[governance] CS STATEMENT V4: Penultimate version

[Avri Doria]

sorry that i keep sending from the wrong address.


On 15 aug 2005, at 09.23, karen banks wrote:

> hi avri
>
>>> 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 ;)

of course, i was no suggesting otherwise.  what i was saying is that  
sometimes i might think something was a mistake when it was merely  
British.

>
>>> - 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?

oh, the usage i am used to is:

internet - a network of networks
Internet - the global e2e, with uniquely global addresses network of  
networks
>
>
>
>>> 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 ;)

seems a reasonable solution path.

>
>
>
>>> 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


yes, this is what i thought was ok.

>
>
>>> 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..

i realized, but figure i would point out the few i saw (given my  
tendency to mistype and misspell, i admit it is rather presumptuous  
for me to do so.)

>
>>> 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.


oh, i thought this paragraph was part of both options.

and while I would be happier with, replace the first para of para 1  
with:

... should be considered over ...

i realize i am in a minority here on my cautious attitude about  
strong FOSS recommendations.


i would drop the word [temporary]  in the second paragraph.  all sw  
decisions are temporary.

>>>
>>> 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.. **


if they are just listed as examples, then i think it is ok.
>
>
>
>>> 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? **


i would delete.  we don't really need to say we think it might be a  
or b.  i think it is sufficient that the previous paragraph indicates  
we are concerned and have questions.

>
>
>
>>> 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.

i recommend deleting this clause.  except for .us, what reason do we  
see for any US 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


if you keep 57, then you should keep 59.


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