[governance] Substantive issues in CIR: speakers for IGF

[Adam Peake]

Milton,

I left the advisory group meeting a day early, 
but when I left it was unanimous (unanimous to 
the extent that it was supported by everyone who 
spoke on the issue and no one spoke against) in 
adopting the proposal you see in the meeting 
report:

"Starting point for the discussion is the 
definition contained in the WGIG report (Para 13 
a):

'Issues relating to infrastructure and the 
management of critical Internet resources, 
including administration of the domain name 
system and Internet protocol addresses (IP 
addresses), administration of the root server 
system, technical standards, peering and 
interconnection, telecommunications 
infrastructure, including innovative and 
convergent technologies, as well as 
multilingualization.'

The session will use a baseline approach, taking 
into account WSIS principles. The purpose of the 
discussion is to bring out information and 
opinion.

There will be a balanced panel of five to seven 
experts, including the major players, reflecting 
a range of views "  (end quote)

The advisory group operates under the Chatham 
House Rule so I cannot identify the member that 
proposed this formulation, however, China's 
contribution to the open consultation on Sept 3 
supports using para 13a as the base definition 
for the session. The AG attempted to reflect 
consensus as it heard it in contributions.  I 
personally favor your proposal below (except C1 
and C2 which I think irrelevant right now to IGF, 
but that's just me), but I think there is strong 
consensus for this broader approach and that is 
the one we should work to now. Of course that 
doesn't mean speakers cannot focus on the issues 
they want to focus on, or contributions and 
questions from the floor are limited in anyway.

Adam




>Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C7F42D.60455CFD"
>
>
>As suggested in my last post, it makes little 
>sense to discuss speakers without a clear idea 
>of what is to be spoken about.
>Here's a quick taxonomy of cIr issues:
>
>A. Virtual resource economics
>   A1. IPv4 address exhaustion: appropriate responses
>   A2. IPv6 address allocation policies and their 
>impact on ISP industry, competition, industry 
>development and routing
>   A3. Regulations and policies applied to the domain name industry
>   A4. Multilingual domains
>
>B. Governance structures
>   B1. ICANN as institution, its political 
>oversight and reforms/changes in its structure
>   B2. Problem of trust anchor (signing the root) in DNSSEC
>   B3. Role of national governments cIr 
>governance; i.e., GAC, the Tunis Agenda "public 
>policy principles"
>
>C. Human Rights and cIr
>   C1. DNS Whois and privacy
>   C2. Freedom of expression and ICANN's new gTLD policy
>
>D. Security and cIr
>   D1. DNSSEC implementation
>   D2. Secure routing
>
>Now this list can no doubt be improved and/or expanded but it's a start.
>
>I note that topics A1, B2, B3, C2, and D1 are 
>all addressed in workshops. As Bertrand 
>suggests, a plenary session that chooses to 
>address any of these issues should draw to some 
>extent from workshop speakers. 
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance