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

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

That formulation makes a number of other assumptions I find wrong (starting 
with the generalization about critical internet resources)

The language is perhaps too combative to achieve consensus



On 3 March 2014 4:04:56 PM parminder at itforchange.net 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.
>
> Ian
>
> We can take the spirit of your IANA proposal while at the same time
> accommodating differences about it perhaps through a formulation like the
> following:
>
> "Unilateral oversight by the US government of CIR management is
> undemocratic and untenable. It should immediately be replaced by an
> appropriate alternate mechanism where all people of the world have an
> equal role"
>
> We may add this principle to Luois' principles..
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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