must keep going on. write for your readers: – if you think only search engines decide the future and success of your blog then you are completely mistaken. search engines can only give you rankings and of course traffic. it is

takes time and practice. just keep on writing and your articles will improve automatically day after day.5 quick tips that help to enhance your article writing skills are reading other articles, using a template structure, preferring words and phrases…

interests of your readers. use keyword search tools to find out what people are looking for in the area where you are blogging. making your title specific to a topic will attract those people who are most interested in reading it.another

You can increase Facebook Fans by arranging Contests,like-gated Coupons/ebooks,Facebook Sponsored ads or adding a “Like” button or box to your blog. These ways are good but take much time to increase fan count.If you want Facebook fans fast, you should…

The report of the Working Group on Internet Governance, which was recognized by world leaders during the Tunis phase of WSIS and resulted in the Internet governance section of the Tunis Agenda, was the result of a great deal of hard work by a large multi-stakeholder working group of experts. It is, therefore, any document prepared by any group on Internet Governance shall not be in contradiction with the outcome of Tunis Agenda that was adopt by world leaders.

In reviewing the draft output documents we found that, in general, there appears to be a bias towards maintaining the status quo. The effect is to discourage adoption of many of the key WSIS outcomes with regard to Internet governance. There is little mention, for example, of the roles and responsibilities of the various stakeholder groups and especially the enhanced cooperation process needed to enable governments to carry out their role in international public policy. There is no mention of the need to eliminate unilateral control of Internet policy by any single entity or government, a situation which challenges the legitimacy of the existing Internet governance structure. We also noted a bias towards retaining the technical and operational characteristics of the existing Internet with little view of the future internet. Notwithstanding that there are many good things about the existing Internet, this is like saying, for example, that since Nordic Mobile network (AMPS) worked there was no need for GSM or 3G or 4G or 5G. In addition, we found a degree of lack of coherence and incompleteness in the documents which render them less than authoritative.

The following points, as well as our detailed comments on the documents, provide further amplification of our issues.

1- Article 34 of the Tunis Agenda stipulated that the working definition of Internet governance is: “the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet”. Principles regarding Internet governance should therefore derive from that definition and be fully consistent with it. Paragraph 34 emphasized development and application based on the respective roles of the stakeholder groups. These roles and responsibilities must be respected and not be confused or neglected.

2- Article 35 identified the roles of the stakeholder groups with regard to Internet governance. It recognized that the policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues.

3- Article 68 recognized that all governments should have an equal role and responsibility for international Internet governance and for ensuring the stability, security and continuity of the Internet. It also recognized the need for development of public policy by governments in consultation with all stakeholders.

4- Article 69 recognized the need for enhanced cooperation in the future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters that do not impact on international public policy issues. In this light, it should be noted that the “multi-stakeholder” approach is not fully implemented as envisaged by WSIS. There is currently no mechanism for governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities regarding policy authority for international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet. The Tunis Agenda called for both enhanced cooperation and the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), and both the CSTD and the UNGA have recognized them as distinct and complementary processes.

5- Since the early days of WSIS (Article 61 of the Tunis Agenda) the world has recognized that there is a need to initiate, and to reinforce as appropriate, a transparent, democratic, and multilateral process on Internet governance. Unfortunately, unilateral control of the Internet still exists. The Internet is a global infrastructure which must be managed by a body or bodies which are not under the control or jurisdiction of any single entity or country. All governments should have an equal role and responsibility for international Internet governance and for ensuring the stability, security and continuity of the existing Internet and the future internet. The evolving usage of the Internet has led to significant international R&D efforts on the future internet, following both an evolutionary approach and a clean slate approach, and these should be welcomed as a natural growth process.

6- We must not limit the scope of how to enhance the existing Internet. Instead, we should be innovative and supportive of future internet initiatives and projects that will provide better stability and security. And most importantly, international public policy must be developed by governments, on an equal footing, rather than by a single entity or country.

Finally, the NetMundial outcome documents must be developed based on the agreed WSIS outcomes, such as the above paragraphs. In addition, they must consider all received contributions to Netmundial in a transparent and balanced manner.

The report of the Working Group on Internet Governance, which was recognized by world leaders during the Tunis phase of WSIS and resulted in the Internet governance section of the Tunis Agenda, was the result of a great deal of hard work by a large multi-stakeholder working group of experts. It is, therefore, any document prepared by any group on Internet Governance shall not be in contradiction with the outcome of Tunis Agenda that was adopt by world leaders.

In reviewing the draft output documents we found that, in general, there appears to be a bias towards maintaining the status quo. The effect is to discourage adoption of many of the key WSIS outcomes with regard to Internet governance. There is little mention, for example, of the roles and responsibilities of the various stakeholder groups and especially the enhanced cooperation process needed to enable governments to carry out their role in international public policy. There is no mention of the need to eliminate unilateral control of Internet policy by any single entity or government, a situation which challenges the legitimacy of the existing Internet governance structure. We also noted a bias towards retaining the technical and operational characteristics of the existing Internet with little view of the future internet. Notwithstanding that there are many good things about the existing Internet, this is like saying, for example, that since Nordic Mobile network (AMPS) worked there was no need for GSM or 3G or 4G or 5G. In addition, we found a degree of lack of coherence and incompleteness in the documents which render them less than authoritative.

The following points, as well as our detailed comments on the documents, provide further amplification of our issues.

1- Article 34 of the Tunis Agenda stipulated that the working definition of Internet governance is: “the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet”. Principles regarding Internet governance should therefore derive from that definition and be fully consistent with it. Paragraph 34 emphasized development and application based on the respective roles of the stakeholder groups. These roles and responsibilities must be respected and not be confused or neglected.

2- Article 35 identified the roles of the stakeholder groups with regard to Internet governance. It recognized that the policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues.

3- Article 68 recognized that all governments should have an equal role and responsibility for international Internet governance and for ensuring the stability, security and continuity of the Internet. It also recognized the need for development of public policy by governments in consultation with all stakeholders.

4- Article 69 recognized the need for enhanced cooperation in the future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters that do not impact on international public policy issues. In this light, it should be noted that the “multi-stakeholder” approach is not fully implemented as envisaged by WSIS. There is currently no mechanism for governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities regarding policy authority for international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet. The Tunis Agenda called for both enhanced cooperation and the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), and both the CSTD and the UNGA have recognized them as distinct and complementary processes.

5- Since the early days of WSIS (Article 61 of the Tunis Agenda) the world has recognized that there is a need to initiate, and to reinforce as appropriate, a transparent, democratic, and multilateral process on Internet governance. Unfortunately, unilateral control of the Internet still exists. The Internet is a global infrastructure which must be managed by a body or bodies which are not under the control or jurisdiction of any single entity or country. All governments should have an equal role and responsibility for international Internet governance and for ensuring the stability, security and continuity of the existing Internet and the future internet. The evolving usage of the Internet has led to significant international R&D efforts on the future internet, following both an evolutionary approach and a clean slate approach, and these should be welcomed as a natural growth process.

6- We must not limit the scope of how to enhance the existing Internet. Instead, we should be innovative and supportive of future internet initiatives and projects that will provide better stability and security. And most importantly, international public policy must be developed by governments, on an equal footing, rather than by a single entity or country.

Finally, the NetMundial outcome documents must be developed based on the agreed WSIS outcomes, such as the above paragraphs. In addition, they must consider all received contributions to Netmundial in a transparent and balanced manner.

As a creative stakeholder, I would like first to commend NETmundial for its efforts to advance moral norms and intellectual property respect worldwide. As NETmundial says, the goal is to work “toward the development of a broad consensus.”

In that context, it is highly questionable whether a public comment period of only one week that falls entirely concurrent to worldwide Christian holy days can effectively serve the public interest?

As an active participant in policy and technical working groups of consensus standards development bodies in the U.S. and worldwide, I would like to point out that a minimum 30-day public/stakeholder period is customary for first-round draft commentary, with a minimum 15-day additional comment period customary for review and commentary on later substantive changes.

Please consider extending or quickly reopening the comment period for the principles and roadmap.

Thank you and kind regards,

Barry Morse
Songwriter/composer/artist
USA