Thanks Izumi for the helpful update. We are all appreciative of efforts of
all colleagues in Paris--if it is any way llike the pace of the previous
PrepComs and regional meetings, we are aware that you have precious little
time for extensive reporting.
What would be helpful for us eventually is a matrix of interventions (with
some analysis on hte interests--govt/intergovt/private/civil society) behind
them. This discussion could be a very effective tool for awareness raising
about the dynmaics of internet governance.
Again, good luck and try to relax a bit after tomorrow. Regards to everyone
:-)
Al
----- Original Message -----
From: Izumi AIZU <izumi@anr.org>
To: <communication@wsisasia.org>
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:16 PM
Subject: [communication 744] Final draft for Internet management
> Thanks Al for your continued coverage. We are too busy here in Paris...
>
> Following is the final language presented from the Government Working
Group
> to the Chair yesterday. As you see, there is now no direct reference to
Domain
> Name and IP address management. If you read this carefully you may find
some
> contradicting elements. Actually, the Working Group members had thought
> they reached to a consensus for the last paragraph, according to Japan,
EU,
> Australia and UK delegations, to use only "international" but not
> "intergovernmental"
> but the final draft appeared in the official document added
> "intergovernmental" and
> put them into square brackets. EU delegate pointed out in the plenary that
this
> was not the consensus document, but the chair took it as is and the debate
will
> be continued in PrepCom 3 in Geneva.
>
> [44. International Internet management:
> The international management of the Internet should be democratic,
> multilateral, transparent and participative with the full involvement of
> the governments, intergovernmental organizations, private sector and civil
> society. This management should encompass both technical and policy
issues.
> While recognizing that the private sector has an important role in the
> development of Internet at the technical level, and will continue to take
a
> lead role, the fast development of internet as the basis of information
> society requires that governments, take a lead role, in partnership with
> all the other stakeholders, in developing and coordinating policies of the
> public interests related to stability, security, competition, freedom of
> use, protection of individual rights and privacy, sovereignty, and equal
> access for all, among all the other aspects, through appropriate
> [intergovernmental/international] organization.]
>
> The Working Group on this matter was held the night before yesterday,
> and Observers (Civil Society, private sector) were allowed to participate,
> including some interventions which were appreciated by chair and most
> members, received no objection by any government delegate. Being informal
> and with expert comment, it was very interesting and constructive we
thought.
>
> But I am sure the debate will continue, perhaps even after PrepCom3, as
there are
> clear frustration to the overall framework of ICANN, especially that they
> have MoU
> with US Government that is interpreted as American domination over
Internet
> core resources. I do not agree with that interpretation, but more efforts
> should be
> made from ICANN/USG side to make ICANN process much more accountable,
> open, with appropriate and proactive outreach and publicity programs, at
least.
>
> And, much more attention should be paid to the civil society participation
> to ICANN process - which is almost too late, but still needed.
>
> izumi
>
>
> At 09:54 03/07/18 +0800, you wrote:
> >FYI
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: Bill McIver <mciver@albany.edu>
> >To: <ct@wsis-cs.org>; WSIS CS Plenary <plenary@wsis-cs.org>
> >Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:38 AM
> >Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Civil Society Priorities Document (7/15)
> >
> >
> > >
> > > All,
> > >
> > > Participants agreed to remove the last
> > > paragraph of the Governance section.
> >
> >Al: For those not in the plenary lists, there was a lively debate on
> >reference to internet governance and the dynamics of ICANN. The main
debate
> >centered on text referring to the shortcomings of ICANN (which is widely
> >accepted) but apparently linked to an agenda by some governments to take
it
> >over and have probably ITU govern the domain name/numbers system.
> >
> >There was no consensus, and the time was very short. Not sure if this was
> >extensively discussed in the CS Plenary in Paris. Apparently, the
solution
> >for now is to drop the questionable paragraph. (You can refer to the last
> >draft before this sent out to the list.)
>
>
>
>
>