[governance] CS STATEMENT V3: Statement
Lee McKnight
LMcKnigh at syr.edu
Sun Aug 14 20:00:06 EDT 2005
Since Bill and now Ian are disturbing my meditative state, permit me to
elaborate on why I continue to harp on the end to end principle. I went
into this at the OII's IG event in May, so here we go again:
a) it's taken only, say 20 years to teach governments to say 'end to
end'
b) it makes political types feel good to say 'e2e'
c) giving politicians something positive to say about the net which
does no harm is a good thing
d) saying 'must defend...e2e' is politically useful for bashing various
governments who don't.
e) the fact that many key technical aspects of the net don't currently
follow e2e (starting I believe, with NATs from 10 years back, for which
Bob Frankston apologizes, sort of), and that there are technical designs
for future mobile services which should not follow e2e for various
reasons is irrelevant in the present global political discussion - the
politicos eyes will have long glazed over by the time one gets to these
nuances. and finally
f) The end to end principle is the only new 'principle' yet to emerge
from the Internet which the politicos can (sort of) understand at the
level of international politics
g) so let's help enshrine it at the international level, praise the EU
for 'getting it' even if they only get the e2e headline and and not the
footnotes and clarifications on future architectures which the NSF
workshop doc refers to. The fact that e2e is violated all the time for
good reasons and bad is just not relevant when one wishes to bash a
government for censoring content available to its own citizens; you see
we are not interfering in that nations internal affairs, we are
defending the end to end principle on which the Internet depends : ) -
and in fact at the most basic level of Internet connectivity it does
matter.
h) and we can hope, in say only 10 years this time, the politicos will
be ready for another new international 'principle.' ; ) (by which time
the net's leading edge would be going off in another direction, but no
matter)
So my practical suggestion is to go back to my original simple sentence
borrowed from the EU doc on 'end to end, openness and interoperability,'
and leave the nuance for another day.
OK, I'm going back to my cave, I'll come out again when the doc is
done.
Lee
Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile
>>> "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> 08/14/05 6:00 PM >>>
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
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
More information about the Governance
mailing list