[governance] My memo from Tunis Nov 2003 - Prepcom 3 bis negotiations

[Izumi AIZU]

I quite agree that IGF and EC are separate processes does not mean we
should separate everything each other, at all.

First of all, I wrote Tunis 2003, but of course it was 2005, thanks to Milton!

And therefore I agree that we can discuss about EC at IGF. IGF is
forum for dialogue on IG public policy related matters, without
restriction.

Whether (current) IGF is the best place to deal with EC or not, is
another issue. I said "something similar to IGF, a new WG should be
established directly under UNSG".

This, in reality, could mean UN DESA controls, not CSTD.


izumi

2012/5/29 Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>:
> Thanks Izumi.. and yesterday I had a note from someone who was in the
> negotations and he also remembered that EC and IGF were seen as two
> processes, related, but separate - i.o.w. agreeting with your and Adam's
> recollections.
>
> But I don't think this conflicts with my and Avri's interpretation which
> is that the IGF was meant to be a forum where EC is discussed. The IGF
> was not meant to be a substitute of EC, nor a policy-making space, but a
> space for dialogue about internet public policy issues and
> participation, and this includes EC.
>
> Anriette
>
>
> On 29/05/2012 03:59, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>> Hi,
>> here attached is the note I took during the Prepcom 3 bis held in
>> Tunis in November 2003.
>> The final part is not there - but some process before that are captured.
>>
>> In my memory, around 8:30 pm or so, the main part of the language of
>> all remaining para were agreed,  but then there still remained not-so
>> substantive parts, which took another 90 min or so, thereby ending the
>> meeting was almost 10 pm.
>>
>> And yes, all sides, US, European Commission, UK, China, et al all said
>> it was their victory.
>>
>> My view is close to what Adam think that EC and IGF are two distinct
>> or separate things, yet, I also am aware that the language of these
>> paras were so vaguely written so that all parties who have different
>> positions could still agree on.
>>
>> I vaguely remember that Janis Karklins and ICANN GAC Vice Chair that
>> time were discussing on how to explain this "Enhanced Cooperation"
>> section since they were made intentionally vague, at the next ICANN
>> meeting.
>>
>> So, as is shown on this list, the interpretations of how EC and IGF
>> relate can be very different by different people, and there is no
>> single truth drawn from reading the Tunis Agenda.
>>
>> That will give, in my view, good reason to have discussion on this at IGF.
>>
>> izumi

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t