[governance] CS STATEMENT V4: Penultimate version

[karen banks]

hi avri

>Para 47, last sentence:  Should refer to naming scheme and not
>addressing schem
>
>old
>>Under the current addressing scheme, this could lead to the
>>fragmentation of the Internet and the user community.
>new
>Under the current naming scheme, this could lead to the fragmentation
>of the Internet and the user community.

noted..

>>Editorial:
>>- Question: Isn't Marcus also an Ambassador?
>>- It needs a spell check
>
>     and where i comment on spelling i  hope i am not mistakenly
>considering a British spelling to be wrong.  i don't recognize all
>Britishisms.

we normally use british spelling.. i don't really care - i will use british 
unless someone objects ;)

>>- the Forum is not alwasy capitalized

ok..

>>- Capitalization ofInternet is not consistent
>
>shouldn't Internet be capitalized throughout the doc.

ha.. APC does not capitalise the 'internet' ever.. i know colleagues on 
this list do - which way?


>>2: Is markus kummar an ambassador ? :)
>
>i thought he was.  before wgig, he was the Swiss ambassador for e- 
>stuff.  but i don't know the protocol:  once an ambassador, always an
>ambassador?  the only reason i worry is calling one an ambassador and
>not the other.  one option is  calliing them both Mr.

i shall ask markus ;)


>>10: removed 'take input from global forum' (i think that was the
>>para, lost the change now)
>
>ok

i was wrong, it was actually para 45, from where it was removed..

45. An acceptable oversight framework would
- Allow multi-stakeholder input into policy development
- Ensure meaningful participation of all stakeholders from developing countries
- Focus on shared responsibility rather than oversight and control

>>11/12: Human rights - REVISED TEXT - from HR caucus members
>
>
>i like the text.
>there is a spelling error: emphasise

thanks, shall spell check at end..


>>14. internet stability etc.. - REVISED TEXT - from privsec caucus
>>members
>
>
>i would leave out the optional text.  they are going to do it anyway,
>no sense giving them the encouragement to decide when it is
>absolutely necessary.  to governments it tss always absolutely
>necessary.  also which laws are we referring to, national or
>international.  national laws can be manipulated to make every
>invasion of privacy 'legitimate'.

my colleague who wrote the text noted with hinsights that it best to leave 
out, i will leave it out

>spelling: independant

thanks


>>19-21: universal access - there were further comments offlist re
>>needing recommendations on this but we haven't time - suggest we
>>prioritise this for prepcom
>
>24 editorial: maybe it is because i am using openoffice to read doc,
>but i see all sort of grey characters between some words.  sort of
>like comment markers.

shall check..

>>22: interconnection costs - ditto 19-21
>>
>>26: FOSS - NEW OPTIONAL TEXT - please read
>
>if we need to pick one option, i recommend option 2.  Option just
>says that we have been saying this for a while.  i am not sure what
>this adds.

so, you are ok with ca's proposed additional text?

Option 2: 26. We welcome the reference to FOSS in the background paper and 
advocate the use of FOSS as a priority over other alternatives whenever and 
wherever possible.

We recognize there are circumstances in which governments' decision to 
acquire proprietary licences may be [temporarily] unavoidable, but this 
should always be a result of careful evaluation of all options, considering 
the best use of public funds and the relative advantages of each option 
regarding licencing, maintenance and upgrading costs, open standards, 
access to source code, freedom and capacity to adapt and further develop 
existing software technologies.

>>27: academia and technical community - optional text - please read
>
>I think that option 1 is sufficient.  but if there are strong
>opinions for inclusion of optio 2, won't complain.

ok..

>>29-30: individual users and e2e - editing - no new text but
>>rearranged slightly
>
>29: recommend changing so-called "netizens", which to me has a
>negative inflection to  (sometimes referred to as 'netizens').
>
>though i continue to not see how fighting for this neologism adds
>significant content to the statement.

shall change to 'sometimes referred to...'

>>31-34: sovereignty, national/international cs participation etc..
>>NEW optional text - please read
>
>i think option 1 says it fine.
>
>and while i agree that 32 in option is correctly phrased, i am not
>sure we need to fuel this particular fire at this time.

noted.. shall wait for other comments

>>36-42: forum function, have tried to take on baord comments -
>>please read
>>
>>** not sure we have consensus on provision of so much detail **
>
>
>probably not, but as one who think there may be too much, i don't
>think we have time for pruning.
>
>I t might be sufficient to tune down the lead in sentence.
>
>--> 40.  The Forum could include the following function:
>
>btw, just a nits, while i understand that inter alia is good UN
>language, but wouldn't it be better to use english.  many of the
>inter alias could be removed without any loss of content.

ok.. shall change 'should' to 'could' and look at inter alias ;)

>>43-48: oversight function - NEW OPTIONAL para 47 on DNS
>
>
>47 option 1.  i.e we should stick with the less adventurous text.
>
>though in the last last sentence it should refer to the naming scheme
>not the addressing scheme.
>
>(btw 47 option 2 was number 48)

yes.. and noted

>>49-50: capacity building - edited text
>good.
>
>>
>>52-65: very long section on root zone, NTIA, EU etc
>
>52 firs sentence is difficult,
>
>>We agree with the WGIG and others that, the EU, and the US
>>government that
>
>We agree with the WGIG and others, for example the EU, and the US
>government, that

yes, please see my comment to the list later, editing errros

** do we include EU, US etc or not - is the question.. **


>>have toned down applauding and edited - please check
>>
>>e2e - am not sure the text is consistent - please check
>
>probably too late, but i don't see what we add by including 57;  one
>one hand, then on the other hand ... why not leave 56 that there are
>questions and leave it at that.

this?

57. The statement has been interpreted by some as a manifestation of a US 
strategy that it will never give up its control over core Internet 
resources including root zone file, root server operation, Domain Name and 
IP address management, and related resource management, and by others as a 
US formal summary of its current policies, without indicating how or when 
those policies might change in future..

** include or delete? **


>>59 - ICANN para - no change - are we in agreement that it stays?
>
>\i don't see a 59.  my copy jumps from 57 to 66.

59. The US statement also appears to indicate that US will maintain its 
oversight of ICANN, without describing which areas or functions of ICANN 
are the target object of the oversight. This contradicts our understanding 
of the widely publicized positions of the US Government and ICANN that they 
will not renew the Memorandum of Understanding at its expiry date of 
September 2006 and thus ICANN will gain an international independence, once 
ICANN and its community demonstrate its ability to guarantee stability and 
security of a critical global resource under its own authority.

Lee sez: redundant, and overkill) Ian peter however it gives context to 59 
which I think is very
important, so i would keep or amend rather than delete

thanks avri

karen

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