<div dir="ltr">Dear All,<div><br></div><div>First of all, I wish to apologize on behalf of Deirdre and myself for the prolonged silence. We both have been caught at the same time in other immediate commitments with various demands on our time, including traveling and the burdens that come with (starting with the reason why one might be traveling in the first place which can only be carried out during the limited time of such travels.) Anyway, you get my drift...</div>
<div><br></div><div>Now I'd like to get the ball rolling on things that we as IGC might want to do this year by building on those who have already posted ideas and suggestions regarding the NetMundial at <span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">São</span> Paulo. While it may be late for starting to prepare a written submission which is expected to be in by March 8, perhaps we may still start working out something that could be delivered during the proceedings if we are given the opportunity (or simply as a first step in the formulation of some basic ideas we might seek consensus on at some point in the process in response to Ig challenges of the day, even beyond <span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">São</span> Paulo.)</div>
<div><br></div><div>On that note, I remember Antonio Medina Gómez sending to the list a note dated Jan 22 where he volunteered "<span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">to attend the meeting and act as Rapporteur for the IGC to report back on meetings in real time. Let me know what your thoughts are. I will also update you daily and at the end of the meeting produce a report on key observations. I think having a team of IGC rapporteurs would be useful and I am willing to volunteer."</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></span></div><div>So maybe beyond written submissions, the question that looms ahead is: How are we going to organize IGC presence and participation in the proceedings in <span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">São</span> Paulo? </div>
<div><br></div><div>Meanwhile and for immediate consideration, I have seen over the recent days two proposals/statements that appear to me a good starting point for discussing any possible input by IGC or subsets/member of IGC. One is more about principles and the other more focused on a practical solution to one problem. I have copied and pasted them as follows. </div>
<div><br></div><div>[SOURCE: Louis Pouzin, mail posted on Feb 28] </div><div><br></div><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">1 - On-line users must enjoy the same human rights as they do off-line.</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">2- There must not be discrimination in access and contents due to criteria such as opinion, religion, race, gender, geography, language, or economic resources.</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">3- Services offered in the internet must remain equitable and neutral among service providers, without taking unfair advantage of a dominant or privileged position.</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">4- Internet availability, deployment, and service conditions must benefit all segments of the human society, not just those enjoying richer economic development.</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">5- A special effort must be engaged in order to provide the Less Developed Countries with an equitable share of resources to participate in activities related to worldwide internet governance.</span><br>
</div><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">[SOURCE: Ian Peter, mail posted on Feb 28]</span></div><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br>
</span></div>Roadmap (and principles) for internalisation of the former IANA functions within the multistakeholder ICANN model.<br><br>This roadmap concentrates on one internet governance issue only – the future of the IANA functions which have been the subject of much past discussion because current arrangements are seen by many to be outside of the preferred multistakeholder model.<br>
<br>Indeed, IANA itself was established in an era before current internet governance models (multistakeholder) and governance institutions (eg ICANN) were in existence.<br><br>ROADMAP<br><br>This roadmap suggests that the IANA functions, though necessary processes in the secure and authoritative functioning of the Internet, no longer need a separate entity and would more productively merged with similar functions under the auspices of ICANN. Subject of course to many concerns about details, this direction appears to have widespread support from governments, civil society, technical community, and private sector.<br>
<br> In order to achieve this desired change efficiently and productively, the following roadmap is proposed.<br><br>1. ICANN should be requested to prepare a proposal for management of the previous IANA functions within the ICANN multistakeholder model, bearing in mind the following criteria:<br>
<br>(a) protection of the root zone from political or other improper interference;<br><br>(b) integrity, stability, continuity, security and robustness of the administration of the root zone;<br><br>(c) widespread [international] trust by Internet users in the administration of this function; (d) support of a single unified root zone; and<br>
<br>(e) agreement regarding an accountability mechanism for this function that is broadly accepted as being in the global public interest."<br><br>2. Preparation of the proposal should involve discussion with all major stakeholder groups, with a completion timetable for a first draft for discussion at the Internet Governance Forum in Turkey in September 2014.<br>
<br>3. To expedite completion in a timely manner, it is suggested that outside consultants be engaged to prepare the discussion paper (proposal) in consultation with major stakeholders.<br><br>4. The solution must have the following characteristics<br>
<br>(a) offers a legal structure that is robust against rogue litigation attacks<br><br>(b) is aligned with the Internet technical infrastructure in a way that supports innovative, technology based evolution of the DNS .<br>
<br>(c) is an inclusive model<br><br>(d) is a demonstrable improvement on current processes in this area<br><br>END of proposals<div><br></div><div>Deirdre also has suggested the possibility of a series of very short statements (micro-blogging kind of length) to capture succinct positions on critical points. She will probably say more on that in the next couple of days.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Meanwhile I am inviting you all to step forward and share your thought about the above.</div><div><br></div><div>Thank you. <br><br><div><div><div dir="ltr"><span style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px"><span style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px"><span style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px"><span style="border-collapse:collapse"><span style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px"><span style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px"><span style="border-collapse:collapse"><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:rgb(80,0,80)">
Mawaki</div><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:rgb(80,0,80)"><br></div></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></div></div>
</div></div></div>