[governance] Finding IGC voice... again, on NETMundial and beyond.

[Norbert Bollow]

Sounds good to me.

Greetings,
Norbert


Am Mon, 3 Mar 2014 02:20:51 -0800
schrieb parminder at itforchange.net:

> 
> I think the principles laid out by Louis are excellent and should be
> adopted by IGC as its submission to NetMundial
> 
> parminder
> 
> 
> > Hi Mawaki
> >
> > I think it would be great if IGC could make some sort of submission
> > for NetMundial, but with a March 8 deadline and a preceding
> > consensus call it may prove difficult
> >
> > I would leave my proposal re IANA out of it because I know many
> > here have different opinions (some slight, some major) and I dont
> > think a consensus statement could be achieved. So perhaps we should
> > concentrate on Louis’s list of principles, ie
> >
> >
> > 1 - On-line users must enjoy the same human rights as they do
> > off-line.
> >
> > 2- There must not be discrimination in access and contents due to
> > criteria such as opinion, religion, race, gender, geography,
> > language, or economic resources.
> >
> > 3- Services offered in the internet must remain equitable and
> > neutral among service providers, without taking unfair advantage of
> > a dominant or privileged position.
> >
> > 4- Internet availability, deployment, and service conditions must
> > benefit all segments of the human society, not just those enjoying
> > richer economic development.
> >
> > 5- A special effort must be engaged in order to provide the Less
> > Developed Countries with an equitable share of resources to
> > participate in activities related to worldwide internet governance.
> >
> >
> > I would immediately agree to these – and I know Louis mentioned
> > this was being worked on for a NetMundial submission – Louis, if
> > you would like to, and could put forward a final draft by say COB
> > Tuesday, I think that would allow time for consensus adoption and
> > submission, or for IGC to be a co-signatory?
> >
> >
> > Ian Peter
> >
> > From: Mawaki Chango
> > Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 7:55 AM
> > To: Internet Governance ; Deirdre Williams
> > Subject: [governance] Finding IGC voice... again, on NETMundial and
> > beyond.
> >
> > Dear All,
> >
> > First of all, I wish to apologize on behalf of Deirdre and myself
> > for the prolonged silence. We both have been caught at the same
> > time in other immediate commitments with various demands on our
> > time, including traveling and the burdens that come with (starting
> > with the reason why one might be traveling in the first place which
> > can only be carried out during the limited time of such travels.)
> > Anyway, you get my drift...
> >
> > Now I'd like to get the ball rolling on things that we as IGC might
> > want to do this year by building on those who have already posted
> > ideas and suggestions regarding the NetMundial at São Paulo. While
> > it may be late for starting to prepare a written submission which
> > is expected to be in by March 8, perhaps we may still start working
> > out something that could be delivered during the proceedings if we
> > are given the opportunity (or simply as a first step in the
> > formulation of some basic ideas we might seek consensus on at some
> > point in the process in response to Ig challenges of the day, even
> > beyond São Paulo.)
> >
> > On that note, I remember Antonio Medina Gómez sending to the list
> > a note dated Jan 22 where he volunteered "to attend the meeting and
> > act as Rapporteur for the IGC to report back on meetings in real
> > time. Let me know what your thoughts are. I will also update you
> > daily and at the end of the meeting produce a report on key
> > observations. I think having a team of IGC rapporteurs would be
> > useful and I am willing to volunteer."
> >
> >
> > So maybe beyond written submissions, the question that looms ahead
> > is: How are we going to organize IGC presence and participation in
> > the proceedings in São Paulo?
> >
> > Meanwhile and for immediate consideration, I have seen over the
> > recent days two proposals/statements that appear to me a good
> > starting point for discussing any possible input by IGC or
> > subsets/member of IGC. One is more about principles and the other
> > more focused on a practical solution to one problem. I have copied
> > and pasted them as follows.
> >
> > [SOURCE: Louis Pouzin, mail posted on Feb 28]
> >
> > 1 - On-line users must enjoy the same human rights as they do
> > off-line.
> >
> > 2- There must not be discrimination in access and contents due to
> > criteria such as opinion, religion, race, gender, geography,
> > language, or economic resources.
> >
> > 3- Services offered in the internet must remain equitable and
> > neutral among service providers, without taking unfair advantage of
> > a dominant or privileged position.
> >
> > 4- Internet availability, deployment, and service conditions must
> > benefit all segments of the human society, not just those enjoying
> > richer economic development.
> >
> > 5- A special effort must be engaged in order to provide the Less
> > Developed Countries with an equitable share of resources to
> > participate in activities related to worldwide internet governance.
> >
> >
> >
> > [SOURCE: Ian Peter, mail posted on Feb 28]
> >
> >
> > Roadmap (and principles) for internalisation of the former  IANA
> > functions within the multistakeholder ICANN model.
> >
> > This roadmap concentrates on one internet governance issue only –
> > the future of the IANA functions which have been the subject of
> > much past discussion because current arrangements are seen by many
> > to be outside of the preferred multistakeholder model.
> >
> > Indeed, IANA itself was established  in an era before current
> > internet governance models (multistakeholder) and governance
> > institutions (eg ICANN) were in existence.
> >
> > ROADMAP
> >
> > This roadmap suggests that the IANA functions, though necessary
> > processes in the secure and authoritative functioning of the
> > Internet, no longer need a separate entity and would more
> > productively merged with similar functions under the auspices of
> > ICANN. Subject of course to many concerns about details, this
> > direction appears to have widespread support from governments,
> > civil society, technical community, and private sector.
> >
> > In order to achieve this desired change efficiently and
> > productively, the following roadmap is proposed.
> >
> > 1.       ICANN should be requested to prepare a proposal for
> > management of the previous IANA functions within the ICANN
> > multistakeholder model, bearing in mind the following criteria:
> >
> > (a) protection of the root zone from political or other improper
> > interference;
> >
> > (b) integrity, stability, continuity, security and robustness of the
> > administration of the root zone;
> >
> > (c) widespread [international] trust by Internet users in the
> > administration of this function; (d) support of a single unified
> > root zone; and
> >
> > (e) agreement regarding an accountability mechanism for this
> > function that is broadly accepted as being in the global public
> > interest."
> >
> > 2. Preparation of the proposal should involve discussion with all
> > major stakeholder groups, with a completion timetable for a first
> > draft for discussion at the Internet Governance Forum in Turkey in
> > September 2014.
> >
> > 3. To expedite completion in a timely manner, it is suggested that
> > outside consultants be engaged to prepare the discussion paper
> > (proposal) in consultation with major stakeholders.
> >
> > 4. The solution must have the following characteristics
> >
> > (a) offers a legal structure that is robust against rogue litigation
> > attacks
> >
> > (b) is aligned with the Internet technical infrastructure in a way
> > that supports innovative, technology based evolution of the DNS .
> >
> > (c) is an inclusive model
> >
> > (d) is a demonstrable improvement on current processes in this area
> >
> > END of proposals
> >
> > Deirdre also has suggested the possibility of a series of very short
> > statements (micro-blogging kind of length) to capture succinct
> > positions on critical points. She will probably say more on that in
> > the next couple of days.
> >
> > Meanwhile I am inviting you all to step forward and share your
> > thought about the above.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> >
> > Mawaki
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > 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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
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