1. Is there need for an additional body
YES
2. What functions should it exercise?
(a) Create a space for a multi-stakeholder discussion forum
YES
(b) Give policy direction?
YES
(c) Any other function?
Potentially this body could deal with high level root zone edit policy, but another body might provide a more suitable mechanism for this infrequent task (eg a reformed GAC).
(d) Be a combination of the above?
YES
3. What kind of public policy issues should it address?
(a) All issues related to the Internet?
YES (potentially -- I would rather express this as all issues with a public policy impact however)
(b) Only issues outside the scope of existing organizations and institutions?
NO (public policy handling by eg ICANN is eccentric in scope -- eg privacy is in, security is in, spam is out). Policy should not be controlled by a technical co-ordination body -- this inevitably leads to skewed perspectives. Wider input is necessary
4. Where should it be anchored?
UN (Convention on Law of the Sea offers an interesting parallel with similar issues)
5. How should it be financed?
In the longer term it could be financed by a levy on domain names and/or numbers (domain names won‚t necessarily scale to the future as an equitable mechanism). The levy of course should cover all internet governance bodies carrying out essential co-ordination functions.
6. How should it be structured?
Representatives of government, industry, and civil society. Depending on how root zone edit policy is dealt with (either by this body or another one) there may be a need for policy decisions in certain defined areas to be government only (on advice from other sectors)
7. What would be its relationship with existing organizations and institutions?
This should be an overlay on existing technical co-ordination bodies. The relationship with eg the board of ICANN -- whether it should replace it, provide the majority of representatives, or just give it policy direction -- needs to be considered in the light of overall governance mechanism decisions.
Much of the detail of how it should interact is dependent on a more thorough analysis of existing bodies than has been possible in WGIG timeframe. In principle, this new organisation should be the overarching policy body. It should be empowered to investigate further a more detailed structure and levels of relationships in the light of WSIS results and report back on its findings and discussions with existing bodies.
It is not useful to be too prescriptive about structural detail until more information is known and overall principles and policy and strategic directions that may come from WSIS are finalised; and until discussions with existing governance stakeholders are conducted in the light of these principles, policies and strategic directions. The new body should be empowered and funded to analyse and discuss these issues and report in a short timeframe on a detailed structure. (an interim body might be appropriate to manage the transition)
Comments