[governance] Finalizing the IG Section of the CS Statement onTunis

Sun Dec 4 22:15:27 EST 2005

On the ccTLD para, the formulation as proposed by Tim looks fine.

"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."   

The important difference of view on this para was whether or not to
state/stress the linkage between the core IG functions and broader IG issues
- and this linkage is kind of suppressed here - so it should be acceptable
to all.  

I think it is important that this para goes in the IG part and is not
shifted.

The para roughly corresponds to some important elements of the 'capacity
building' point - that was in some controversy during prpecom 3. This point
is important, and the implication is not that the CS involved in the WSIS
doesn't understand the issues well, but that a broader CS and other policy
stakeholder constituency - and there in no doubt that there are gaps in this
regard - should understand and involves itself more with IG - for the stated
purpose that .' to ensure that the development..."

This para tries to open up the stakeholder base of IG - and call for greater
participation etc - and on all these counts is very important.

We shifted from the accent on Internet users understanding the IG issues to
social and policy actor/stakeholders understanding the issues for reasons
already discussed here a few times. But it doesnot take anything away from
the original purpose of the drafter - any person who think she should be
involved to whatever extent in IG issues, becomes a stakeholder who is
address by this para, without making it like some necessary education every
single person must have.

Parminder 

________________________________________________

Parminder Jeet Singh

IT for Change

Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 

91-80-26654134

www.ITforChange.net 

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 1:55 AM
To: Governance 
Subject: Re: [governance] Finalizing the IG Section of the CS Statement
onTunis

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20051205/b8d27ea4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance