[governance] preparations for prepcom 3 in tunis

[Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp)]

On 10/14/05, karen banks <karenb at gn.apc.org> wrote:
> hi adam
>

[stuff deleted]

>
> 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
>

(note chair's paper at
<http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=2130|0>
I'm referring to paragraphs from that version.)

Agree. The respective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders
are referred to frequently in the chair's paper, would be very
good if we could get the current description of CS changed, it is:

"45 c.) Civil society has also played an important role on Internet
matters, especially at community level, and should continue to
play such a role;"

In Geneva the EU proposed deleting "especially at community
level".

In one of our interventions (ignored by govt.) we asked it be
changed to:

"Civil society has also played an important role on Internet
matters. This role has ranged from capacity building at the
community level to the contribution of much of the technological
innovation and to the creation of much of the content that makes
the Internet what it is today.  Civil Society should continue to
play such a role."

Think we might have more luck supporting the simplier EU
suggestion.

Para 65 includes "We also underline the importance of countering
terrorism in all its forms and manifestations on the Internet,
while respecting human rights and in compliance with ..."

Human Rights caucus objected to "in all its forms and
manifestations on the Internet" saying "It is totally unclear what
"manifestations" of terrorism on the internet would be. This
language opens a dangerous door to censorship and infringements on
Freedom of Expression."

We should ask for it to be deleted.


> >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)
>

The open paragraph is 61.  I don't know which govt supported or not.

> >* Internet security (one paragraph)
> >* Interconnection costs for LDCs (one sub-paragraph)
>
> this i would like to priotise.. especially if it's open
>

Yes, it's open,  Just one part (g) of para 71 and the comments
made by the CS financing coalition cover it.

> >* 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?
>

Open paragraphs are:

* Public policy issues relevant to Internet governance:  Section 3, para 48-59
* cybercrime: para 61
* Internet security: para 66
* Interconnection costs for LDCs: para 71, sub section g (only)
* Follow-up and possible future arrangements: Section 5, para 76 on
(section not done at all.)


Thanks,

Adam


>
> >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
>


--
Email from Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
Email from my Gmail account probably means I am travelling.  Please
reply to  <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> Thanks!

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