[governance] preparations for prepcom 3 in tunis

[karen banks]

hi adam

thanks for this

>I've heard that discussion on paragraphs marked agreed (not 
>necessarily agreed by observers...) will not be re-opened. This 
>should be confirmed early next week. While governments probably do 
>not want to re-open the agreed paragraphs, there is language that's 
>problematic.  Do we want to comment on any of the "agreed" text?  If 
>we do, then I think it should be on very specific language, not 
>whole paragraphs.

we never resolved para 43? roles and resopnsibilities.. we may want 
to continue to push that one, at least make it clear, for the record, 
that we do not accept that para - it is our last chance

>The open sections of the chapter are:
>
>* Public policy issues relevant to Internet governance (sub section 
>of 10 paragraphs)
>* cybercrime (one paragraph)

is this re the convention and objections from russia and china? 
(which seems odd)

>* Internet security (one paragraph)
>* Interconnection costs for LDCs (one sub-paragraph)

this i would like to priotise.. especially if it's open

>* Follow-up and possible future arrangements (i.e. oversight, the 
>forum, and all the stuff that's hard to agree.)

can you list the para numbers re the above?


>Seems we have three things to do:
>
>1.)  make our case for being included in the resumed sessions 
>sub-committee A when it meets in plenary and in drafting 
>groups.  The situation is not clear. Charles Geiger's said that the 
>room to be used for the prepcom would be relatively small (perhaps 
>less than 400 people) so delegations would be limited in number. He 
>also said no decision had been reached on allowing observers into 
>drafting groups.
>
>We should consider re-writing the protest statement Avri read in 
>Geneva (attached "AD-protest-Statement-05-09-28")  We are expecting 
>to hear more about how process for the Tunis prepcom next week.

yes..

>If we have a limited number of passes into the prepcom, we need to 
>think about how to allocate them (it's a working session.) Should 
>also make sure that if space is limited then there are overflow 
>rooms where people can follow the discussions remotely on an 
>internal TV broadcast (has been done in other prepcoms) and that 
>there is webcasting.

yes.. in fact, we should put together a proposal for this in any 
case.. to be ready

>2.) respond to the chairs current draft of chapter 3. We made a 
>number of statements relevant to the open sections of the chapter 
>during the last prepcom.  These statements were put together quickly 
>in Geneva and I know people had comments and suggested improvements. 
>I have attached copies of what I think are the main statements (hope 
>I've note missed any?), please read and comment.  If you disagree 
>with something please say why and try to provide new text.  Vittorio 
>has put all the statements we've been able to find online, see 
><http://www.net-gov.org/docs.php>

ok..

>3.) Write our own statement.  Jeanette has suggested it might have 3 
>parts: forum, oversight, development.  Work on a statement could go 
>together with work on the chair's paper.

how would this mesh with 2) - a completely new visionary statement? 
(like geneva?)

>Comments on above please.

sounds like a good plan

one thing i would like is that we make sure we have someone with us 
who can write for the press while we are there.. apc will bring two 
media people, but neither are really up on IG issues

do we have others amongst our numbers who are? (though, i would be 
concerned if they wrote stories with the same slant as the mainstream 
press we've seen post prepcom III)

karen

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