[governance] CS STATEMENT V3: Statement

[William Drake]

Hi Karen,

Attached please find further suggested edits, most notably to the late
text additions.  All I can do today.  Thanks much for coordinating
everything, once again...

Best,

Bill


> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of karen banks
> Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 10:15 PM
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WSIS_IGCAUCUS_WGIG_V3 BD.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 112640 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20050815/8ceacdaa/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance