[governance] CS STATEMENT V3: Statement

Sun Aug 14 18:00:33 EDT 2005

Hi Karen a few comments -

4.The sentences on history does not read well where it is. Suggest put it
after "governance arrangements" in same section.

30. I have a problem with "The end-to-end decentralized architecture should
be preserved and reinforced against all attempt to introduce centralized
control over the Internet." Some very good thinkers in this area (see pps
11-12 of the NSF workshop report at
http://www.internetmark2.org/barriers-0001.pdf challenge the usefulness of
slavish adherence to end-to-end and raise significant problems particularly
as regards mobility. In any case, the important principles should relate to
connectivity, access, security, etc, not some means of achieving these
principles (e2e architecture as it is currently understood is a means of
achieving these, not the only one). Sorry for the e2e mantra chanters but
there are other religions in this debate! My suggestion is drop the sentence
altogether because in fact there is already centralized control in DNS at
least (something of an anomaly...)

38. forum length - suggest 5 years, not 2 for a trial. 2 yrs will do nothing

46. grammar in first sentence

51. similar comments about end to end as under 30. praise eu for the other
stuff. 

58 Lee sez redundant - however it gives context to 59 which I think is very
important, so i would keep or amend rather than delete

Ian Peter
Senior Partner
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
P.O Box 10670  Adelaide St
Brisbane 4000
Australia
Tel +614 1966 7772
Email ian.peter at ianpeter.com
www.ianpeter.com
www.internetmark2.org
www.nethistory.info (Winner, Top100 Sites Award, PCMagazine Spring 2005)

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of karen banks
Sent: Monday, 15 August 2005 6:15 AM
To: Governance list
Cc: Rikke Frank Joergensen
Subject: [governance] CS STATEMENT V3: Statement

** apologies if a dupe of this comes with both word and OOo - governance 
list bounced the message back due to size, so have sent separate messages **
---------------------------

Dear all

** I've cc'd a couple of people as i have specific questions and not sure 
they are on the list - rikke (HR), ralf (privsec) in particular **

i have questions here for just about anyone who made comments, so please 
read through the whole thing..

paras preceeded with ===> are either non consensus, or final positions are 
not clear to me (versioning getting difficult)

Attached is word version, OOo to follow

Below are some notes pointing to paras i'd like them to check.. OOo version 
will need some cleaning up at the end.. (i'm not great with tables)

thanks
karen
----

Intro: there is a suggestion to draw on something from the CS Declaration 
from Geneva 2003 - i shall look at and see if we can grab something..
----

----------
Section II. Working definition of Internet governance (8 to 12)
----------

Para 4: Adam, bill, lee - please check - it wasn't clear to me where the 
text should go

-----------
Section III. Identifying public policy issues that are relevant to Internet 
governance and assessing the adequacy of existing governance arrangements 
(13 to 28)
-----------

Para 9: Bill - please check

para 12: freedom of expression - rony, adam, bill, robert - please check. 
(note - rony, you are absolutely right and this was a mistake i meant to 
correct in the first version, the article intended is article 12!, of 
course not 29, bad mistake and thanks for catching.

Anyway, i have removed the reference to article 12 (as it is weak) and 
inluded vittorio's new para on privacy - and, i haven't quoted article 19 
(agree with rony) But, am not happy with the para - it doesn't flow and i 
think loses the general emphasis on the broad rights framework approach. 
I'd be happy if someone could have another go.

** rikke - can you check also? **

para 13: privacy and consumer rights (new) - vittorio, is this really true? 
industry alone? what about data protection commissioners etc?

"We support the recognition of the importance that these issues have in the 
Information Society and the consequent recommendations of the WGIG. Howver, 
notwithstanding 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 industry alone."

** robert/ralf - maybe you can help **

vittorio: re this sentance, are you proposing an addiitional forum? can 
this not be something THE FORUM could undertake?, if so, i would suggest 
rather adding it as a function of the forum - anyway, please clarify

"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."

para 14: Internet Stability, Security and 'Cybercrime'

This is another para which incorrectly references article 29, i have 
changed it to article 12 - but am really not sure how useful article12 is.

robert -  i thought i saw some comments from you on this para - but can't 
find.. anyway
ralf - could you check also?

para 15: IPR - bill, thanks for your comments - and i agree on support of 
WIPO development agenda and access to knowledge treaty. there was an 
offlist message that we might not want to be so specific and save for 
prepcom statement, but this is happening now, and it will demonstrate 
support for the NGO coalitions working around the issue, and the developing 
cuntries promoting the agenda

paras 19-21: universal access - we agree to leave the text as is - and will 
continue to let bill hassle us ;) - we will have proposals for prepcom

paras 22-23: interconnection costs - ditto - leave text as is

para 24: open content - incorporated bill's comments

==> para 26: we don't have consensus text here - carlos has sent comments 
offlist, and i agree with him that rather than make the statement simpler, 
we extend it to describe, in different language, not using words like 'sue' 
the responsibiities of governments to use public funds effectively and 
accountably in the procurement of applications and services.

i will leave this until tomorrow - carlos, can i post your comments to the 
list? - maybe we can come up with some text?

----------
SECTION IV: Developing a common understanding of the respective roles and 
responsibilities of all stakeholders from both developed and developing 
countries (29 to 30)
----------

==> para 27 - academia and technical commuities - It is unclear to me, from 
the thread of comments in the tacked document, whether we have consensus on 
this..

bill, adam - please check text..

para 28 - roles of cs/ps/gov etc.. please check - vittorio has added two 
paras on internet users (29, 30).. the text is a little long, could do with 
editing down

paras 31-34: government sovereignty etc.

rony, this text is written to acknowledge the real problems of (largely 
developing) governments refusal to allow CS participation in processes 
because of a) it largely being people like us (from the north, let's face 
it) and that b) some countries believe they do have democratic bottom 
processes at the national level (brazil for example). what we are trying to 
do is to acknowledge this.

all i could propose is to remove that phrase so that para 32 reads:

"The caucus acknowledges that in some cases, national level policy-making 
is inclusive of civil society and other stake-holders. In such cases, it 
could be surmised that the interests of civil society are advocated 
effectively through government delegations, particularly where such 
delegations include civil society and other stakeholders."

i'm fine with it like this (happier actually)

alternatively, we can point to explicit areas of public policy where *we* 
acknolwedge sovereignhty, for example:

"We also agree with the US government that governments have legitimate 
public policy and sovereignty concerns with respect to the management of 
their ccTLD," (our para 53)

---------
Section V. "Proposals for action, as appropriate"
---------

paras 37-43: The Forum - everyone please check

===> I added points 3 and 4 at the end and reather than renumber now, have 
left blank and wioll renumber on final draft

point 3. International coordination - NEW TEXT

para references WSIS action plan and calls for resourcing of development IG 
related capacity building

point 4. regional and national coordination:  NEW TEXT

first para: my colleague willie currie has proposed we add some more 
substantive text about capacity building in this section (it could go 
elsewhere, but as we have nothing here)

second para:and, i suggested we support text in the ISOC statement calling 
for capacity building support
reason being that i would like to encourage ISOC to commit more serisouly 
to this work, and hope we can have some  substantive and transparent 
dialogue with them on how we can do this..

third para - explicit support for developing country 
universities/insitutions for IG capacity building - this supports the call 
for such a network to be attached to the forum, but to ensure that it is 
not northern led

paras 44-48: models etc - minor addition to para 44 re "fostering role for 
certain developmental issues"

paras 50-76:  root zone file - everyone who has commented on this needs to 
read the current text - i'm sure we're not quite there yet

- i think rony's concerns have been dealt with,

- but not bills re EU .. i do think it odd that we applaud the EU in 3 
paras, when they are actually terrible on CS participation.. i would 
recommend toning down the applauding

- on para 64: specific recommendations re root zone

   -- bills asks what form recommendation a) should take - re TLD and ccTLD 
removal/change etc..
   -- willie currie has suggested ending with specific recommendations to 
the US gov, which includes a paraphrasing of recommendation a) - which is 
not agreed
----------------

that's it for me

karen

-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.8/71 - Release Date: 12/08/2005

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.8/71 - Release Date: 12/08/2005

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