[alac] RE: [ga] Fwd: WSIS Reloaded! --- Rechange!!
Hi Marilyn
I suggest work with adam peake who sent an interesting mail about the
same issue.
I can prepare some initial ideas for the council discuss.
Erick
At 11:41 p.m. 05/07/2003 -0400, Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP wrote:
Erick,
thank you for forwarding this to the attention of the ALAC, the
ccTLD discussion list and to the GNSO Council. The WSIS has a rather
broad agenda; and it is very helpful to have you call particular
attention to the relevant sections of the Action Plan for these ICANN
groups. The Intercessional meeting will take place in Paris,
France, from July 15 -- for 5 days-- as I recall, and during that time,
and beyond, language changes will be undertaken on those areas in [ ] .
I note an increasing emphasis
on the ITU in various segments of the document. The ITU has a significant
financial shortfall -- and while its staff supports extension of its
work, there are simply realities regarding their core responsibilities,
which must be taken into account. In addition, some of the language
proposed undermines support of ICANN and its role. I believe that GNSO
Council should provide a resolution to the ICANN board regarding
supportive language for ICANN's role. Such a resolution can then be
forwarded to the individual country representatives and NGOs who are
participating in the intercessional. This can be especially important for
the least developed countries, to hear from the private sector within
their own country that they support ICANN and its mission and activities.
WSIS has a broad agenda;
ICANN's role and activities are a very small portion of the overall WSIS
documents. While keeping that in mind, I believe it is important to ask
Council for a supporting resolution.
Erick, I would welcome the
opportunity to work with you and others on agreed to language to present
to Council for their consideration at the upcoming meeting in July. Such
language would have to be developed almost immediately to make the
deadline for discussion at the July council meeting. I could ask to have
the issue on the Council agenda, and work with you and others on a
resolution for consideration by Council. Do you think this a useful
approach?
Finally, will you be at the
Intercessional?
Best regards,
-
- Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2003 10:23:36 -0500
- To: cctld-discuss@xxxxxxxxx, alac@xxxxxxxxx, "council"
<council@xxxxxxxx>
- From: Erick Iriarte Ahon <faia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: WSIS Reloaded! --- Rechange!!
- Hi
- The WSIS have a new document with some special comments from the
government... The version of June 13 of the documents incorporated the
governments comments and make big changes in the document, it's necessary
to take some position about this comments, and make directs
comments.
- The actual version of the documents:
- (WSIS/PCIP/DT-1 refined through the intersessional mechanism and
incorporating government contributions received before established
deadline)
- 44. Management of Internet domain names and addresses: Internet
governance must be
- multilateral, intergovernmental, democratic and transparent,
supporting private sector-led industry
- self-regulation, taking into account the needs of the public and
private sectors as well as those of the civil society, and respecting
multilingualism. The coordination responsibility at the global level for
root servers, domain names, and Internet Protocol (IP) address assignment
should rest with [a
- suitable international, [inter-governmental/inter-governmental]
organization/ a suitable international
- organization which represents and is accountable to all stakeholders,
and which has clear
- mechanisms for governmental input on issues of public policy]. While
the policy authority for
- country code top-level-domain names (ccTLDs) should be the sovereign
right of countries. There
- should be appropriate coordination in an international forum on
common ccTLD issues so as to
- ensure the stability of the domain name system. Internet naming and
addressing is public issues. (120)
- Alternate text 1 for paragraph 44: Internet governance should be
multilateral, [democratic]
- and transparent, taking into account the needs of the public and
private sectors as well as
- those of the civil society, and respecting
multilingualism.(121)
- Alternate text 2 for paragraph 44: The international management of
the Internet should be
- democratic, multilateral and transparent. It should secure a fair
distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and ensure a stable
and secure functioning of the Internet. It should
- respect geographical diversity and ensure representativeness through
the participation of all
- interested States, including public authorities with competence in
this field, of civil society
- and the private sector, with due respect to their legitimate
interests.(122)
- 120 See comments from Australia.
- 121 Proposed by Canada.
- 122 Proposed by EU, to be moved to the Action
Plan as modified.
- English Version
- http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-s/md/03/wsispcip/td/030721/S03-WSISPCIP-030721-TD-GEN-0004!!PDF-E.pdf
- -------------------------------
- Draft Action Plan
- (WSIS/PCIP/DT/2 refined through the intersessional mechanism and
- incorporating government contributions received before established
deadline)
- SECTION I
- 33 Internet governance: Internet governance has emerged as a key
issue of the information
- society. A transparent multilateral and democratic governance of the
Internet shall constitute the
- basis for the development of a global culture of cyber-security. An
[international/intergovernmental] organization should ensure
multilateral, democratic and transparent management of root servers,
domain names and Internet Protocol (IP) address
assignment.(75)
- Alternate paragraph 33: Internet governance should be multilateral
and transparent,
- taking into account the needs of the public and private sectors as
well as those of the
- civil society, and respecting multilingualism. The coordination
responsible for root
- servers, domain names and Internet Protocol (IP) address assignment
should rest with a
- suitable organization.(76)
- 33 A The Internet is the base of the information society. The
internet must be
- considered a public, international domain. Every country and every
person have the
- right to be connected and to take full advantage of the benefits
offered by the internet.
- The administration of root servers, domain names and internet
protocol addresses must
- be under the responsibility of a multilateral, democratic and
transparent international
- organisation. Full access to the mechanisms of internet governance
must be granted to
- developing countries.
- 75 See comments from Australia and New Zealand.
- 76 Canada
- Section II
- Observerscontribution to the draft Action Plan
- [25 A] Privacy: Need to:
- (....)
- - Privacy security studies should be carried on for all main emerging
new technologies, such as IPV6 (Internet Protocol version 6).
- [28] Good governance: With the active participation of all
stakeholders, the development of an enabling environment should give due
regard to the rights and obligations of all stakeholders in such areas as
freedom of _expression_, consumer protection, privacy, security,
intellectual property rights, labour standards, open-source solutions,
management of Internet addresses and domain names while also maintaining
economic incentives and ensuring trust and confidence for business
activities.
- [33] Internet governance: To widen the participation of all
stakeholders in the global bottom-up policy development and decision
making processes, Task Forces on related public policy and technical
issues (Root Server, Multilingual Domain Names, Internet Security, IPv6,
ENUM, Domain Name Disputes etc.) could be established. Such
inter-governmental Task Forces should promote awareness, distribute
knowledge and produce reports which would help all stakeholders to get a
better understanding of the issues and to cooperate with the relevant
bodies like ICANN, IETF, RIRs, ccTLDs and others.
- Proyecto de Plan de Acción
- (WSIS/PCIP/DT/2 con las modificaciones del mecanismo interconferencia
y las contribuciones
- de los gobiernos recibidas antes del plazo establecido)
- SECCIÓN I
- 33 Gobernanza de Internet : La gestión de Internet es hoy una de las
consideraciones
- esenciales de la sociedad de la información. Una gestión
transparente, multilateral y democrática de Internet debería ser la base
del desarrollo de una cultura mundial de ciberseguridad. Una
- organización [internacional /intergubernamental] debería garantizar
la gestión multilateral,
- democrática y transparente de los servidores de dominio de nivel
superior, los nombres de dominio y la asignación de direcciones del
Protocolo Internet (IP)75
- Alternativa para el párrafo 33: La gestión de Internet debería ser
multilateral y
- transparente, y debería tomar en consideración las necesidades del
sector público, el
- sector privado y la sociedad civil, y respetar el plurilingüismo. Una
organización
- competente debería encargarse de la coordinación de los servidores de
nivel superior,
- los nombres de dominio y la asignación de direcciones del Protocolo
Internet (IP) . 76
- 33 A. Internet es la base de la sociedad de la información. Internet
debe ser
- considerado como un dominio público internacional. Todos los países y
todas las
- personas tienen derecho a conectarse y beneficiarse de las ventajas
de Internet. La
- gestión de los servidores de nivel superior, los nombres de dominio y
las direcciones
- del Protocolo Internet debe confiarse a una organización
internacional multilateral,
- democrática y transparente. Los países en desarrollo deben tener
pleno acceso a los
- mecanismos de gestión de Internet.
- SECCIÓN II
- Contribuciones de los observadores al proyecto de Plan de
Acción
- [25A] Privacidad: Es necesario:
- (...)
- -Deben llevarse a cabo estudios sobre la seguridad de la privacidad
para todas las grandes
- tecnologías emergentes, como el IPV6 (Protocolo Internet versión
6).
- [28] Gobernanza eficaz: Contando con la participación activa de todos
los interesados, al establecer un entorno habilitador se debe prestar la
debida atención a los derechos y obligaciones de todos los interesados en
esferas tales como la libertad de expresión, la protección del
consumidor, la privacidad, la seguridad, los derechos de propiedad
intelectual, las normas laborales, las soluciones de fuente abierta, la
gestión de los nombres de dominio y direcciones Internet, manteniendo al
mismo tiempo incentivos económicos y generando confianza en las
actividades empresariales.
- [33] Gobernanza de Internet: para ampliar la participación de todos
los interesados en el desarrollo global de políticas de abajo a arriba y
en los procesos de toma de decisiones, podrían crearse Grupos de Tareas
Especiales sobre las políticas públicas y las cuestiones técnicas conexas
(servidor de dominio de nivel superior, nombres de dominio multilingües,
seguridad de Internet, IPv6, ENUM, controversias sobre los nombres de
dominio etc.). Dichos grupos de Tareas Especiales intergubernamentales
deberían divulgar y compartir los conocimientos y realizar informes que
ayuden a los interesados a comprender mejor estas cuestiones y a cooperar
con los organismos pertinentes como la ICANN, el IETF, los registros
regionales de Internet, los ccTLD, entre otros.
- English Version:
- http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-s/md/03/wsispcip/td/030721/S03-WSISPCIP-030721-TD-GEN-0005!!PDF-E.pdf
- Spanish Version
- http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-s/md/03/wsispcip/td/030721/S03-WSISPCIP-030721-TD-GEN-0005!!PDF-S.pdf
- ------------------
- Erick Iriarte Ahon
- LatinoamerICANN (Un Proyecto Alfa-Redi)
- http://latinoamericann.derecho.org.ar