<html>
<body>
Let me try:<br><br>
(A)<br>
With regards to para 63, Civil Society believes that a country code Top
Level Domain (ccTLD) is a public good of both people of the concerned
country/economy and of global citizens who have various interests to the
country/economy. As such, we recognize the importance of role of the
respective governments to protect the ccTLD under their jurisdiction, it
should be exercised in a manner that respects human rights as expressed
in existing international treaties through a democratic, transparent and
inclusive process with full involvement of all stakeholders at the
national level." <br><br>
If we have problem with the first sentence, that could be the
case,<br><br>
(B)<br>
With regards to para 63, Civil Society recognizes the importance of role
of the governments to protect the ccTLD under their jurisdiction, it
should be exercised in a manner that respects human rights as expressed
in existing international treaties through a democratic, transparent and
inclusive process with full involvement of all stakeholders, inter alia,
the Civil Society, at the national level." <br><br>
Just a try...<br><br>
izumi sitting in Vancouver ICANN meeting<br><br>
<br>
At 10:41 05/12/03 -0800, Avri Doria wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite>Hi,<br><br>
I am not totally comfortable with the paragraph. As I have pointed
out often on this list and other is that I beleive we make a mistake when
we accept the notion of Governments having sovereignty over ccTLD.
Yes, I believe they need to be operated in the countries' interests, but
do not beleive that should be automatically construed as translating to
sovereignty.<br><br>
It is certainly their right to assert such a claim, but I see no reason
for us to acquiesce to it, for in doing so, we help to make it so.<br>
<br>
I would prefer that we use language that indicates a county's
responsibilities as steward of a ccTLd to protect human rights, privacy
rights and equality of access.<br><br>
<br>
a.<br><br>
<br>
On 3 dec 2005, at 10.14, Parminder wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite><font face="courier new" size=2> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>Bill, thanks for rounding up the outcomes
from the discussions. <br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>One last point. I think, the ccTLD point
is important and the global CS needs to take a position on how the
enhanced role of governments recognized in the point 63 should be
exercised. <br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>The words contributed by Wolfgang, and
the additions provided by me almost constitutes clear language on this
issue, and unless anyone on this list objects to it, I will request Ralf
to consider its inclusion - exercising his judgment about its placement
in the text on IG. <br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>I quote from Bill's mail below the
discussions on this issue for others people's comments, if any. <br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>>>>Wolfgang raised a concern
about the Tunis Agenda's para 63 on ccTLDs,<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>stating, "We should say very clear,
that the recognition of the<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>sovereignty of countries / governments
over their ccTD space is embedded<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>into a framework of general principles
which includes all human rights,<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>non-discrimination, equal access etc.
" He did not suggest language. <br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>Parminder agreed, stating that national
sovereignty over ccTLDs "should be<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>exercised in a manner that respects human
rights as expressed in various<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>international treaties, and through a
process that takes in diverse inputs<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>from the civil society at the national
level." Personally, I would favor<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>expressing these concerns, but as nobody
has suggested language or said<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>where it should go in the IG section. As
time is running out, I doubt we'd<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>manage to reach a determination even if
someone proposed text now, but if<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>someone wants to try, great.
Otherwise, I guess it'll have to be your<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>editorial judgment call as to the
addition of a sentence or two on this.>>><br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>parminder <br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>
________________________________________________<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>Parminder Jeet Singh<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>IT for Change<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>Bridging Development Realities and
Technological Possibilities <br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>91-80-26654134<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>
<a href="http://www.ITforChange.net" eudora="autourl">
www.ITforChange.net</a> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>-----Original Message-----<br>
From: governance-bounces@lists.cpsr.org
[<a href="mailto:governance-bounces@lists.cpsr.org">
mailto:governance-bounces@lists.cpsr.org</a>] On Behalf Of William
Drake<br>
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 3:20 PM<br>
To:
<a href="mailto:bendrath@zedat.fu-berlin.de">
bendrath@zedat.fu-berlin.de</a><br>
Cc: Governance<br>
Subject: [governance] Finalizing the IG Section of the CS Statement on
Tunis<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>Hi Ralf, (and all)<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>I guess time is running out to make
changes to the IG section of the CS<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>statement. The last I heard you
wanted to finalize Sunday afternoon and<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>were urging the caucus to urgently get it
together on inputs. So, in<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>accordance with my instructions from Lee,
let's see if we can track the<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>debate and move toward closure for
you.<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>The last version of IG stuff I saw that
you had incorporated into the<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>draft statement was from Wednesday the
30th. It reflected suggestions I<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>made on the 28th and subsequent
discussions and modifications by the group<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>in which multiple people weighed in and
nobody said, no I can't accept<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>this. In the absence of other, more
effective procedures it seemed<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>reasonable to treat that text as
agreed. Since that time, to my knowledge<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>there have been a couple of additional
suggestions that have been<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>variously (hi Avri;-) supported, so
presumably the same 'nobody objected'<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>principle would apply. Some other
points are still very much in the air.<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>1. I suggested on Wed. 30th that IG
be included in your first page<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>listing of CS objectives going into the
Tunis phase, since affecting the<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>IG process and decisions were in fact
main objectives, certainly equal to<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>the others listed, to which a lot of
people devoted a lot of energy, with<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>some success. The language I
suggested was:<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>"*Agreement on a substantively broad
and procedurally inclusive approach to<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>Internet governance, the reform of
existing governance mechanisms in<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>accordance with the Geneva principles,
and the creation of a new mechanism<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>or forum to promote multistakeholder
dialogue, analysis, trend monitoring,<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>and capacity building in the field of
Internet governance."<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>According to the list archives, replies
were received from Jeanette, Avri,<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>Vittorio, Adam, Izumi, Wolfgang, Jacky,
Parminder, and Lee. Nobody<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>objected to this suggestion, although
Jeanette expressed concern that<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>other caucuses might want to add
additional objectives, which in my view<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>anyway is a separate matter and wouldn't
be a function of one sentence on<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>IG. In any event, since the
argument for including this is clear, the<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>arguments against would be
counterfactual, and a number of folks haven't<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>objected on its inclusion or substance,
can we please treat this as<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>agreed? I think it would be utterly
bizarre not to mention IG in key<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>objectives, and that other stakeholders
and press would be perplexed.<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>2. I also suggested a change on the
IG piece for the going forward<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>section on page 10:<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>"Element two: Involvement in the
Internet Governance Forum<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>The CS Internet Governance Caucus will
actively participate in and support<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>the work of the IGF, and is exploring
ways to enhance its working methods<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>and engagement with relevant
stakeholders, especially the research<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>community, to these ends. In
addition, discussions are under way to<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>create a new working group that will make
recommendations on the<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>modalities of the IGF."<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>Here things are more messy. The
folks mentioned above didn't disagree<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>with the desirability of tweaking this
passage or with the first sentence,<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>but on the second pertaining to the WG
concept, various ideas were<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>expressed without reaching a clear
conclusion. Jeanette thought we should<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>not limit the WG sentence to modalities,
and should hence just say that<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>the caucus will "create a working
group that will make recommendations on<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>relevant aspects concerning the
IGF." Avri said she's fine with either<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>formulation. Vittorio said "we have
to be very clear on whether we expect<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>this to be the only or at least the
recommended place for CS groups that<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>want to discuss about the forum,"
but did not suggest language that would<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>bring this clarity. Jeanette
replied, "Since we never speak for civil<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>society as such but only for a specific
working group or caucus, I don't<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>understand what exactly it is you try to
prevent or achieve." Adam said<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>"Of course other caucuses and
working groups will be interested in the<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>forum. And the Internet governance caucus
may continue as is, it might<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>evolve into a new working group, or a new
working group might emerge<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>separately. So why not refer to civil
society and not mention the caucus<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>or any new working group?,"
but did not suggest text. Lee said "yay" for<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>the original suggestion, Wolfgang said of
course the WG is open to all and<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>should cover both modalities and
substance, Izumi agreed it is open to<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>all, and Jacky asked whether
"modalities and substance could be separated<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>into two groups?"<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>That is where we left it. It's not a
clear picture on the WG sentence, but<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>the first seems unproblematic. Here are
two options Ralf, and in the event<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>you don't get more input, I guess you
could just use your judgment?<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>A. "Element two: Involvement
in the Internet Governance Forum<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>The CS Internet Governance Caucus will
actively participate in and support<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>the work of the IGF, and is exploring
ways to enhance its working methods<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>and engagement with relevant
stakeholders, especially the research<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>community, to these ends."
Full stop. Don't say anything about a WG<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>since its form and function are not
agreed yet, and any subsequent<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>decision to create one would not be
inconsistent with the statement.<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>B. "Element two: Involvement
in the Internet Governance Forum<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>The CS Internet Governance Caucus will
actively participate in and support<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>the work of the IGF, and is exploring
ways to enhance its working methods<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>and engagement with relevant
stakeholders, especially the research<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>community, to these ends. In
addition, the caucus is considering the<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>creation of a new working group that will
make recommendations on the IGF,<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>and other civil society caucuses and
working groups will develop ideas for<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>and participate in the IGF as
well." This second sentence would seem to<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>capture the various views expressed
without committing us to any<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>particular configuration, more or less,
or you could tweak, whatever.<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>3. Izumi suggested that the first
sentence of the section should read,<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>"Civil society is pleased with the
decision to create an Internet<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>Governance Forum (IGF) for
multistakeholder dialogue, which it has<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>advocated since 2003." The
multistakeholder clause would be new. Nobody<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>has objected, the case it
straightforward, hopefully you can insert this.<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>4. Wolfgang raised a concern about
the Tunis Agenda's para 63 on ccTLDs,<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>stating, "We should say very clear,
that the recognition of the<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>sovereignty of countries / governments
over their ccTD space is embedded<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>into a framework of general principles
which includes all human rights,<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>non-discrimination, equal access etc.
" He did not suggest language. <br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>Parminder agreed, stating that national
sovereignty over ccTLDs "should be<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>exercised in a manner that respects human
rights as expressed in various<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>international treaties, and through a
process that takes in diverse inputs<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>from the civil society at the national
level." Personally, I would favor<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>expressing these concerns, but as nobody
has suggested language or said<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>where it should go in the IG section. As
time is running out, I doubt we'd<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>manage to reach a determination even if
someone proposed text now, but if<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>someone wants to try, great.
Otherwise, I guess it'll have to be your<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>editorial judgment call as to the
addition of a sentence or two on this.<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>5. A number of people have
expressed various concerns about the wording<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>of the last paragraph on public
education. While the general idea is easy<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>to support, there were some critical
comments on the formulation too. <br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>There was not enough back and forth on
language to see a resolution, and<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>the situation is complicated by the fact
that Divina is not on the caucus<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>list. Here I would repeat my Dec. 1
suggestion which seems like a path of<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>least resistance, but do what seems
right.<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>> Lastly, in light of things said in
the thread concerning the public<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>> awareness paragraph, I would suggest
that this should be moved to the four<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>> para section on Education and
Research, which I presume Divina played a<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>> role in shaping. Clustering
like points and having thematic sections that<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>> come from people involved in the
respective caucuses would in no way<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>> constitute a downgrading of this
important concern.<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>Finally, on the global public goods
thread, there's been some lengthy list<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>and private dialogue, strong views on
both sides, no agreement, so<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>whatever.<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>Basta. Hope this helps you
finalization process, and that some other<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>folks will weigh in on the above points
in a manner that facilitates your<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>task. Thanks again for coordinating
all this.<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>Best,<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>Bill<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>
*******************************************************<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>William J. Drake
<a href="mailto:wdrake@ictsd.ch">wdrake@ictsd.ch</a><br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>President, Computer Professionals
for<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2> Social Responsibility
<a href="http://www.cpsr.org">www.cpsr.org</a><br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2> Geneva, Switzerland<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>
<a href="http://mitpress.mit.edu/IRGP-series">
http://mitpress.mit.edu/IRGP-series</a><br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>
<a href="http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake" eudora="autourl">
http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake</a><br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>Morality is the best of all devices for
leading<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>mankind by the nose.---Nietzsche<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>
*******************************************************<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>
_______________________________________________<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>governance mailing list<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
</font><br>
<font face="courier new" size=2>
<a href="https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance" eudora="autourl">
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance</a><br>
</font>_______________________________________________<br>
governance mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
<a href="https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance" eudora="autourl">
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance</a></blockquote><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
governance mailing list<br>
governance@lists.cpsr.org<br>
<a href="https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance" eudora="autourl">
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance</a></blockquote></body>
</html>