[governance] CS STATEMENT FINAL: times up?

[karen banks]

hi

well, i've only had additional comments from avri between versions 4 and final

it still leaves us with some issues you'll have to leave for us now - and i 
have included them below (i'm not including minor changes)

Editorial general
- am using british spelling - have spell checked
- will capitalise 'Internet' though don't agree ;)
- will capitalise 'Forum' throughout


14. Internet stability etc:

Leaving out optional last sentance - final text reads:

Invasions of privacy must be prevented, and when necessary, there must be 
clear rules setting forth the conditions for surveillance, subject to 
independent judicial authorisation and oversight. We strongly support 
paragraphs 24, 25 and 81, 83 of the report. Measures taken in relation to 
the Internet on grounds of security, stability or to fight crime must not 
violate rights to freedom of expression or rights expressed in Article 19 
and Article 12.

26. FOSS - text currently incorporates ca's addition - speak now!

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 - i am going with option 1 unless i 
hear back immediately..

The caucus strongly agrees that the academic and technical communities have 
been invaluable sources of inspiration, innovation and creativity in the 
development and secure and stable operation of the Internet.

31-34: sovereignty, national/international cs participation etc..

am going with option 1:

31. Policy development in relation to internet governance specifically, and 
ICT policy more generally, is becoming more and more the realm of 
international and intergovernmental spaces.

32. We strongly advocate a mutually reinforcing process of support for 
'bottom-up' national level multi-stakeholder processes and an enabling 
environment for meaningful participation by civil society in public policy 
processes also at regional and international levels, given the expanded 
diversity of stakeholders in this context.

33. As demonstrated through WGIG, civil society participation provides an 
efficient way of gaining important perspectives that fall outside the scope 
of government and private sector organisations or may not yet have become 
substantial policy issues in individual countries.

40. Forum function: no comments except for avri.. i'll leave this open for 
last minute comments

** leave long list in or not? **

43-48: Oversight function

para 47: am going with original para, with avri's edit to last sentance:

The acceptance of a single root for the DNS is an important enabler of the 
Internet's international reach Governance arrangements for the root zone 
file should be outside the control of any individual government, and 
broadly acceptable to all stakeholders. If this issue is not addressed, it 
will lead to an increase in the number of alternative root structures that 
could impact negatively on the Internet's security, stability and 
interoperability.  Under the current naming scheme, this could lead to the 
fragmentation of the Internet and the user community

51-64: Root zone, NTIA, etc

i would really like for someone to read this over. only avri has commented, 
specifically revised text:

51.  We agree with the WGIG and others that,
- existing flexible, bottom up Internet governance efforts such as those 
made by ICANN, are invaluable for the continued security and stability of 
the Internet, and must be protected from political interference and

- existing Internet Governance mechanisms should be founded on a more solid 
democratic, transparent and multistakeholder basis.

52. On that note, whilst we applaud the EU's 'initial comments' for:
- recognizing the critical significance of the Internet's founding design 
principles, "including interoperability, openness and the end-to-end 
principle"
- and for pledging the EU to support a multistakeholder process in its 
continued participation in the WSIS process.

However, we regret that the EU makes no explicit reference to the role of 
civil society.

and, do we delete or keep this para:

>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

karen

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