Notes

• This paper owes much to the initial work of Mr Pindar Wong and the presentations he prepared for the Digital Review of Asia Pacific and the Asia-Pacific Development Information Programme. It is also loosely based on an earlier paper commissioned from the author by the Association for Progressive Communication (http://www.apc.org).
• See http://www.itu.int/wsis.
• WGIG includes a number of representatives from the Asia- Pacific region. Its membership is well balanced between representatives from national governments and those from civil society and the private sector and between developing and developed nation representatives (http://www.wgig.org).
• Work of the G8 Digital Opportunity Task Force (DOT Force), the UN ICT Task Force and others has identified that universal participation in governance processes can only be achieved through building appropriate technical and policy capacity. A study by the Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation and Panos London, entitled “Louder Voices”, on strengthening developing nation participation in ICT policy processes is highly recommended reading on this issue (http://www.panos.org.uk/ resources/bookdetails.asp?id=1065&null=1002&). Important recommendations on capacity building in the context of WSIS have also been made by Don MacLean (a WGIG member) in “Herding Schrodinger’s Cats: Some Conceptual Tools for Thinking about Internet Governance” (http://www.itu.int/osg/ spu/forum/intgov04/index.html). Capacity-building programmes that are part of the Asia-Pacific Telecommunity’s Bangkok Agenda for broadband and ICT development in Asia Pacific may be useful.
• The following is a snapshot of some of the many regional organisations providing technical and policy training: UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP), Asia Pacific Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email (APCAUCE), Asia Pacific Regional Internet Conference on Operational Technologies (APRICOT), Asia Pacific Networking Group (APNG), South Asian Network Operators Group (SANOG), Pacific Internet Users Group (PIGNET), Asia Pacific Top Level Domain Association (APTLD), and Asia Pacific Computer Emergency Response Team (APCERT).
• This chapter does not attempt to present a definition of Internet governance. However, Richard Hill of ITU has compiled a list of proposed definitions (see http://www.wgig.org/docs/IG¬definitions.doc).
• The contract to run the “.org” top-level domain was redelegated to the Internet Society and the Public Interest Registry in 2002 as part of ICANN’s agenda to introduce greater competition to the domain name industry. VeriSign Inc. bought Network Solutions in March 2000.
• LACNIC began operating only at the end of 2002. A new RIR called AfriNIC (African Network Information Center) is being formed to serve Africa. Africa currently receives IP addresses from RIPE NCC and ARIN. 9. James Seng (http://james.seng.cc) provides valuable comments about IDNs.
• Inventory of Public Policy Issues and Priorities, http://www. wgig.org/docs/inventory-issues.html.
• APRICOT (http://www.apricot.net) is the main forum where these expert groups tend to meet.
• IXPs can flourish in liberalised regimes. The regime should permit easy interconnection on non-discriminatory, cost-based or at least reasonable commercial terms.
• ITU’s website publishes information about spam laws, conferences and resources (http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/spam/ index.phtml). Information on the amount of spam and its sources is usually provided by Internet security and anti-spam services companies. Data vary from company to company, such as Sophos (http://www.sophos.com), Sandvine (http://www. sandvine.com) and Commtouch (http://www.commtouch.com).
• Reporters Without Borders (2005), Internet under Surveillance, http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=433. 15. Shaping Information Societies for Human Needs, WSIS Civil Society Declaration, Geneva, December 2003, http://www.itu. int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en?&id=1179|1208.