[governance] My edits to the draft statement

Sat Aug 13 11:53:38 EDT 2005

I've stripped our Vittorio's comments to text, perhaps easier to
follow like this?

My comments on Vittorio's are as ajp.

Thanks,

Adam

About "Adapting and implementing WSIS principles " Vb writes

Vb: This was the subject of the last minute discussion at 1am while
everyone else was already celebrating, and the related para was
striken out. But we need to stress it!

ajp:  Do we need to add more than is there now, or are you OK with the
text as is?

Vb: propose additional text on the individual rights issue: text is
bad, make it better:
We think that, as a consequence of many similar efforts in different
fora and at different levels, it is necessary to develop a "Bill of
Rights of Internet Users" stating the application of human rights,
including consumer, access and privacy rights, to the Internet, from
the point of view of the individual end-user, to be then adopted as a
formal document of the United Nations.

ajp:  I thought we'd been over this on the list and reaction was no? 
Anyway, I think No.

This entire row added by vb -- these issues were missing
Paras 25, 26, 83, 84

ajp: if issues not in the initial response I didn't copy them over...
or may have missed them. We'd been hoping people would use the weeks
after the last Geneva meeting to make suggestions on the initial
response. Is what we asked at the time after all the hassle.

Vb: Privacy and consumer rights
We support the recognition of the importance that these issues have in
the Information Society and the consequent recommendations of the
WGIG. Currently, notwithstanding some efforts in some fora, there is
no global and inclusive policy discussion process regarding these
issues; de facto, policies that impact Internet users globally are
defined by the industry only.

ajp: OK

Vb: We stress the need to identify a multistakeholder forum to involve
all stakeholders in the assessment of the impact of technology over
these rights, and to agree on standard practices for their practical
definition and enforcement.

ajp:  you mean the forum will become a global consumer rights forum? 
If so, no. I think we should say something simple on consumer rights,
but I cannot suggest text (past midnight on Saturday...)

Vb: The WGIG report fails in part to recognize the importance that
direct action by individuals from all stakeholder groups -- the
so-called "netizens" -- has on the Internet. In particular, it is
important that active users from the Internet community continue to
have an actual chance to influence the future of the Internet, and are
proactively encouraged to participate in policy discussions, without
bureaucracy and without requiring them to be part of organizations.

ajp: Most people do not know what a netizen is, don't risk confusing a
good message. (I asked for someone to clarify the meaning of Netizen,
I am not sure anymore and I first heard is from Michael...)

Vb: The basic principles over which the Internet has developed, though
mentioned in the Background Report, need to be given much more
attention. It is important to preserve the ability of users to
innovate and introduce new content, services and technology, without
having to go through a central validation and authorization process.
It is important to preserve the independence of layers, so that
connectivity providers do not determine which content can be
transmitted. The end-to-end decentralized architecture should be
preserved and reinforced against all attempt to introduce centralized
control over the Internet.

ajp: this is good.  Like to see how it fits with Lee's ideas.

Vb: We support the mission of the forum as stated in the WGIG report.
To that extent,

ajp: By forum mission do you mean "The WGIG identified a vacuum within
the context of existing structures, since there is no global
multi-stakeholder forum to address Internet-related public policy
issues. It came to the conclusion that there would be merit in
creating such a space for dialogue among all stakeholders. This space
could address these issues, as well as emerging issues, that are
cross-cutting and multidimensional and that either affect more than
one institution, are not dealt with by any institution or are not
addressed in a coordinated manner."

Vb (about forum functions)

l. evaluate on an ongoing basis whether the values and principles set
forth by the WSIS documents are actually applied in Internet
governance processes; (ajp: OK)
m. promote the creation of multi-stakeholder working groups to deal
with specific issues; (ajp: No, not "deal with".)
n. promote the usage of ICTs to allow remote participation in Internet
governance processes; (ajp: OK)
o. release recommendations, best practices, proposals and other
documents on the various Internet governance issues. (ajp: OK... I
guess, but it's getting sweeping and would like to see the forum with
an identified mission.)

Vb: Participation in the discussions and working groups of the forum
should be free and open to all interested individuals from all
stakeholder groups. Operations should be designed in such a way that
physical attendance is not strictly required and disadvantaged
stakeholders (developing countries, civil society organizations,
individuals) are proactively supported.

ajp: I don't think it should have working groups.  Open consultations
as WGIG for sure, but again this seems like potentially a massive
structure.  General principles for participation are good though.

Vb: It is important that the forum has clear organization and
decision-making procedures, and responsibilities for its functioning
and effectiveness are clearly defined and attributed. It is also
important that the structure that will be given to the forum is able
to produce practical results. A forum for discussion will not be
particularly useful if it will not be coupled with the ability to
bring all stakeholders to agreement and determine actual changes.

ajp: I don't think necessary to say this.  Our paragraph 18 covers adequately. 

(final sentence of conclusion)

Capacity building and ensuring the meaningful participation of all
stakeholders, (Vb) including civil society organizations and
individual Internet users (end Vb), must be a priority going forward. 
ajp: OK

end

On 8/13/05, Vittorio Bertola <vb at bertola.eu.org> wrote:
> I am attaching some proposed edits (additions, mostly) to the statement.
> Main ones are: mentioning and supporting the basic architectural
> principles of the Internet; reinforcing the role and participatory rights
> of individual users/netizens; adding a section on privacy and consumer
> rights; strengthening the forum proposal.
> On the forum, I've dropped my original text and I've tried to insert a
> call for making the forum effective without going too much in details (so
> no mention about composition, executive group, secretariat etc). However,
> I'm still waiting to hear about how a forum could be effective without a
> secretariat and an executive group :-)
> Ciao,
> --
> vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
> http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg...
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> 
> 
> 
>

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance