[governance] Civil Society Statement 2005 - DRAFT Version 4.1 -tracked

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Good, I consider the issue settled. The last 2 sentences of the IG 
section will be removed.

Are there any other serious issues with the IG section of the declaration?
Shall I post the IG section again to ensure that Ralf's reasonable 
criteria ("not necessary, but don't seriously disagree") are met?
Or can we leave the remaining text as is?

jeanette

jeanette

Carlos Afonso wrote:
> Parm,
> 
> The "multi-drectional" thing is in itself enough to strike out the 
> corresponding sentence -- it would take several other paragraphs to 
> explain its meaning. So I agree with dropping the last two.
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> Parminder wrote:
> 
> 
>>I too think that last two sentences are not clear in their intention - and
>>may be removed.
>>
>>However I consider the overall point of this para important. 
>>
>>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 Jeanette Hofmann
>>Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 6:57 PM
>>To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus
>>Subject: [governance] Civil Society Statement 2005 - DRAFT Version 4.1
>>-tracked
>>
>>Hi all. Thank you Ralf for your hard work, and sorry for my absense. I 
>>had a bad cold.
>>
>>The last para of the Internet Governance section has changed 
>>significantly since the last version.
>>
>>Please have a look at the new version 4.1:
>>
>>To ensure that development of the Internet and its governance take place 
>>in the public interest, it is important for all stakeholders to 
>>understand better how core Internet governance functions - like DNS 
>>management, IP address allocation, etc. - are carried out. It is equally 
>>important that these same actors understand the linkages between broader 
>>Internet governance issues like cyber-crime, Intellectual Property 
>>Rights, e-commerce, 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 and emerging information and 
>>communication platforms. Equally it is essential that as this awareness 
>>develops in newer users of the Internet, older users must be open to the 
>>new perspectives that will emerge. Development of awareness needs to be 
>>multi-directional to be human centred and aimed at global peace.
>>
>>For comparison, the last para of the IG section from version 3.1:
>>
>>To ensure that Internet governance and development take place in the 
>>public interest, it is necessary for people who use the Internet 
>>understand how the DNS is functioning, how IP addresses are allocated, 
>>what basic legal instruments exist in fields like cyber-crime, 
>>Intellectual Property Rights, eCommerce, e-government, and human rights 
>>and promoting 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 and emerging information and 
>>communication platforms.
>>
>>This para has been somewhat controversial before. I think the new 
>>version hasn't made things any better. My suggestion would be to delete 
>>the last two sentences. What do others think?
>>
>>jeanette
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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
>>
>>
>> 
>>
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance