[governance] Finalizing the IG Section of the CS StatementonTunis

[Lee McKnight]

Hi,

After highlighting the significance of the ccTLD language in the NTIA statement last summer, I regret not having been able to help on this 'final' CS language. But I am comfortable with where we are coming out, and hope it is included in the CS statement. 

And from belatedly catching up on the latest flood of messages this afternoon, I consider the remaining differences only a matter of nuance. So I for one think we are all close enough in spirit that we (including Ralf) can consider it agreed.  

Lee 

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> wdrake at cpsr.org 12/4/2005 3:24 PM >>>

Hi,

Ralf is on the list and is copied here too.  I don't know whether he is
still accepting text or has finished, and hence whether the paragraph that
has been developing on ccTLDs can still be inserted.  I also can't tell
whether people consider it to be stable and agreed, e.g. with the
seemingly unresolved back and forth on jurisdiction etc.  I will be
largely off line the next few days, so if the folks involved could decide
on it and be in contact with Ralf that would be great.  I assume the rest
of the text additions circulated prior are basically ok for inclusion,
since nobody has said otherwise.

Two quick responses to McTim:

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org 
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of McTim

A shy, lurking wordsmith has suggested this to me in a private email for
para 6 of Bill's draft:

"To ensure that development of the Internet and its governance takes place
in the public interest, it is important for CS groups and other actors
interested in policy and advocacy to understand better how core IG
functions * like DNS management, IP address allocation, etc. * are carried
out.    It is equally important that these same groups and actors
understand the linkages between broader IG issues like cyber-crime,
Intellectual Property Rights, eCommerce, e-government, human rights and
capacity building and economic development. The responsibility of creating
such awareness should be shared by everyone, including those at present
involved in the governance and development of the Internet."

---------

It's a caucus text, but anyway: This of course changes the sentiment of
Divina's original, from people who use the net should understand these
issues (which as you've noted is pretty ambitious as stated), to CS groups
and others should understand these issues.  If the implication is that the
CS groups involved in the WSIS process don't understand these issues, I
can understand the shyness, would not favor the language, and suspect
there are other people who would feel the same way.   In any event, given
the lack of clarity here on the para, Ralf will have to decide what to do,
including whether my suggestion to move it to the education section of the
statement.

--------

McTim adds,

One more nit; why do we specifically mention the research community?  Now,
don't get me wrong, I *like* the research community, but if we metion
them, then doesn't it open the door for everybody else to get a special
mention?

----------

This I guess refers to,

> ""Element two: Involvement in the Internet Governance Forum
> The CS Internet Governance Caucus will actively participate in and support
> the work of the IGF, and is exploring ways to enhance its working methods
> and engagement with relevant stakeholders, especially the research
> community, to these ends.

As I said in proposing  the language,

> [there's a strong expectation/hope, per the WGIG report, that a
> scholarly/academic network will develop around the IGF to provide
> analytical support, and it is arguably desirable that caucus provides one
> of the key focal points for that.]

There are various proposals circulating about this, and something---maybe
more than one thing---will probably happen.  Presumably some of the people
who would be involved are in the caucus, and others are colleagues of
people in the caucus.  As such, it would make sense for there to be some
outreach and collaboration etc.  I'm not clear on how this opens any doors
to listing others, since nobody has suggested them and the statement will
soon be done.

Cheers,

Bill

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

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