[governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting

[Imran Ahmed Shah]

Dear Norbert,
 
I would like to add some suggestions for Theme for IGF 2013, I tried to login onto the site http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/107 but my email id is not validated. Would you please guide me.
 
Suggestions for Main Theme and Sub Themes for IGF 2013 
 
One of the Proposed Theme is as follows:
   1. Internet for Kids (the Innocent Minds & Next Generation)
 
Sub Themes & Common Dialogues under above theme will cover:
1.1. Support the Innovative Ideas for new gTLDs (IDN) like dotKIDS, or dotABC
1.2. Legal & Human Rights for Kids
1.3. Internet Online Safety & Protection for Kids
 
1.4. 
Stakeholders may be invited to engage in discussion to present proposals & demonstrate their collective (& individual) efforts for the followings:
 
1.4.1. The establishment of contents databases & Search Engines, 
1.4.2. Informative & educational material, 
1.4.3. The development of Multi O/S Internet Browsers for Kids 
1.4.4. Free & Easy Internet Access on Internet enabled Kids Devices and in Schools,
 
1.4.5. Development of Email Systems (e.g. KidsEmail.org) and 
1.4.6. Development of Social Networking Websites for Kids
1.5. Governance Dialogue on Internet for Kids.
 
Thanking you and Best Regards
 
Imran Ahmad Shah
 
 


>________________________________
> From: Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>
>To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
>Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 3:48
>Subject: Re: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
>  
>[with IGC Coordinator hat on]
>
>See below for my current list of issues that we need to resolve, most
>still open, one of them (Nick's comment on paragraph 12) I'll consider
>closed as of this posting.
>
>I'll hopefully get an answer tomorrow on whether we can get an
>extension of the Feb 14 deadline. Depending on that answer I'll set
>internal deadlines for
>- providing a specific textual change suggestion for the comments
>  marked "Please propose specific text.",
>- proposing improved resolutions,
>- formally objecting to proposed resolutions,
>- formally objecting to the current draft text regarding points for
>  which alternatives have been suggested.
>
>The decision process is going to be:
>- Where no specific textual change suggestion is made, the current text
>  of our statement remains unchanged in that regard.
>- If for any of the proposed resolutions given below, no-one objects,
>  the text of our statement is adjusted accordingly.
>- If for one of the proposed resolutions given below, someone objects 
>  to the proposed resolution, and also no other resolution is
>  proposed in a timely manner, while no-one explicitly objects to the
>  current draft text, the current text of our statement remains
>  unchanged in that regard.
>- If for any particular point, we end up having objections to all
>  resolutions that have been put forward by the deadline for proposing
>  improved resolutions, and also an objection to the current draft text
>  regarding that point, as a last resort all text regard that point
>  will be deleted from the statement. (If we had enough time, we could
>  try to do a determination of rough consensus as allowed by the
>  charter, but I think it's pretty clear that there isn't going to be
>  enough time to do that in a reasonable manner.)
>
>Greetings,
>Norbert
>
>
>All references are to http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/107
>
>
>Paragraph 1
>===========
>Current text: "Here are the concerns and suggestions of the Civil
>Society Internet Governance Caucus on IGF themes and format and the way
>forward:"
>
>Avri has commented: "I suggest that a paragragh be added about how these
>comments were developed in a bottom-up manner. i.e a few words on the
>process that was followed."
>
>Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>specific proposal is made, by default no such additional paragraph will
>be added.
>
>
>Paragraph 2
>===========
>Current text: "A. Implementation of the recommendations of the WG on
>IGF Improvements"
>
>Avri has commented: "I think it is appropriate to talk about
>addressing, but I do not think that the CSTD WG improvements should be
>seen as commands. they are something that should be reviewed by the IGF
>particiipants and those that get bottom-up support should be
>implemented."
>
>Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>the draft text.
>
>
>Paragraph 3
>===========
>Current text: "There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency
>vis a vis the fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public
>policy questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution
>of. For too long it has remained caught in matters of process and form.
>It is time to do what it really needed to do."
>
>McTim has commented: "This seems to be overly editorial to me. What
>does it “really need to do”?"
>
>Proposed resolution: Delete the two final sentences of the paragraph,
>resulting in: "There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency
>vis a vis the fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public
>policy questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution
>of."
>
>
>Paragraph 4
>===========
>Current text: "Especially the following recommendations of the WG on
>IGF Improvements should be implemented immediately:"
>
>Avri has commented: "I do not beleive the recommendations from the WG
>on IGF should be implemented unless the bottom-up process of IGF itself
>aproves the implementation of these. the MAG should review them and
>should put out a call for consultations. After that consultation, then
>the MAG should decide on what to implement and what not to implement."
>
>Norbert Bollow has replied to Avri's comment: "I'm very uncomfortable
>about thereby effectively giving the MAG authority to decide which of
>the recommendations of the CSTD WG should be implemented."
>
>Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>the draft text.
>
>
>
>Paragraph 10
>============
>Current text: "In the spirit of the above-cited recommendations, we
>propose that the following policy question be taken up at the 2013 IGF:
>“How to maintain net neutrality as the key architectural principle of
>the global Internet, and what shall be the mechanisms and institutions
>involved in this process?”
>
>Avri has commented: "Why do we want to make an ill defined notion with
>myriad different propaganda streams a major issue for the IGF. I do not
>see it as a worthwhile direction for the IGF to take. We do not agree
>on what NN means, how can it be a key architectural principle, more
>that it already is?"
>
>Norbert Bollow has replied to Avri's comment: "In my mind it is clear
>enough what "net neutrality" means / should be understood to mean.
>Some countries have passed NN legislation, in other countries such
>legislation is proposed / under consideration. This would make this in
>my eyes a key issue to be discussed at the IGF, and if indeed it is not
>clear enough what NN means, it should be made a major objective to
>develop a shared understanding."
>
>Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>the draft text.
>
>
>Paragraph 12 / Nick's comment
>=============================
>Current text: "A possible overall theme for 2013 could be: “Meaningful
>participation of all stakeholders in Internet governance”."
>
>Nick Ashton-Hart has commented: "That is a possible theme, but it is
>also really dry – and  what connection does it have with the lives of
>real Internet users? How about something like “How can Internet
>Governance Benefit Users Worldwide?”"
>
>Proposed resolution: Offer both proposals, resulting in: "A possible
>overall theme for 2013 could be: “Meaningful participation of all
>stakeholders in Internet governance”, or “How can Internet
>Governance Benefit Users Worldwide?”."
>
>IT IS CLEAR NOW THAT THERE IS NO CONSENSUS FOR THIS PROPOSED
>RESOLUTION. IT IS THEREFORE HEREBY DECLARED REJECTED. SINCE THE
>COMMENT EXPLICITLY NOTED THAT THE SUGGESTION OF THE CURRENT TEXT IS
>ACCEPTABLE, THE ISSUE IS THEREFORE CLOSED. 
>
>
>Paragraph 12 / Avri's comment
>=============================
>Current text: "A possible overall theme for 2013 could be: “Meaningful
>participation of all stakeholders in Internet governance”."
>
>Avri has commented: "what does Meaningful mean? I do not see this as a
>significant topic for the IGF. It is an introspective organizational
>topic not one that affect the Interent directly. Why have we given up
>on Human Rights as a general theme?"
>
>Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>the draft text.
>
>
>Paragraphs 13 + 14 / Nick's comment
>===================================
>Current text of paragraph 13: "Main sessions and workshops should not
>be competing with each other, as they are not substitutes.  Workshops
>are the best forum for self-selected groups to exchange information,
>opinions and experiences.  These can be more productive than main
>sessions, but are often limited to narrow communities of interest and
>can therefore lack external impact.  Main sessions are better for
>bringing the insights developed through workshops and dynamic coalition
>members to the broader community of IGF participants, including those
>with influence over or connections to processes of policy development.
>Main sessions have the potential to allow for high-level
>consensus-building and strategising on how these insights can be
>reflected in policy and/or technical processes elsewhere, sometimes
>across issue areas: for example, messages on critical Internet
>resources might also be relevant to those involved in security or
>openness issues and vice versa. Therefore, main sessions should not be
>treated as just “big workshops” relevant only to those with topical
>interests, but should be for the broadest possible segment of the IGF
>community to attend. Consequently, the programme should be restructured
>so that main sessions and workshops are not happening at the same time.
>Maybe the IGF could be extended to five says?"
>
>Current text of paragraph 14: "Even then a reduction of the number of
>main sessions and a reduction of the number of workshops is necessary.
>The specific choice of main session topics should vary year by year to
>address truly “hot topics” that are on the tips of tongues everywhere."
>
>Nick Ashton-Hart has attached the following comment to paragraph 13:
>"There should not be ‘reruns’ of sessions held at previous IGFs and new
>voices should be prioritised over those who have been heard from many
>times."
>
>Proposed resolution: Add Nick's text to the end or paragraph 14,
>resulting in the following new text for paragraph 14: "Even then a
>reduction of the number of main sessions and a reduction of the number
>of workshops is necessary. The specific choice of main session topics
>should vary year by year to address truly “hot topics” that are on the
>tips of tongues everywhere. There should not be ‘reruns’ of sessions
>held at previous IGFs and new voices should be prioritised over those
>who have been heard from many times."
>
>
>Paragraphs 13 + 14 / Arvi's comment
>===================================
>Current text of paragraph 13: "Main sessions and workshops should not
>be competing with each other, as they are not substitutes.  Workshops
>are the best forum for self-selected groups to exchange information,
>opinions and experiences.  These can be more productive than main
>sessions, but are often limited to narrow communities of interest and
>can therefore lack external impact.  Main sessions are better for
>bringing the insights developed through workshops and dynamic coalition
>members to the broader community of IGF participants, including those
>with influence over or connections to processes of policy development.
>Main sessions have the potential to allow for high-level
>consensus-building and strategising on how these insights can be
>reflected in policy and/or technical processes elsewhere, sometimes
>across issue areas: for example, messages on critical Internet
>resources might also be relevant to those involved in security or
>openness issues and vice versa. Therefore, main sessions should not be
>treated as just “big workshops” relevant only to those with topical
>interests, but should be for the broadest possible segment of the IGF
>community to attend. Consequently, the programme should be restructured
>so that main sessions and workshops are not happening at the same time.
>Maybe the IGF could be extended to five says?"
>
>Current text of paragraph 14, with the possible change from the above
>proposed resolution added in brackets: "Even then a reduction of the
>number of main sessions and a reduction of the number of workshops is
>necessary. The specific choice of main session topics should vary year
>by year to address truly “hot topics” that are on the tips of tongues
>everywhere. [There should not be ‘reruns’ of sessions held at previous
>IGFs and new voices should be prioritised over those who have been
>heard from many times.]"
>
>Avri has attached the following comment to paragraph 13: "I disagree, I
>value the vary full schedule that give people a maximum choice. I know
>some peopel would like to create an artificial shorage of sessions so
>that their session gets greater traffic, but I prefer to see as many
>different topics and themes covers and suggest that we continue to fill
>all the room with worthwhile sessions. Yes, there should be an effort
>to not schedule similar topic against each other so that people can
>follw a thread, but I do not beleive that main sessions should be given
>any priority over workshops. Personally I think it is unfortunate that
>so much time is spent in main sessions and would prefer to see the
>meeting limited to just 3 main sessions and then many workshops."
>
>Proposed resolution: Since we do not have consensus on whether MAG
>should limit the number of workshops, remove the text relating to
>that point, resulting in the following text for paragraph 14, with the
>possible change from the above proposed resolution added in brackets:
>"Even then a reduction of the number of main sessions is necessary. The
>specific choice of main session topics should vary year by year to
>address truly “hot topics” that are on the tips of tongues everywhere.
>[There should not be ‘reruns’ of sessions held at previous IGFs and new
>voices should be prioritised over those who have been heard from many
>times.]"
>
>
>Paragraph 15
>============
>Current text of paragraph 15: "The formats of the main sessions should
>be varied more. 3 hours is generally too long, some were poorly
>attended in Baku and there were many grumbled complaints about poor
>content, poor preparation, repeating issues from previous years, etc.
>Some main sessions need better preparation (and some were good –
>transcripts illustrate the differences), the MAG has an important fole
>to fulfil in regarding to ensuring good main sessions. Invite speakers
>early.  Find funds to support speakers. Planning of the sessions should
>be more open and transparent."
>
>Avri has commented: "The reason main session are ignored is because
>they are old fashioned pabulum spooning opportunities. They are too big
>for real participation by attendees, so they end up panels that seem to
>even bore many of the panelists"
>
>Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>the draft text.
>
>
>Paragraph 16
>============
>Current text of paragraph 16: "It would be good to have one main
>session with a completely different outcome-oriented format that is
>more actively facilitated, for example a “speed dialogue” or a
>“moderated debate”. Amongst the most important foundations for this
>sort of format is that the participants need to be empowered (ie. they
>will produce something at the end), and that the power imbalances
>between them are eliminated for the duration of the exercise (through
>the way in which the process is facilitated)."
>
>Avri has commented: "I think this is fine for workshop and even for
>part of amin session, but fear a whole main session of this would just
>be a garble."
>
>Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>the draft text.
>
>
>Paragraph 17
>============
>Current text of paragraph 17: "Taking stock and emerging issues:  Mix
>the two sessions, that then justifies 3 hours.  This will probably be
>best held on the final morning (i.e. emerging issues become issues the
>IGF thinks emerging as important for the coming year(s))."
>
>Avri has commented: "I think taking stick is relatively unimportant
>since it is really just self aggrandizement. I think the emerging
>issues is possible the most important and relevant of the main session
>and should be one of the list bringing together all the emerging issues
>that have come up during the week and those which were still not
>advanced enough to be covered."
>
>Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>the draft text.
>
>
>Paragraph 19
>============
>Current text of paragraph 19: "Critical Internet Resources was a strong
>session in Baku, this justifies 3 hours.  Keep this."
>
>Avri has commented: "I think this may be getting old. I think that if
>it becomes a review of the existing mechanisms, it may be worth doing,
>but just to say the same things over and over and over year after year
>after year is just unproductive."
>
>Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>the draft text.
>
>
>Paragraph 20
>============
>Current text of paragraph 20: "New theme: Enhanced Cooperation.
>Sessions in mixed formats over 1 day, e.g. Morning expert panel session
>2 hours. Follow by a long break where people encouraged to join
>self-organizing small groups (there probably needs to be active
>facilitation of the process to encourage small groups to form with a
>good mix of stakeholder categories) to discuss a few set questions and
>ideas from the morning panel. Afternoon, 2 hour moderated session with
>audience only, no panel/experts etc.  Bring back comments from the
>small groups."
>
>Avri has commented: "I agree that this is a good direction to go in and
>should be one of the two major focuses of the upcoming IGF – other than
>Human Rights."
>
>Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>the draft text.
>
>
>Paragraph 21 / suggestion to not reference "MS framework of commitments"
>========================================================================
>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. 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)"
>
>Parminder commented: "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."
>
>Proposed resolution: Remove the implied endorsement of the "MS framework
>of commitments", resulting in the following new text for 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”. 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)"
>
>
>
>Paragraphs 21 and 22 / suggestions to add further points
>========================================================
>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. 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."
>
>Avri commented: "As part of the Human rights overal themes this seems
>worth doing."
>
>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 26
>============
>Current text of paragraph 26: "At the 2012 IGF, there were too many
>workshops. Cut to between 80 and 100.  Make this target number known
>when the call for applications is published, might be the first time
>quite a large number of proposals are rejected (might think about
>implications of this for the IGF), people should expect to be
>disappointed"
>
>Avri commented: "I disagree about their being too many workshops. there
>should be as many workshops as there is room and good workshops. Yes
>the MAG should have standards and should be strict about workshops
>meeting those standards, but there should not be an artificial shortage
>of opportunities for workshops."
>
>Proposed resolution: Since we do not have consensus on whether MAG
>should limit the number of workshops, remove this paragraph in its
>entirety. (The point about having standards and being strict about
>those standards is covered in paragraph 27.)
>
>
>Paragraph 28
>============
>Current text of paragraph 28: "For workshops, keep the current themes
>(access, SOP [security/openness/privacy], IG4D [Internet governance for
>development], CIR [critical Internet resources], emerging issues)."
>
>Avri commented: "I think the categories should be examined. I see
>little point in CIR, unless it becomes review of CIR institutions."
>
>Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>the draft text.
>
>
>Paragraph 29
>============
>Current text of paragraph 29: "Have the MAG better define Internet
>Governance, how it must be considered in workshop proposals (there are
>other spaces in WSIS follow-up for non-IG issues).  Use an evaluation
>form for workshops (at the moment don’t even know if a room was empty
>or overflowing, simple count a good idea.)  However, indications are
>that while there were too many workshops in Baku many were strong in
>content, well received.  MAG should not cut what looks like a success
>to favor the floundering main sessions."
>
>Avri commented: "Internet governance is well defined between the WGIG
>report, the WGIG Background report and the TA, i do not see the MAG
>getting into a discussion of what Ig is? Perhaps as a workshop idea,
>people can examine these many working definitions to see if there is a
>cause for updating, but the MAG is not the place for this. The MAG
>should be a doer, not another body on introspecting academics. thee is
>a place for academic conjecture, but the MAG is not it."
>
>Proposed resolution: Make the text of paragraph 29 clearer so
>that it cannot be misunderstood as asking for a redefinition of
>Internet Governance, resulting in the following new text for paragraph
>29: "Clearly state in the call for workshop proposals that the
>proposed workshops shall relate to Internet Governance (as the
>term is defined in the WGIG report, the WGIG Background report and the
>Tunis Agenda); there are other spaces in WSIS follow-up for non-IG
>issues.  Use an evaluation form for workshops (at the moment don’t
>even know if a room was empty or overflowing, simple count a good
>idea.)  However, indications are that while there were too many
>workshops in Baku, many were strong in content, well received.  MAG
>should not cut what looks like a success to favor the floundering main
>sessions."
>
>
>Paragraph 30
>============
>Current text of paragraph 30: "Merging is not the always the solution,
>it’s too easy an answer for MAG in their evaluation to say merge simply
>because proposals have similar words in the title.  If merging proposed
>then the new workshop needs support or tendency to end up with 2
>workshops in the same space (merge in name only)."
>
>Avri commented: "Merging is rarely the solution. If two are the same
>the MAG should pick one based on its objective criteria, and make them
>responsible integrating what they can of the other."
>
>Proposed resolution: Replace paragraph 30 with the text of Avri's
>comment.
>
>
>Paragraph 31
>============
>Current text of paragraph 31: "The rules for other sessions (open
>forums, dynamic coalition, etc.) should be clarified."
>
>Avri commented: "No matter how clear they are made, and they were
>rather clear last year, people will abuse those definitions. the point
>is for the MAG and secretariat to live up to the defintiions and
>criteria."
>
>Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>the draft text.
>
>
>Paragraph 32
>============
>Current text of paragraph 32: "The IGF pre-events have to be revisited
>and should receive more attention in terms of planning and projection
>as  these are receiving a lot of attention by participants."
>
>Avri commented: "And yet these need to remain separate from the IGF so
>they are not reduced to lowest common form as many other session under
>the auspice of the IGF are."
>
>Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>the draft text.
>
>
>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."
>
>
>Paragraph 46
>============
>Current text of paragraph 46: "The sudden shift of Open Consultations
>and MAG meetings from Geneva to France for February 2013 without open
>consultation and comments from the community puts a severe logistical
>pressure on participation for those that find it a challenge to already
>participate in such meetings. This shift enables only certain
>individuals to participate that can freely move around EU but for
>people that need to acquire visas to travel to Switzerland and
>participate from outside of Europe are posed with a big challenge.
>Should they apply to Swiss or to the French and how does one explain
>why one is taking the visa of one country to participate in the other
>and how does the IGF Secretariat plan to manage this?"
>
>Avri commented: "I do not understand this. Is the problem that they
>need 2 visas? that I understand. I do not understand the choice issue."
>
>Norbert Bollow replied: "I believe the problem is in regard to people
>from countries whose citizens have a hard time getting visas for
>Europe. Applying for a Swiss visa will be hard to justify for attending
>a meeting in Paris. On the other hand, the IGF secretariat (which
>happens to be in Geneva, Switzerland) probably does not have the kind
>of relationship with the French authorities that would allow it to
>assist with applications for French visas."
>
>Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>the draft text.
>
>
>Paragraph 50
>============
>Current text of paragraph 50: "IGF should put out a call for host
>country expression of interest, with clearly laid out principles and
>process for selection, instead of simply waiting for offers."
>
>Avri commented: "ho about adding the notion of a public comment on the
>applicant hosts before a desion is made. And who is to make this
>decision. I beleive that is something that the MAG should make a
>recommendation on to the powers that be."
>
>Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>the draft text.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>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
>
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130213/da4cd8ac/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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