MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION
14.1.2008
pursuant to Rule 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure by
- –Catherine Trautmann and Maria Badia i Cutchet, on behalf of the PSE Group
- –Gunnar Hökmark and Malcolm Harbour, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group
- –Jorgo Chatzimarkakis, on behalf of the ALDE Group
- –David Hammerstein, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
- –Eugenijus Maldeikis, Mieczysław Edmund Janowski, Cristiana Muscardini and Adam Bielan, on behalf of the UEN Group
- –Esko Seppänen, on behalf of the GUE Group
B6‑0041/2008
European Parliament resolution on the second Internet Governance Forum, held in Rio de Janeiro from 12 to 15 November 2007
The European Parliament,
– having regard to its resolution of 23 June 2005 on the information society
– having regard to its resolution of 14 March 2006 on a European information society for growth and employment (2005/2167(INI)),
– having regard to the Declaration of Principles and the Plan of Action of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), adopted in Geneva on 12 December 2003,
– having regard to the Commission communication entitled 'Towards a Global Partnership in the Information Society: Translating the Geneva Principles into Actions' (COM(2004)0480),
– having regard to the Tunis Commitment and Agenda for the Information Society, adopted in Tunis on 18 November 2005,
– having regard to the Commission communication following the WSIS in 2006 (COM(2006)181),
– having regard to the Council of Europe submission of 10 August 2007 to the second Internet Governance Forum of 12-15 November 2007,
– having regard to Rule 103(2) of its Rules of Procedure,
A. whereas the purpose of the Internet Governance Fora (IGF) is to carry out the mandate from the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) with regard to convening fora for democratic, transparent and multi-stakeholder policy dialogue,
B. whereas the main role and function of the IGF is to discuss a wide range of issues related to Internet Governance and, where appropriate, to make recommendations to the international community,
C. whereas the first IGF was held in Athens from 30 October to 2 November 2006, identifying some of the issues and forms of debate, such as dynamic coalitions, which were looked at in greater depth in Rio and are to be pursued in future IGFs,
D. whereas the second IGF was held in Rio de Janeiro from 12 to 15 November 2007, attracting more than 2000 participants,
E. whereas the ad hoc delegations it has sent have played a pivotal role regarding the promotion of European values and the interaction with civil society organisations and representatives of national parliaments present at these events, in cooperation with the Commission,
F. whereas Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) have a key role to play in achieving the Millennium Development Goals,
G. whereas one of Europe's main concerns regarding ICTs is the bridging of the digital divide both at regional and global level,
H. whereas the top priorities for the European Union and the Council of Europe during the second IGF were the protection of children on the Web, the protection and promotion of freedom of expression, the need to guarantee openness and accessibility to make diversity possible, IP addressing and numbering, and the Internet of Things linked to the broader issue of RFID,
I. whereas these issues will be tackled again in the next IGF, to be convened in Delhi from 8 to 11 December 2008,
1. Considers that, although the IGF is not to adopt formal conclusions, the European Union's responsibility is to support this process, as it gives a positive and concrete context to the shaping of the Internet's future on the basis of a multi-stakeholder approach;
2. Stresses that lessons can already be learnt from the fruitful exchanges held in the context of the IGF up to now, and put in motion, notably on electronic communications regulatory aspects and data security and privacy issues; underlines the need to secure an open and independent Internet in the future, based on the initiatives and needs of the stakeholders, as well as freedom of expression;
3. Calls on the EU institutions concerned to take the Tunis agenda into consideration in their legislative work, such as the revision of the electronic telecommunications framework, the revision of i2010 and any upcoming ICT legislative proposals; emphasises the means of making the Internet more accessible for more people, e.g. competition between operators and service providers, neutrality between technology and development of ICT;
4. Underlines the importance of raising the parliamentary profile of the IGF process and looks forward to cooperating with the Brazilian and Indian Parliaments and other interested Assemblies in connection with the next IGF in Delhi;
5. Calls on the Commission and the Council to keep the IGF high on their agendas;
6. Notes the offer made by Lithuania to organise the 2010 IGF;
7. Recognises the value of furthering its cooperation with the Commission, e.g. through regular meetings after IGF advisory groups;
8. Stresses the importance of engaging national and regional interests in the IGF process in order to form 'local' IGFs, as is already being proposed in the UK;
9. Encourages the organisation of a 'European IGF' before mid-2009 to reinforce the European dimension of the whole IGF/WSIS process; requests its President to offer facilities for a preparatory event before the Delhi IGF involving EU parliamentarians;
10. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission, the Council, the Member States and the national parliaments.