<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
[council] RE: [ga] Fwd: WSIS Reloaded! --- Rechange!!
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@wwtld.org, alac@icann.org, "council"
<council@dnso.org> From: Erick Iriarte Ahon
<faia@amauta.rcp.net.pe> 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 Observers’ contribution 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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
|