[Kictanet] Fw: [Chapter-delegates] Update from WSIS - Monday 14 November

[Alex Gakuru]

FYI,
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <shears at isoc.org>
To: <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 4:05 PM
Subject: [Chapter-delegates] Update from WSIS - Monday
14 November


> Dear all,
>
> Please find below a report on the highlights from
yesterday's Internet
> Governance sessions in Tunis.
>
> Best,
>
> Matthew
>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Sub-committee A on Internet Governance
>
> The discussion opened with Canada giving a read-out
on the points of
> consensus that had been agreed the night before.  As
was expected the
> discussion quickly turned to oversight and new
models after a number of
> statements related to ccTLDs and the role of
government.  The discussion
> turned to ICANN and the role of the GAC in
particular, with a number of
> delegations suggesting that change was not moving
fast or far enough.
> Other countries also suggested that new rules were
needed for gTLDs,
> mentioning the XXX domain name issue.   The Chair
called the meeting to a
> close and suggested that he distribute a new Chair's
paper for the section
> related to follow-up mechanisms.  The paper was
introduced in the
> afternoon after two presentations by ICANN, one from
the President and one
> from the Chair of the GAC addressing the proposed
evolution of the GAC and
> its role in ICANN.
>
> The Chair's paper (see link below) built on the
Canadian group areas of
> consensus and also elaborated considerably on the
Forum function, moving
> directly to a proposal for an Internet Governance
Forum.  There were a
> range of comments from delegations from outright
support to immediate
> bracketing (not agreed) of significant portions of
text.  It was at this
> juncture that Australia, Canada and the United
States indicated their
> concern with the role of the UN Secretary General in
establishing the
> Forum and proposed that ISOC be considered in that
capacity.  Shortly
> thereafter the meeting was adjourned and split into
three working groups
> to address different parts of the Chair's text. 
Upon read-out of the
> working groups, and specifically the working group
reviewing the Forum
> text, there appeared to be no consensus for ISOC's
role, but this issue is
> not yet closed.   We understand that comments
supportive of ISOC's role in
> the Forum (rather than convener) were made by a
number of delegations.
> Discussions continued but were characterized by
significant bracketing of
> text.  The meeting was adjourned and a new text was
to be prepared for the
> following morning.  It is not yet clear what the
outcome of these
> discussions will be as much is still in play.
>
> Additional information:  there is a continuous
effort to downplay the role
> of the existing players with the intent of
marginalizing their role going
> forward.  This position is usually accompanied by
the call for some need
> for additional (government) oversight.
>
>
http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=2125|2247|2246|2255
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
>
http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>



		
__________________________________ 
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs