<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hi<br><div>
</div>
<br><div><div>On Feb 26, 2012, at 11:34 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>I guess some of the people involved with IGC might be participating in<br>this week's CWG-WCIT in Geneva. It would be nice if we had a report in<br>this list after Feb.29, when the meeting ends.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I'm on a train to a meeting in Bern so not me, and I'm unaware of any other IGC members. I believe Markus and maybe some other ISOC staff will attend. However, some ISOC, business, and government people plus myself will talk about WCIT at the workshop, ICANN and the Internet Governance Landscape, which will be held 17:30-19:00 Monday 12 March at the ICANN San Jose meeting. I assume there'll be a webcast if anyone's interested. </div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><br>On 02/26/2012 02:11 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:<blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">At the MAG meeting sessions were discussed in far more detail, and I<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">think that Bill Drake might have mentioned WCIT 2012 as being very<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">important.<br></blockquote></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I believe I did, before the chair pretty much stopped calling on observers. Whether this will be reflected in the next roll of the synthesis paper or be taken up in the CIR planning group is rather unknowable at this point, which goes to a larger set of issues that has been unfolding while this list's been preoccupied with other matters. This concerns how the working groups formed to plan the main sessions will be managed. </div><div><br></div><div>The last couple years, the MAG meetings held in May formed MAG + groups that were open to non-MAG participation, which inter alia ended up meaning that Avri and I were able to join the WG planning the CIR session at Nairobi (which had been all TC and business) and advocate inclusion of a discussion of the IBSA enhanced cooperation proposal. That discussion proved to be a useful opportunity for stakeholders from around the world to provide feedback on an intergovernmental initiative—precisely the sort of thing the IGF mandate envisioned. In the same vein, one would think it useful for the IGF to provide stakeholders a chance to provide feedback on the WCIT's planned revision of the International Telecommunication Regulations, the result of a multi-year process that has gone on with little transparency and no multistakeholder participation. </div><div><br></div><div>However, it's not clear whether we'll be in a position to advocate this or anything else as an alternative to the rather anodyne topics mentioned below. The February meeting of the outgoing MAG went ahead and appointed some of its members as WG facilitators (1 of 6 being CS) and is said to have agreed (although none of the CS people in attendance seems to have heard this discussion) that past practice will be jettisoned and the WGs will be open to MAG members only---notwithstanding CS' clear inability to populate six WGs with just a couple current MAG members. This has been the subject of some fairly intensive debate off list, and I gather the MAG is considering possible solutions. Perhaps our remaining MAG representatives would like to elaborate.</div><div><br></div><div>Bottom line, there needs to be full and balanced MS participation in these working groups, and the Baku main sessions' agendas should not be set before we have representation either by new MAG members or non-MAGers who are in a position to effectively contribute to the work, both F2F in May and online. One would think that "no 3-legged chairs" should not be a controversial proposition...</div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div><br></div><div>Bill</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote type="cite"><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><br></font></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">On 26/02/12 15:59, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Dear people,<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">The February synthesis paper of the open consultations published in the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">IGF official site mentions the following regarding "critical Internet<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">resources":<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">--- begin doc citation ---<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">25. In terms of Critical Internet Resources it was seen by several<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">commentators that further debate is needed around issues such as the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">institutional structure of IG, including the future of ICANN, IP<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">addressing, root servers and Internet exchange points.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">26. Several suggestions were made for the Critical Internet Issues<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">theme, including, inter alia;<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">• Best Practices for eliminating barriers to access to the Internet;<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">• IPv6 and the impact and opportunities for the developing world that<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">may result from the transition to IPv6 and how does the coming depletion<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">of IPv4 addresses affect developing countries?<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">• What is the effect of the deployment of multilingual domain names,<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">i.e. IDN.IDN?<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">• Issues of ICANN's naming policy and the impact of the new gTLDs and<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">IDN gTLDs;<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">• Technical issues such as DNS blocking and how such technical issues<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">drive or impact policy.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">--- end doc citation ---<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">In light of the ongoing ITU process leading to WCIT 2012 aiming at,<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">among other goals, radically revising the 1988 ITR to try to take<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">account of the ICT challenges posed by the Internet, I think the above<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">points are far from sufficient.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">At a minimum, IGF's CIR "track" should include a review of the ITU<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">meetings' outcomes.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">fraternal regards<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">--c.a.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><br>____________________________________________________________<br>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>To be removed from the list, visit:<br> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br><br>For all other list information and functions, see:<br> <a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br><br>Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote type="cite"><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><br></font></blockquote></div></blockquote><br></div><div><br></div><br></body></html>