Media, who is absent from this session).
She addresses the Council for preparing the IGF of New Delhi and for taking close contacts with the Indian government right now.
Speaker of Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE)
Governments should ensure public service on Internet, e.g. for solving issues of the functioning of democracy. Education on Internet technologies and uses to be started at the early stages of scholarship. The computer has succeeded where Esperanto has failed. However, the EP uses still a big amount of paper ; instead it must favour a paperless administration.
Speaker of Union for Europe of the Nations (UEN) (?)
Internet is simultaneously a chance and a danger. In the last case, priority for EU is Internet governance in a way that protects children. IGF in New Delhi proves how India is a power in computing technologies whereas the largest part of the population is still poor. He supports two proposals : organizing a IGF in Europe (in Lithuania) and setting up a European IGF, the EP playing an eminent role. Internet usage is very different depending on countries and there are still important differences in terms of access and quality of service among EU countries which should be reduced.
M. Harbour (PPE)
Thanks for the EP President who authorized the EP to participate actively in the IGF and for the delegation who was the most active parliamentarian group at Rio. He asks the governments to commit themselves. The IGF isn’t a global structure ; it is both an intergovernmental and a multi-stakeholder process. As an example of the latter he mentioned the issue of children protection which was very well addressed by CS .The Rio IGF has added a significant value to the on-going discussions. However, the proposals of the Commission are weak (sic) : this trend must be inverted.
Pleguezuelos Aguilar (ESP)
The important impact of IGF needs a strong(er) commitment of the EU. Take profit of the political opportunity for initiating a new phase in the process (reference to Mrs Trautmann’s proposal). Two axes of reflection : fostering access to digital services and consider the Information society in a framework of social goods. EU to focus on accessibility and act against repression. Make both local and global coincide. The Commission should more commit itself in the process.
Lambert (EPP)
Was at Athens and finds the IGF an interesting formula. Some delicate issues remain : TLDs, ICANN and the web. First of all ICANN should be approached. He supports the idea of national IGFs, such as the UK’s one, and asks for staying vigilant. He suggests the national parliaments to be more implicated/integrated in the process. Therefore the Commission must choice a different approach - i2010 has some resources- before the 2009 elections.
Another MEP (Poland ?)
Internet is important for all citizens of any age. Broadband connections are widespread in western countries offering many advantages, but they are missing in our country. What will the Commission propose to establish a better equality in terms of access between our countries ?
The following step : Consultations to be held in Geneva in February; the Commission will participate in the consultative group. EC is present in the WSIS process still its very beginning. She thanks particularly Mrs Trautmann and supports her proposal of a European IGF to be organized and held as soon as possible. Internet governance is a key issue and therefore the EC supports the analysis and suggestions of the EP delegation at Rio.
In the hemicycle, a handful of MEPs were participating in the debate (less than 20), the left half was a little less empty than the right one. On the bench of the Commission there were only three persons, whereas the bench of the Council (presidence : Slovenia since the 1st of January) was empty.
Obviously the topic wasn’t very high in the agenda of all these people.
Besides myself, there was only another person in the official tribune of the EP, whereas four people were in the diplomatic tribune.