[governance] CS STATEMENT V4: Penultimate version

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

some Comments:


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.




On 15 aug 2005, at 08.05, karen banks wrote:


> hi all
>
> I want to work on this in chunks, so posting notes on final texts  
> we can mark off as done.
>
> final:
>
> 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.


> - the Forum is not alwasy capitalized
> - Capitalization ofInternet is not consistent
>


shouldn't Internet be capitalized throughout the doc.

>
> all paras with substantive changes, or where alternative options  
> are presented are marked in yellow - the doc has been renumbered so  
> the paras may have changes.
>
> main paras to note (but please read the whole doc)
>
> 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.


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

ok

>
> 11/12: Human rights - REVISED TEXT - from HR caucus members
>


i like the text.
there is a spelling error: emphasise


>
> 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'.

spelling: independant


>
> 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.


>
> 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.


>
> 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.



>
> 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.


>
> 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.


>
> 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.



>
> 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)

>
>


> 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



>
> 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.

>
> 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.

>

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