VS: [Mmwg] revised draft input
Ian Peter
ian.peter at ianpeter.com
Mon Feb 27 18:43:55 GMT 2006
I also thought the Advisory Panel was a nice construct and would support it.
But if it has to go,it has to go.
I would not support it becoming "technical and operational" or becoming a
fourth group on equal footing.
Ian Peter
Senior Partner
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
P.O Box 10670 Adelaide St
Brisbane 4000
Australia
Tel +614 1966 7772
Email HYPERLINK "mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com"ian.peter at ianpeter.com
HYPERLINK "http://www.ianpeter.com/"www.ianpeter.com
HYPERLINK "http://www.internetmark2.org/"www.internetmark2.org
HYPERLINK "http://www.nethistory.info/"www.nethistory.info (Winner, Top100
Sites Award, PCMagazine Spring 2005)
_____
From: mmwg-bounces at wsis-cs.org [mailto:mmwg-bounces at wsis-cs.org] On Behalf
Of Luc Faubert
Sent: Tuesday, 28 February 2006 5:04 AM
To: Wolfgang Kleinwächter; Robert Guerra; mmwg at wsis-cs.org
Subject: RE: VS: [Mmwg] revised draft input
Wolfgang,
Given the dissension on this list about official inclusion of the technical
people in IGF, I thought your advisory panel idea was a grrrreat idea,
meeting both positions halfway. I think the Advisory panel is the perfect
way to give these people a voice while not imposing them to the people from
this list who do not appreciate the idea of a 4th stakeholder.
Paragraph 8 should stay, especially since it doesn't go against the Tunis
text at all,
- Luc Faubert
ISOC Québec
_____
From: mmwg-bounces at wsis-cs.org on behalf of Wolfgang Kleinwächter
Sent: Mon 2006-02-27 12:34
To: Robert Guerra; mmwg at wsis-cs.org
Subject: VS: VS: [Mmwg] revised draft input
Thanks Robert for the text from Tunis.
I propose that we get rid of this problem and make no statement on the
issue.
As you can see from the text, Robert has added, there was a different
treatment of the "stakeholders (three natural groups and two sui generis
groups, constituted by representatives of the three main stakeholder
groups/IGOs and IOs) - this is para. 35 - and the TAC - this is para. 36. My
proposal was intended to channel the TAC into a less political body which
would give - as Bill has said - from a certain distance "advise" to
stakeholders, which are doing real policy. For me it would such a
construction would make sense and it would not confuse people. But I see
that there is no agreement and so lets take this out. We concentrate on the
key formal issues, where we have an agreement.
I leave now and will have lectures tomorrow from 9.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. I
will be in the office about 4.30 and will try to summarize the debate and
send it for final approval about 6.00 p.m. CET.
I agree with Bill that it would not be a big thing if the statement arrives
on Wednesday morning only. Masrkus has holidays these days and will be back
in his office not before Wednesday.
Best
wolfgang
________________________________
Lähettäjä: mmwg-bounces at wsis-cs.org puolesta: Robert Guerra
Lähetetty: ma 27.2.2006 17:42
Vastaanottaja: mmwg at wsis-cs.org
Aihe: Re: VS: [Mmwg] revised draft input
Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:
> Bill:
> W's proposal for a special Advisory Committee of T&A is totally out of the
blue and has never been discussed.
>
> Wolfgang:
> This is not rrue. I advertised this idea already in Tunis and repeated in
frequently in several mails. The idea was to get rid of the debate on a 4th
stakeholder group. And indeed,, if I remember the discussion from the
Chateau, it was the argument, that the nature of this group is different
that the nature of stakeholders (neutral advisers, consultants vs. advocacy
groups).
To be honest I don't recall this discussion, at least not in the open.
Let's not get on what was said or not in the "Chateau", as only WGIG
members were present.
I have serious reservations on raising issues with the Tunis texts.
btw. The stakeholders in question are referenced in para 35 a-e of the
Tunis agenda. (see below)
> Bill:
> I for one would be strongly opposed to it.
>
> Wolfgang:
> Why? I do not understand it. Academic advise to the IGF is one of our
targets with regard to the Malta/Dresden process on a "Global Internet
Governance Academic Research network".
Again, let's remember that the virtual community engaged and interested
in the IGF discussions is much broader than the select few who can
attend one or more given conferences. If ideas, suggestions and/or
proposals come up - please - mention them on-line (ie. on this list) so
that the broader community can know about it and comment accordingly.
Others are following the discussion virtually and would like to be
engaged as much as possible. This can be said not only of CS, but also
of other stakeholders (ie. tiny ngos, small companies, developing
nations, island states, etc..)
regards,
Robert
--
TUNIS AGENDA FOR THE INFORMATION SOCIETY
[...]
30. We acknowledge that the Internet, a central element of the
infrastructure of the Information Society, has evolved from a research
and academic facility into a global facility available to the public.
[...]
35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both
technical and public policy issues and should involve all stakeholders
and relevant intergovernmental and international organizations. In this
respect it is recognized that:
a) Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the
sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for
international Internet-related public policy issues.
b) The private sector has had, and should continue to have, an
important
role in the development of the Internet, both in the technical and
economic fields.
c) Civil society has also played an important role on Internet matters,
especially at community level, and should continue to play such a role.
d) Intergovernmental organizations have had, and should continue to
have, a facilitating role in the coordination of Internet-related public
policy issues.
e) International organizations have also had and should continue to
have
an important role in the development of Internet-related technical
standards and relevant policies.
36. We recognize the valuable contribution by the academic and technical
communities within those stakeholder groups mentioned in paragraph 35 to
the evolution, functioning and development of the Internet.
_______________________________________________
mmwg mailing list
mmwg at wsis-cs.org
HYPERLINK
"http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg"http://mailman-new
.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg
_______________________________________________
mmwg mailing list
mmwg at wsis-cs.org
HYPERLINK
"http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg"http://mailman-new
.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.0/269 - Release Date: 24/02/2006
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.0/269 - Release Date: 24/02/2006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/mmwg/attachments/20060228/2079f4b2/attachment-0001.html
More information about the mmwg
mailing list