<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7638.1">
<TITLE>VS: VS: [Mmwg] revised draft input</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV id=idOWAReplyText97488 dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>Wolfgang,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>Paragraph 8 should stay, especially since
it doesn't go against the Tunis text at all,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>- Luc Faubert</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>ISOC Québec</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><BR>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> mmwg-bounces@wsis-cs.org on behalf of
Wolfgang Kleinwächter<BR><B>Sent:</B> Mon 2006-02-27 12:34<BR><B>To:</B> Robert
Guerra; mmwg@wsis-cs.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> VS: VS: [Mmwg] revised draft
input<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<P><FONT size=2>Thanks Robert for the text from Tunis.<BR><BR>I propose that we
get rid of this problem and make no statement on the issue.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>Best<BR><BR>wolfgang<BR><BR><BR> <BR><BR>________________________________<BR><BR>Lähettäjä:
mmwg-bounces@wsis-cs.org puolesta: Robert Guerra<BR>Lähetetty: ma 27.2.2006
17:42<BR>Vastaanottaja: mmwg@wsis-cs.org<BR>Aihe: Re: VS: [Mmwg] revised draft
input<BR><BR><BR><BR>Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:<BR>> Bill:<BR>> W's
proposal for a special Advisory Committee of T&A is totally out of the blue
and has never been discussed.<BR>><BR>> Wolfgang:<BR>> 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).<BR><BR><BR>To be honest I
don't recall this discussion, at least not in the open.<BR><BR>Let's not get on
what was said or not in the "Chateau", as only WGIG<BR>members were
present.<BR><BR>I have serious reservations on raising issues with the Tunis
texts.<BR><BR>btw. The stakeholders in question are referenced in para 35 a-e of
the<BR>Tunis agenda. (see below)<BR><BR><BR><BR>> Bill:<BR>> I for one
would be strongly opposed to it.<BR>><BR>> Wolfgang:<BR>> 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".<BR><BR>Again, let's remember that the virtual community engaged and
interested<BR>in the IGF discussions is much broader than the select few who
can<BR>attend one or more given conferences. If ideas, suggestions
and/or<BR>proposals come up - please - mention them on-line (ie. on this
list) so<BR>that the broader community can know about it and comment
accordingly.<BR><BR>Others are following the discussion virtually and would like
to be<BR>engaged as much as possible. This can be said not only of CS, but
also<BR>of other stakeholders (ie. tiny ngos, small companies,
developing<BR>nations, island states,
etc..)<BR><BR><BR>regards,<BR><BR>Robert<BR><BR>--<BR><BR><BR>TUNIS AGENDA FOR
THE INFORMATION SOCIETY<BR><BR>[...]<BR><BR>30. We
acknowledge that the Internet, a central element of the<BR>infrastructure of the
Information Society, has evolved from a research<BR>and academic facility into a
global facility available to the
public.<BR><BR>[...]<BR><BR>35. We reaffirm that the
management of the Internet encompasses both<BR>technical and public policy
issues and should involve all stakeholders<BR>and relevant intergovernmental and
international organizations. In this<BR>respect it is recognized
that:<BR>a) Policy authority for Internet-related
public policy issues is the<BR>sovereign right of States. They have rights and
responsibilities for<BR>international Internet-related public policy
issues.<BR>b) The private sector has had, and
should continue to have, an important<BR>role in the development of the
Internet, both in the technical and<BR>economic
fields.<BR>c) Civil society has also played an
important role on Internet matters,<BR>especially at community level, and should
continue to play such a role.<BR>d)
Intergovernmental organizations have had, and should continue to<BR>have, a
facilitating role in the coordination of Internet-related public<BR>policy
issues.<BR>e) International organizations have
also had and should continue to have<BR>an important role in the development of
Internet-related technical<BR>standards and relevant
policies.<BR><BR>36. We recognize the valuable
contribution by the academic and technical<BR>communities within those
stakeholder groups mentioned in paragraph 35 to<BR>the evolution, functioning
and development of the
Internet.<BR><BR><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>mmwg
mailing list<BR>mmwg@wsis-cs.org<BR><A
href="http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg">http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg</A><BR><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>mmwg
mailing list<BR>mmwg@wsis-cs.org<BR><A
href="http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg">http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg</A><BR></FONT></P></DIV>
</BODY>
</HTML>