DNSO and GNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< 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!!


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


Draft Action Plan
(WSIS/PCIP/DT/2 refined through the intersessional mechanism and
incorporating government contributions received before established deadline)


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)


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.

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:

Spanish Version

Erick Iriarte Ahon
LatinoamerICANN (Un Proyecto Alfa-Redi)

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index