[governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting

[parminder]

On Tuesday 12 February 2013 03:20 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> [IGC Coordinator hat on]
>
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 I wrote:
>> Given that only a week is remaining until the submission deadline,
>> let's have an internal deadline of February 10 for suggesting points
>> to add or raising concerns about parts of the draft text.
> Paragraphs 21 and 22
> ====================
> Current text of paragraph 21: "New theme: Internet rights and
> principles. One day, perhaps same format as suggested for enhanced
> cooperation.  Or try something different. There was a proposal in Baku
> to summarize all (national/regional/sectoral) “IG Declarations on
> Principles” (25+) of the last three years and to produce a “compendium”
> as a first step towards something like a multistakeholder framework of
> commitments on Internet Governance Principles.
A 'MS framework of commitments of IG principles' was just one of the 
several proposals on the way/ manner to go forward with developing 
Internet principles, and the nature of the ultimate output of the 
process. There are many others. I do not agree to use one specific 
proposal in this direction in the common IGC proposal... There are 
people for instance who have at earlier times sought a framework 
convention on the Internet (ITfC, IGP, APC). So lets not associate our 
statement with one particular approach, about which, for one, I have 
specific and clear reservations.

parminder

>   Bali has to take the
> next step and the MAG should pave the way for a more comprehensive and
> analytical approach. It would be very good as well to link this into
> the upcoming WSIS +10 (2015)"
>
> Current text of paragraph 22: "The development aspect of Internet
> Governance has been generally overlooked in spite of the official
> choice of the theme for the 2012 IGF,  and too often “governance” is
> lost as discussion focuses on IT for development.  Open specific public
> comment on design/scope of IG4D session. Bring back to the May meeting
> to decide on topics and format."
>
> Robert Guerra commented on paragraph 21: "Internet Rights theme –
> specifically “Human Rights” was proposed at IGF Open consultation in
> Feb 2012. Substantial conversation took place. No consensus from MAG to
> proceed unfortunately."
>
> Robert Guerra further commented on paragraph 21: "Development agenda –
> which is key aspect of Para. that creates IGF & WSIS II (TUnis) should
> also be key issue / theme in Bali (in my opinion)"
>
> Norbert Bollow replied to Robert Guerra: "Perhaps we could strengthen
> paragraph 22 a bit… I’d very much appreciate concrete textual
> suggestions to that effect."
>
> Nick Ashton-Hart commented on paragraph 22: "Given that WSIS+10 and the
> review of the Millenium Development Goals are taking place in 2015, why
> not bring the MDG follow up into the discussion of IG for development?"
>
> Baudouin Schombe replied to Nick Ashton-Hart: "I support the proposal
> of Nick and I think it would be a stone several times. This is also a
> very good opportunity to evaluate the broad guidelines of the WSIS
> Action Plan (2003)"
>
> Proposed resolution: Add some additional points to paragraph 22,
> resulting in the following new text for paragraph 22: "The development
> aspect of Internet Governance has been generally overlooked in spite of
> the official choice of the theme for the 2012 IGF, and too often
> “governance” is lost as discussion focuses on IT for development. [A
> question that should be considered in this context is: “How can human
> rights based Internet governance principles support development?”]
> [The development agenda, which is a key aspect of the part of the
> Tunis agenda that creates the IGF, should also be a key theme in Bali.]
> [Given that WSIS+10 and the review of the Millenium Development Goals
> are taking place in 2015, why not bring the MDG follow up into the
> discussion of IG for development?] [Also the WSIS of Action from 2003
> could be looked at.] Open specific public comment on design/scope of
> IG4D session. Bring back to the May meeting to decide on topics and
> format."
>
> Note: In the above, I have marked four separate insertions. If you
> object, please indicate specifically which insertion(s) you object to.
>
> Paragraph 36
> ============
> Current text of paragraph 36: "On-site Internet connectivity should be
> IPv4/IPv6 dual-stack."
>
> Robert Guerra commented: "Suggest that DNSSEC also be provided."
>
> Norbert Bollow replied: "How would they “provide” DNSSEC over an
> unsecured wireless connection??? I’d suggest that if while using such
> connections you want the security benefits that DNSSEC can provide, you
> need to run an DNSSEC-enabled DNS resolver on your own device."
>
> Adam commented: "Rather than getting into the specifics of technical
> and other specifications for the IGF site, suggest we ask that the
> logistics section of the host country agreement be made public so
> stakeholders can comment."
>
> Proposed resolution: Add the following text as a new paragraph between
> paragraphs 35 and 36: "A draft of the logistics plan for internet
> connectivity and other aspects of the meeting venue should be made
> public, and stakeholders should be invited to comment."
>
> Any missed comments???
> ======================
> If I've missed any comments (that were posted by the deadline) please
> repost them ASAP, together with a proposed resolution.
>
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>


-------------- 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