<html>
<body>
Thank you all for the ongoing efforts to come to our conclusion for the
text<br>
And sorry for not actively engaged at all while I was travelling to here
Vancouver<br>
and fighting with all travel fatigues and jet-lags etc.<br><br>
Anyway, I see a need to include some language as described by Bill and
proposed<br>
to modify by Parminder. <br><br>
I have some problem of putting:<br><br>
"<font face="courier new" size=2>how core IG
functions like DNS management, IP address allocation
etc are carried out and their linkages with broader IG issues
like cyber-crime, Intellectual Property Rights, eCommerce, e-government,
human rights and promoting development"<br><br>
</font>While I do not deny that there are certain linkages between DNS/IP
allocation and<br>
cyber-crime, IPR etc, these resource management is not the only or the
biggest<br>
factors of these policy issues. So using the word "linkage" is
troublesome to me,<br>
it gives an impression that these resource management is the core issue
of<br>
cyber crime etc.<br><br>
I also have problem in understanding why we need to state:<br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>"and various CS groups and other
social actors in specific"<br><br>
</font>I am not against this per se, but I cannot understand why we need
that and appreciate if you could explain.<br><br>
I also have some doubt on the original text:<br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>"it is necessary for people who use
the Internet understand how the DNS is functioning..."<br><br>
</font>Do ordinary people who use the Internet really need to understand
how DNS works?<br>
I am not so sure. The intention of this para is, to me, that people who
care about<br>
the public policy issues of the Internet who will participate the IGF
process should have basic understanding of these functions, be they CS or
government or others.<br>
If that is the intention, I like to see it in clear language.<br><br>
Thanks, and sorry for the last-minute intervention, but I really
appreciate your efforts.<br><br>
izumi<br><br>
At 22:15 05/11/30 +0530, Parminder wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite><font face="courier new" size=2> <br>
<br>
On the para 6 of Bill's draft....<br>
<br>
To ensure that Internet governance and development take place in the
public interest, it is necessary for people who use the Internet
understand how the DNS is functioning, how IP addresses are allocated,
what basic legal instruments exist in fields like cyber-crime,
Intellectual Property Rights, eCommerce, e-government, and human
rights.<br>
Therefore the ongoing creation of public awareness is the
responsibility of everyone involved in the governance and development of
the Internet and emerging information and communication platforms.<br>
<br>
and Bill$BCT(B discomfort with it$B)(B.<br>
<br>
>>> I still think para 6 is pretty orthogonal to the<br>
issues on the table and, by extension, all the position statements
we've<br>
made (can imagine government people asking, what's your point here),
and<br>
that it would be better moved to a section on info society generally,
but<br>
whatever.>>><br>
<br>
It is my understanding that the intention of the drafters is to make the
connections between what is generally seen as core IG functions, and
various issues that people see as direclty connected to their lives.
Creating greater public awareness $BK(Bor at least more widespread awareness
among various actors - of these connections will draw all constituencies
and interests in IG debates which can ensure that development of Internet
and its governance takes place in public interest.<br>
<br>
I think that this is an important issue for the CS to stand for and
advocate.<br>
<br>
However, I see scope for making the issues cleaer in the above text, and
propose the following langauge.<br>
<br>
<br>
To ensure that development of the Internet and its governance takes place
in public interest, it is important for people in general, and various CS
groups and other social actors in specific, to understand better how core
IG functions $BK(Blike DNS management, IP address allocation etc $BK(Bare
carried out and their linkages with broader IG issues like cyber-crime,
Intellectual Property Rights, eCommerce, e-government, human rights and
promoting development. The responsibility of creating such awareness
should be shared by everyone, including those at present involved in the
governance and development of the Internet. <br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: governance-bounces@lists.cpsr.org
[<a href="mailto:governance-bounces@lists.cpsr.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:governance-bounces@lists.cpsr.org</a>] On Behalf Of William
Drake<br>
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 1:42 PM<br>
To: Governance <br>
Subject: Re: [governance] Civil Society Declaration on Internet
Governance [revised text]<br>
<br>
Good morning Ralph,<br>
<br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: governance-bounces@lists.cpsr.org<br>
>
[<a href="mailto:governance-bounces@lists.cpsr.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:governance-bounces@lists.cpsr.org</a>]On Behalf Of Ralf
Bendrath<br>
<br>
> --> I will check back later tonight if there is an agreement on
the IG<br>
> part. Would be glad if I can just copy&paste and replace the
text below.<br>
<br>
As you know, the text has evolved and a bunch of people have weighed
in,<br>
so please don't use the old text you copyedited, which the caucus
never<br>
discussed and agreed. We of course don't have clear and fixed
procedures<br>
in place to reach closure, but perhaps once the text seems stable Adam
or<br>
Jeanette can issue a 'last call' for objections from Vancouver.<br>
<br>
> --> We also need a para from this caucus for the last part
"IV. Where to<br>
> go from here $BK(Bour Tunis commitment":<br>
> <br>
> "Element two:<br>
> How CS is going to structure itself to engage with the IG forum
[wait for<br>
> outcome of IG caucus meeting $BK(Bwhether a specific WG would be setup
to<br>
> make recommendations on the modalities of functioning of the<br>
> future IG forum]"<br>
</font></blockquote></body>
</html>