[governance] Finding IGC voice... again, on NETMundial and beyond.
Guru गुरु
Guru at ITforChange.net
Mon Mar 3 05:28:18 EST 2014
Agree. Important for IGC to make this submission to NetMundial
regards
Guru
On 03/03/2014 03:55 PM, Sonigitu Ekpe wrote:
> Very important. +1 to Louis proposal.
>
> Sonigitu Ekpe
>
> Mobile +234 805 0232 469 Office + 234 802 751 0179
> "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving"
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 12:58 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com
> <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>> wrote:
>
> 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 <mailto:kichango at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, March 03, 2014 7:55 AM
> *To:* Internet Governance <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> ;
> Deirdre Williams <mailto:williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
> *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 <mailto: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
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto: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/20140303/356b998a/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list