<html>
<body>
I hope we can try to be more constructive, and decide first what COULD be
discussed, and not use try to define what the IGF SHOULD do, and
stressing that several times (see below quotes)? <br><br>
Also, would be good to constantly read the Tunis agenda. As someone who
has been part of this whole process, I see some dangerous side paths,
that one could take, and there certainly are mechanisms to prevent that
from happening, including in the Tunis agenda. <br><br>
As for the idea that the IGF can decide what's the intention of the WSIS
in the quoted call, that also goes beyond the mandate of the IGF. I think
the Tunis agenda is pretty clear - in all of its points, and one of the
major rules, is that article 72, for example, should be read fully, not
sentence by sentence, and not half sentences only. Here's a simple
example:<br><br>
<font face="Verdana" size=2>72 point a says: Discuss public policy issues
related to key elements of Internet governance in order to foster the
sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the
Internet</font> <br><br>
it's very tempting to say that it actually says,
"<font face="Verdana" size=2>Discuss public policy issues related to
key elements of Internet governance"</font>, however this will not
be true. <br><br>
And as for the "critical Internet resources", the quote is
actually as follows:<br><br>
<br>
<font face="Verdana" size=2>69. <b>We further recognize </b>the need for
enhanced cooperation in the future, to enable governments, on an equal
footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international
public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, but not in the
day-to-day technical and operational matters, that do not impact on
international public policy issues. <br><br>
70. Using relevant international organizations, such cooperation should
include the development of globally-applicable principles on public
policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical
Internet resources. In this regard, <b>we call upon </b>the organizations
responsible for essential tasks associated with the Internet to
contribute to creating an environment that facilitates this development
of public policy principles.<br><br>
</font>Taking any of these sentences, on their own, change the meaning of
the TA. <br><br>
best,<br>
Veni<br><br>
At 15:10 5/1/2007 -0400, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">We therefore believe that an IGF
Plenary session <b>should [here and further all bold font is mine - Veni]
</b>explore the <br>
following topics: <br>
[cut]<br><br>
b) What was intended by the TA's call for the "development of<br>
globally-applicable principles on public policy issues associated
with<br>
the coordination and management of critical Internet
resources" and how<br>
can this goal be pursued?<br><br>
<br>
[cut] Core Internet resources <b>should </b>be discussed as a main
session in the <br>
IGF. Policy toward "critical Internet resources" are a <b>major
topic </b>in<br>
the Tunis Agenda and the mandate for the IGF. Currently, name and <br>
number resources are administered by ICANN and the Regional Internet
<br>
Registries. This session <b>should </b>discuss the policy issues and
policy<br>
making processes in these institutions. In particular, ICANN's
status<br>
as an international organization, its representation of individual<br>
users, and the changing role of the GAC within ICANN <b>should
</b>be<br>
discussed. <br>
</blockquote></body>
</html>