<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<TITLE>VS: VS: [Mmwg] revised draft input</TITLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2802" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=703184118-27022006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>I also thought the Advisory Panel was a nice construct and
would support it. But if it has to go,it has to go.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=703184118-27022006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=703184118-27022006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>I would not support it becoming "technical and operational"
or becoming a fourth group on equal footing.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2>Ian Peter</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2>Senior Partner</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2>Ian Peter and Associates Pty
Ltd</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2>P.O Box 10670 Adelaide
St</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2>Brisbane 4000</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2>Australia</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2>Tel +614 1966 7772</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2>Email <A
href="mailto:ian.peter@ianpeter.com">ian.peter@ianpeter.com</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2><A
href="http://www.ianpeter.com/">www.ianpeter.com</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2><A
href="http://www.internetmark2.org/">www.internetmark2.org</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2><A
href="http://www.nethistory.info/">www.nethistory.info</A> (Winner, Top100 Sites
Award, PCMagazine Spring 2005)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> mmwg-bounces@wsis-cs.org
[mailto:mmwg-bounces@wsis-cs.org] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Luc
Faubert<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, 28 February 2006 5:04 AM<BR><B>To:</B>
Wolfgang Kleinwächter; Robert Guerra; mmwg@wsis-cs.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE:
VS: [Mmwg] revised draft input<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<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><BR>
<P><FONT size=2>--<BR>No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>Checked by
AVG Free Edition.<BR>Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.0/269 - Release
Date: 24/02/2006<BR></FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>--<BR>
No virus found in this outgoing message.<BR>
Checked by AVG Free Edition.<BR>
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.0/269 - Release Date: 24/02/2006<BR>
</FONT> </P>