[governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to

[Parminder]

Adam:

42, 44 and 45 are fine. 


As for 42 it is a statement which describes the recommended oversight
mechanism.

The first line of WGIG option 2 is  - "57.	There is no need for a
specific oversight organization."

And we have arguing about this issue all along. And then this option speaks
about enhancing the role of GAC to take care of the concerns of some
governments - I don't understand what enhancing on role is meant, and I
prefer that international rules are written for oversight rather than ad-hoc
interferences without clear rules and principles on which they are based. 

WE can go with recommending option 3 - with its substantive elements
included, and not only the two elements you mention. If this option is
recommended we can condemn option 1 and 4 as mentioned in the draft. 

Though I don't think, this will be acceptable to you. 

I also want to mention here that if there is sufficient consensus obtaining
I don't want to block it. Only that I believe that a considerable number of
people on the list back this position. You can please make your own judgment
about it. 

Parminder

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake
(ajp at glocom.ac.jp)
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 10:17 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to

Is there any chance, remote I suspect, that we agree to the following?

Regarding the WGIG report:

42. The caucus finds model one to be unworkable and not in keeping
with the inclusive processes recommended throughout the WGIG report.
We also find certain aspects of Model 4 to be not in keeping with the
WGIG recommendations. Model two is clearly the most workable as a
starting point, and is favored by most civil society participants.
However, aspects of model 3, particularly the importance of a host
nation agreement and provisions for tackling developmental issues,
merit greater attention.

[43. deleted referes to action suggested for prepcom 3 Geneva]

44. 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

45. We believe that this broad issue and in particular the issue of
governance structures as regards the root zone authorisation function
should be addressed with some urgency.

46. 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.

END

_______________________________________________
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