<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body ><div>Yes, Jean!</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><div style="font-size:100%">------------<br>C. A. Afonso</div></div> <br><br><br>-------- Original message --------<br>From: Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette@wzb.eu> <br>Date: 16-03-2014 06:28 (GMT-03:00) <br>To: governance@lists.igcaucus.org,Ian Peter <ian.peter@ianpeter.com>,Mawaki Chango <kichango@gmail.com> <br>Cc: Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre@gmail.com>,bestbits@lists.bestbits.net <br>Subject: Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA announcement of March 14 <br> <br><br>Hi, I support the changes that Ian proposes. I have one further <br>suggestion which concerns the following para:<br><br>It will be a constant challenge to make sure the term ‘multistakeholder’ <br>is not reduced to mean ‘anti-all-governments-of-the-world’ [ IP <br>or“private sector led”] but is rather open to embrace a <br>‘pro-all-peoples-of-the-world’ meaning.<br><br>Could we simplify this sentence to the effect that the future model must <br>ensure that neither governments nor any single stakeholder group can <br>dominate the policy process?<br><br>Jeanette<br><br>Am 16.03.14 01:42, schrieb Ian Peter:<br>> Just to outline some of the issues behind some of my suggested changes ;<br>> 1. While happy to endorse “multistakeholder” as a step forward for these<br>> particular functions, I am not sure we want to endorse it as a<br>> one-size-fits-all model for all aspects of internet governance. Hence my<br>> first suggested change below.<br>> 2. I wouldn’t describe the role of technical organisations as “primary”<br>> – administrative perhaps?<br>> 3. Perhaps we can word better the section as regards meaning of<br>> multistakeholder and our concerns this could be a mask for dominance of<br>> certain groups.<br>> **<br>> **<br>> **<br>> **<br>> **<br>> *From:* Ian Peter <mailto:ian.peter@ianpeter.com><br>> *Sent:* Sunday, March 16, 2014 10:15 AM<br>> *To:* Mawaki Chango <mailto:kichango@gmail.com> ; Internet Governance<br>> <mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org><br>> *Cc:* Deirdre Williams <mailto:williams.deirdre@gmail.com> ;<br>> bestbits@lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net><br>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA<br>> announcement of March 14<br>> Hi Mawaki,good start.<br>> I think some sections are repetitive and it may be too long. So in my<br>> thinking I have square bracketed some sections below and also have a few<br>> in line comments and suggested alternatives.<br>> *From:* Mawaki Chango <mailto:kichango@gmail.com><br>> *Sent:* Sunday, March 16, 2014 8:10 AM<br>> *To:* Internet Governance <mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org><br>> *Cc:* Deirdre Williams <mailto:williams.deirdre@gmail.com> ;<br>> mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net<br>> *Subject:* [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA<br>> announcement of March 14<br>> Dear All,<br>> Please find a draft of the above subject for your consideration and<br>> possible revisions. This is just a first crack attempted considering the<br>> speed of the events. I'm cc'ing BB as a peer organization with same<br>> concerns.<br>> We would appreciate your inputs by Monday noon, UTC.<br>> ---<br>> IGC Draft Press Release<br>><br>> On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and<br>> Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish the<br>> oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for<br>> Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name<br>> functions. [As the announcement points out, this marks the final phase<br>> of the transition intended from the inception of ICANN toward the<br>> privatization of the domain name system (DNS) and its stewardship].<br>><br>> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and<br>> appreciates the opportunity to further evolve toward an equitable<br>> multistakeholder policymaking model for [ 1. the governance of the<br>> Internet] [IP –2. these functions]. In that regard, IGC pays [a]<br>> particular attention to the reiteration by NTIA of the necessity to<br>> involve all stakeholders in the process as well as in the desired<br>> outcome for fully completing the above transition. [If deemed relevant<br>> by members and subject to what the following actually entails: “Meet the<br>> needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA<br>> services”] We also support the four principles put forward by NTIA to<br>> guide ICANN and the global Internet community in the formulation of a<br>> proposal to finalize this transition].<br>><br>> IP I would leave last bracketed section out<br>><br>> While acknowledging the [primary] role of Internet organizations and<br>> technical standard-setting bodies, IGC wishes to call attention to the<br>> utmost importance of giving due consideration to the concerns and views<br>> of non-technical and non-commercial stakeholders in Internet policies.<br>> Indeed IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the<br>> extent that it does not contradict the ideals of democracy, including<br>> due consideration to the rights of minorities (in the context of<br>> Internet policy). It will be a constant challenge to make sure the term<br>> ‘multistakeholder’ is not reduced to mean<br>> ‘anti-all-governments-of-the-world’ [ IP or“private sector led”] but is<br>> rather open to embrace a ‘pro-all-peoples-of-the-world’ meaning.<br>><br>> Furthermore, a great deal of care should be given to designing the<br>> appropriate accountability mechanisms that fit a truly global<br>> governance institution – with a constituency and a customer base that<br>> actually is global.[ Related to that and more broadly adequate responses<br>> must be found to the concern that while achieving effective<br>> accountability such institution (to emerge from this transition) should<br>> not be subject to any one national jurisdiction at the exclusion of<br>> others. It must be equally available and accessible to all Internet<br>> stakeholders].<br>><br>> [Since ICANN is one of the co-conveners of the upcoming NETMundial, the<br>> Global Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance(www.netmundial.br<br>> <http://www.netmundial.br>) to be held in Brazil this April, we advise<br>> that it includes in its consultation process for the transition proposal<br>> the propositions made in submissions, proceedings and outcomes of that<br>> meeting as regards the phasing out of the current role played by NTIA in<br>> the coordination of the Internet’s domain name system].<br>><br>> The Internet Governance Caucus<br>><br>> March xx, 2014.<br>><br>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>> ____________________________________________________________<br>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>> governance@lists.igcaucus.org<br>> To be removed from the list, visit:<br>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing<br>><br>> For all other list information and functions, see:<br>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance<br>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>> http://www.igcaucus.org/<br>><br>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t<br>><br>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>> ____________________________________________________________<br>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>> governance@lists.igcaucus.org<br>> To be removed from the list, visit:<br>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing<br>><br>> For all other list information and functions, see:<br>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance<br>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>> http://www.igcaucus.org/<br>><br>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t<br><br></body>