[governance] Civil Society Declaration on Internet Governance

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Avri Doria wrote:
> On 28 nov 2005, at 13.03, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> 
> 
>>My sense is that we are not the only caucus in need to discuss its  
>>text.
> 
> 
> i did not think of this as caucus text. but as the drafting room's  
> text.  i think it still remains to the caucus to write up a detailed  
> stmt if it so desires.

Avri, you are right. It is indeed a drafting room text. People walked in 
and out and suggested text in between. Bill, this is how the last 
paragraph got into the paragraphs on Internet Governance. Divina wanted 
to have wording included that stresses the necessity of education on the 
Internet infrastructure.

If if the text started as a drafting room text, it might be about time 
to transform it to a caucus statement. Unless somebody is willing to 
draft another statement on behalf of the caucus, this is the basis for 
the IG part in the CS declaration.
Karen seemed to have something similar in mind when she wrote to the CT 
drafting list yesterday:

ct-drafting at wsis-cs.org
28.11.2005 12:22
karenb at gn.apc.org

[...]
i would suggest that we ask caucus coordinators to take responsibility 
for text that is largely within their remit - all of the text needs 
careful editing, and some of the sections lack consistency in style, 
format etc (especially if submitted by lots of different people)

there are still lots of sections that weren't edited first time round 
(and are preceeded with 'unedited text') and section 5 still needs to be 
turned into a narrative - it is still in bullet point form..

it's a good start, but i think someway from what we want..
END OF QUOTE

jeanette
> 
> i wrote the original and tried, while writing it, to express what i  
> thought was close to a compromise position. i then passed it on to  
> others who came into the room to edit.  i take the personal view that  
> having written the first version, so that there would be something on  
> paper to start with, it is now up to the rest of the people in CS to  
> decide if they can live with the text and to change it so that they can.
> 
> i can certainly agree with toning down the language about it being  
> CS's idea to have a forum, but at the point lots of people were  
> walking around congratulating themselves on having had this idea  
> accepted and in general did not see any problem pointing out that it  
> is good to include CS, 'see we even have ideas govts can buy into'.   
> Bill's variant is certainly fine with me personally.
> 
> as for the oversight and the EU position.  while i am personally  
> against external oversight, i have no personal problem with ongoing  
> discussions about principles of oversight.  and i know that there is  
> a strong component in CS that supports oversight. so i thought this  
> was a middle position on this issue.
> 
> as for security and HR.  i would personally prefer they had put in  
> nothing about security, but if they do, yes, i believe it must always  
> be offset by adherence to HR.
> 
> a.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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