[Lac] Reporte desde N. York

[Pablo Accuosto]

reenvio informacion que se mando a la la lista de la plenaria sobre la
reunion del ict tf en ny.
un link hacia una noticia y un reporte sobre el tema (ambos en ingles):

http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5179694.html


----- Mensaje original -----
De: "Vittorio Bertola" <vb at bertola.eu.org>
Para: <plenary at wsis-cs.org>
Enviado: viernes, 26 de marzo de 2004 20:20
Asunto: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Considerations after the UN ICT TF global forum


> I'm posting to the plenary list some comments that I made in the Public
> Voice meeting a few hours ago, because I think they are important for all
of
> us.
>
> These two days of meeting at the UN have marked some progress towards a
true
> multistakeholder approach, as finally all people from all stakeholder
groups
> were in the same room and were talking each to the other. The breakout
> sessions were actually quite productive, given the small number of
> participants in each of them.
>
> However, I'd point out two major problems in what happened.
>
> First, we did not have any substantive discussion on implementation of
> general principles and on specific steps forward, such as the composition
> and operating ways of the UN working group on Internet Governance. We
> discussed plenty of principles and issues, flying from here to there, but
in
> the end I feel no practical advance was made; and I wouldn't like having
> come here and lost a week of my time, just to discover that someone else
> will decide these fundamental practical points in a closed room without
> actually listening to us.
>
> Second, it is true that this meeting has marked a progress in terms of
> cooperation among stakeholders, but still we have significant problems.
> There were some civil society people with reserved seats in the first rows
> of the room and printed names, and with speaking slots and moderating
roles
> in sessions, and others (including myself) who submitted their name two or
> three times for the speaking list, and were never given the floor.
> Apparently, the Chairman of the session was picking who would speak and
who
> would not, regardless of the order of submission of the names - and of
> course tended to reserve speaking slots for governments.
>
> Fortunately, the civil society people who had a chance to talk were good
> guys - this is not against them, and actually I feel that the distinction
> between the two categories of civil society people was mostly done at
random
> - but I don't think we can accept a process where we cannot speak freely,
> select our speakers, or make our points when we need to.
>
> On the other hand, we now have a window of opportunity. Nobody in the
> governmental environment seems to be sure about how to proceed, and the
> responsibility to set up this working group is being dumped from one
person
> to another. Now, according to what we heard, Mr. Annan has appointed Mr.
> Kummer as the head secretariat of the working group, and has asked him to
> prepare a proposal for its composition and operation.
>
> I think we should exploit this chance to come up with an unitary and
widely
> supported proposal on this, that ensures openness and transparency for all
> the future working group process.
>
> For example, I would stress the need to allow meetings to be webcast over
> the Internet, and to allow people to comment and interact by e-mail, and
to
> have periods for public review and comment over all draft documents before
> they become final. Of course I don't believe we will actually get to the
> point of webcasting the closed door final negotiations among governments
:)
> but still there's much to be done in this field, and we should push for
it.
>
> And I would stress that there should be balanced civil society
> representation in this working group, and that we should be allowed to
> select it freely - or at least to present lists of suggested names.
>
> I think it would be a big mistake if this process was to set rules to
govern
> the Internet, without giving the actual people who use the Internet every
> day, all around the world, a reasonable chance at least to raise their
> objections.
>
> Finally, I think we should understand whether we want to push for this
> working group to be narrowly focused (i.e., ICANN only) or broadly focused
> (i.e. also other themes such as e-commerce, spam, privacy, free speech,
> intellectual property over the Internet). Personally, I'd recommend to
push
> for this broader set of themes to be discussed - they are much more
> important to the actual average Internet user than the legitimacy of
ICANN.
>
> Possibly, we could suggest having a top-level coordinating group and then
> one lower-level working group of experts per each specific issue - which
> would allow to broaden the range of issues without risking to make the
> overall process too wide and ineffective.
>
> What do you think? Perhaps some of us could draft a document to be then
sent
> to Mr. Annan and Mr. Kummer.
> --
> vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
> http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg...
> _______________________________________________
> Plenary mailing list
> Plenary at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary