<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hi Carlos<br><div>
</div>
<br><div><div>On Oct 12, 2011, at 3:45 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Clearly, a takeover of ICANN/IETF/W3C/RIRs, etc by a multilateral<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">body (as proposed by IBSA) will not fill any gaps. It's just a<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">power play.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Now, this is really news to me, and I think I know English enough to<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">grasp what the by now famous IBSA doc said or did not say.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">This is the link that I have based my reaction to the proposal upon:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://www.culturalivre.org.br/artigos/IBSA_recommendations_Internet_Governance.pdf">http://www.culturalivre.org.br/artigos/IBSA_recommendations_Internet_Governance.pdf</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">There is not<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">even mention of any of these entities, which are of entirely different<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">natures in scope, mandate, incidence, decision-making, relation to gov<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">bodies etc etc.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I think you may have missed this bit then:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">"iii. integrate and oversee the bodies responsible for technical and<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">operational functioning of the Internet, including global standards<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">setting;"<br></blockquote><br>No mention of the specific entities and forms in which anything would<br>effectively be done. </div></span></blockquote><div><br></div>So just to be clear then, are you saying that by "the bodies responsible for technical and operational functioning of the Internet," the IBSA document does NOT mean ICANN/IETF/W3C/RIRs, etc? If so this would have been good to know when we were debating this very point in the CIR main session in Nairobi, it'd have relaxed some of the palpable clenching in the room...</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>Also, this "integration" or "oversight", in many<br>forms, has been part of the life of standards in any sector, much before<br>the Internet came to be, from screws to plugs to... And, of course,<br>being of entirely different natures and under distinct institutional<br>arrangements, this can mean anything. This is also why I insist we take<br>up the generalistic IBSA draft and try and propose changes, additions,<br>modifications etc as the three government reps are expecting from us.</div></blockquote></div><div><br></div><div>Ok, I'll take the bait and start...</div><div><br></div><div>From the Rio recommendations paper, I suggest replacing:</div><div><br></div><div>"In order to prevent fragmentation of the Internet, avoid disjointed policy making, increase participation and ensure stability and smooth functioning of the Internet, an appropriate body is urgently required in the UN system to coordinate and evolve coherent and integrated global public policies pertaining to the Internet."</div><div><br></div><div>with</div><div><br></div><div>"In order to prevent fragmentation of the Internet, avoid disjointed policy making, increase participation and ensure stability and smooth functioning of the Internet, significantly increased peer-to-peer multistakeholder dialogue and collaboration is required on those issues that are agreed to require integrated global public policies."</div><div><br></div><div>By extension, I would strike:</div><div><br></div><div>"It was further agreed that the new body should inter alia:</div><ul><li>be located within the UN system;</li><li>be tasked to develop and establish international public policies with a view to ensuring coordination and coherence in cross-cutting Internet-related global issues;</li><li>integrate and oversee the bodies responsible for technical and operational functioning of the Internet, including global standards setting;</li><li>address developmental issues related to the internet;</li><li>undertake arbitration and dispute resolution, where necessary, and</li><li>be responsible for crisis management."</li></ul><div>I would then replace</div><div><br></div><div>"The meeting agreed to prepare a detailed proposal outlining the modalities of the proposed new global Internet Governance body for consideration and approval of the IBSA Summit, scheduled to be held on October 18, 2011 in Durban, South Africa. This proposal could thereafter be presented at the 66th UN General Assembly in New York…in December 2010 [sic]"</div><div><br></div><div>with</div><div><br></div><div>"The IBSA governments commit to engaging the global community in open, peer-to-peer multistakeholder dialogue in order to a) identify concrete, specific issues on which action may be required, and b) explore new and innovative forms of multistakeholder collaboration that could be used to address such issues. Such a dialogue shall be commenced online with an eye toward assembling a representative multistakeholder drafting team that would prepare a written proposal for consideration at the 2012 Internet Governance Forum."</div><div><br></div><div>[Re: the above forms, one possible idea I raised in my workshop, on which there's been some subsequent discussion off-list, is to generalize elements of the AoC as a global framework. Would be interested in coming back to that down the line…]</div><div><br></div><div>Finally, I would replace</div><div><br></div><div>"As a first step, it recommended the establishment of an IBSA Internet Governance and Development Observatory at the earliest. The Observatory should be tasked to monitor developments on global Internet Governance and provide regular updates and analyses from the perspective of developing countries."</div><div><br></div><div>"As a first step, IBSA governments agree to work with interested stakeholders from around the world to establish an Internet Governance and Development Observatory. The Observatory should be tasked with monitoring trends, aggregating ideas and information, and providing regular updates and analyses, with particular attention to the concerns of developing country governments and stakeholders. Such an observatory could be institutionally nested within the Internet Governance Forum."</div><div><br></div><div>BTW I really like the observatory piece…as you may recall, Wolfgang and I included such a thing in the global governance section of the CS declaration at the 2003 WSIS summit in Geneva. It was also embodied in some of our 2004 proposals for what became the IGF...</div><div><br></div><div>Hope this is helpful,</div><div><br></div><div>Bill</div><div><br></div><div>PS: I strongly agreed with your NCSG list posting :-)</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br></body></html>