From squ24n at gmail.com Wed Dec 4 05:20:57 2013 From: squ24n at gmail.com (Borami Kim) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 19:20:57 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] update on submissions to Brazil summitt In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Andrew, Can I join stream 2? Thanks, Borami 2013/12/4 Andrew Puddephatt > I’ve had several requests to re send the link to the survey monkey - > https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/YXPV2BD > > > > To remind everyone this will provide some information on people’s > interests and hopefully will enable to us to identify where we have common > interests on which we can collaborate. The closing date is December 10thand I’ll circulate the results as soon as I can afterwards. Please note > that I’m looking at *Stream 3 only*. Matthew Shears is facilitating > Stream 2 and Jeremy Stream 1 and they will be in touch about how to proceed > with those areas. > > > > The latest list of those expressing interest is below – its really > encouraging how many people want to be involved – thanks everyone! If > you’re not on the list and want to be, or I have incorrectly put an x > against your interests let me know.. > > > > > > > > > > *Stream 1* > > *Stream 2* > > *Stream 3* > > > > > > *Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote > participation, stakeholder representation and selection)* > > *Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil > and/or other existing principles documents).* > > *Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder > Internet governance including: 1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on > existing work done by Internet Governance Project and/or others). 2. Orphan > issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the > recommendations of the Correspondence Group).* > > Andrew > > > > > > Andrew at gp-digital.org > > > > Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression, > privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free expression. > > Submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed > structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to include > ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF) > > Matthew > > mshears at cdt.org > > > > x > > x > > Nnenna > > nnenna at webfoundation.org > > x > > > > > > Claudio > > claudio at derechosdigitales.org > > > > x - contribute, not lead > > > > Valeria/ APC > > valeriab at apc.org > > > > x - contribute > > x - contribute > > Marianne/ IRP > > m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk > > > > x > > > > Jeanette > > hofmann at internetundgesellschaft.de > > > > > > x - listen and comment > > Anriette APC > > anriette at apc.org > > x > > x > > x > > Anja > > anja at internetdemocracy.in > > x > > > > x > > Joana > > joana at varonferraz.com > > x > > x > > x > > Jeremy > > jeremy at ciroap.org > > x > > > > > > Michael > > gurstein at gmail.com > > > > x > > x > > Marilia > > mariliamaciel at gmail.com > > > > > > 3.1/3.2 > > Rafik > > rafik.dammak at gmail.com > > > > x > > x > > Joy > > joy at apc.org > > > > x > > x > > Imran > > ias_pk at yahoo.com > > > > > > x > > Ian > > ian.peter at ianpeter.com > > > > > > > > Chinmayi > > chinmayiarun at gmail.com > > > > x > > x > > Cynthia > > wongc at hrw.org > > > > x > > > > Avri > > avri at acm.org > > > > x > > > > Adam > > ajp at glocom.ac.jp > > > > x > > x > > Pranesh > > pranesh at cis-india.org > > > > x > > x > > Carolina > > carolina.rossini at gmail.com > > x > > x > > x > > Misha > > mishi at softwarefreedom.org > > > > x > > > > Deborah/Access > > deborah at accessnow.org > > > > x > > x > > Poncelet > > pileleji at ymca.gm > > x > > > > x > > Lorena > > lorena at collaboratory.de > > > > x > > > > Sana > > sana at bolobhi.org > > > > x > > > > Bertrand > > bdelachapelle at gmail.com > > > > > > x > > Laura > > lmottaz at INTERNEWS.ORG > > x > > x > > > > Parminder > > parminder at itforchange.net > > x > > x > > x > > Matthias offers international legal expertise > > matthias.kettemann at gmail.com > > x > > x > > x > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Andrew Puddephatt* | *GLOBAL PARTNERS* DIGITAL > > Executive Director > > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > > T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt > *gp-digital.org * > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Dec 4 08:55:04 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 17:55:04 +0400 Subject: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee Message-ID: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> Dear all, I'm sure you're aware by now of the 1net dialogue, which the technical community organisations initiated around the time of the Bali IGF meeting, and invited the private sector and civil society to join. The vision for the 1net dialogue is rather poorly defined, so it remains unclear how important or influential 1net may become. I'm not going to attempt to summarise the competing visions for 1net here. I can only suggest that if you haven't already, you read the email archives of its mailing list to learn more: https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination. There has been a somewhat loose invitation from the 1net coordinators for the other stakeholder groups to each nominate five members for the 1net steering committee, but a deadline for that has only just been set, and (unless extended) it is very soon - next Monday 9 December. So to do this, we are falling back to the same joint committee of representatives from civil society networks that recently nominated civil society members to join the High Level Panel convened by ICANN to provide input into the Brazil meeting. Each of those networks is now urgently reaching out to their constituents, as I'm doing so now, to ask for expressions of interest in serving on the 1net steering committee. On the part of the Best Bits participants, in Bali we already nominated the same four Brazilian representatives (Carolina, Joana, Carlos and Laura) to be on that committee. As far as I know, they are willing to continue, but have expressed the wish that someone else also join, who has a closer association with the ICANN community. That being the case, we need to put forward one name. If you would like to be put yourself forward to join the 1net steering committee, or would like to nominate someone else, then this thread is for that purpose. The thread can also be used to discuss the criteria that you think should be used by the joint committee in considering the nominees to put forward. If you disagree that the four Brazilian representatives should be amongst the five civil society representatives on the 1net steering committee, then you can put forward that view too. In closing, I do need to acknowledge that the joint committee is still an imperfect vehicle for nominating civil society representatives to the 1net steering committee, because it doesn't yet have an elaborate procedure in place for making the selection - and I know how sensitive some of us are about that sort of thing. All I can say about that is that in parallel to this call for expressions of interest, the committee is also considering how procedures it could put in place that would satisfy their constituents' expectations for a transparent and accountable process. Meanwhile, that remains a work in progress. I will forward the views put forward in this thread to the other members of the joint committee (who are currently from APC, Diplo, the IGC and the NCSG - Michael Gurstein's interest in joining has also been noted and is under discussion). We will then discuss the nominations within the committee, and attempt to come back to you all with a suggestion that will hopefully be generally acceptable. If you have any process-related queries, it is probably appropriate that you direct those to Ian Peter who is the independent chair of the joint committee for now. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Dec 4 14:37:16 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 14:37:16 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Robin Gross? Rafik? I have a feeling that could be interesting to have the same people in different committees to ensure that we have clear information (or make the questions to try to gather better information based on a cross-fora observation). I am just not sure they are part of BB. They are part of other CS coalitions... On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Dear all, > > I'm sure you're aware by now of the 1net dialogue, which the technical > community organisations initiated around the time of the Bali IGF meeting, > and invited the private sector and civil society to join. The vision for > the 1net dialogue is rather poorly defined, so it remains unclear how > important or influential 1net may become. I'm not going to attempt to > summarise the competing visions for 1net here. I can only suggest that if > you haven't already, you read the email archives of its mailing list to > learn more: https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination. > > There has been a somewhat loose invitation from the 1net coordinators for > the other stakeholder groups to each nominate five members for the 1net > steering committee, but a deadline for that has only just been set, and > (unless extended) it is very soon - *next Monday 9 December*. So to do > this, we are falling back to the same joint committee of representatives > from civil society networks that recently nominated civil society members > to join the High Level Panel convened by ICANN to provide input into the > Brazil meeting. > > Each of those networks is now urgently reaching out to their constituents, > as I'm doing so now, to ask for expressions of interest in serving on the > 1net steering committee. On the part of the Best Bits participants, in > Bali we already nominated the same four Brazilian representatives > (Carolina, Joana, Carlos and Laura) to be on that committee. As far as I > know, they are willing to continue, but have expressed the wish that > someone else also join, who has a closer association with the ICANN > community. That being the case, we need to put forward one name. > > If you would like to be put yourself forward to join the 1net steering > committee, or would like to nominate someone else, then this thread is for > that purpose. The thread can also be used to discuss the criteria that you > think should be used by the joint committee in considering the nominees to > put forward. If you disagree that the four Brazilian representatives > should be amongst the five civil society representatives on the 1net > steering committee, then you can put forward that view too. > > In closing, I do need to acknowledge that the joint committee is still an > imperfect vehicle for nominating civil society representatives to the 1net > steering committee, because it doesn't yet have an elaborate procedure in > place for making the selection - and I know how sensitive some of us are > about that sort of thing. All I can say about that is that in parallel to > this call for expressions of interest, the committee is also considering > how procedures it could put in place that would satisfy their constituents' > expectations for a transparent and accountable process. Meanwhile, that > remains a work in progress. > > I will forward the views put forward in this thread to the other members > of the joint committee (who are currently from APC, Diplo, the IGC and the > NCSG - Michael Gurstein's interest in joining has also been noted and is > under discussion). We will then discuss the nominations within the > committee, and attempt to come back to you all with a suggestion that will > hopefully be generally acceptable. If you have any process-related > queries, it is probably appropriate that you direct those to Ian Peter who > is the independent chair of the joint committee for now. > > -- > > > > *Dr Jeremy MalcolmSenior Policy OfficerConsumers International | the > global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub > |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Dec 4 14:57:37 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 23:57:37 +0400 Subject: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <7F389FFA-0F74-4E5B-9BB8-5B314329D02C@ciroap.org> On 4 Dec 2013, at 11:37 pm, Carolina Rossini wrote: > Robin Gross? Rafik? > I have a feeling that could be interesting to have the same people in different committees to ensure that we have clear information (or make the questions to try to gather better information based on a cross-fora observation). I am just not sure they are part of BB. They are part of other CS coalitions... That isn't necessarily a barrier. But in the case of Robin Gross, she is not eligible as she is on the joint committee. Rafik seems like a good choice, if he is willing (we'll ask). Also, the whole question about these nominations are necessary has just been reopened on the 1net list, so who knows whether things may change... at least, we are hoping to get more time to come back with names (perhaps until 16 December). -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Wed Dec 4 17:07:32 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 20:07:32 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: <7F389FFA-0F74-4E5B-9BB8-5B314329D02C@ciroap.org> References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> <7F389FFA-0F74-4E5B-9BB8-5B314329D02C@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Hi Jeremy, I've just asked this at NCUC list, but also would like to pose the same question here: Do you know if those in 1net steering committee will not be eligible for any of the seats at the Brazilian committees? I'm trying to figure out where I would be more useful for our stakeholder group. best joana On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 4 Dec 2013, at 11:37 pm, Carolina Rossini > wrote: > > Robin Gross? Rafik? > I have a feeling that could be interesting to have the same people in > different committees to ensure that we have clear information (or make the > questions to try to gather better information based on a cross-fora > observation). I am just not sure they are part of BB. They are part of > other CS coalitions... > > > That isn't necessarily a barrier. But in the case of Robin Gross, she is > not eligible as she is on the joint committee. Rafik seems like a good > choice, if he is willing (we'll ask). > > Also, the whole question about these nominations are necessary has just > been reopened on the 1net list, so who knows whether things may change... > at least, we are hoping to get more time to come back with names (perhaps > until 16 December). > > -- > > > > *Dr Jeremy MalcolmSenior Policy OfficerConsumers International | the > global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub > |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mshears at cdt.org Wed Dec 4 17:33:16 2013 From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 22:33:16 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <529FADAC.8070406@cdt.org> Hi Jeremy I am interested in a 1net dialogue steering committee role but, as Joana, wonder if this would preclude one from consideration for the Brazilian IG meeting committees? It is difficult to assess among these various committees where one can add the most value and be of most use to the community. Many thanks. Matthew On 04/12/2013 13:55, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Dear all, > > I'm sure you're aware by now of the 1net dialogue, which the technical > community organisations initiated around the time of the Bali IGF > meeting, and invited the private sector and civil society to join. > The vision for the 1net dialogue is rather poorly defined, so it > remains unclear how important or influential 1net may become. I'm not > going to attempt to summarise the competing visions for 1net here. I > can only suggest that if you haven't already, you read the email > archives of its mailing list to learn more: > https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination. > > There has been a somewhat loose invitation from the 1net coordinators > for the other stakeholder groups to each nominate five members for the > 1net steering committee, but a deadline for that has only just been > set, and (unless extended) it is very soon - *next Monday 9 December*. > So to do this, we are falling back to the same joint committee of > representatives from civil society networks that recently nominated > civil society members to join the High Level Panel convened by ICANN > to provide input into the Brazil meeting. > > Each of those networks is now urgently reaching out to their > constituents, as I'm doing so now, to ask for expressions of interest > in serving on the 1net steering committee. On the part of the Best > Bits participants, in Bali we already nominated the same four > Brazilian representatives (Carolina, Joana, Carlos and Laura) to be on > that committee. As far as I know, they are willing to continue, but > have expressed the wish that someone else also join, who has a closer > association with the ICANN community. That being the case, we need to > put forward one name. > > If you would like to be put yourself forward to join the 1net steering > committee, or would like to nominate someone else, then this thread is > for that purpose. The thread can also be used to discuss the criteria > that you think should be used by the joint committee in considering > the nominees to put forward. If you disagree that the four Brazilian > representatives should be amongst the five civil society > representatives on the 1net steering committee, then you can put > forward that view too. > > In closing, I do need to acknowledge that the joint committee is still > an imperfect vehicle for nominating civil society representatives to > the 1net steering committee, because it doesn't yet have an elaborate > procedure in place for making the selection - and I know how sensitive > some of us are about that sort of thing. All I can say about that is > that in parallel to this call for expressions of interest, the > committee is also considering how procedures it could put in place > that would satisfy their constituents' expectations for a transparent > and accountable process. Meanwhile, that remains a work in progress. > > I will forward the views put forward in this thread to the other > members of the joint committee (who are currently from APC, Diplo, the > IGC and the NCSG - Michael Gurstein's interest in joining has also > been noted and is under discussion). We will then discuss the > nominations within the committee, and attempt to come back to you all > with a suggestion that will hopefully be generally acceptable. If you > have any process-related queries, it is probably appropriate that you > direct those to Ian Peter who is the independent chair of the joint > committee for now. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge > hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > -- Matthew Shears Director and Representative Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) mshears at cdt.org +44 (0) 771 247 2987 Skype: mshears -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nashton at consensus.pro Wed Dec 4 18:29:16 2013 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 07:29:16 +0800 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto In-Reply-To: <1880227990.41445.1386198213684.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f22> References: <1880227990.41445.1386198213684.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f22> Message-ID: <55771dce-b90e-45fe-a8ad-53e3e78c5656@email.android.com> For what it is worth I think these are useful proposals, but there is also the further need to do this at the national level, not just internationally, so each country can evaluate where it is in the implementation process, what lessons it can learn, etc. jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr wrote: > >Anja, Michael >and all > >The regular WSIS process had mainly two "hot potatoes" in its programme >: >- development issues and financing mechanisms for solving them >- Internet governance issues (the WGIG was supposed to pave the way for >responding to them) >If we agree on these two main objectives to ge given a appropriate >solution we should perhaps listen on the Adama Samassekou's proposals >during the last Forum intended to giving the WSIS follow-up process a >new impulse. >First, he suggested to replace PPPs, Public-Private Partnetships, the >"holy grail of the WSIS leaders, firts of all the ITU, by MSPs, i.e. >the Multi-stakeholder Partnership. Thus the WSIS spirit is restaured >because CS is effectively present and part of it, contrarily to the >PPP. >Second, he asked for setting up a Working Group per Action Line or >grouping of several AL that analyses thoroughly and objectively (that >implies that a critical approach replaces the recurrent "success >stories") the objectives aimed for by thess AL or AL groups.These WGs >would collect the informations upon the evolution of the key issues, >the work done and the point achieved during the past annual period. In >other words : action and results instead of story-telling ! > >I suggest that we consider seriously Adama Samassekou's proposals as a >major input for the coming preparatory programme meetings (16-17 >december and February), having in mind the two main themes, namely >development and related financing mechanisms and Internet Governance. >Of course, this list with its member organizations (IG Caucus, >Bestbits, IT4Change, APC, Eurolinc, etc) will focus on the latter and >submit contributions to the WSIS coordinators accordingly. > >For these proposals to succeed, I personnaly opt for CS being "ITU >embedded" (see my previous e-mail), that will ensure that the WSIS >leading UN agency respects the requests proposed by the CS orgs or at >least considers them as valuable inputs. > >Best regards > >Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > > > > > > > >> Message du 02/12/13 23:17 >> De : "michael gurstein" >> A : "'Anja Kovacs'" >> Copie à : "'Nick Ashton-Hart'" , "'IGC'" , "'bestbits'" >> Objet : [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto >> >> >Anja, > >I really haven’t followed or kept up with the Action Lines process… The >few times that I did take a look it seemed to be mostly around fairly >empty self-congratulations about the success of one pilot project or >paper exercise or another with little real connection with what might >be happening on the ground. > >Rather I’ve tried to spend my time at my “day job” which is helping in >various ways to support/enable bottom up development processes. As I >tried to point out in my reply to George’s comments on my earlier post >the connection that I see between bottom up development (the kind that >actually works) and say a WSIS process is that global policy influences >national policy and national, multilateral and foundation funding. >Bottom up development will only go so far until it runs into a policy >or a funding blockage. If the supporting mechanisms/policies aren’t >there initiatives fail and ladders quickly turn into snakes. Then, the >people with the fewest resources are required to start all over again >while the those with the most get to jet off to another international >conference talking about which square “Action Line” peg can be snaffled >to fit into the required round hole so as to appear to be supportive of >“Poverty Reduction” or whatever the flavor of the day happens to be. > >Action Lines aren’t “development” they are a way of describing (or in >most cases mis-describing) development activities taking place (or not) >rather far distant from wherever those Action Lines are being >discussed. The non-IG part of WSIS should be about the reality of >development and a WSIS +10 either takes a close look at what worked (or >more likely, didn’t) on the ground and starts from there or it isn’t >about anything at all. > >M > >From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in] >> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 11:39 AM >> To: michael gurstein >> Cc: Nick Ashton-Hart; IGC; bestbits >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto > > >> I wouldn't actually agree that an approach that starts from the >national level is the only way forward. In the analysis of the Internet >Democracy Project, among important reasons why more progress has not >been made on various goals set out in the WSIS Action Lines is not only >because Action Lines have been implemented in too top-down a fashion, >but also, and relatedly, because the Action Lines mix together two >types of issues: those that fundamentally rely on the input of the >larger development community, and those that are Internet governance >issues in the more narrow sense. The latter frequently cut across >Action Lines, and as long as they are not addressed adequately, it is >unlikely that the development agenda that is at the heart of the Action >Lines will take off either. The former is in many cases the foundation >for the success of the latter. >For this reason, the Internet Democracy Project proposed in September, >when the first inputs into the preparatory process for the ITU's High >Level Review meeting were due, to actually rearrange the Action Lines >to make sure both aspects of the Action Lines get their due. This would >entail highlighting, and addressing, the Internet governance agenda >that is embedded in the Action Lines separately, without at any point >losing sight of its connectedness with the development agenda. We >resubmitted this proposal as an input into the zero draft of the zero >draft of the WSIS+10 vision in November, please see: >http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/inc/docs/phase2/rc/V1-D-2.docx >While many development issues in the Action Lines require action first >and foremost at local and national levels, many of the Internet >governance issues are really global public policy issues (and by >splitting the two strands, where to engage can become much more clear >for a range of actors). We therefore also made this proposal an >integral part of our proposals for the evolution of global Internet >governance. If much of the groundwork to enhance cooperation has >already been done in the context of the Action Lines, why not build on >this rather than constituting a new, government-dominated body? This >would also ensure that the enhanced cooperation agenda, too, is >tethered quite closely to development - that seems to be the case only >rarely now. >Different issues require action at different levels and through >different processes. The challenge is not which one to chose, but how >to hold on to, organise and maximise the multitude. > >Best, >Anja > > >On 2 December 2013 06:06, michael gurstein wrote: >+1 > >M > >From: nashton at consensus.pro [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro] >> Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 4:05 PM >> To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto > >> The merits of the report aside, your point, Michael, is one I believe >strongly to be true: the whole WSIS follow-up system is top-down, >because the ITU took control of it. What's needed is national-level >action plans, drawn up by all stakeholders, which can then be compared >like-for-like as to results internationally so countries can learn from >what works in other countries. The irony is that this model is how >"Agenda 21" the climate change process from the first Rio conference >works; sadly WSIS didn't pick this up despite it postdating Rio by more >than a decade. >> In the WSIS review, we should fix this. The digital divide is not >going to be met in Geneva at one-annual "WSIS review" meetings where >INGOs (however well-meaning) compare notes and report cards - it will >be met at the grassroots level, with buyin from that level. > >michael gurstein wrote: >Anyone wondering why a grassroots/community informatics perspective is >necessary in the WSIS and related ICT4D venues should take a close look >at this corporate driven top-down techno-fantasy of what could/should >be done with no attention being given to how it might actually be >accomplished on the ground even after almost twenty years of similar >pronouncements and failed (and hugely wasteful) similarly top down >initiatives. >> >M >> >http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2013/67.asp >> >Broadband infrastructure, applications and services have become >critical to driving growth, delivering social services, improving >environmental management, and transforming people’s lives, according to >a new Manifesto released by the Broadband Commission for Digital >Development and signed by 48 members of the Commission, along with >other prominent figures from industry, civil society and the United >Nations. “Overcoming the digital divide makes sense not only on the >basis of principles of fairness and justice; connecting the world makes >soun d commercial sense,” the Manifesto reads. “The vital role of >broadband needs to be acknowledged at the core of any post-2015 >sustainable development framework, to ensure that all countries – >developed and developing alike – are empowered to participate in the >global digital economy.” >> >Supporting Document >> >http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Documents/working-groups/bb-wg-taskforce-report.pdf >> > >> -- >> Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > >> > >> -- >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> The Internet Democracy Project >> >> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> www.internetdemocracy.in > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Dec 4 18:32:17 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 10:32:17 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: <529FADAC.8070406@cdt.org> References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> <529FADAC.8070406@cdt.org> Message-ID: because i know Jeremy is travelling - there has been no discussion to say that 1net and Brazil CS representatives cannot overlap (doesn’t mean that no one will suggest this, but it hasnt been discussed within steering group to date) Ian Peter From: matthew shears Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 9:33 AM To: Jeremy Malcolm ; bestbits Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee Hi Jeremy I am interested in a 1net dialogue steering committee role but, as Joana, wonder if this would preclude one from consideration for the Brazilian IG meeting committees? It is difficult to assess among these various committees where one can add the most value and be of most use to the community. Many thanks. Matthew On 04/12/2013 13:55, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: Dear all, I'm sure you're aware by now of the 1net dialogue, which the technical community organisations initiated around the time of the Bali IGF meeting, and invited the private sector and civil society to join. The vision for the 1net dialogue is rather poorly defined, so it remains unclear how important or influential 1net may become. I'm not going to attempt to summarise the competing visions for 1net here. I can only suggest that if you haven't already, you read the email archives of its mailing list to learn more: https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination. There has been a somewhat loose invitation from the 1net coordinators for the other stakeholder groups to each nominate five members for the 1net steering committee, but a deadline for that has only just been set, and (unless extended) it is very soon - next Monday 9 December. So to do this, we are falling back to the same joint committee of representatives from civil society networks that recently nominated civil society members to join the High Level Panel convened by ICANN to provide input into the Brazil meeting. Each of those networks is now urgently reaching out to their constituents, as I'm doing so now, to ask for expressions of interest in serving on the 1net steering committee. On the part of the Best Bits participants, in Bali we already nominated the same four Brazilian representatives (Carolina, Joana, Carlos and Laura) to be on that committee. As far as I know, they are willing to continue, but have expressed the wish that someone else also join, who has a closer association with the ICANN community. That being the case, we need to put forward one name. If you would like to be put yourself forward to join the 1net steering committee, or would like to nominate someone else, then this thread is for that purpose. The thread can also be used to discuss the criteria that you think should be used by the joint committee in considering the nominees to put forward. If you disagree that the four Brazilian representatives should be amongst the five civil society representatives on the 1net steering committee, then you can put forward that view too. In closing, I do need to acknowledge that the joint committee is still an imperfect vehicle for nominating civil society representatives to the 1net steering committee, because it doesn't yet have an elaborate procedure in place for making the selection - and I know how sensitive some of us are about that sort of thing. All I can say about that is that in parallel to this call for expressions of interest, the committee is also considering how procedures it could put in place that would satisfy their constituents' expectations for a transparent and accountable process. Meanwhile, that remains a work in progress. I will forward the views put forward in this thread to the other members of the joint committee (who are currently from APC, Diplo, the IGC and the NCSG - Michael Gurstein's interest in joining has also been noted and is under discussion). We will then discuss the nominations within the committee, and attempt to come back to you all with a suggestion that will hopefully be generally acceptable. If you have any process-related queries, it is probably appropriate that you direct those to Ian Peter who is the independent chair of the joint committee for now. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -- Matthew Shears Director and Representative Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) mshears at cdt.org +44 (0) 771 247 2987 Skype: mshears -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Dec 4 19:02:29 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 16:02:29 -0800 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto In-Reply-To: <55771dce-b90e-45fe-a8ad-53e3e78c5656@email.android.com> References: <1880227990.41445.1386198213684.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f22> <55771dce-b90e-45fe-a8ad-53e3e78c5656@email.android.com> Message-ID: <041a01cef14d$4d1d1350$e75739f0$@gmail.com> Yes, I also think that these are very useful and thanks for pointing to them J-L… I’m wondering how to help move them forward? M From: nashton at consensus.pro [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro] Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 3:29 PM To: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr; jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michaelgurstein; 'AnjaKovacs' Cc: 'IGC'; 'bestbits' Subject: re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto For what it is worth I think these are useful proposals, but there is also the further need to do this at the national level, not just internationally, so each country can evaluate where it is in the implementation process, what lessons it can learn, etc. jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr wrote: Anja, Michael and all The regular WSIS process had mainly two "hot potatoes" in its programme : - development issues and financing mechanisms for solving them - Internet governance issues (the WGIG was supposed to pave the way for responding to them) If we agree on these two main objectives to ge given a appropriate solution we should perhaps listen on the Adama Samassekou's proposals during the last Forum intended to giving the WSIS follow-up process a new impulse. First, he suggested to replace PPPs, Public-Private Partnetships, the "holy grail of the WSIS leaders, firts of all the ITU, by MSPs, i.e. the Multi-stakeholder Partnership. Thus the WSIS spirit is restaured because CS is effectively present and part of it, contrarily to the PPP. Second, he asked for setting up a Working Group per Action Line or grouping of several AL that analyses thoroughly and objectively (that implies that a critical approach replaces the recurrent "success stories") the objectives aimed for by thess AL or AL groups.These WGs would collect the informations upon the evolution of the key issues, the work done and the point achieved during the past annual period. In other words : action and results instead of story-telling ! I suggest that we consider seriously Adama Samassekou's proposals as a major input for the coming preparatory programme meetings (16-17 december and February), having in mind the two main themes, namely development and related financing mechanisms and Internet Governance. Of course, this list with its member organizations (IG Caucus, Bestbits, IT4Change, APC, Eurolinc, etc) will focus on the latter and submit contributions to the WSIS coordinators accordingly. For these proposals to succeed, I personnaly opt for CS being "ITU embedded" (see my previous e-mail), that will ensure that the WSIS leading UN agency respects the requests proposed by the CS orgs or at least considers them as valuable inputs. Best regards Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 02/12/13 23:17 > De : "michael gurstein" > A : "'Anja Kovacs'" > Copie à : "'Nick Ashton-Hart'" , "'IGC'" , "'bestbits'" > Objet : [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto > > Anja, I really haven’t followed or kept up with the Action Lines process… The few times that I did take a look it seemed to be mostly around fairly empty self-congratulations about the success of one pilot project or paper exercise or another with little real connection with what might be happening on the ground. Rather I’ve tried to spend my time at my “day job” which is helping in various ways to support/enable bottom up development processes. As I tried to point out in my reply to George’s comments on my earlier post the connection that I see between bottom up development (the kind that actually works) and say a WSIS process is that global policy influences national policy and national, multilateral and foundation funding. Bottom up development will only go so far until it runs into a policy or a funding blockage. If the supporting mechanisms/policies aren’t there initiatives fail and ladders quickly turn into snakes. Then, the people with the fewest resources are required to start all over again while the those with the most get to jet off to another international conference talking about which square “Action Line” peg can be snaffled to fit into the required round hole so as to appear to be supportive of “Poverty Reduction” or whatever the flavor of the day happens to be. Action Lines aren’t “development” they are a way of describing (or in most cases mis-describing) development activities taking place (or not) rather far distant from wherever those Action Lines are being discussed. The non-IG part of WSIS should be about the reality of development and a WSIS +10 either takes a close look at what worked (or more likely, didn’t) on the ground and starts from there or it isn’t about anything at all. M From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in] > Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 11:39 AM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: Nick Ashton-Hart; IGC; bestbits > Subject: Re: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto > I wouldn't actually agree that an approach that starts from the national level is the only way forward. In the analysis of the Internet Democracy Project, among important reasons why more progress has not been made on various goals set out in the WSIS Action Lines is not only because Action Lines have been implemented in too top-down a fashion, but also, and relatedly, because the Action Lines mix together two types of issues: those that fundamentally rely on the input of the larger development community, and those that are Internet governance issues in the more narrow sense. The latter frequently cut across Action Lines, and as long as they are not addressed adequately, it is unlikely that the development agenda that is at the heart of the Action Lines will take off either. The former is in many cases the foundation for the success of the latter. For this reason, the Internet Democracy Project proposed in September, when the first inputs into the preparatory process for the ITU's High Level Review meeting were due, to actually rearrange the Action Lines to make sure both aspects of the Action Lines get their due. This would entail highlighting, and addressing, the Internet governance agenda that is embedded in the Action Lines separately, without at any point losing sight of its connectedness with the development agenda. We resubmitted this proposal as an input into the zero draft of the zero draft of the WSIS+10 vision in November, please see: http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/inc/docs/phase2/rc/V1-D-2.docx While many development issues in the Action Lines require action first and foremost at local and national levels, many of the Internet governance issues are really global public policy issues (and by splitting the two strands, where to engage can become much more clear for a range of actors). We therefore also made this proposal an integral part of our proposals for the evolution of global Internet governance. If much of the groundwork to enhance cooperation has already been done in the context of the Action Lines, why not build on this rather than constituting a new, government-dominated body? This would also ensure that the enhanced cooperation agenda, too, is tethered quite closely to development - that seems to be the case only rarely now. Different issues require action at different levels and through different processes. The challenge is not which one to chose, but how to hold on to, organise and maximise the multitude. Best, Anja On 2 December 2013 06:06, michael gurstein wrote: +1 M From: nashton at consensus.pro [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro] > Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 4:05 PM > To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits > Subject: Re: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto > The merits of the report aside, your point, Michael, is one I believe strongly to be true: the whole WSIS follow-up system is top-down, because the ITU took control of it. What's needed is national-level action plans, drawn up by all stakeholders, which can then be compared like-for-like as to results internationally so countries can learn from what works in other countries. The irony is that this model is how "Agenda 21" the climate change process from the first Rio conference works; sadly WSIS didn't pick this up despite it postdating Rio by more than a decade. > In the WSIS review, we should fix this. The digital divide is not going to be met in Geneva at one-annual "WSIS review" meetings where INGOs (however well-meaning) compare notes and report cards - it will be met at the grassroots level, with buyin from that level. michael gurstein wrote: Anyone wondering why a grassroots/community informatics perspective is necessary in the WSIS and related ICT4D venues should take a close look at this corporate driven top-down techno-fantasy of what could/should be done with no attention being given to how it might actually be accomplished on the ground even after almost twenty years of similar pronouncements and failed (and hugely wasteful) similarly top down initiatives. > M > http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2013/67.asp > Broadband infrastructure, applications and services have become critical to driving growth, delivering social services, improving environmental management, and transforming people’s lives, according to a new Manifesto released by the Broadband Commission for Digital Development and signed by 48 members of the Commission, along with other prominent figures from industry, civil society and the United Nations. “Overcoming the digital divide makes sense not only on the basis of principles of fairness and justice; connecting the world makes soun d commercial sense,” the Manifesto reads. “The vital role of broadband needs to be acknowledged at the core of any post-2015 sustainable development framework, to ensure that all countries – developed and developing alike – are empowered to participate in the global digital economy.” > Supporting Document > http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Documents/working-groups/bb-wg-taskforce-report.pdf > > -- > Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Dec 5 03:05:50 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 13:35:50 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <52A033DE.30206@itforchange.net> Does anyone have any idea what the plans of 1netare? What are its objectives and possible outcomes? I welcome a space for a dialogue outside and across respective civil society and technical community spaces . It could be very useful. But is there any plan beyond this? I mean, one really does not need a multistakeholder steering committee to conduct an online dialogue. For anyone to decide on wanting or not to join the committee, or even to consider whom one should nominate, it will be useful to have some primary idea of what would the committee and 1net itself do.. parminder On Wednesday 04 December 2013 07:25 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Dear all, > > I'm sure you're aware by now of the 1net dialogue, which the technical > community organisations initiated around the time of the Bali IGF > meeting, and invited the private sector and civil society to join. > The vision for the 1net dialogue is rather poorly defined, so it > remains unclear how important or influential 1net may become. I'm not > going to attempt to summarise the competing visions for 1net here. I > can only suggest that if you haven't already, you read the email > archives of its mailing list to learn more: > https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination. > > There has been a somewhat loose invitation from the 1net coordinators > for the other stakeholder groups to each nominate five members for the > 1net steering committee, but a deadline for that has only just been > set, and (unless extended) it is very soon - *next Monday 9 December*. > So to do this, we are falling back to the same joint committee of > representatives from civil society networks that recently nominated > civil society members to join the High Level Panel convened by ICANN > to provide input into the Brazil meeting. > > Each of those networks is now urgently reaching out to their > constituents, as I'm doing so now, to ask for expressions of interest > in serving on the 1net steering committee. On the part of the Best > Bits participants, in Bali we already nominated the same four > Brazilian representatives (Carolina, Joana, Carlos and Laura) to be on > that committee. As far as I know, they are willing to continue, but > have expressed the wish that someone else also join, who has a closer > association with the ICANN community. That being the case, we need to > put forward one name. > > If you would like to be put yourself forward to join the 1net steering > committee, or would like to nominate someone else, then this thread is > for that purpose. The thread can also be used to discuss the criteria > that you think should be used by the joint committee in considering > the nominees to put forward. If you disagree that the four Brazilian > representatives should be amongst the five civil society > representatives on the 1net steering committee, then you can put > forward that view too. > > In closing, I do need to acknowledge that the joint committee is still > an imperfect vehicle for nominating civil society representatives to > the 1net steering committee, because it doesn't yet have an elaborate > procedure in place for making the selection - and I know how sensitive > some of us are about that sort of thing. All I can say about that is > that in parallel to this call for expressions of interest, the > committee is also considering how procedures it could put in place > that would satisfy their constituents' expectations for a transparent > and accountable process. Meanwhile, that remains a work in progress. > > I will forward the views put forward in this thread to the other > members of the joint committee (who are currently from APC, Diplo, the > IGC and the NCSG - Michael Gurstein's interest in joining has also > been noted and is under discussion). We will then discuss the > nominations within the committee, and attempt to come back to you all > with a suggestion that will hopefully be generally acceptable. If you > have any process-related queries, it is probably appropriate that you > direct those to Ian Peter who is the independent chair of the joint > committee for now. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge > hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Dec 5 03:14:36 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 13:44:36 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <52A035EC.7090107@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 04 December 2013 07:25 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Dear all, > > I'm sure you're aware by now of the 1net dialogue, which the technical > community organisations initiated around the time of the Bali IGF > meeting, and invited the private sector and civil society to join. > The vision for the 1net dialogue is rather poorly defined, so it > remains unclear how important or influential 1net may become. I'm not > going to attempt to summarise the competing visions for 1net here. I > can only suggest that if you haven't already, you read the email > archives of its mailing list to learn more: > https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination. > > There has been a somewhat loose invitation from the 1net coordinators > for the other stakeholder groups to each nominate five members for the > 1net steering committee, but a deadline for that has only just been > set, and (unless extended) it is very soon - *next Monday 9 December*. > So to do this, we are falling back to the same joint committee of > representatives from civil society networks that recently nominated > civil society members to join the High Level Panel convened by ICANN > to provide input into the Brazil meeting. > > Each of those networks is now urgently reaching out to their > constituents, as I'm doing so now, to ask for expressions of interest > in serving on the 1net steering committee. On the part of the Best > Bits participants, in Bali we already nominated the same four > Brazilian representatives (Carolina, Joana, Carlos and Laura) to be on > that committee. As far as I know, they are willing to continue, but > have expressed the wish that someone else also join, who has a closer > association with the ICANN community. That being the case, we need to > put forward one name. Is this a view communicated by all the 4 reps... I am not so sure of the justification. Why not for instance have someone from the ICTD community... I think Carlos have deep connections enough with the ICANN community, no... We need to take the Brazil summit outwards towards key global Internet related public policy issues that are real concerns for the world, and not more inwards towards narrow ICANN issues, which are a very limited set. But I agree that the four existing reps being all from Brazil, a developing country, maybe the additional person can be from a developed country. Crossing these two considerations, I think Michael Gurstein should make a great choice. parminder > > If you would like to be put yourself forward to join the 1net steering > committee, or would like to nominate someone else, then this thread is > for that purpose. The thread can also be used to discuss the criteria > that you think should be used by the joint committee in considering > the nominees to put forward. If you disagree that the four Brazilian > representatives should be amongst the five civil society > representatives on the 1net steering committee, then you can put > forward that view too. > > In closing, I do need to acknowledge that the joint committee is still > an imperfect vehicle for nominating civil society representatives to > the 1net steering committee, because it doesn't yet have an elaborate > procedure in place for making the selection - and I know how sensitive > some of us are about that sort of thing. All I can say about that is > that in parallel to this call for expressions of interest, the > committee is also considering how procedures it could put in place > that would satisfy their constituents' expectations for a transparent > and accountable process. Meanwhile, that remains a work in progress. > > I will forward the views put forward in this thread to the other > members of the joint committee (who are currently from APC, Diplo, the > IGC and the NCSG - Michael Gurstein's interest in joining has also > been noted and is under discussion). We will then discuss the > nominations within the committee, and attempt to come back to you all > with a suggestion that will hopefully be generally acceptable. If you > have any process-related queries, it is probably appropriate that you > direct those to Ian Peter who is the independent chair of the joint > committee for now. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge > hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From william.drake at uzh.ch Thu Dec 5 03:22:13 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 09:22:13 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> <529FADAC.8070406@cdt.org> Message-ID: <8FE62073-114E-41BE-99F2-89A6F80290AF@uzh.ch> Hi I’ve been swamped with other things and have lost track, so a nomenclature question—is this “steering committee” framing locked in? In BA we talked about it being a “coordination group,” which sounds a bit less Politburo. Either way, I would argue against having members of the group responsible for filling other groups able to in effect appoint themselves. Best Bill On Dec 5, 2013, at 12:32 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > because i know Jeremy is travelling - > > there has been no discussion to say that 1net and Brazil CS representatives cannot overlap (doesn’t mean that no one will suggest this, but it hasnt been discussed within steering group to date) > > Ian Peter > > From: matthew shears > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 9:33 AM > To: Jeremy Malcolm ; bestbits > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee > > Hi Jeremy > > I am interested in a 1net dialogue steering committee role but, as Joana, wonder if this would preclude one from consideration for the Brazilian IG meeting committees? It is difficult to assess among these various committees where one can add the most value and be of most use to the community. > > Many thanks. > > Matthew > > On 04/12/2013 13:55, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> I'm sure you're aware by now of the 1net dialogue, which the technical community organisations initiated around the time of the Bali IGF meeting, and invited the private sector and civil society to join. The vision for the 1net dialogue is rather poorly defined, so it remains unclear how important or influential 1net may become. I'm not going to attempt to summarise the competing visions for 1net here. I can only suggest that if you haven't already, you read the email archives of its mailing list to learn more: https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination. >> >> There has been a somewhat loose invitation from the 1net coordinators for the other stakeholder groups to each nominate five members for the 1net steering committee, but a deadline for that has only just been set, and (unless extended) it is very soon - next Monday 9 December. So to do this, we are falling back to the same joint committee of representatives from civil society networks that recently nominated civil society members to join the High Level Panel convened by ICANN to provide input into the Brazil meeting. >> >> Each of those networks is now urgently reaching out to their constituents, as I'm doing so now, to ask for expressions of interest in serving on the 1net steering committee. On the part of the Best Bits participants, in Bali we already nominated the same four Brazilian representatives (Carolina, Joana, Carlos and Laura) to be on that committee. As far as I know, they are willing to continue, but have expressed the wish that someone else also join, who has a closer association with the ICANN community. That being the case, we need to put forward one name. >> >> If you would like to be put yourself forward to join the 1net steering committee, or would like to nominate someone else, then this thread is for that purpose. The thread can also be used to discuss the criteria that you think should be used by the joint committee in considering the nominees to put forward. If you disagree that the four Brazilian representatives should be amongst the five civil society representatives on the 1net steering committee, then you can put forward that view too. >> >> In closing, I do need to acknowledge that the joint committee is still an imperfect vehicle for nominating civil society representatives to the 1net steering committee, because it doesn't yet have an elaborate procedure in place for making the selection - and I know how sensitive some of us are about that sort of thing. All I can say about that is that in parallel to this call for expressions of interest, the committee is also considering how procedures it could put in place that would satisfy their constituents' expectations for a transparent and accountable process. Meanwhile, that remains a work in progress. >> >> I will forward the views put forward in this thread to the other members of the joint committee (who are currently from APC, Diplo, the IGC and the NCSG - Michael Gurstein's interest in joining has also been noted and is under discussion). We will then discuss the nominations within the committee, and attempt to come back to you all with a suggestion that will hopefully be generally acceptable. If you have any process-related queries, it is probably appropriate that you direct those to Ian Peter who is the independent chair of the joint committee for now. >> >> -- >> Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >> > > -- > > Matthew Shears > Director and Representative > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) > mshears at cdt.org > +44 (0) 771 247 2987 > Skype: mshears > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nnenna75 at gmail.com Thu Dec 5 03:21:33 2013 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 08:21:33 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: <52A035EC.7090107@itforchange.net> References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> <52A035EC.7090107@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi people Been off mails on these lists for since the beginning of the week. I had some chat with some 1Net leads during the just ended AfriNIC 19 in Abidjan. Two clear things: 1. 1Net is still in its formative stage and is looking to the community to shape its objectives, agenda and working methods 2. 1Net will strecth for some time, at least for now, that is the leaning. 3. Brazil has a 6-month activity line between now and then. It may end up as "intercession" between two IGFs 4. Some other consultations of mine also show that stakeholders may leverage on Brazil to " decide to do" as opposed to IGF which comes to "discuss" 5. Being that 1Net is "here to stay"" and Brazil is a one-off (until initial participants decide otherwise) then it should be okay for people to be in Brazil Steering and also 1Net Steering Best regards Nnenn On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 8:14 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Wednesday 04 December 2013 07:25 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > Dear all, > > I'm sure you're aware by now of the 1net dialogue, which the technical > community organisations initiated around the time of the Bali IGF meeting, > and invited the private sector and civil society to join. The vision for > the 1net dialogue is rather poorly defined, so it remains unclear how > important or influential 1net may become. I'm not going to attempt to > summarise the competing visions for 1net here. I can only suggest that if > you haven't already, you read the email archives of its mailing list to > learn more: https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination. > > There has been a somewhat loose invitation from the 1net coordinators > for the other stakeholder groups to each nominate five members for the 1net > steering committee, but a deadline for that has only just been set, and > (unless extended) it is very soon - *next Monday 9 December*. So to do > this, we are falling back to the same joint committee of representatives > from civil society networks that recently nominated civil society members > to join the High Level Panel convened by ICANN to provide input into the > Brazil meeting. > > Each of those networks is now urgently reaching out to their > constituents, as I'm doing so now, to ask for expressions of interest in > serving on the 1net steering committee. On the part of the Best Bits > participants, in Bali we already nominated the same four Brazilian > representatives (Carolina, Joana, Carlos and Laura) to be on that > committee. As far as I know, they are willing to continue, but have > expressed the wish that someone else also join, who has a closer > association with the ICANN community. That being the case, we need to put > forward one name. > > > Is this a view communicated by all the 4 reps... I am not so sure of the > justification. Why not for instance have someone from the ICTD community... > I think Carlos have deep connections enough with the ICANN community, no... > We need to take the Brazil summit outwards towards key global Internet > related public policy issues that are real concerns for the world, and not > more inwards towards narrow ICANN issues, which are a very limited set. But > I agree that the four existing reps being all from Brazil, a developing > country, maybe the additional person can be from a developed country. > Crossing these two considerations, I think Michael Gurstein should make a > great choice. > > parminder > > > > > If you would like to be put yourself forward to join the 1net steering > committee, or would like to nominate someone else, then this thread is for > that purpose. The thread can also be used to discuss the criteria that you > think should be used by the joint committee in considering the nominees to > put forward. If you disagree that the four Brazilian representatives > should be amongst the five civil society representatives on the 1net > steering committee, then you can put forward that view too. > > In closing, I do need to acknowledge that the joint committee is still > an imperfect vehicle for nominating civil society representatives to the > 1net steering committee, because it doesn't yet have an elaborate procedure > in place for making the selection - and I know how sensitive some of us are > about that sort of thing. All I can say about that is that in parallel to > this call for expressions of interest, the committee is also considering > how procedures it could put in place that would satisfy their constituents' > expectations for a transparent and accountable process. Meanwhile, that > remains a work in progress. > > I will forward the views put forward in this thread to the other members > of the joint committee (who are currently from APC, Diplo, the IGC and the > NCSG - Michael Gurstein's interest in joining has also been noted and is > under discussion). We will then discuss the nominations within the > committee, and attempt to come back to you all with a suggestion that will > hopefully be generally acceptable. If you have any process-related > queries, it is probably appropriate that you direct those to Ian Peter who > is the independent chair of the joint committee for now. > > -- > > > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the > global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub > |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Thu Dec 5 03:29:54 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 06:29:54 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: <52A033DE.30206@itforchange.net> References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> <52A033DE.30206@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear Parminder and all, I guess these important questions are the ones repeatedly echoed in all our minds right now. But maybe the steering committee (or the coordination group, which I also think is a more appropriate nomenclature) is meant exactly to address this questions and finally formulate the answers, taking into account what has been debated in the list? These single, important, but very early stage issues have been going on since Bali with a lot of misunderstandings and a bit of mess, and should be addressed quickly. Also, I guess that, being able to see how the steering is composed will help to build trust, or not, in the future of 1net. Having said that, I would be happy to try my best there, if nominated. But also, please, have in mind that ultimately I think I would be more useful to ur community if I'm able to work close to the Brazilian government being part of either one of the 2 committees among the 4 that are still to be populated (the other 2 are government only and logistics). Something to consider if who is pointed for 1net should not be in the Brazilian committees. Nevertheless, to add extra complication, I'm pretty sure that for this committees international CS representatives will have preference over Brazilians, as the CS seats for Brazilians shall be occupied by CGI.br folks. my two cents. ;) On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 6:05 AM, parminder wrote: > > Does anyone have any idea what the plans of 1net are? What are its > objectives and possible outcomes? > > I welcome a space for a dialogue outside and across respective civil > society and technical community spaces . It could be very useful. But is > there any plan beyond this? I mean, one really does not need a > multistakeholder steering committee to conduct an online dialogue. For > anyone to decide on wanting or not to join the committee, or even to > consider whom one should nominate, it will be useful to have some primary > idea of what would the committee and 1net itself do.. > > parminder > > On Wednesday 04 December 2013 07:25 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > Dear all, > > I'm sure you're aware by now of the 1net dialogue, which the technical > community organisations initiated around the time of the Bali IGF meeting, > and invited the private sector and civil society to join. The vision for > the 1net dialogue is rather poorly defined, so it remains unclear how > important or influential 1net may become. I'm not going to attempt to > summarise the competing visions for 1net here. I can only suggest that if > you haven't already, you read the email archives of its mailing list to > learn more: https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination. > > There has been a somewhat loose invitation from the 1net coordinators > for the other stakeholder groups to each nominate five members for the 1net > steering committee, but a deadline for that has only just been set, and > (unless extended) it is very soon - *next Monday 9 December*. So to do > this, we are falling back to the same joint committee of representatives > from civil society networks that recently nominated civil society members > to join the High Level Panel convened by ICANN to provide input into the > Brazil meeting. > > Each of those networks is now urgently reaching out to their > constituents, as I'm doing so now, to ask for expressions of interest in > serving on the 1net steering committee. On the part of the Best Bits > participants, in Bali we already nominated the same four Brazilian > representatives (Carolina, Joana, Carlos and Laura) to be on that > committee. As far as I know, they are willing to continue, but have > expressed the wish that someone else also join, who has a closer > association with the ICANN community. That being the case, we need to put > forward one name. > > If you would like to be put yourself forward to join the 1net steering > committee, or would like to nominate someone else, then this thread is for > that purpose. The thread can also be used to discuss the criteria that you > think should be used by the joint committee in considering the nominees to > put forward. If you disagree that the four Brazilian representatives > should be amongst the five civil society representatives on the 1net > steering committee, then you can put forward that view too. > > In closing, I do need to acknowledge that the joint committee is still > an imperfect vehicle for nominating civil society representatives to the > 1net steering committee, because it doesn't yet have an elaborate procedure > in place for making the selection - and I know how sensitive some of us are > about that sort of thing. All I can say about that is that in parallel to > this call for expressions of interest, the committee is also considering > how procedures it could put in place that would satisfy their constituents' > expectations for a transparent and accountable process. Meanwhile, that > remains a work in progress. > > I will forward the views put forward in this thread to the other members > of the joint committee (who are currently from APC, Diplo, the IGC and the > NCSG - Michael Gurstein's interest in joining has also been noted and is > under discussion). We will then discuss the nominations within the > committee, and attempt to come back to you all with a suggestion that will > hopefully be generally acceptable. If you have any process-related > queries, it is probably appropriate that you direct those to Ian Peter who > is the independent chair of the joint committee for now. > > -- > > > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the > global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub > |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Thu Dec 5 03:31:16 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 14:01:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto In-Reply-To: <041a01cef14d$4d1d1350$e75739f0$@gmail.com> References: <1880227990.41445.1386198213684.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f22> <55771dce-b90e-45fe-a8ad-53e3e78c5656@email.android.com> <041a01cef14d$4d1d1350$e75739f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: As long as the Internet governance issues and the development issues aren't separated more clearly within the Action Lines, I don't think much progress can be made, not even if there are AL working groups. This is first, because the Internet governance issues and the development issues in the AL require two slightly different (though overlapping to some extent) communities to get excited and involved, and second, because the issues that they will be addressing need addressing at different levels. Many of the IG issues in the Action Lines are actually among the international public policy issues that require a global solution, while the development issues frequently rely more heavily on intervention at the national level. We'd want grassroots input into both, but for grassroots activists to easily find their way into these processes, it is important that the intended outcome, or at least promise, of such processes is obvious, and as long as a variety of issues are thrown together as they are now, that will not be the case. As a consequence, nobody has taken, or felt, any ownership over the action lines so far, nor has anyone done anything much ""because the Action Lines exist" - except perhaps the UN bodies that were responsible for facilitating them. If we are to reenergise the Action Line part of the WSIS (and there is no indication that governments want to do away with it, so it makes sense to try and make it work), separating these very different issues out therefore seems a crucial first step. It is only once this has been done that the proposed working groups will really be able to make a difference (and I agree that they can make a substantial difference at that stage). Best, Anja On Dec 5, 2013 5:32 AM, "michael gurstein" wrote: > Yes, I also think that these are very useful and thanks for pointing to > them J-L… > > > > I’m wondering how to help move them forward? > > > > M > > > > *From:* nashton at consensus.pro [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro] > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 04, 2013 3:29 PM > *To:* jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr; jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr; > governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michaelgurstein; 'AnjaKovacs' > *Cc:* 'IGC'; 'bestbits' > *Subject:* re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto > > > > For what it is worth I think these are useful proposals, but there is also > the further need to do this at the national level, not just > internationally, so each country can evaluate where it is in the > implementation process, what lessons it can learn, etc. > > > > jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr wrote: > > > > Anja, Michael > > and all > > > > The regular WSIS process had mainly two "hot potatoes" in its programme : > > - development issues and financing mechanisms for solving them > > - Internet governance issues (the WGIG was supposed to pave the way for > responding to them) > > If we agree on these two main objectives to ge given a appropriate > solution we should perhaps listen on the Adama Samassekou's proposals > during the last Forum intended to giving the WSIS follow-up process a new > impulse. > > First, he suggested to *replace PPPs*, Public-Private Partnetships, the > "holy grail of the WSIS leaders, firts of all the ITU, *by MSPs*, i.e. > the Multi-stakeholder Partnership. Thus the WSIS spirit is > restaured because CS is effectively present and part of it, contrarily to > the PPP. > > Second, he asked for setting up a *Working Group per Action Line* or > grouping of several AL that analyses thoroughly and objectively (that > implies that a critical approach replaces the recurrent "success stories") > the objectives aimed for by thess AL or AL groups.These WGs would collect > the informations upon the evolution of the key issues, the work done and > the point achieved during the past annual period. In other words : action > and results instead of story-telling ! > > > > I suggest that we consider seriously Adama Samassekou's proposals as a > major input for the coming preparatory programme meetings (16-17 december > and February), having in mind the two main themes, namely development and > related financing mechanisms and Internet Governance. Of course, this list > with its member organizations (IG Caucus, Bestbits, IT4Change, APC, > Eurolinc, etc) will focus on the latter and submit contributions to the > WSIS coordinators accordingly. > > > > For these proposals to succeed, I personnaly opt for CS being "ITU > embedded" (see my previous e-mail), that will ensure that the WSIS leading > UN agency respects the requests proposed by the CS orgs or at least > considers them as valuable inputs. > > > > Best regards > > > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Message du 02/12/13 23:17 > > De : "michael gurstein" > > A : "'Anja Kovacs'" > > Copie à : "'Nick Ashton-Hart'" , "'IGC'" , "'bestbits'" > > Objet : [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto > > > > > > Anja, > > > > I really haven’t followed or kept up with the Action Lines process… The > few times that I did take a look it seemed to be mostly around fairly empty > self-congratulations about the success of one pilot project or paper > exercise or another with little real connection with what might be > happening on the ground. > > > > Rather I’ve tried to spend my time at my “day job” which is helping in > various ways to support/enable bottom up development processes. As I tried > to point out in my reply to George’s comments on my earlier post the > connection that I see between bottom up development (the kind that actually > works) and say a WSIS process is that global policy influences national > policy and national, multilateral and foundation funding. Bottom up > development will only go so far until it runs into a policy or a funding > blockage. If the supporting mechanisms/policies aren’t there initiatives > fail and ladders quickly turn into snakes. Then, the people with the > fewest resources are required to start all over again while the those with > the most get to jet off to another international conference talking about > which square “Action Line” peg can be snaffled to fit into the required > round hole so as to appear to be supportive of “Poverty Reduction” or > whatever the flavor of the day happens to be. > > > > Action Lines aren’t “development” they are a way of describing (or in most > cases mis-describing) development activities taking place (or not) rather > far distant from wherever those Action Lines are being discussed. The > non-IG part of WSIS should be about the reality of development and a WSIS > +10 either takes a close look at what worked (or more likely, didn’t) on > the ground and starts from there or it isn’t about anything at all. > > > > M > > > > *From:* Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in] > > > *Sent:* Monday, December 02, 2013 11:39 AM > > *To:* michael gurstein > > *Cc:* Nick Ashton-Hart; IGC; bestbits > > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto > > > > > > I wouldn't actually agree that an approach that starts from the national > level is the only way forward. In the analysis of the Internet Democracy > Project, among important reasons why more progress has not been made on > various goals set out in the WSIS Action Lines is not only because Action > Lines have been implemented in too top-down a fashion, but also, and > relatedly, because the Action Lines mix together two types of issues: those > that fundamentally rely on the input of the larger development community, > and those that are Internet governance issues in the more narrow sense. The > latter frequently cut across Action Lines, and as long as they are not > addressed adequately, it is unlikely that the development agenda that is at > the heart of the Action Lines will take off either. The former is in many > cases the foundation for the success of the latter. > > For this reason, the Internet Democracy Project proposed in September, > when the first inputs into the preparatory process for the ITU's High Level > Review meeting were due, to actually rearrange the Action Lines to make > sure both aspects of the Action Lines get their due. This would entail > highlighting, and addressing, the Internet governance agenda that is > embedded in the Action Lines separately, without at any point losing sight > of its connectedness with the development agenda. We resubmitted this > proposal as an input into the zero draft of the zero draft of the WSIS+10 > vision in November, please see: > http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/inc/docs/phase2/rc/V1-D-2.docx > > While many development issues in the Action Lines require action first and > foremost at local and national levels, many of the Internet governance > issues are really global public policy issues (and by splitting the two > strands, where to engage can become much more clear for a range of actors). > We therefore also made this proposal an integral part of our proposals for > the evolution of global Internet governance. If much of the groundwork to > enhance cooperation has already been done in the context of the Action > Lines, why not build on this rather than constituting a new, > government-dominated body? This would also ensure that the enhanced > cooperation agenda, too, is tethered quite closely to development - that > seems to be the case only rarely now. > > Different issues require action at different levels and through different > processes. The challenge is not which one to chose, but how to hold on to, > organise and maximise the multitude. > > > > Best, > > Anja > > > > > > On 2 December 2013 06:06, michael gurstein wrote: > > +1 > > > > M > > > > *From:* nashton at consensus.pro [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro] > > *Sent:* Sunday, December 01, 2013 4:05 PM > > *To:* michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits > > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto > > > > > The merits of the report aside, your point, Michael, is one I believe > strongly to be true: the whole WSIS follow-up system is top-down, because > the ITU took control of it. What's needed is national-level action plans, > drawn up by all stakeholders, which can then be compared like-for-like as > to results internationally so countries can learn from what works in other > countries. The irony is that this model is how "Agenda 21" the climate > change process from the first Rio conference works; sadly WSIS didn't pick > this up despite it postdating Rio by more than a decade. > > > In the WSIS review, we should fix this. The digital divide is not going > to be met in Geneva at one-annual "WSIS review" meetings where INGOs > (however well-meaning) compare notes and report cards - it will be met at > the grassroots level, with buyin from that level. > > > > michael gurstein wrote: > > Anyone wondering why a grassroots/community informatics perspective is > necessary in the WSIS and related ICT4D venues should take a close look at > this corporate driven top-down techno-fantasy of what could/should be done > with no attention being given to how it might actually be accomplished on > the ground even after almost twenty years of similar pronouncements and > failed (and hugely wasteful) similarly top down initiatives. > > > > > M > > > > > http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2013/67.asp > > > > > Broadband infrastructure, applications and services have become critical > to driving growth, delivering social services, improving environmental > management, and transforming people’s lives, according to a new Manifesto > released by the Broadband Commission for Digital Development and signed by > 48 members of the Commission, along with other prominent figures from > industry, civil society and the United Nations. “Overcoming the digital > divide makes sense not only on the basis of principles of fairness and > justice; connecting the world makes soun d commercial sense,” the Manifesto > reads. “The vital role of broadband needs to be acknowledged at the core of > any post-2015 sustainable development framework, to ensure that all > countries – developed and developing alike – are empowered to participate > in the global digital economy.” > > > > > Supporting Document > > > > > > http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Documents/working-groups/bb-wg-taskforce-report.pdf > > > > > > > -- > > Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > > -- > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > > The Internet Democracy Project > > > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > > www.internetdemocracy.in > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- > Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nashton at consensus.pro Thu Dec 5 04:28:14 2013 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 17:28:14 +0800 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto In-Reply-To: References: <1880227990.41445.1386198213684.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f22> <55771dce-b90e-45fe-a8ad-53e3e78c5656@email.android.com> <041a01cef14d$4d1d1350$e75739f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5a93d8eb-3f0a-4a43-a10c-275390e588c4@email.android.com> It seems to me that, frankly, the Action Lines are a bit of a mess - duplicative, vague, in other cases difficult at best to be able to tell what success is. I would suggest that the national level discussions should look more at the actual WSIS text, using the action lines as input. Your point about the mixture of governance and development is a good one - however, at the national level having separated discussions about these should be possible. If the WSIS review doesn't operate in parallel at the national and international level, and only starts at the international level and then afterwards starts at the national level, we have the same top-down dynamic we have now, which has been a failure. Anja Kovacs wrote: >As long as the Internet governance issues and the development issues >aren't >separated more clearly within the Action Lines, I don't think much >progress >can be made, not even if there are AL working groups. This is first, >because the Internet governance issues and the development issues in >the AL >require two slightly different (though overlapping to some extent) >communities to get excited and involved, and second, because the issues >that they will be addressing need addressing at different levels. Many >of >the IG issues in the Action Lines are actually among the international >public policy issues that require a global solution, while the >development >issues frequently rely more heavily on intervention at the national >level. >We'd want grassroots input into both, but for grassroots activists to >easily find their way into these processes, it is important that the >intended outcome, or at least promise, of such processes is obvious, >and as >long as a variety of issues are thrown together as they are now, that >will >not be the case. As a consequence, nobody has taken, or felt, any >ownership >over the action lines so far, nor has anyone done anything much >""because >the Action Lines exist" - except perhaps the UN bodies that were >responsible for facilitating them. > >If we are to reenergise the Action Line part of the WSIS (and there is >no >indication that governments want to do away with it, so it makes sense >to >try and make it work), separating these very different issues out >therefore >seems a crucial first step. It is only once this has been done that the >proposed working groups will really be able to make a difference (and I >agree that they can make a substantial difference at that stage). > >Best, > >Anja >On Dec 5, 2013 5:32 AM, "michael gurstein" wrote: > >> Yes, I also think that these are very useful and thanks for pointing >to >> them J-L… >> >> >> >> I’m wondering how to help move them forward? >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> *From:* nashton at consensus.pro [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro] >> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 04, 2013 3:29 PM >> *To:* jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr; jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr; >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michaelgurstein; 'AnjaKovacs' >> *Cc:* 'IGC'; 'bestbits' >> *Subject:* re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto >> >> >> >> For what it is worth I think these are useful proposals, but there is >also >> the further need to do this at the national level, not just >> internationally, so each country can evaluate where it is in the >> implementation process, what lessons it can learn, etc. >> >> >> >> jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr wrote: >> >> >> >> Anja, Michael >> >> and all >> >> >> >> The regular WSIS process had mainly two "hot potatoes" in its >programme : >> >> - development issues and financing mechanisms for solving them >> >> - Internet governance issues (the WGIG was supposed to pave the way >for >> responding to them) >> >> If we agree on these two main objectives to ge given a appropriate >> solution we should perhaps listen on the Adama Samassekou's proposals >> during the last Forum intended to giving the WSIS follow-up process a >new >> impulse. >> >> First, he suggested to *replace PPPs*, Public-Private Partnetships, >the >> "holy grail of the WSIS leaders, firts of all the ITU, *by MSPs*, >i.e. >> the Multi-stakeholder Partnership. Thus the WSIS spirit is >> restaured because CS is effectively present and part of it, >contrarily to >> the PPP. >> >> Second, he asked for setting up a *Working Group per Action Line* or >> grouping of several AL that analyses thoroughly and objectively (that >> implies that a critical approach replaces the recurrent "success >stories") >> the objectives aimed for by thess AL or AL groups.These WGs would >collect >> the informations upon the evolution of the key issues, the work done >and >> the point achieved during the past annual period. In other words : >action >> and results instead of story-telling ! >> >> >> >> I suggest that we consider seriously Adama Samassekou's proposals as >a >> major input for the coming preparatory programme meetings (16-17 >december >> and February), having in mind the two main themes, namely development >and >> related financing mechanisms and Internet Governance. Of course, this >list >> with its member organizations (IG Caucus, Bestbits, IT4Change, APC, >> Eurolinc, etc) will focus on the latter and submit contributions to >the >> WSIS coordinators accordingly. >> >> >> >> For these proposals to succeed, I personnaly opt for CS being "ITU >> embedded" (see my previous e-mail), that will ensure that the WSIS >leading >> UN agency respects the requests proposed by the CS orgs or at least >> considers them as valuable inputs. >> >> >> >> Best regards >> >> >> >> Jean-Louis Fullsack >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Message du 02/12/13 23:17 >> > De : "michael gurstein" >> > A : "'Anja Kovacs'" >> > Copie à : "'Nick Ashton-Hart'" , "'IGC'" , "'bestbits'" >> > Objet : [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto >> > >> > >> >> Anja, >> >> >> >> I really haven’t followed or kept up with the Action Lines process… >The >> few times that I did take a look it seemed to be mostly around fairly >empty >> self-congratulations about the success of one pilot project or paper >> exercise or another with little real connection with what might be >> happening on the ground. >> >> >> >> Rather I’ve tried to spend my time at my “day job” which is helping >in >> various ways to support/enable bottom up development processes. As I >tried >> to point out in my reply to George’s comments on my earlier post the >> connection that I see between bottom up development (the kind that >actually >> works) and say a WSIS process is that global policy influences >national >> policy and national, multilateral and foundation funding. Bottom up >> development will only go so far until it runs into a policy or a >funding >> blockage. If the supporting mechanisms/policies aren’t there >initiatives >> fail and ladders quickly turn into snakes. Then, the people with the >> fewest resources are required to start all over again while the those >with >> the most get to jet off to another international conference talking >about >> which square “Action Line” peg can be snaffled to fit into the >required >> round hole so as to appear to be supportive of “Poverty Reduction” or >> whatever the flavor of the day happens to be. >> >> >> >> Action Lines aren’t “development” they are a way of describing (or in >most >> cases mis-describing) development activities taking place (or not) >rather >> far distant from wherever those Action Lines are being discussed. The >> non-IG part of WSIS should be about the reality of development and a >WSIS >> +10 either takes a close look at what worked (or more likely, didn’t) >on >> the ground and starts from there or it isn’t about anything at all. >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> *From:* Anja Kovacs >[mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in] >> >> > *Sent:* Monday, December 02, 2013 11:39 AM >> > *To:* michael gurstein >> > *Cc:* Nick Ashton-Hart; IGC; bestbits >> > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto >> >> >> >> >> > I wouldn't actually agree that an approach that starts from the >national >> level is the only way forward. In the analysis of the Internet >Democracy >> Project, among important reasons why more progress has not been made >on >> various goals set out in the WSIS Action Lines is not only because >Action >> Lines have been implemented in too top-down a fashion, but also, and >> relatedly, because the Action Lines mix together two types of issues: >those >> that fundamentally rely on the input of the larger development >community, >> and those that are Internet governance issues in the more narrow >sense. The >> latter frequently cut across Action Lines, and as long as they are >not >> addressed adequately, it is unlikely that the development agenda that >is at >> the heart of the Action Lines will take off either. The former is in >many >> cases the foundation for the success of the latter. >> >> For this reason, the Internet Democracy Project proposed in >September, >> when the first inputs into the preparatory process for the ITU's High >Level >> Review meeting were due, to actually rearrange the Action Lines to >make >> sure both aspects of the Action Lines get their due. This would >entail >> highlighting, and addressing, the Internet governance agenda that is >> embedded in the Action Lines separately, without at any point losing >sight >> of its connectedness with the development agenda. We resubmitted this >> proposal as an input into the zero draft of the zero draft of the >WSIS+10 >> vision in November, please see: >> http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/inc/docs/phase2/rc/V1-D-2.docx >> >> While many development issues in the Action Lines require action >first and >> foremost at local and national levels, many of the Internet >governance >> issues are really global public policy issues (and by splitting the >two >> strands, where to engage can become much more clear for a range of >actors). >> We therefore also made this proposal an integral part of our >proposals for >> the evolution of global Internet governance. If much of the >groundwork to >> enhance cooperation has already been done in the context of the >Action >> Lines, why not build on this rather than constituting a new, >> government-dominated body? This would also ensure that the enhanced >> cooperation agenda, too, is tethered quite closely to development - >that >> seems to be the case only rarely now. >> >> Different issues require action at different levels and through >different >> processes. The challenge is not which one to chose, but how to hold >on to, >> organise and maximise the multitude. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> Anja >> >> >> >> >> >> On 2 December 2013 06:06, michael gurstein >wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> *From:* nashton at consensus.pro [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro] >> > *Sent:* Sunday, December 01, 2013 4:05 PM >> > *To:* michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits >> > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto >> >> >> >> > The merits of the report aside, your point, Michael, is one I >believe >> strongly to be true: the whole WSIS follow-up system is top-down, >because >> the ITU took control of it. What's needed is national-level action >plans, >> drawn up by all stakeholders, which can then be compared >like-for-like as >> to results internationally so countries can learn from what works in >other >> countries. The irony is that this model is how "Agenda 21" the >climate >> change process from the first Rio conference works; sadly WSIS didn't >pick >> this up despite it postdating Rio by more than a decade. >> >> > In the WSIS review, we should fix this. The digital divide is not >going >> to be met in Geneva at one-annual "WSIS review" meetings where INGOs >> (however well-meaning) compare notes and report cards - it will be >met at >> the grassroots level, with buyin from that level. >> >> >> >> michael gurstein wrote: >> >> Anyone wondering why a grassroots/community informatics perspective >is >> necessary in the WSIS and related ICT4D venues should take a close >look at >> this corporate driven top-down techno-fantasy of what could/should be >done >> with no attention being given to how it might actually be >accomplished on >> the ground even after almost twenty years of similar pronouncements >and >> failed (and hugely wasteful) similarly top down initiatives. >> >> > >> >> M >> >> > >> >> http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2013/67.asp >> >> > >> >> Broadband infrastructure, applications and services have become >critical >> to driving growth, delivering social services, improving >environmental >> management, and transforming people’s lives, according to a new >Manifesto >> released by the Broadband Commission for Digital Development and >signed by >> 48 members of the Commission, along with other prominent figures from >> industry, civil society and the United Nations. “Overcoming the >digital >> divide makes sense not only on the basis of principles of fairness >and >> justice; connecting the world makes soun d commercial sense,” the >Manifesto >> reads. “The vital role of broadband needs to be acknowledged at the >core of >> any post-2015 sustainable development framework, to ensure that all >> countries – developed and developing alike – are empowered to >participate >> in the global digital economy.” >> >> > >> >> Supporting Document >> >> > >> >> >> >http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Documents/working-groups/bb-wg-taskforce-report.pdf >> >> > >> >> >> > -- >> > Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity. >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> > >> >> > -- >> > Dr. Anja Kovacs >> > The Internet Democracy Project >> > >> > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> > www.internetdemocracy.in >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> -- >> Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity. >> -- Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Dec 5 04:44:07 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 15:14:07 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> <52A035EC.7090107@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52A04AE7.4020800@itforchange.net> Nnenna Thanks for this information.. My comments below. On Thursday 05 December 2013 01:51 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > Hi people > > Been off mails on these lists for since the beginning of the week. > > I had some chat with some 1Net leads during the just ended AfriNIC 19 > in Abidjan. > Two clear things: > > 1. 1Net is still in its formative stage and is looking to the > community to shape its objectives, agenda and working methods > 2. 1Net will strecth for some time, at least for now, that is the > leaning. > 3. Brazil has a 6-month activity line between now and then. It may > end up as "intercession" between two IGFs > If 1Net proposes to be a larger IGF, I have a problem with it. > > 1. Some other consultations of mine also show that stakeholders may > leverage on Brazil to " decide to do" as opposed to IGF which > comes to "discuss" > If it is trying to be an IGF plus, I have an even bigger problem... All this is very unlike a tentative inter-stakeholder dialogue space oriented to a particular important event, or even an continuing one.. parminder > 1. Being that 1Net is "here to stay"" and Brazil is a one-off (until > initial participants decide otherwise) then it should be okay for > people to be in Brazil Steering and also 1Net Steering > > Best regards > > > Nnenn > > > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 8:14 AM, parminder > wrote: > > > On Wednesday 04 December 2013 07:25 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> I'm sure you're aware by now of the 1net dialogue, which the >> technical community organisations initiated around the time of >> the Bali IGF meeting, and invited the private sector and civil >> society to join. The vision for the 1net dialogue is rather >> poorly defined, so it remains unclear how important or >> influential 1net may become. I'm not going to attempt to >> summarise the competing visions for 1net here. I can only >> suggest that if you haven't already, you read the email archives >> of its mailing list to learn more: >> https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination. >> >> There has been a somewhat loose invitation from the 1net >> coordinators for the other stakeholder groups to each nominate >> five members for the 1net steering committee, but a deadline for >> that has only just been set, and (unless extended) it is very >> soon - *next Monday 9 December*. So to do this, we are falling >> back to the same joint committee of representatives from civil >> society networks that recently nominated civil society members to >> join the High Level Panel convened by ICANN to provide input into >> the Brazil meeting. >> >> Each of those networks is now urgently reaching out to their >> constituents, as I'm doing so now, to ask for expressions of >> interest in serving on the 1net steering committee. On the part >> of the Best Bits participants, in Bali we already nominated the >> same four Brazilian representatives (Carolina, Joana, Carlos and >> Laura) to be on that committee. As far as I know, they are >> willing to continue, but have expressed the wish that someone >> else also join, who has a closer association with the ICANN >> community. That being the case, we need to put forward one name. > > Is this a view communicated by all the 4 reps... I am not so sure > of the justification. Why not for instance have someone from the > ICTD community... I think Carlos have deep connections enough with > the ICANN community, no... We need to take the Brazil summit > outwards towards key global Internet related public policy issues > that are real concerns for the world, and not more inwards towards > narrow ICANN issues, which are a very limited set. But I agree > that the four existing reps being all from Brazil, a developing > country, maybe the additional person can be from a developed > country. Crossing these two considerations, I think Michael > Gurstein should make a great choice. > > parminder > > > >> >> If you would like to be put yourself forward to join the 1net >> steering committee, or would like to nominate someone else, then >> this thread is for that purpose. The thread can also be used to >> discuss the criteria that you think should be used by the joint >> committee in considering the nominees to put forward. If you >> disagree that the four Brazilian representatives should be >> amongst the five civil society representatives on the 1net >> steering committee, then you can put forward that view too. >> >> In closing, I do need to acknowledge that the joint committee is >> still an imperfect vehicle for nominating civil society >> representatives to the 1net steering committee, because it >> doesn't yet have an elaborate procedure in place for making the >> selection - and I know how sensitive some of us are about that >> sort of thing. All I can say about that is that in parallel to >> this call for expressions of interest, the committee is also >> considering how procedures it could put in place that would >> satisfy their constituents' expectations for a transparent and >> accountable process. Meanwhile, that remains a work in progress. >> >> I will forward the views put forward in this thread to the other >> members of the joint committee (who are currently from APC, >> Diplo, the IGC and the NCSG - Michael Gurstein's interest in >> joining has also been noted and is under discussion). We will >> then discuss the nominations within the committee, and attempt to >> come back to you all with a suggestion that will hopefully be >> generally acceptable. If you have any process-related queries, >> it is probably appropriate that you direct those to Ian Peter who >> is the independent chair of the joint committee for now. >> >> -- >> >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala >> Lumpur, Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement >> knowledge hub >> |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org >> | >> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice >> . >> Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly >> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For >> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Dec 5 04:53:02 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 15:23:02 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> <52A033DE.30206@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52A04CFE.60109@itforchange.net> On Thursday 05 December 2013 01:59 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > Dear Parminder and all, I guess these important questions are the ones > repeatedly echoed in all our minds right now. > > But maybe the steering committee (or the coordination group, which I > also think is a more appropriate nomenclature) is meant exactly to > address this questions and finally formulate the answers, taking into > account what has been debated in the list? Thanks Joana Since they have asked us to provide members for the committee, would they not give us a short description of what the committee once formulated is supposed to do... All this does not look quite transparent to me, and a kind of taking civil society for granted. That if we are asked for nominees we will just scramble and obey (as kind of happened in the case of ICANN's HLL panel where we scrambled even when we were not asked for nominees). We should not be taken for granted, and if they ask for nominees we can ask what is this for, or anything else we want to ask... And if they do not care to respond (just a hypothetical scenario) neither need we care to respond to their request for nominees. As civil society group we do contribute to their 'weight' and legitimacy. Also we too have backward responsibility. Civil society may need to work with more gravitas . parminder > These single, important, but very early stage issues have been going > on since Bali with a lot of misunderstandings and a bit of mess, and > should be addressed quickly. Also, I guess that, being able to see how > the steering is composed will help to build trust, or not, in the > future of 1net. > > Having said that, I would be happy to try my best there, if nominated. > But also, please, have in mind that ultimately I think I would be more > useful to ur community if I'm able to work close to the Brazilian > government being part of either one of the 2 committees among the 4 > that are still to be populated (the other 2 are government only and > logistics). Something to consider if who is pointed for 1net should > not be in the Brazilian committees. Nevertheless, to add extra > complication, I'm pretty sure that for this committees international > CS representatives will have preference over Brazilians, as the CS > seats for Brazilians shall be occupied by CGI.br folks. > > my two cents. ;) > > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 6:05 AM, parminder > wrote: > > > Does anyone have any idea what the plans of 1netare? What are its > objectives and possible outcomes? > > I welcome a space for a dialogue outside and across respective > civil society and technical community spaces . It could be very > useful. But is there any plan beyond this? I mean, one really does > not need a multistakeholder steering committee to conduct an > online dialogue. For anyone to decide on wanting or not to join > the committee, or even to consider whom one should nominate, it > will be useful to have some primary idea of what would the > committee and 1net itself do.. > > parminder > > On Wednesday 04 December 2013 07:25 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> I'm sure you're aware by now of the 1net dialogue, which the >> technical community organisations initiated around the time of >> the Bali IGF meeting, and invited the private sector and civil >> society to join. The vision for the 1net dialogue is rather >> poorly defined, so it remains unclear how important or >> influential 1net may become. I'm not going to attempt to >> summarise the competing visions for 1net here. I can only >> suggest that if you haven't already, you read the email archives >> of its mailing list to learn more: >> https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination. >> >> There has been a somewhat loose invitation from the 1net >> coordinators for the other stakeholder groups to each nominate >> five members for the 1net steering committee, but a deadline for >> that has only just been set, and (unless extended) it is very >> soon - *next Monday 9 December*. So to do this, we are falling >> back to the same joint committee of representatives from civil >> society networks that recently nominated civil society members to >> join the High Level Panel convened by ICANN to provide input into >> the Brazil meeting. >> >> Each of those networks is now urgently reaching out to their >> constituents, as I'm doing so now, to ask for expressions of >> interest in serving on the 1net steering committee. On the part >> of the Best Bits participants, in Bali we already nominated the >> same four Brazilian representatives (Carolina, Joana, Carlos and >> Laura) to be on that committee. As far as I know, they are >> willing to continue, but have expressed the wish that someone >> else also join, who has a closer association with the ICANN >> community. That being the case, we need to put forward one name. >> >> If you would like to be put yourself forward to join the 1net >> steering committee, or would like to nominate someone else, then >> this thread is for that purpose. The thread can also be used to >> discuss the criteria that you think should be used by the joint >> committee in considering the nominees to put forward. If you >> disagree that the four Brazilian representatives should be >> amongst the five civil society representatives on the 1net >> steering committee, then you can put forward that view too. >> >> In closing, I do need to acknowledge that the joint committee is >> still an imperfect vehicle for nominating civil society >> representatives to the 1net steering committee, because it >> doesn't yet have an elaborate procedure in place for making the >> selection - and I know how sensitive some of us are about that >> sort of thing. All I can say about that is that in parallel to >> this call for expressions of interest, the committee is also >> considering how procedures it could put in place that would >> satisfy their constituents' expectations for a transparent and >> accountable process. Meanwhile, that remains a work in progress. >> >> I will forward the views put forward in this thread to the other >> members of the joint committee (who are currently from APC, >> Diplo, the IGC and the NCSG - Michael Gurstein's interest in >> joining has also been noted and is under discussion). We will >> then discuss the nominations within the committee, and attempt to >> come back to you all with a suggestion that will hopefully be >> generally acceptable. If you have any process-related queries, >> it is probably appropriate that you direct those to Ian Peter who >> is the independent chair of the joint committee for now. >> >> -- >> >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala >> Lumpur, Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement >> knowledge hub >> |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org >> | >> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice >> . >> Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly >> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For >> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Dec 4 23:46:34 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 06:46:34 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> <7F389FFA-0F74-4E5B-9BB8-5B314329D02C@ciroap.org> Message-ID: On 5 Dec 2013, at 12:07 am, Joana Varon wrote: > I've just asked this at NCUC list, but also would like to pose the same question here: > > Do you know if those in 1net steering committee will not be eligible for any of the seats at the Brazilian committees? > > I'm trying to figure out where I would be more useful for our stakeholder group. I guess it's up to us to provide our views on that. There have been different views expressed here, but in my opinion we shouldn't rule someone out from filling two roles provided that they are exceptionally suited to both, and it wouldn't exclude another exceptional candidate. But that's just my opinion, what do others think? I'll feed our views on this back to the joint committee, which hasn't discussed the question specifically (though it has now settled that if a member of the committee wants to be considered for selection, they must replace themselves with another representative first). -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From nnenna75 at gmail.com Thu Dec 5 05:05:19 2013 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 10:05:19 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: <52A04CFE.60109@itforchange.net> References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> <52A033DE.30206@itforchange.net> <52A04CFE.60109@itforchange.net> Message-ID: People, The main role of the 1Net Steering committee is ACTUALLY to scope 1Net. Are we waitiing for other actors to do that, then have CS join later? I think Adiel has made it clear that formation is still going on. So this is that opportunity to scope and formulate the missions and objectives of 1Net by all stakeholders. Best Nnenna On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 9:53 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Thursday 05 December 2013 01:59 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > > Dear Parminder and all, I guess these important questions are the ones > repeatedly echoed in all our minds right now. > > But maybe the steering committee (or the coordination group, which I also > think is a more appropriate nomenclature) is meant exactly to address this > questions and finally formulate the answers, taking into account what has > been debated in the list? > > > Thanks Joana > > Since they have asked us to provide members for the committee, would they > not give us a short description of what the committee once formulated is > supposed to do... All this does not look quite transparent to me, and a > kind of taking civil society for granted. That if we are asked for nominees > we will just scramble and obey (as kind of happened in the case of ICANN's > HLL panel where we scrambled even when we were not asked for nominees). > > We should not be taken for granted, and if they ask for nominees we can > ask what is this for, or anything else we want to ask... And if they do not > care to respond (just a hypothetical scenario) neither need we care to > respond to their request for nominees. As civil society group we do > contribute to their 'weight' and legitimacy. Also we too have backward > responsibility. Civil society may need to work with more gravitas . > > parminder > > > > These single, important, but very early stage issues have been going on > since Bali with a lot of misunderstandings and a bit of mess, and should be > addressed quickly. Also, I guess that, being able to see how the steering > is composed will help to build trust, or not, in the future of 1net. > > Having said that, I would be happy to try my best there, if nominated. > But also, please, have in mind that ultimately I think I would be more > useful to ur community if I'm able to work close to the Brazilian > government being part of either one of the 2 committees among the 4 that > are still to be populated (the other 2 are government only and logistics). > Something to consider if who is pointed for 1net should not be in the > Brazilian committees. Nevertheless, to add extra complication, I'm pretty > sure that for this committees international CS representatives will have > preference over Brazilians, as the CS seats for Brazilians shall be > occupied by CGI.br folks. > > my two cents. ;) > > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 6:05 AM, parminder wrote: > >> >> Does anyone have any idea what the plans of 1net are? What are its >> objectives and possible outcomes? >> >> I welcome a space for a dialogue outside and across respective civil >> society and technical community spaces . It could be very useful. But is >> there any plan beyond this? I mean, one really does not need a >> multistakeholder steering committee to conduct an online dialogue. For >> anyone to decide on wanting or not to join the committee, or even to >> consider whom one should nominate, it will be useful to have some primary >> idea of what would the committee and 1net itself do.. >> >> parminder >> >> On Wednesday 04 December 2013 07:25 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> I'm sure you're aware by now of the 1net dialogue, which the technical >> community organisations initiated around the time of the Bali IGF meeting, >> and invited the private sector and civil society to join. The vision for >> the 1net dialogue is rather poorly defined, so it remains unclear how >> important or influential 1net may become. I'm not going to attempt to >> summarise the competing visions for 1net here. I can only suggest that if >> you haven't already, you read the email archives of its mailing list to >> learn more: https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination. >> >> There has been a somewhat loose invitation from the 1net coordinators >> for the other stakeholder groups to each nominate five members for the 1net >> steering committee, but a deadline for that has only just been set, and >> (unless extended) it is very soon - *next Monday 9 December*. So to do >> this, we are falling back to the same joint committee of representatives >> from civil society networks that recently nominated civil society members >> to join the High Level Panel convened by ICANN to provide input into the >> Brazil meeting. >> >> Each of those networks is now urgently reaching out to their >> constituents, as I'm doing so now, to ask for expressions of interest in >> serving on the 1net steering committee. On the part of the Best Bits >> participants, in Bali we already nominated the same four Brazilian >> representatives (Carolina, Joana, Carlos and Laura) to be on that >> committee. As far as I know, they are willing to continue, but have >> expressed the wish that someone else also join, who has a closer >> association with the ICANN community. That being the case, we need to put >> forward one name. >> >> If you would like to be put yourself forward to join the 1net steering >> committee, or would like to nominate someone else, then this thread is for >> that purpose. The thread can also be used to discuss the criteria that you >> think should be used by the joint committee in considering the nominees to >> put forward. If you disagree that the four Brazilian representatives >> should be amongst the five civil society representatives on the 1net >> steering committee, then you can put forward that view too. >> >> In closing, I do need to acknowledge that the joint committee is still >> an imperfect vehicle for nominating civil society representatives to the >> 1net steering committee, because it doesn't yet have an elaborate procedure >> in place for making the selection - and I know how sensitive some of us are >> about that sort of thing. All I can say about that is that in parallel to >> this call for expressions of interest, the committee is also considering >> how procedures it could put in place that would satisfy their constituents' >> expectations for a transparent and accountable process. Meanwhile, that >> remains a work in progress. >> >> I will forward the views put forward in this thread to the other >> members of the joint committee (who are currently from APC, Diplo, the IGC >> and the NCSG - Michael Gurstein's interest in joining has also been noted >> and is under discussion). We will then discuss the nominations within the >> committee, and attempt to come back to you all with a suggestion that will >> hopefully be generally acceptable. If you have any process-related >> queries, it is probably appropriate that you direct those to Ian Peter who >> is the independent chair of the joint committee for now. >> >> -- >> >> >> >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the >> global campaigning voice for consumers* >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >> Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 <%2B60%203%207726%201599> >> >> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge >> hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. >> Don't print this email unless necessary. >> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly >> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For >> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From william.drake at uzh.ch Thu Dec 5 05:21:28 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 11:21:28 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> <7F389FFA-0F74-4E5B-9BB8-5B314329D02C@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Hi Rafik is the elected chair of NCSG, which comprises a) NCUC, with 313 members from 78 countries, including 88 noncommercial organizations and 225 individuals; b) NPOC, with 52 nonprofit organizations in a couple dozen countries; and c) some free floating individual members that are in neither constituency. NCSG dwarfs in size most other networks in this space, operates in a transparent and accountable manner, and has ongoing working relations with other stakeholder groups and ICANN, so one would think he’d be an obvious choice. Best, Bill On Dec 4, 2013, at 8:57 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 4 Dec 2013, at 11:37 pm, Carolina Rossini wrote: > >> Robin Gross? Rafik? >> I have a feeling that could be interesting to have the same people in different committees to ensure that we have clear information (or make the questions to try to gather better information based on a cross-fora observation). I am just not sure they are part of BB. They are part of other CS coalitions... > > That isn't necessarily a barrier. But in the case of Robin Gross, she is not eligible as she is on the joint committee. Rafik seems like a good choice, if he is willing (we'll ask). > > Also, the whole question about these nominations are necessary has just been reopened on the 1net list, so who knows whether things may change... at least, we are hoping to get more time to come back with names (perhaps until 16 December). ********************************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Dec 5 06:03:30 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 20:03:30 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Ian, Any reply to the CS coalition's recommendations? The high level panel is due to meet December 12-13 (London), a week from now. Best, Adam On Nov 30, 2013, at 5:50 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Please find a letter just send to Fadi Chehade under my signatory as an independent facilitator as regards civil society representation at this meeting in two weeks time. > > Let me be the first to admit the process was imperfect, the result was imperfect. But so was the task we were given, the timeframe, the people involved in making the decision, and the facilitation process. > > I can only say that there was widespread agreement we should submit names, and for the names submitted. And that doing and saying nothing would have been the alternative in this timeframe. > > > Ian Peter > > > 29 November 2013 > RE: Civil Society Representation on High Level Panel in London > > Dear Fadi and Nora: > > I am writing to you following from discussions held by a coalition of representatives of the > civil society networks most involved in Internet governance deliberations, we appreciate your > willingness to engage civil society in discussions regarding the future of Internet > governance. We also appreciate your recognition that civil society is under-represented on > your High Level Panel and your willingness to accept additional civil society participants to > this panel to provide more balance. > After consultations with our networks, we propose adding the following 2 civil society > representatives to begin to balance against the much larger numbers from government, the > private sector, and technical representatives placed on the initial panel. > Civil society’s two nominated representatives for the London High Level Panel are: > 1. Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org) > 2. Milton Mueller (mueller at syr.edu) > Would you please kindly confirm your acceptance of these names, and contact our > representatives directly to arrange their participation? > We also strongly recommend the involvement of Jovan Kurbalija of the Diplo Foundation as > a highly experienced and knowledgeable facilitator. > We trust that in future we will be able to look at much more equitable representation of civil > society in such panels and committees. > Persons involved with these deliberations and choice of names from various civil society > networks were: > Virginia Paque, Diplo Foundation > Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications (APC) > Robin Gross, ICANN's Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) > Norbert Bollow and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) > Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits > Signed, > Ian Peter, Independent Facilitator > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From anja at internetdemocracy.in Thu Dec 5 06:05:07 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 16:35:07 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> <7F389FFA-0F74-4E5B-9BB8-5B314329D02C@ciroap.org> Message-ID: I agree that Rafik would be a good choice. What I'm not so clear about is why the four Brazilian liaisons should also continue to be de facto representatives in the 1net Steering Committee, if such a thing is indeed going to be put into place immediately (I quite liked Andrew Sullivan's suggestions on the 1net email list to simply let people take up responsibility for things they are interested in for now). As Jeremy argued, when there are really good candidates, I'm ok with people being representatives on both the Brazil committees and on 1net, and I can imagine that it would be good to have one or two Brazilians on both, to make the link. But now that 1net has been delinked in many ways from Brazil, surely it would be good to have a broader representation there? Even if I am sure they'd all do a great job, somehow having four out of five 1net reps being Brazilian just doesn't seem like the right balance to me.... What do others think? Best, Anja On 5 December 2013 15:51, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > Rafik is the elected chair of NCSG, which comprises a) NCUC, with 313 > members from 78 countries, including 88 noncommercial organizations and 225 > individuals; b) NPOC, with 52 nonprofit organizations in a couple dozen > countries; and c) some free floating individual members that are in neither > constituency. NCSG dwarfs in size most other networks in this space, > operates in a transparent and accountable manner, and has ongoing working > relations with other stakeholder groups and ICANN, so one would think he’d > be an obvious choice. > > Best, > > Bill > > On Dec 4, 2013, at 8:57 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > On 4 Dec 2013, at 11:37 pm, Carolina Rossini > wrote: > > Robin Gross? Rafik? > I have a feeling that could be interesting to have the same people in > different committees to ensure that we have clear information (or make the > questions to try to gather better information based on a cross-fora > observation). I am just not sure they are part of BB. They are part of > other CS coalitions... > > > That isn't necessarily a barrier. But in the case of Robin Gross, she is > not eligible as she is on the joint committee. Rafik seems like a good > choice, if he is willing (we'll ask). > > Also, the whole question about these nominations are necessary has just > been reopened on the 1net list, so who knows whether things may change... > at least, we are hoping to get more time to come back with names (perhaps > until 16 December). > > > ********************************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************************** > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Thu Dec 5 06:11:54 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 16:41:54 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto In-Reply-To: <1597405002.9169.1386241544429.JavaMail.www@wwinf1n12> References: <1880227990.41445.1386198213684.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f22> <55771dce-b90e-45fe-a8ad-53e3e78c5656@email.android.com> <041a01cef14d$4d1d1350$e75739f0$@gmail.com> <1597405002.9169.1386241544429.JavaMail.www@wwinf1n12> Message-ID: On 5 December 2013 16:35, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > Anja > > > > I fully agree with your opinion about AL content, at least in their > current wording. In fact, they include both the crucial issues, development > and Internet governance, and for a more comprehensive and efficient > approach these issues should be filtered out. Second step to undertake > would be to group some of them (Bertrand suggested this re-grouping some > years ago). If done consistently that would reduce the number of WGs, > facilitate their activity and give them an actual impetus. > > > > Once again, a strong CS presence and commitment in the process is a > precondtion for the WSIS to survive its "+10"term, this is my utterly > convicgion. But as you may agree, it isn't the unique one ! IMO IG > would/could survive a WSIS failure, because it is a global issue ... and > all "stakeholders" are interested in worldwide. Development is a more > complex and holistic problems with many variables and parameters, and CS > has lost its strong influence in the WSIS process during the last years as > has been highlighted by the absence of an active and animated :-) > discussion list (e.g. plenary at wsis-cs.org) as a > counterpart of as governance at ists. > Fully agree with you here, Jean-Louis. I know it's early days, and so much still isn't known about the WSIS+10 Review Summit, but do you perhaps see any potential to galvanise CS again around the development aspects in the context of that meeting, and then hopefully get off to a new and more productive start? Best regards, Anja > > > > > > > Best regards > > > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > > > > Message du 05/12/13 09:31 > > De : "Anja Kovacs" > > A : "michael gurstein" > > Copie à : jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr, "Nick Ashton-Hart" , "IGC" , > "bestbits" > > Objet : RE: [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto > > > > > > > > As long as the Internet governance issues and the development issues > aren't separated more clearly within the Action Lines, I don't think much > progress can be made, not even if there are AL working groups. This is > first, because the Internet governance issues and the development issues in > the AL require two slightly different (though overlapping to some extent) > communities to get excited and involved, and second, because the issues > that they will be addressing need addressing at different levels. Many of > the IG issues in the Action Lines are actually among the international > public policy issues that require a global solution, while the development > issues frequently rely more heavily on intervention at the national level. > We'd want grassroots input into both, but for grassroots activists to > easily find their way into these processes, it is important that the > intended outcome, or at least promise, of such processes is obvious, and as > long as a variety of issues are thrown together as they are now, that will > not be the case. As a consequence, nobody has taken, or felt, any ownership > over the action lines so far, nor has anyone done anything much ""because > the Action Lines exist" - except perhaps the UN bodies that were > responsible for facilitating them. > > > > > > If we are to reenergise the Action Line part of the WSIS (and there is > no indication that governments want to do away with it, so it makes sense > to try and make it work), separating these very different issues out > therefore seems a crucial first step. It is only once this has been done > that the proposed working groups will really be able to make a difference > (and I agree that they can make a substantial difference at that stage). > > > Best, > > > Anja > > > On Dec 5, 2013 5:32 AM, "michael gurstein" wrote: > >> Yes, I also think that these are very useful and thanks for pointing to >> them J-L… >> >> >> >> I’m wondering how to help move them forward? >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> *From:* nashton at consensus.pro [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro] >> > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 04, 2013 3:29 PM >> > *To:* jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr; jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr; >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michaelgurstein; 'AnjaKovacs' >> > *Cc:* 'IGC'; 'bestbits' >> > *Subject:* re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto >> >> >> >> > For what it is worth I think these are useful proposals, but there is >> also the further need to do this at the national level, not just >> internationally, so each country can evaluate where it is in the >> implementation process, what lessons it can learn, etc. >> >> >> >> jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Anja, Michael >> >> > and all >> >> > >> >> > The regular WSIS process had mainly two "hot potatoes" in its programme >> : >> >> > - development issues and financing mechanisms for solving them >> >> > - Internet governance issues (the WGIG was supposed to pave the way for >> responding to them) >> >> > If we agree on these two main objectives to ge given a appropriate >> solution we should perhaps listen on the Adama Samassekou's proposals >> during the last Forum intended to giving the WSIS follow-up process a new >> impulse. >> >> > First, he suggested to *replace PPPs*, Public-Private Partnetships, >> the "holy grail of the WSIS leaders, firts of all the ITU, *by MSPs*, >> i.e. the Multi-stakeholder Partnership. Thus the WSIS spirit is >> restaured because CS is effectively present and part of it, contrarily to >> the PPP. >> >> > Second, he asked for setting up a *Working Group per Action Line* or >> grouping of several AL that analyses thoroughly and objectively (that >> implies that a critical approach replaces the recurrent "success stories") >> the objectives aimed for by thess AL or AL groups.These WGs would collect >> the informations upon the evolution of the key issues, the work done and >> the point achieved during the past annual period. In other words : action >> and results instead of story-telling ! >> >> > >> >> > I suggest that we consider seriously Adama Samassekou's proposals as a >> major input for the coming preparatory programme meetings (16-17 december >> and February), having in mind the two main themes, namely development and >> related financing mechanisms and Internet Governance. Of course, this list >> with its member organizations (IG Caucus, Bestbits, IT4Change, APC, >> Eurolinc, etc) will focus on the latter and submit contributions to the >> WSIS coordinators accordingly. >> >> > >> >> > For these proposals to succeed, I personnaly opt for CS being "ITU >> embedded" (see my previous e-mail), that will ensure that the WSIS leading >> UN agency respects the requests proposed by the CS orgs or at least >> considers them as valuable inputs. >> >> > >> >> > Best regards >> >> > >> >> > Jean-Louis Fullsack >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> > Message du 02/12/13 23:17 >> > > De : "michael gurstein" >> > > A : "'Anja Kovacs'" >> > > Copie à : "'Nick Ashton-Hart'" , "'IGC'" , "'bestbits'" >> > > Objet : [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto >> > > >> > > >> >> Anja, >> >> >> >> I really haven’t followed or kept up with the Action Lines process… The >> few times that I did take a look it seemed to be mostly around fairly empty >> self-congratulations about the success of one pilot project or paper >> exercise or another with little real connection with what might be >> happening on the ground. >> >> >> >> Rather I’ve tried to spend my time at my “day job” which is helping in >> various ways to support/enable bottom up development processes. As I tried >> to point out in my reply to George’s comments on my earlier post the >> connection that I see between bottom up development (the kind that actually >> works) and say a WSIS process is that global policy influences national >> policy and national, multilateral and foundation funding. Bottom up >> development will only go so far until it runs into a policy or a funding >> blockage. If the supporting mechanisms/policies aren’t there initiatives >> fail and ladders quickly turn into snakes. Then, the people with the >> fewest resources are required to start all over again while the those with >> the most get to jet off to another international conference talking about >> which square “Action Line” peg can be snaffled to fit into the required >> round hole so as to appear to be supportive of “Poverty Reduction” or >> whatever the flavor of the day happens to be. >> >> >> >> Action Lines aren’t “development” they are a way of describing (or in >> most cases mis-describing) development activities taking place (or not) >> rather far distant from wherever those Action Lines are being discussed. >> The non-IG part of WSIS should be about the reality of development and a >> WSIS +10 either takes a close look at what worked (or more likely, didn’t) >> on the ground and starts from there or it isn’t about anything at all. >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> *From:* Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in] >> >> > > *Sent:* Monday, December 02, 2013 11:39 AM >> > > *To:* michael gurstein >> > > *Cc:* Nick Ashton-Hart; IGC; bestbits >> > > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto >> >> >> >> >> > > I wouldn't actually agree that an approach that starts from the >> national level is the only way forward. In the analysis of the Internet >> Democracy Project, among important reasons why more progress has not been >> made on various goals set out in the WSIS Action Lines is not only because >> Action Lines have been implemented in too top-down a fashion, but also, and >> relatedly, because the Action Lines mix together two types of issues: those >> that fundamentally rely on the input of the larger development community, >> and those that are Internet governance issues in the more narrow sense. The >> latter frequently cut across Action Lines, and as long as they are not >> addressed adequately, it is unlikely that the development agenda that is at >> the heart of the Action Lines will take off either. The former is in many >> cases the foundation for the success of the latter. >> >> For this reason, the Internet Democracy Project proposed in September, >> when the first inputs into the preparatory process for the ITU's High Level >> Review meeting were due, to actually rearrange the Action Lines to make >> sure both aspects of the Action Lines get their due. This would entail >> highlighting, and addressing, the Internet governance agenda that is >> embedded in the Action Lines separately, without at any point losing sight >> of its connectedness with the development agenda. We resubmitted this >> proposal as an input into the zero draft of the zero draft of the WSIS+10 >> vision in November, please see: >> http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/inc/docs/phase2/rc/V1-D-2.docx >> >> While many development issues in the Action Lines require action first >> and foremost at local and national levels, many of the Internet governance >> issues are really global public policy issues (and by splitting the two >> strands, where to engage can become much more clear for a range of actors). >> We therefore also made this proposal an integral part of our proposals for >> the evolution of global Internet governance. If much of the groundwork to >> enhance cooperation has already been done in the context of the Action >> Lines, why not build on this rather than constituting a new, >> government-dominated body? This would also ensure that the enhanced >> cooperation agenda, too, is tethered quite closely to development - that >> seems to be the case only rarely now. >> >> Different issues require action at different levels and through different >> processes. The challenge is not which one to chose, but how to hold on to, >> organise and maximise the multitude. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> Anja >> >> >> >> >> >> On 2 December 2013 06:06, michael gurstein wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> *From:* nashton at consensus.pro [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro] >> > > *Sent:* Sunday, December 01, 2013 4:05 PM >> > > *To:* michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits >> > > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto >> >> >> >> > > The merits of the report aside, your point, Michael, is one I believe >> strongly to be true: the whole WSIS follow-up system is top-down, because >> the ITU took control of it. What's needed is national-level action plans, >> drawn up by all stakeholders, which can then be compared like-for-like as >> to results internationally so countries can learn from what works in other >> countries. The irony is that this model is how "Agenda 21" the climate >> change process from the first Rio conference works; sadly WSIS didn't pick >> this up despite it postdating Rio by more than a decade. >> >> > > In the WSIS review, we should fix this. The digital divide is not >> going to be met in Geneva at one-annual "WSIS review" meetings where INGOs >> (however well-meaning) compare notes and report cards - it will be met at >> the grassroots level, with buyin from that level. >> >> >> >> michael gurstein wrote: >> >> Anyone wondering why a grassroots/community informatics perspective is >> necessary in the WSIS and related ICT4D venues should take a close look at >> this corporate driven top-down techno-fantasy of what could/should be done >> with no attention being given to how it might actually be accomplished on >> the ground even after almost twenty years of similar pronouncements and >> failed (and hugely wasteful) similarly top down initiatives. >> >> > > >> >> M >> >> > > >> >> http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2013/67.asp >> >> > > >> >> Broadband infrastructure, applications and services have become critical >> to driving growth, delivering social services, improving environmental >> management, and transforming people’s lives, according to a new Manifesto >> released by the Broadband Commission for Digital Development and signed by >> 48 members of the Commission, along with other prominent figures from >> industry, civil society and the United Nations. “Overcoming the digital >> divide makes sense not only on the basis of principles of fairness and >> justice; connecting the world makes soun d commercial sense,” the Manifesto >> reads. “The vital role of broadband needs to be acknowledged at the core of >> any post-2015 sustainable development framework, to ensure that all >> countries – developed and developing alike – are empowered to participate >> in the global digital economy.” >> >> > > >> >> Supporting Document >> >> > > >> >> >> http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Documents/working-groups/bb-wg-taskforce-report.pdf >> >> > > >> >> >> > > -- >> > > Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity. >> >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ >> > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> > > >> >> > > -- >> > > Dr. Anja Kovacs >> > > The Internet Democracy Project >> > > >> > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> > > www.internetdemocracy.in >> >> >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > -- >> > Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity. >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Thu Dec 5 06:41:13 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 09:41:13 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> <7F389FFA-0F74-4E5B-9BB8-5B314329D02C@ciroap.org> Message-ID: I agree with Anja, on both: 1) nominating Rafik and 2) reconsidering nominating all the 4 Brazilians to 1net (I'm not even sure they all want/are available to fulfill this role, a question to double check, I guess. Carol, Lau, CA?). I can also step back if needed. best joana On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 9:05 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > I agree that Rafik would be a good choice. > > What I'm not so clear about is why the four Brazilian liaisons should also > continue to be de facto representatives in the 1net Steering Committee, if > such a thing is indeed going to be put into place immediately (I quite > liked Andrew Sullivan's suggestions on the 1net email list to simply let > people take up responsibility for things they are interested in for now). > > As Jeremy argued, when there are really good candidates, I'm ok with > people being representatives on both the Brazil committees and on 1net, and > I can imagine that it would be good to have one or two Brazilians on both, > to make the link. But now that 1net has been delinked in many ways from > Brazil, surely it would be good to have a broader representation there? > Even if I am sure they'd all do a great job, somehow having four out of > five 1net reps being Brazilian just doesn't seem like the right balance to > me.... > > What do others think? > > Best, > Anja > > > > > On 5 December 2013 15:51, William Drake wrote: > >> Hi >> >> Rafik is the elected chair of NCSG, which comprises a) NCUC, with 313 >> members from 78 countries, including 88 noncommercial organizations and 225 >> individuals; b) NPOC, with 52 nonprofit organizations in a couple dozen >> countries; and c) some free floating individual members that are in neither >> constituency. NCSG dwarfs in size most other networks in this space, >> operates in a transparent and accountable manner, and has ongoing working >> relations with other stakeholder groups and ICANN, so one would think he’d >> be an obvious choice. >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> >> On Dec 4, 2013, at 8:57 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> On 4 Dec 2013, at 11:37 pm, Carolina Rossini >> wrote: >> >> Robin Gross? Rafik? >> I have a feeling that could be interesting to have the same people in >> different committees to ensure that we have clear information (or make the >> questions to try to gather better information based on a cross-fora >> observation). I am just not sure they are part of BB. They are part of >> other CS coalitions... >> >> >> That isn't necessarily a barrier. But in the case of Robin Gross, she is >> not eligible as she is on the joint committee. Rafik seems like a good >> choice, if he is willing (we'll ask). >> >> Also, the whole question about these nominations are necessary has just >> been reopened on the 1net list, so who knows whether things may change... >> at least, we are hoping to get more time to come back with names (perhaps >> until 16 December). >> >> >> ********************************************************** >> William J. Drake >> International Fellow & Lecturer >> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >> University of Zurich, Switzerland >> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, >> ICANN, www.ncuc.org >> william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), >> www.williamdrake.org >> *********************************************************** >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shahzad at bytesforall.pk Thu Dec 5 06:48:40 2013 From: shahzad at bytesforall.pk (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 16:48:40 +0500 Subject: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> <7F389FFA-0F74-4E5B-9BB8-5B314329D02C@ciroap.org> Message-ID: +1. Did Rafik agree? Best S From: Joana Varon Date: Thursday, December 5, 2013 at 4:41 PM To: Anja Kovacs Cc: William Drake , Jeremy Malcolm , Carolina Rossini , "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Best Bits" Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee I agree with Anja, on both: 1) nominating Rafik and 2) reconsidering nominating all the 4 Brazilians to 1net (I'm not even sure they all want/are available to fulfill this role, a question to double check, I guess. Carol, Lau, CA?). I can also step back if needed. best joana On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 9:05 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > I agree that Rafik would be a good choice. > > What I'm not so clear about is why the four Brazilian liaisons should also > continue to be de facto representatives in the 1net Steering Committee, if > such a thing is indeed going to be put into place immediately (I quite liked > Andrew Sullivan's suggestions on the 1net email list to simply let people take > up responsibility for things they are interested in for now). > > As Jeremy argued, when there are really good candidates, I'm ok with people > being representatives on both the Brazil committees and on 1net, and I can > imagine that it would be good to have one or two Brazilians on both, to make > the link. But now that 1net has been delinked in many ways from Brazil, surely > it would be good to have a broader representation there? Even if I am sure > they'd all do a great job, somehow having four out of five 1net reps being > Brazilian just doesn't seem like the right balance to me.... > > What do others think? > > Best, > Anja > > > > > On 5 December 2013 15:51, William Drake wrote: >> Hi >> >> Rafik is the elected chair of NCSG, which comprises a) NCUC, with 313 members >> from 78 countries, including 88 noncommercial organizations and 225 >> individuals; b) NPOC, with 52 nonprofit organizations in a couple dozen >> countries; and c) some free floating individual members that are in neither >> constituency. NCSG dwarfs in size most other networks in this space, >> operates in a transparent and accountable manner, and has ongoing working >> relations with other stakeholder groups and ICANN, so one would think he¹d be >> an obvious choice. >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> >> On Dec 4, 2013, at 8:57 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >>> On 4 Dec 2013, at 11:37 pm, Carolina Rossini >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Robin Gross? Rafik? >>>> I have a feeling that could be interesting to have the same people in >>>> different committees to ensure that we have clear information (or make the >>>> questions to try to gather better information based on a cross-fora >>>> observation). I am just not sure they are part of BB. They are part of >>>> other CS coalitions... >>> >>> That isn't necessarily a barrier. But in the case of Robin Gross, she is >>> not eligible as she is on the joint committee. Rafik seems like a good >>> choice, if he is willing (we'll ask). >>> >>> Also, the whole question about these nominations are necessary has just been >>> reopened on the 1net list, so who knows whether things may change... at >>> least, we are hoping to get more time to come back with names (perhaps until >>> 16 December). >> >> ********************************************************** >> William J. Drake >> International Fellow & Lecturer >> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >> University of Zurich, Switzerland >> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, >> ICANN, www.ncuc.org >> william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), >> www.williamdrake.org >> *********************************************************** >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From william.drake at uzh.ch Thu Dec 5 06:52:09 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 12:52:09 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> <7F389FFA-0F74-4E5B-9BB8-5B314329D02C@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <2F0C9AE4-2B6D-4ACE-A695-01A2DA360E48@uzh.ch> Hi On Dec 5, 2013, at 12:05 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > I agree that Rafik would be a good choice. > > What I'm not so clear about is why the four Brazilian liaisons should also continue to be de facto representatives in the 1net Steering Committee, My understanding was that they are liaisons to the Brazilians directly, rather than representatives to 1net. I thought BB decided to work outside 1net. That’s why I asked how it could also be nominating people to 1net…no reply. Maybe I’m missing something, but it seems to me BB should choose to either be in or out rather than claim a right to have more sources of access to the process than other networks…? Bill > if such a thing is indeed going to be put into place immediately (I quite liked Andrew Sullivan's suggestions on the 1net email list to simply let people take up responsibility for things they are interested in for now). > > As Jeremy argued, when there are really good candidates, I'm ok with people being representatives on both the Brazil committees and on 1net, and I can imagine that it would be good to have one or two Brazilians on both, to make the link. But now that 1net has been delinked in many ways from Brazil, surely it would be good to have a broader representation there? Even if I am sure they'd all do a great job, somehow having four out of five 1net reps being Brazilian just doesn't seem like the right balance to me.... > > What do others think? > > Best, > Anja > > > > > On 5 December 2013 15:51, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > Rafik is the elected chair of NCSG, which comprises a) NCUC, with 313 members from 78 countries, including 88 noncommercial organizations and 225 individuals; b) NPOC, with 52 nonprofit organizations in a couple dozen countries; and c) some free floating individual members that are in neither constituency. NCSG dwarfs in size most other networks in this space, operates in a transparent and accountable manner, and has ongoing working relations with other stakeholder groups and ICANN, so one would think he’d be an obvious choice. > > Best, > > Bill > > On Dec 4, 2013, at 8:57 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> On 4 Dec 2013, at 11:37 pm, Carolina Rossini wrote: >> >>> Robin Gross? Rafik? >>> I have a feeling that could be interesting to have the same people in different committees to ensure that we have clear information (or make the questions to try to gather better information based on a cross-fora observation). I am just not sure they are part of BB. They are part of other CS coalitions... >> >> That isn't necessarily a barrier. But in the case of Robin Gross, she is not eligible as she is on the joint committee. Rafik seems like a good choice, if he is willing (we'll ask). >> >> Also, the whole question about these nominations are necessary has just been reopened on the 1net list, so who knows whether things may change... at least, we are hoping to get more time to come back with names (perhaps until 16 December). > > ********************************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************************** > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Dec 5 07:02:29 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 17:32:29 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> <7F389FFA-0F74-4E5B-9BB8-5B314329D02C@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <52A06B55.3090303@itforchange.net> On Thursday 05 December 2013 04:35 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > I agree that Rafik would be a good choice. > > What I'm not so clear about is why the four Brazilian liaisons should > also continue to be de facto representatives in the 1net Steering > Committee, Anja I might have missed it, but I dont remember seeing any proposal to have our 4 Brazilian liaisons to Brazil meeting organising structure also be CS reps on the Steering Committee. parminder > if such a thing is indeed going to be put into place immediately (I > quite liked Andrew Sullivan's suggestions on the 1net email list to > simply let people take up responsibility for things they are > interested in for now). > > As Jeremy argued, when there are really good candidates, I'm ok with > people being representatives on both the Brazil committees and on > 1net, and I can imagine that it would be good to have one or two > Brazilians on both, to make the link. But now that 1net has been > delinked in many ways from Brazil, surely it would be good to have a > broader representation there? Even if I am sure they'd all do a great > job, somehow having four out of five 1net reps being Brazilian just > doesn't seem like the right balance to me.... > > What do others think? > > Best, > Anja > > > > > On 5 December 2013 15:51, William Drake > wrote: > > Hi > > Rafik is the elected chair of NCSG, which comprises a) NCUC, with > 313 members from 78 countries, including 88 noncommercial > organizations and 225 individuals; b) NPOC, with 52 nonprofit > organizations in a couple dozen countries; and c) some free > floating individual members that are in neither constituency. > NCSG dwarfs in size most other networks in this space, operates > in a transparent and accountable manner, and has ongoing working > relations with other stakeholder groups and ICANN, so one would > think he’d be an obvious choice. > > Best, > > Bill > > On Dec 4, 2013, at 8:57 PM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > >> On 4 Dec 2013, at 11:37 pm, Carolina Rossini >> > >> wrote: >> >>> Robin Gross? Rafik? >>> I have a feeling that could be interesting to have the same >>> people in different committees to ensure that we have clear >>> information (or make the questions to try to gather better >>> information based on a cross-fora observation). I am just not >>> sure they are part of BB. They are part of other CS coalitions... >> >> That isn't necessarily a barrier. But in the case of Robin >> Gross, she is not eligible as she is on the joint committee. >> Rafik seems like a good choice, if he is willing (we'll ask). >> >> Also, the whole question about these nominations are necessary >> has just been reopened on the 1net list, so who knows whether >> things may change... at least, we are hoping to get more time to >> come back with names (perhaps until 16 December). > > ********************************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (w), > wjdrake at gmail.com (h), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************************** > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Dec 5 07:23:32 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 17:53:32 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Re: [I-coordination] Nominations to /1Net Steering committee & Brazil Meeting Organising commitees In-Reply-To: <52A06E1A.608@itforchange.net> References: <52A06E1A.608@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52A07044.2060504@itforchange.net> Please see below my email to the coordinator of 1net, Adiel.. I really find it very inappropriate that after civil society made it very clear that they would like to deal directly with the Brazilian organisers the below announcement is being made in a business as usual manner... I am less sure about the current intentions of the Brazilian organisers, CGI.Br, but my understanding is that they have also decided to deal directly with each stakeholder group. So, not at all able to understand what is happening here... Request our Brazilian liaisons to clarify, and if needed, obtain clarification from CGI.Br. My understanding is that CGI.Br is the organiser of the 'Brazil meeting' and 1net has no official or unofficial status with regard to it... any more than any other group which may self organise to engage with the important Brazil meeting. thanks, parminder -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [I-coordination] Nominations to /1Net Steering committee & Brazil Meeting Organising commitees Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 17:44:18 +0530 From: parminder To: i-coordination at nro.net Hi Adiel If I get it right, I read below as asking civil society to send names of 4 people to you - as coordinator of 1net - for 2 preparation committees of the 'Brazil meeting'. Is it so? I am not sure, but perhaps you know that civil society groups have written to the Brazilian organisers that they will like to have a direct engagment with them and not through any common front, or any such thing (including 1net.) In the circumstances, I wonder why the below announcement... I dare say that it appears to be disrespectful of civil soicety's stand that was taken together by a number of civil society groups. parminder On Thursday 05 December 2013 03:31 PM, Adiel Akplogan wrote: > Dear all, > > In order to bring some clarity in to this let me remind us that each stakeholder group (Business (done), Civil Society, Technical community, Academia) is requested to appoint/nominate a total of 9 people: > > - 2 people for the Brazil meeting's preparation committee-1: Multistakeholder High-Level Committee > > *** This is the committee that will set the high-level > political tone and objectives of the conference. > Committee members will engage on a global level with > stakeholders to encourage participation in the > conference and maximize its chances of success > > - 2 people for the Brazil meeting's preparation Committee 3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee > > **** This committee owns the full responsibility of > organizing the event, including: defining conference > purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing > input received by March 1 into a coherent set of > proposals for the conferees to address, managing > conference proceedings and process, and directing all > communications activities pre-during-post conference. > > - 5 people to constitute the /1Net Steering committee > > Let me suggest December 15 as deadline to have the nominations from all the groups. Once you have your list, please forward it to me directly or share with the mailing lists. Please allow me to request that we, on this list respect what each group will come up with. It is for each interested group to organise themselves to select their reps and we must respect that. > > Thanks. > > - a. > > > > _______________________________________________ > I-coordination mailing list > I-coordination at nro.net > https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake at gmail.com Thu Dec 5 05:16:52 2013 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 11:16:52 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: <7F389FFA-0F74-4E5B-9BB8-5B314329D02C@ciroap.org> References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> <7F389FFA-0F74-4E5B-9BB8-5B314329D02C@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Hi Rafik is the elected chair of NCSG, which comprises a) NCUC, with 313 members from 78 countries, including 88 noncommercial organizations and 225 individuals; b) NPOC, with 52 nonprofit organizations in a couple dozen countries; and c) some free floating individual members that are in neither constituency. NCSG dwarfs in size most other networks in this space, operates in a transparent and accountable manner, and has ongoing working relations with other stakeholder groups and ICANN, so one would think he’d be an obvious choice. Best, Bill On Dec 4, 2013, at 8:57 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 4 Dec 2013, at 11:37 pm, Carolina Rossini wrote: > >> Robin Gross? Rafik? >> I have a feeling that could be interesting to have the same people in different committees to ensure that we have clear information (or make the questions to try to gather better information based on a cross-fora observation). I am just not sure they are part of BB. They are part of other CS coalitions... > > That isn't necessarily a barrier. But in the case of Robin Gross, she is not eligible as she is on the joint committee. Rafik seems like a good choice, if he is willing (we'll ask). > > Also, the whole question about these nominations are necessary has just been reopened on the 1net list, so who knows whether things may change... at least, we are hoping to get more time to come back with names (perhaps until 16 December). > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Dec 5 08:10:44 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 15:10:44 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: <52A035EC.7090107@itforchange.net> References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> <52A035EC.7090107@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On 5 Dec 2013, at 10:14 am, parminder wrote: > Is this a view communicated by all the 4 reps... I am not so sure of the justification. Why not for instance have someone from the ICTD community... I think Carlos have deep connections enough with the ICANN community, no... We need to take the Brazil summit outwards towards key global Internet related public policy issues that are real concerns for the world, and not more inwards towards narrow ICANN issues, which are a very limited set. But I agree that the four existing reps being all from Brazil, a developing country, maybe the additional person can be from a developed country. Crossing these two considerations, I think Michael Gurstein should make a great choice. Thanks for this - I will forward this nomination assuming that Michael doesn't intend to participate in the selection process on behalf of his community informatics network. Also, Carlos A Afonso has just notified us of his withdrawal from the group of four Brazilian liaisons. This means that, assuming we affirm the other three, we do need to suggest two names rather than one, to make a total of five 1net reps. So to recap, the names we can put forward to the joint committee for consideration so far are Rafik Dammak, Michael Gurstein and (tentatively?) Matthew Shears, in addition to the continuation of Joana, Laura and Carolina. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Dec 5 08:16:43 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 15:16:43 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: <8FE62073-114E-41BE-99F2-89A6F80290AF@uzh.ch> References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> <529FADAC.8070406@cdt.org> <8FE62073-114E-41BE-99F2-89A6F80290AF@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <453C2A3B-C5BB-4DEE-9146-5FDDF02F46C2@ciroap.org> On 5 Dec 2013, at 10:22 am, William Drake wrote: > I’ve been swamped with other things and have lost track, so a nomenclature question—is this “steering committee” framing locked in? In BA we talked about it being a “coordination group,” which sounds a bit less Politburo. I like that better too. > Either way, I would argue against having members of the group responsible for filling other groups able to in effect appoint themselves. Very obviously, yes; this was our mistake last time when Anriette (although not involved in selecting herself) was formally still part of the group when selected for the HLP. She has now stepped down and replaced herself with another APC representative, Chat Garcia Ramilo. Also, I'm still catching up on email and so I see that my last message didn't accurately reflect the view that we perhaps shouldn't keep the three Brazilian liaisons as the 1net representatives also. So, you can ignore that part of my last email, and consider all five places available. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Thu Dec 5 08:17:23 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 11:17:23 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] About the question on permanence of 4 liaisons Message-ID: Dear all, FYI, please, see below this kind email from Carlos. That addresses some questions posed in the thread about nominations for 1net. best joana ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Carlos A. Afonso Date: Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:54 AM Subject: br meeting CS liaison group To: Carolina Almeida Antunes Rossini , Laura Tresca , Joana Varon , Anriette Esterhuysen , Jeremy Malcolm , Parminder Dear friends, This is to let you know that I am quitting the so-called "interim liaison" group related to the Brazil meeting in April. The reason is, in my view, possible conflicts of interest and representation, as I am now part of the CGI.br organizing task force for the meeting. The three persons nominated to the liaison are very qualified to continue doing this work. Also, we at the task force are striving to make sure channels of communication with us are as direct and expedite as possible. Thanks for the trust, and I hope you will understand. Please circulate this info as you wish. fraternal regards --c.a. -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Thu Dec 5 08:19:19 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 18:49:19 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: <2F0C9AE4-2B6D-4ACE-A695-01A2DA360E48@uzh.ch> References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> <7F389FFA-0F74-4E5B-9BB8-5B314329D02C@ciroap.org> <2F0C9AE4-2B6D-4ACE-A695-01A2DA360E48@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Hi Bill, On 5 December 2013 17:22, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > On Dec 5, 2013, at 12:05 PM, Anja Kovacs > wrote: > > I agree that Rafik would be a good choice. > > What I'm not so clear about is why the four Brazilian liaisons should also > continue to be de facto representatives in the 1net Steering Committee, > > > My understanding was that they are liaisons to the Brazilians directly, > rather than representatives to 1net. I thought BB decided to work outside > 1net. That’s why I asked how it could also be nominating people to 1net…no > reply. > When it comes to the Brazil meeting, we had decided to engage with the Brazilian government directly. But that doesn't mean we can't engage with 1net at all, right? I personally think it is quite valuable to have those discussions across many different groups - I feel that I am already learning a lot about other people's views on these things just by reading the conversations on 1net. So I don't think 1net should be a structure of representation, at least not at the moment, but I do think we should engage with it, and also contribute to shaping it - and then perhaps it could also evolve into a structure of representation in the future, once it is more clear what 1net's role really is and what it can do. > Maybe I’m missing something, but it seems to me BB should choose to either > be in or out rather than claim a right to have more sources of access to > the process than other networks…? > That's presuming 1net is a structure of representation linked into the Brazil meeting, which as you say, CS had agreed that at least for us it is not. Participation can also be purely about engaging in relevant conversations already before the actual Brazil meeting, and likely beyond as well, though, and it is there that I think we can all benefit even now. Best, Anja Bill if such a thing is indeed going to be put into place immediately (I quite liked Andrew Sullivan's suggestions on the 1net email list to simply let people take up responsibility for things they are interested in for now). As Jeremy argued, when there are really good candidates, I'm ok with people being representatives on both the Brazil committees and on 1net, and I can imagine that it would be good to have one or two Brazilians on both, to make the link. But now that 1net has been delinked in many ways from Brazil, surely it would be good to have a broader representation there? Even if I am sure they'd all do a great job, somehow having four out of five 1net reps being Brazilian just doesn't seem like the right balance to me.... What do others think? Best, Anja On 5 December 2013 15:51, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > Rafik is the elected chair of NCSG, which comprises a) NCUC, with 313 > members from 78 countries, including 88 noncommercial organizations and 225 > individuals; b) NPOC, with 52 nonprofit organizations in a couple dozen > countries; and c) some free floating individual members that are in neither > constituency. NCSG dwarfs in size most other networks in this space, > operates in a transparent and accountable manner, and has ongoing working > relations with other stakeholder groups and ICANN, so one would think he’d > be an obvious choice. > > Best, > > Bill > > On Dec 4, 2013, at 8:57 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > On 4 Dec 2013, at 11:37 pm, Carolina Rossini > wrote: > > Robin Gross? Rafik? > I have a feeling that could be interesting to have the same people in > different committees to ensure that we have clear information (or make the > questions to try to gather better information based on a cross-fora > observation). I am just not sure they are part of BB. They are part of > other CS coalitions... > > > That isn't necessarily a barrier. But in the case of Robin Gross, she is > not eligible as she is on the joint committee. Rafik seems like a good > choice, if he is willing (we'll ask). > > Also, the whole question about these nominations are necessary has just > been reopened on the 1net list, so who knows whether things may change... > at least, we are hoping to get more time to come back with names (perhaps > until 16 December). > > > ********************************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************************** > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Thu Dec 5 08:22:45 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 18:52:45 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: <52A06B55.3090303@itforchange.net> References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> <7F389FFA-0F74-4E5B-9BB8-5B314329D02C@ciroap.org> <52A06B55.3090303@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On 5 December 2013 17:32, parminder wrote: > > On Thursday 05 December 2013 04:35 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > I agree that Rafik would be a good choice. > > What I'm not so clear about is why the four Brazilian liaisons should also > continue to be de facto representatives in the 1net Steering Committee, > > Anja > > I might have missed it, but I dont remember seeing any proposal to have > our 4 Brazilian liaisons to Brazil meeting organising structure also be CS > reps on the Steering Committee. > That seemed to be what Jeremy proposed in his initial email, hence my response, but I also don't recall there being a broader discussion or agreement on this. Best, Anja > parminder > > > if such a thing is indeed going to be put into place immediately (I > quite liked Andrew Sullivan's suggestions on the 1net email list to simply > let people take up responsibility for things they are interested in for > now). > > As Jeremy argued, when there are really good candidates, I'm ok with > people being representatives on both the Brazil committees and on 1net, and > I can imagine that it would be good to have one or two Brazilians on both, > to make the link. But now that 1net has been delinked in many ways from > Brazil, surely it would be good to have a broader representation there? > Even if I am sure they'd all do a great job, somehow having four out of > five 1net reps being Brazilian just doesn't seem like the right balance to > me.... > > What do others think? > > Best, > Anja > > > > > On 5 December 2013 15:51, William Drake wrote: > >> Hi >> >> Rafik is the elected chair of NCSG, which comprises a) NCUC, with 313 >> members from 78 countries, including 88 noncommercial organizations and 225 >> individuals; b) NPOC, with 52 nonprofit organizations in a couple dozen >> countries; and c) some free floating individual members that are in neither >> constituency. NCSG dwarfs in size most other networks in this space, >> operates in a transparent and accountable manner, and has ongoing working >> relations with other stakeholder groups and ICANN, so one would think he’d >> be an obvious choice. >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> >> On Dec 4, 2013, at 8:57 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> On 4 Dec 2013, at 11:37 pm, Carolina Rossini >> wrote: >> >> Robin Gross? Rafik? >> I have a feeling that could be interesting to have the same people in >> different committees to ensure that we have clear information (or make the >> questions to try to gather better information based on a cross-fora >> observation). I am just not sure they are part of BB. They are part of >> other CS coalitions... >> >> >> That isn't necessarily a barrier. But in the case of Robin Gross, she >> is not eligible as she is on the joint committee. Rafik seems like a good >> choice, if he is willing (we'll ask). >> >> Also, the whole question about these nominations are necessary has just >> been reopened on the 1net list, so who knows whether things may change... >> at least, we are hoping to get more time to come back with names (perhaps >> until 16 December). >> >> >> ********************************************************** >> William J. Drake >> International Fellow & Lecturer >> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >> University of Zurich, Switzerland >> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, >> ICANN, www.ncuc.org >> william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), >> www.williamdrake.org >> *********************************************************** >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jlfullsack at orange.fr Thu Dec 5 06:05:44 2013 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 12:05:44 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto In-Reply-To: References: <1880227990.41445.1386198213684.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f22> <55771dce-b90e-45fe-a8ad-53e3e78c5656@email.android.com> <041a01cef14d$4d1d1350$e75739f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1597405002.9169.1386241544429.JavaMail.www@wwinf1n12> Anja I fully agree with your opinion about AL content, at least in their current wording. In fact, they include both the crucial issues, development and Internet governance, and for a more comprehensive and efficient approach these issues should be filtered out. Second step to undertake would be to group some of them (Bertrand suggested this re-grouping some years ago). If done consistently that would reduce the number of WGs, facilitate their activity and give them an actual impetus. Once again, a strong CS presence and commitment in the process is a precondtion for the WSIS to survive its "+10"term, this is my utterly convicgion. But as you may agree, it isn't the unique one ! IMO IG would/could survive a WSIS failure, because it is a global issue ... and all "stakeholders" are interested in worldwide. Development is a more complex and holistic problems with many variables and parameters, and CS has lost its strong influence in the WSIS process during the last years as has been highlighted by the absence of an active and animated :-) discussion list (e.g. plenary at wsis-cs.org) as a counterpart of as governance at ists. Best regards Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 05/12/13 09:31 > De : "Anja Kovacs" > A : "michael gurstein" > Copie à : jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr, "Nick Ashton-Hart" , "IGC" , "bestbits" > Objet : RE: [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto > > > As long as the Internet governance issues and the development issues aren't separated more clearly within the Action Lines, I don't think much progress can be made, not even if there are AL working groups. This is first, because the Internet governance issues and the development issues in the AL require two slightly different (though overlapping to some extent) communities to get excited and involved, and second, because the issues that they will be addressing need addressing at different levels. Many of the IG issues in the Action Lines are actually among the international public policy issues that require a global solution, while the development issues frequently rely more heavily on intervention at the national level. We'd want grassroots input into both, but for grassroots activists to easily find their way into these processes, it is important that the intended outcome, or at least promise, of such processes is obvious, and as long as a variety of issues are thrown together as they are now, that will not be the case. As a consequence, nobody has taken, or felt, any ownership over the action lines so far, nor has anyone done anything much ""because the Action Lines exist" - except perhaps the UN bodies that were responsible for facilitating them. > > If we are to reenergise the Action Line part of the WSIS (and there is no indication that governments want to do away with it, so it makes sense to try and make it work), separating these very different issues out therefore seems a crucial first step. It is only once this has been done that the proposed working groups will really be able to make a difference (and I agree that they can make a substantial difference at that stage). > Best, > Anja > On Dec 5, 2013 5:32 AM, "michael gurstein" wrote: Yes, I also think that these are very useful and thanks for pointing to them J-L… I’m wondering how to help move them forward? M From: nashton at consensus.pro [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro] > Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 3:29 PM > To: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr; jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michaelgurstein; 'AnjaKovacs' > Cc: 'IGC'; 'bestbits' > Subject: re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto > For what it is worth I think these are useful proposals, but there is also the further need to do this at the national level, not just internationally, so each country can evaluate where it is in the implementation process, what lessons it can learn, etc. jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr wrote: > > Anja, Michael > and all > > The regular WSIS process had mainly two "hot potatoes" in its programme : > - development issues and financing mechanisms for solving them > - Internet governance issues (the WGIG was supposed to pave the way for responding to them) > If we agree on these two main objectives to ge given a appropriate solution we should perhaps listen on the Adama Samassekou's proposals during the last Forum intended to giving the WSIS follow-up process a new impulse. > First, he suggested to replace PPPs, Public-Private Partnetships, the "holy grail of the WSIS leaders, firts of all the ITU, by MSPs, i.e. the Multi-stakeholder Partnership. Thus the WSIS spirit is restaured because CS is effectively present and part of it, contrarily to the PPP. > Second, he asked for setting up a Working Group per Action Line or grouping of several AL that analyses thoroughly and objectively (that implies that a critical approach replaces the recurrent "success stories") the objectives aimed for by thess AL or AL groups.These WGs would collect the informations upon the evolution of the key issues, the work done and the point achieved during the past annual period. In other words : action and results instead of story-telling ! > > I suggest that we consider seriously Adama Samassekou's proposals as a major input for the coming preparatory programme meetings (16-17 december and February), having in mind the two main themes, namely development and related financing mechanisms and Internet Governance. Of course, this list with its member organizations (IG Caucus, Bestbits, IT4Change, APC, Eurolinc, etc) will focus on the latter and submit contributions to the WSIS coordinators accordingly. > > For these proposals to succeed, I personnaly opt for CS being "ITU embedded" (see my previous e-mail), that will ensure that the WSIS leading UN agency respects the requests proposed by the CS orgs or at least considers them as valuable inputs. > > Best regards > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > > > > > > > > Message du 02/12/13 23:17 > > De : "michael gurstein" > > A : "'Anja Kovacs'" > > Copie à : "'Nick Ashton-Hart'" , "'IGC'" , "'bestbits'" > > Objet : [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto > > > > Anja, I really haven’t followed or kept up with the Action Lines process… The few times that I did take a look it seemed to be mostly around fairly empty self-congratulations about the success of one pilot project or paper exercise or another with little real connection with what might be happening on the ground. Rather I’ve tried to spend my time at my “day job” which is helping in various ways to support/enable bottom up development processes. As I tried to point out in my reply to George’s comments on my earlier post the connection that I see between bottom up development (the kind that actually works) and say a WSIS process is that global policy influences national policy and national, multilateral and foundation funding. Bottom up development will only go so far until it runs into a policy or a funding blockage. If the supporting mechanisms/policies aren’t there initiatives fail and ladders quickly turn into snakes. Then, the people with the fewest resources are required to start all over again while the those with the most get to jet off to another international conference talking about which square “Action Line” peg can be snaffled to fit into the required round hole so as to appear to be supportive of “Poverty Reduction” or whatever the flavor of the day happens to be. Action Lines aren’t “development” they are a way of describing (or in most cases mis-describing) development activities taking place (or not) rather far distant from wherever those Action Lines are being discussed. The non-IG part of WSIS should be about the reality of development and a WSIS +10 either takes a close look at what worked (or more likely, didn’t) on the ground and starts from there or it isn’t about anything at all. M From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in] > > Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 11:39 AM > > To: michael gurstein > > Cc: Nick Ashton-Hart; IGC; bestbits > > Subject: Re: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto > > I wouldn't actually agree that an approach that starts from the national level is the only way forward. In the analysis of the Internet Democracy Project, among important reasons why more progress has not been made on various goals set out in the WSIS Action Lines is not only because Action Lines have been implemented in too top-down a fashion, but also, and relatedly, because the Action Lines mix together two types of issues: those that fundamentally rely on the input of the larger development community, and those that are Internet governance issues in the more narrow sense. The latter frequently cut across Action Lines, and as long as they are not addressed adequately, it is unlikely that the development agenda that is at the heart of the Action Lines will take off either. The former is in many cases the foundation for the success of the latter. For this reason, the Internet Democracy Project proposed in September, when the first inputs into the preparatory process for the ITU's High Level Review meeting were due, to actually rearrange the Action Lines to make sure both aspects of the Action Lines get their due. This would entail highlighting, and addressing, the Internet governance agenda that is embedded in the Action Lines separately, without at any point losing sight of its connectedness with the development agenda. We resubmitted this proposal as an input into the zero draft of the zero draft of the WSIS+10 vision in November, please see: http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/inc/docs/phase2/rc/V1-D-2.docx While many development issues in the Action Lines require action first and foremost at local and national levels, many of the Internet governance issues are really global public policy issues (and by splitting the two strands, where to engage can become much more clear for a range of actors). We therefore also made this proposal an integral part of our proposals for the evolution of global Internet governance. If much of the groundwork to enhance cooperation has already been done in the context of the Action Lines, why not build on this rather than constituting a new, government-dominated body? This would also ensure that the enhanced cooperation agenda, too, is tethered quite closely to development - that seems to be the case only rarely now. Different issues require action at different levels and through different processes. The challenge is not which one to chose, but how to hold on to, organise and maximise the multitude. Best, Anja On 2 December 2013 06:06, michael gurstein wrote: +1 M From: nashton at consensus.pro [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro] > > Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 4:05 PM > > To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits > > Subject: Re: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto > > The merits of the report aside, your point, Michael, is one I believe strongly to be true: the whole WSIS follow-up system is top-down, because the ITU took control of it. What's needed is national-level action plans, drawn up by all stakeholders, which can then be compared like-for-like as to results internationally so countries can learn from what works in other countries. The irony is that this model is how "Agenda 21" the climate change process from the first Rio conference works; sadly WSIS didn't pick this up despite it postdating Rio by more than a decade. > > In the WSIS review, we should fix this. The digital divide is not going to be met in Geneva at one-annual "WSIS review" meetings where INGOs (however well-meaning) compare notes and report cards - it will be met at the grassroots level, with buyin from that level. michael gurstein wrote: Anyone wondering why a grassroots/community informatics perspective is necessary in the WSIS and related ICT4D venues should take a close look at this corporate driven top-down techno-fantasy of what could/should be done with no attention being given to how it might actually be accomplished on the ground even after almost twenty years of similar pronouncements and failed (and hugely wasteful) similarly top down initiatives. > > M > > http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2013/67.asp > > Broadband infrastructure, applications and services have become critical to driving growth, delivering social services, improving environmental management, and transforming people’s lives, according to a new Manifesto released by the Broadband Commission for Digital Development and signed by 48 members of the Commission, along with other prominent figures from industry, civil society and the United Nations. “Overcoming the digital divide makes sense not only on the basis of principles of fairness and justice; connecting the world makes soun d commercial sense,” the Manifesto reads. “The vital role of broadband needs to be acknowledged at the core of any post-2015 sustainable development framework, to ensure that all countries – developed and developing alike – are empowered to participate in the global digital economy.” > > Supporting Document > > http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Documents/working-groups/bb-wg-taskforce-report.pdf > > > > -- > > Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > > The Internet Democracy Project > > > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > > www.internetdemocracy.in > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- > Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Wed Dec 4 18:03:33 2013 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 00:03:33 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto Message-ID: <1880227990.41445.1386198213684.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f22> Anja, Michael and all The regular WSIS process had mainly two "hot potatoes" in its programme : - development issues and financing mechanisms for solving them - Internet governance issues (the WGIG was supposed to pave the way for responding to them) If we agree on these two main objectives to ge given a appropriate solution we should perhaps listen on the Adama Samassekou's proposals during the last Forum intended to giving the WSIS follow-up process a new impulse. First, he suggested to replace PPPs, Public-Private Partnetships, the "holy grail of the WSIS leaders, firts of all the ITU, by MSPs, i.e. the Multi-stakeholder Partnership. Thus the WSIS spirit is restaured because CS is effectively present and part of it, contrarily to the PPP. Second, he asked for setting up a Working Group per Action Line or grouping of several AL that analyses thoroughly and objectively (that implies that a critical approach replaces the recurrent "success stories") the objectives aimed for by thess AL or AL groups.These WGs would collect the informations upon the evolution of the key issues, the work done and the point achieved during the past annual period. In other words : action and results instead of story-telling ! I suggest that we consider seriously Adama Samassekou's proposals as a major input for the coming preparatory programme meetings (16-17 december and February), having in mind the two main themes, namely development and related financing mechanisms and Internet Governance. Of course, this list with its member organizations (IG Caucus, Bestbits, IT4Change, APC, Eurolinc, etc) will focus on the latter and submit contributions to the WSIS coordinators accordingly. For these proposals to succeed, I personnaly opt for CS being "ITU embedded" (see my previous e-mail), that will ensure that the WSIS leading UN agency respects the requests proposed by the CS orgs or at least considers them as valuable inputs. Best regards Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 02/12/13 23:17 > De : "michael gurstein" > A : "'Anja Kovacs'" > Copie à : "'Nick Ashton-Hart'" , "'IGC'" , "'bestbits'" > Objet : [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto > > Anja, I really haven’t followed or kept up with the Action Lines process… The few times that I did take a look it seemed to be mostly around fairly empty self-congratulations about the success of one pilot project or paper exercise or another with little real connection with what might be happening on the ground. Rather I’ve tried to spend my time at my “day job” which is helping in various ways to support/enable bottom up development processes. As I tried to point out in my reply to George’s comments on my earlier post the connection that I see between bottom up development (the kind that actually works) and say a WSIS process is that global policy influences national policy and national, multilateral and foundation funding. Bottom up development will only go so far until it runs into a policy or a funding blockage. If the supporting mechanisms/policies aren’t there initiatives fail and ladders quickly turn into snakes. Then, the people with the fewest resources are required to start all over again while the those with the most get to jet off to another international conference talking about which square “Action Line” peg can be snaffled to fit into the required round hole so as to appear to be supportive of “Poverty Reduction” or whatever the flavor of the day happens to be. Action Lines aren’t “development” they are a way of describing (or in most cases mis-describing) development activities taking place (or not) rather far distant from wherever those Action Lines are being discussed. The non-IG part of WSIS should be about the reality of development and a WSIS +10 either takes a close look at what worked (or more likely, didn’t) on the ground and starts from there or it isn’t about anything at all. M From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in] > Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 11:39 AM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: Nick Ashton-Hart; IGC; bestbits > Subject: Re: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto > I wouldn't actually agree that an approach that starts from the national level is the only way forward. In the analysis of the Internet Democracy Project, among important reasons why more progress has not been made on various goals set out in the WSIS Action Lines is not only because Action Lines have been implemented in too top-down a fashion, but also, and relatedly, because the Action Lines mix together two types of issues: those that fundamentally rely on the input of the larger development community, and those that are Internet governance issues in the more narrow sense. The latter frequently cut across Action Lines, and as long as they are not addressed adequately, it is unlikely that the development agenda that is at the heart of the Action Lines will take off either. The former is in many cases the foundation for the success of the latter. For this reason, the Internet Democracy Project proposed in September, when the first inputs into the preparatory process for the ITU's High Level Review meeting were due, to actually rearrange the Action Lines to make sure both aspects of the Action Lines get their due. This would entail highlighting, and addressing, the Internet governance agenda that is embedded in the Action Lines separately, without at any point losing sight of its connectedness with the development agenda. We resubmitted this proposal as an input into the zero draft of the zero draft of the WSIS+10 vision in November, please see: http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/inc/docs/phase2/rc/V1-D-2.docx While many development issues in the Action Lines require action first and foremost at local and national levels, many of the Internet governance issues are really global public policy issues (and by splitting the two strands, where to engage can become much more clear for a range of actors). We therefore also made this proposal an integral part of our proposals for the evolution of global Internet governance. If much of the groundwork to enhance cooperation has already been done in the context of the Action Lines, why not build on this rather than constituting a new, government-dominated body? This would also ensure that the enhanced cooperation agenda, too, is tethered quite closely to development - that seems to be the case only rarely now. Different issues require action at different levels and through different processes. The challenge is not which one to chose, but how to hold on to, organise and maximise the multitude. Best, Anja On 2 December 2013 06:06, michael gurstein wrote: +1 M From: nashton at consensus.pro [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro] > Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 4:05 PM > To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits > Subject: Re: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto > The merits of the report aside, your point, Michael, is one I believe strongly to be true: the whole WSIS follow-up system is top-down, because the ITU took control of it. What's needed is national-level action plans, drawn up by all stakeholders, which can then be compared like-for-like as to results internationally so countries can learn from what works in other countries. The irony is that this model is how "Agenda 21" the climate change process from the first Rio conference works; sadly WSIS didn't pick this up despite it postdating Rio by more than a decade. > In the WSIS review, we should fix this. The digital divide is not going to be met in Geneva at one-annual "WSIS review" meetings where INGOs (however well-meaning) compare notes and report cards - it will be met at the grassroots level, with buyin from that level. michael gurstein wrote: Anyone wondering why a grassroots/community informatics perspective is necessary in the WSIS and related ICT4D venues should take a close look at this corporate driven top-down techno-fantasy of what could/should be done with no attention being given to how it might actually be accomplished on the ground even after almost twenty years of similar pronouncements and failed (and hugely wasteful) similarly top down initiatives. > M > http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2013/67.asp > Broadband infrastructure, applications and services have become critical to driving growth, delivering social services, improving environmental management, and transforming people’s lives, according to a new Manifesto released by the Broadband Commission for Digital Development and signed by 48 members of the Commission, along with other prominent figures from industry, civil society and the United Nations. “Overcoming the digital divide makes sense not only on the basis of principles of fairness and justice; connecting the world makes soun d commercial sense,” the Manifesto reads. “The vital role of broadband needs to be acknowledged at the core of any post-2015 sustainable development framework, to ensure that all countries – developed and developing alike – are empowered to participate in the global digital economy.” > Supporting Document > http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Documents/working-groups/bb-wg-taskforce-report.pdf > > -- > Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Dec 5 08:40:10 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 22:40:10 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> <52A035EC.7090107@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Jeremy, On Dec 5, 2013, at 10:10 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 5 Dec 2013, at 10:14 am, parminder wrote: > >> Is this a view communicated by all the 4 reps... I am not so sure of the justification. Why not for instance have someone from the ICTD community... I think Carlos have deep connections enough with the ICANN community, no... We need to take the Brazil summit outwards towards key global Internet related public policy issues that are real concerns for the world, and not more inwards towards narrow ICANN issues, which are a very limited set. But I agree that the four existing reps being all from Brazil, a developing country, maybe the additional person can be from a developed country. Crossing these two considerations, I think Michael Gurstein should make a great choice. > > Thanks for this - I will forward this nomination assuming that Michael doesn't intend to participate in the selection process on behalf of his community informatics network. > Are you speaking for yourself, bestbits steering committee, the CS coalition? A little uncomfortable with the process here. > Also, Carlos A Afonso has just notified us of his withdrawal from the group of four Brazilian liaisons. This means that, assuming we affirm the other three, we do need to suggest two names rather than one, to make a total of five 1net reps. > Five 1net steering committee members. Are you suggesting civil society should not be represented on the other two committees? 2 people for the Brazil meeting's preparation committee-1: Multistakeholder High-Level Committee 2 people for the Brazil meeting's preparation Committee 3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee Thanks, Adam > So to recap, the names we can put forward to the joint committee for consideration so far are Rafik Dammak, Michael Gurstein and (tentatively?) Matthew Shears, in addition to the continuation of Joana, Laura and Carolina. > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Dec 5 08:45:21 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 15:45:21 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> <52A035EC.7090107@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2B7B7219-6FDC-4879-8E10-8387F350710B@ciroap.org> On 5 Dec 2013, at 3:40 pm, Adam Peake wrote: >> Thanks for this - I will forward this nomination assuming that Michael doesn't intend to participate in the selection process on behalf of his community informatics network. > > Are you speaking for yourself, bestbits steering committee, the CS coalition? > > A little uncomfortable with the process here. I was speaking as the Best Bits liaison with the civil society "coordination group" (to use Bill's nice name for it), to confirm that I am passing names to that group for its consideration. And yes, we all know the process is lacking and are scrambling to put a better one together for next time... > Five 1net steering committee members. > > Are you suggesting civil society should not be represented on the other two committees? Absolutely should, but we're taking them one at a time. 1net is the next cab off the rank, and the other two committees come after that. CGI.br hasn't yet given us a firm deadline for the other committee nominations, whereas we do have one for 1net. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Dec 5 08:58:21 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 19:28:21 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Re: [I-coordination] Nominations to /1Net Steering committee & Brazil Meeting Organising commitees In-Reply-To: <38E85091-394F-4D3C-9C9A-C965B0399486@afrinic.net> References: <38E85091-394F-4D3C-9C9A-C965B0399486@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <52A0867D.1020704@itforchange.net> For those who are not on the 1Net list, this is the response of the coordinator of the 1net.... -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [I-coordination] Nominations to /1Net Steering committee & Brazil Meeting Organising commitees Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 16:48:30 +0400 From: Adiel Akplogan To: parminder CC: i-coordination at nro.net Hello Parminder and CS people, Nothing disrespectful. If the choice of CS is to engage directly with the Brazilians, that is fine. Please do so and consider my mail just as reminder. /1Net is not and should not become a tool to dictate to anyone what to do. It should be a tool that allows us to rally around critical elements, principles and maybe proposals toward the evolution of a Multistakeholder approach to Internet governance/cooperation. - a. On 2013-12-05, at 16:14 PM, parminder > wrote: > Hi Adiel > > If I get it right, I read below as asking civil society to send names > of 4 people to you - as coordinator of 1net - for 2 preparation > committees of the 'Brazil meeting'. Is it so? > > I am not sure, but perhaps you know that civil society groups have > written to the Brazilian organisers that they will like to have a > direct engagment with them and not through any common front, or any > such thing (including 1net.) > > In the circumstances, I wonder why the below announcement... I dare > say that it appears to be disrespectful of civil soicety's stand that > was taken together by a number of civil society groups. > > parminder > > On Thursday 05 December 2013 03:31 PM, Adiel Akplogan wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> In order to bring some clarity in to this let me remind us that each stakeholder group (Business (done), Civil Society, Technical community, Academia) is requested to appoint/nominate a total of 9 people: >> >> - 2 people for the Brazil meeting's preparation committee-1: Multistakeholder High-Level Committee >> >> *** This is the committee that will set the high-level >> political tone and objectives of the conference. >> Committee members will engage on a global level with >> stakeholders to encourage participation in the >> conference and maximize its chances of success >> >> - 2 people for the Brazil meeting's preparation Committee 3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee >> >> **** This committee owns the full responsibility of >> organizing the event, including: defining conference >> purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing >> input received by March 1 into a coherent set of >> proposals for the conferees to address, managing >> conference proceedings and process, and directing all >> communications activities pre-during-post conference. >> >> - 5 people to constitute the /1Net Steering committee >> >> Let me suggest December 15 as deadline to have the nominations from all the groups. Once you have your list, please forward it to me directly or share with the mailing lists. Please allow me to request that we, on this list respect what each group will come up with. It is for each interested group to organise themselves to select their reps and we must respect that. >> >> Thanks. >> >> - a. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> I-coordination mailing list >> I-coordination at nro.net >> https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination > > _______________________________________________ > I-coordination mailing list > I-coordination at nro.net > https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 314 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Dec 5 09:15:57 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 23:15:57 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: <2B7B7219-6FDC-4879-8E10-8387F350710B@ciroap.org> References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> <52A035EC.7090107@itforchange.net> <2B7B7219-6FDC-4879-8E10-8387F350710B@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Thanks Jeremy, On Dec 5, 2013, at 10:45 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 5 Dec 2013, at 3:40 pm, Adam Peake wrote: > >>> Thanks for this - I will forward this nomination assuming that Michael doesn't intend to participate in the selection process on behalf of his community informatics network. >> >> Are you speaking for yourself, bestbits steering committee, the CS coalition? >> >> A little uncomfortable with the process here. > > I was speaking as the Best Bits liaison with the civil society "coordination group" (to use Bill's nice name for it), to confirm that I am passing names to that group for its consideration. And yes, we all know the process is lacking and are scrambling to put a better one together for next time... > OK, didn't know there was a formal bestbits liaison role to do this kind of thing. But things have to get done, so thanks for doing. Couple of hours ago I got an email from Diplo "Civil Society nominees for 1Net Steering Committee" for "a very short self-nomination period, until 1200 noon UTC 7 December". Diplo's also part of the coalition, do they agree with the betsbits/IGC position on the Brazilian CS reps? Anyway, as we now seem to have two slots to fill on the 1net steering committee, perhaps a little more time to receive expressions of interest, something a little less ad hoc? Adam >> Five 1net steering committee members. >> >> Are you suggesting civil society should not be represented on the other two committees? > > Absolutely should, but we're taking them one at a time. 1net is the next cab off the rank, and the other two committees come after that. CGI.br hasn't yet given us a firm deadline for the other committee nominations, whereas we do have one for 1net. > Makes sense. Not clear if there's been a call from the Brazil side to populate these committees and with how many. Adam > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > From nnenna75 at gmail.com Thu Dec 5 09:29:01 2013 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 14:29:01 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> <52A035EC.7090107@itforchange.net> <2B7B7219-6FDC-4879-8E10-8387F350710B@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Hi people On Nominations to 1Net I think that now we know how things will play out from the Brazilian end, it is quite okay to still nominate 1 or 2 of the original liaisons. We can add 2 or 3 from the global CS. I think as CS, we need to send the message to the Brazil government that we have faith in the liaisons. So my shot will be to include them in our nominations. Best N On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Thanks Jeremy, > > On Dec 5, 2013, at 10:45 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > > On 5 Dec 2013, at 3:40 pm, Adam Peake wrote: > > > >>> Thanks for this - I will forward this nomination assuming that Michael > doesn't intend to participate in the selection process on behalf of his > community informatics network. > >> > >> Are you speaking for yourself, bestbits steering committee, the CS > coalition? > >> > >> A little uncomfortable with the process here. > > > > I was speaking as the Best Bits liaison with the civil society > "coordination group" (to use Bill's nice name for it), to confirm that I am > passing names to that group for its consideration. And yes, we all know > the process is lacking and are scrambling to put a better one together for > next time... > > > > OK, didn't know there was a formal bestbits liaison role to do this kind > of thing. But things have to get done, so thanks for doing. > > Couple of hours ago I got an email from Diplo "Civil Society nominees for > 1Net Steering Committee" for "a very short self-nomination period, until > 1200 noon UTC 7 December". Diplo's also part of the coalition, do they > agree with the betsbits/IGC position on the Brazilian CS reps? > > Anyway, as we now seem to have two slots to fill on the 1net steering > committee, perhaps a little more time to receive expressions of interest, > something a little less ad hoc? > > Adam > > > > >> Five 1net steering committee members. > >> > >> Are you suggesting civil society should not be represented on the other > two committees? > > > > Absolutely should, but we're taking them one at a time. 1net is the > next cab off the rank, and the other two committees come after that. > CGI.br hasn't yet given us a firm deadline for the other committee > nominations, whereas we do have one for 1net. > > > > Makes sense. Not clear if there's been a call from the Brazil side to > populate these committees and with how many. > > Adam > > > > > -- > > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > > Senior Policy Officer > > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge > hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless > necessary. > > > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended > to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see > http://jere.my/l/8m. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Dec 5 13:34:21 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 05:34:21 +1100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Adam, Because it would be inappropriate I am deliberately not taking on a role of coordinating back to various networks as that is what the various reps should do. But here is the reply from Fadi to Robin (copied to the reps earlier). Hello Robin, I hope you had a good thanksgiving holiday. I took several days off and regained a lot of energy after our busy week in Buenos Aires. I just got back and ready for the next phase of work. As I noted below and in Buenos Aires, we were never in a position to grow the panel any further. In BA, however, after the panel was announced, we made a final commitment to add only one panelist from the cc community, and only one more from civil society -- understanding the need for broader participation. Byron Holland from the cc community agreed to serve while in Buenos Aires. At this stage, and now that we have established this fifth panel as more independent (in partnership with two other organizations), I will need to confer with our partners on your request, as well as with the Chairman of the panel. I predict that they will be sensitive to diversity. I cannot meet with the chairman until next week on Wednesday. I will keep you posted. It may be a little late for London but rest assured that Frank La Rue, Lynn St. Amour, and myself will have our communities interests very vigilantly on top of our agendas. Fadi -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:03 PM To: Ian Peter Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps Hi Ian, Any reply to the CS coalition's recommendations? The high level panel is due to meet December 12-13 (London), a week from now. Best, Adam On Nov 30, 2013, at 5:50 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Please find a letter just send to Fadi Chehade under my signatory as an > independent facilitator as regards civil society representation at this > meeting in two weeks time. > > Let me be the first to admit the process was imperfect, the result was > imperfect. But so was the task we were given, the timeframe, the people > involved in making the decision, and the facilitation process. > > I can only say that there was widespread agreement we should submit names, > and for the names submitted. And that doing and saying nothing would have > been the alternative in this timeframe. > > > Ian Peter > > > 29 November 2013 > RE: Civil Society Representation on High Level Panel in London > > Dear Fadi and Nora: > > I am writing to you following from discussions held by a coalition of > representatives of the > civil society networks most involved in Internet governance deliberations, > we appreciate your > willingness to engage civil society in discussions regarding the future of > Internet > governance. We also appreciate your recognition that civil society is > under-represented on > your High Level Panel and your willingness to accept additional civil > society participants to > this panel to provide more balance. > After consultations with our networks, we propose adding the following 2 > civil society > representatives to begin to balance against the much larger numbers from > government, the > private sector, and technical representatives placed on the initial panel. > Civil society’s two nominated representatives for the London High Level > Panel are: > 1. Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org) > 2. Milton Mueller (mueller at syr.edu) > Would you please kindly confirm your acceptance of these names, and > contact our > representatives directly to arrange their participation? > We also strongly recommend the involvement of Jovan Kurbalija of the Diplo > Foundation as > a highly experienced and knowledgeable facilitator. > We trust that in future we will be able to look at much more equitable > representation of civil > society in such panels and committees. > Persons involved with these deliberations and choice of names from various > civil society > networks were: > Virginia Paque, Diplo Foundation > Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications (APC) > Robin Gross, ICANN's Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) > Norbert Bollow and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Internet Governance Caucus > (IGC) > Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits > Signed, > Ian Peter, Independent Facilitator > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mshears at cdt.org Thu Dec 5 15:19:36 2013 From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 20:19:36 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> <7F389FFA-0F74-4E5B-9BB8-5B314329D02C@ciroap.org> <52A06B55.3090303@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52A0DFD8.5080304@cdt.org> My understanding from some time back was that we had the following: 4 (now 3) persons directly liaising with Brazil on the meeting (_not_ through 1net) And to fill 5 civil society slots on the 1net steering committee (recognizing that civil society liaison for the Brazil meeting is as above). And Some number of civil society slots to be filled on some combination of the actual Brazil meeting committees (to be determined although there are suggestions that there should be 2 from civil society for at least two of the committees). From my perspective, and to echo a point made by Joana earlier, it would seem to make sense that those liaising with Brazil at the moment should probably be a part of the meeting committees to ensure consistency and coherency. As to 1net, it might also make sense for one of the Brazil liaisons to be a part of the 1net civil society steering committee component just to be sure that we have continuity across the various committees/liaisons. Finally, I realize that there is quite some debate about what 1net is or is not but I do believe that there is merit to participating and seeing where it leads us - as we have discussed before. I would also note that there is considerable merit in bringing stakeholders together and to figuring out what pressing IG related issues those stakeholders can find commonality of purpose on and work together to progress. Matthew On 05/12/2013 13:22, Anja Kovacs wrote: > On 5 December 2013 17:32, parminder > wrote: > > > On Thursday 05 December 2013 04:35 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> I agree that Rafik would be a good choice. >> >> What I'm not so clear about is why the four Brazilian liaisons >> should also continue to be de facto representatives in the 1net >> Steering Committee, > Anja > > I might have missed it, but I dont remember seeing any proposal to > have our 4 Brazilian liaisons to Brazil meeting organising > structure also be CS reps on the Steering Committee. > > > That seemed to be what Jeremy proposed in his initial email, hence my > response, but I also don't recall there being a broader discussion or > agreement on this. > > Best, > Anja > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Dec 5 15:23:01 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 15:23:01 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: <52A0DFD8.5080304@cdt.org> References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> <7F389FFA-0F74-4E5B-9BB8-5B314329D02C@ciroap.org> <52A06B55.3090303@itforchange.net> <52A0DFD8.5080304@cdt.org> Message-ID: <9CF11A9A-118D-4110-BF4B-EE3C95070A99@gmail.com> I am happy to play one of the roles, since I do believe we need consistency and coherency. Let me know where I could fit best. Carolina Sent from my iPad > On Dec 5, 2013, at 3:19 PM, matthew shears wrote: > > My understanding from some time back was that we had the following: > > 4 (now 3) persons directly liaising with Brazil on the meeting (not through 1net) > > And to fill > > 5 civil society slots on the 1net steering committee (recognizing that civil society liaison for the Brazil meeting is as above). > > And > > Some number of civil society slots to be filled on some combination of the actual Brazil meeting committees (to be determined although there are suggestions that there should be 2 from civil society for at least two of the committees). > > From my perspective, and to echo a point made by Joana earlier, it would seem to make sense that those liaising with Brazil at the moment should probably be a part of the meeting committees to ensure consistency and coherency. > > As to 1net, it might also make sense for one of the Brazil liaisons to be a part of the 1net civil society steering committee component just to be sure that we have continuity across the various committees/liaisons. > > Finally, I realize that there is quite some debate about what 1net is or is not but I do believe that there is merit to participating and seeing where it leads us - as we have discussed before. I would also note that there is considerable merit in bringing stakeholders together and to figuring out what pressing IG related issues those stakeholders can find commonality of purpose on and work together to progress. > > Matthew > >> On 05/12/2013 13:22, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>> On 5 December 2013 17:32, parminder wrote: >>> >>>> On Thursday 05 December 2013 04:35 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>>> I agree that Rafik would be a good choice. >>>> >>>> What I'm not so clear about is why the four Brazilian liaisons should also continue to be de facto representatives in the 1net Steering Committee, >>> Anja >>> >>> I might have missed it, but I dont remember seeing any proposal to have our 4 Brazilian liaisons to Brazil meeting organising structure also be CS reps on the Steering Committee. >> >> That seemed to be what Jeremy proposed in his initial email, hence my response, but I also don't recall there being a broader discussion or agreement on this. >> >> Best, >> Anja >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Thu Dec 5 15:57:38 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 02:27:38 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: <9CF11A9A-118D-4110-BF4B-EE3C95070A99@gmail.com> References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> <7F389FFA-0F74-4E5B-9BB8-5B314329D02C@ciroap.org> <52A06B55.3090303@itforchange.net> <52A0DFD8.5080304@cdt.org> <9CF11A9A-118D-4110-BF4B-EE3C95070A99@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear all, Just to flag that I'd be interested in a 1net steering committee role as well. And Jeremy, in terms of process, could you maybe clarify though whether the CS coordination group is planning to select people as representatives of a particular network, or simply as CS representatives? I would argue that the latter makes more sense, but it would be good to know what the coordination group has in mind. Many thanks, Anja On 6 December 2013 01:53, Carolina Rossini wrote: > I am happy to play one of the roles, since I do believe we need > consistency and coherency. > Let me know where I could fit best. > Carolina > > Sent from my iPad > > On Dec 5, 2013, at 3:19 PM, matthew shears wrote: > > My understanding from some time back was that we had the following: > > 4 (now 3) persons directly liaising with Brazil on the meeting (*not*through 1net) > > And to fill > > 5 civil society slots on the 1net steering committee (recognizing that > civil society liaison for the Brazil meeting is as above). > > And > > Some number of civil society slots to be filled on some combination of the > actual Brazil meeting committees (to be determined although there are > suggestions that there should be 2 from civil society for at least two of > the committees). > > From my perspective, and to echo a point made by Joana earlier, it would > seem to make sense that those liaising with Brazil at the moment should > probably be a part of the meeting committees to ensure consistency and > coherency. > > As to 1net, it might also make sense for one of the Brazil liaisons to be > a part of the 1net civil society steering committee component just to be > sure that we have continuity across the various committees/liaisons. > > Finally, I realize that there is quite some debate about what 1net is or > is not but I do believe that there is merit to participating and seeing > where it leads us - as we have discussed before. I would also note that > there is considerable merit in bringing stakeholders together and to > figuring out what pressing IG related issues those stakeholders can find > commonality of purpose on and work together to progress. > > Matthew > > On 05/12/2013 13:22, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > On 5 December 2013 17:32, parminder wrote: > >> >> On Thursday 05 December 2013 04:35 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >> I agree that Rafik would be a good choice. >> >> What I'm not so clear about is why the four Brazilian liaisons should >> also continue to be de facto representatives in the 1net Steering Committee, >> >> Anja >> >> I might have missed it, but I dont remember seeing any proposal to have >> our 4 Brazilian liaisons to Brazil meeting organising structure also be CS >> reps on the Steering Committee. >> > > That seemed to be what Jeremy proposed in his initial email, hence my > response, but I also don't recall there being a broader discussion or > agreement on this. > > Best, > Anja > > >> > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Thu Dec 5 16:11:10 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 19:11:10 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> <7F389FFA-0F74-4E5B-9BB8-5B314329D02C@ciroap.org> <52A06B55.3090303@itforchange.net> <52A0DFD8.5080304@cdt.org> <9CF11A9A-118D-4110-BF4B-EE3C95070A99@gmail.com> Message-ID: I would also argue that going "simply as CS representatives" would make more sense, as we dont want to divide ourselves as a person from this network or another... On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Dear all, > > Just to flag that I'd be interested in a 1net steering committee role as > well. > > And Jeremy, in terms of process, could you maybe clarify though whether > the CS coordination group is planning to select people as representatives > of a particular network, or simply as CS representatives? I would argue > that the latter makes more sense, but it would be good to know what the > coordination group has in mind. > > Many thanks, > Anja > > > > > On 6 December 2013 01:53, Carolina Rossini wrote: > >> I am happy to play one of the roles, since I do believe we need >> consistency and coherency. >> Let me know where I could fit best. >> Carolina >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Dec 5, 2013, at 3:19 PM, matthew shears wrote: >> >> My understanding from some time back was that we had the following: >> >> 4 (now 3) persons directly liaising with Brazil on the meeting (*not*through 1net) >> >> And to fill >> >> 5 civil society slots on the 1net steering committee (recognizing that >> civil society liaison for the Brazil meeting is as above). >> >> And >> >> Some number of civil society slots to be filled on some combination of >> the actual Brazil meeting committees (to be determined although there are >> suggestions that there should be 2 from civil society for at least two of >> the committees). >> >> From my perspective, and to echo a point made by Joana earlier, it would >> seem to make sense that those liaising with Brazil at the moment should >> probably be a part of the meeting committees to ensure consistency and >> coherency. >> >> As to 1net, it might also make sense for one of the Brazil liaisons to be >> a part of the 1net civil society steering committee component just to be >> sure that we have continuity across the various committees/liaisons. >> >> Finally, I realize that there is quite some debate about what 1net is or >> is not but I do believe that there is merit to participating and seeing >> where it leads us - as we have discussed before. I would also note that >> there is considerable merit in bringing stakeholders together and to >> figuring out what pressing IG related issues those stakeholders can find >> commonality of purpose on and work together to progress. >> >> Matthew >> >> On 05/12/2013 13:22, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >> On 5 December 2013 17:32, parminder wrote: >> >>> >>> On Thursday 05 December 2013 04:35 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>> >>> I agree that Rafik would be a good choice. >>> >>> What I'm not so clear about is why the four Brazilian liaisons should >>> also continue to be de facto representatives in the 1net Steering Committee, >>> >>> Anja >>> >>> I might have missed it, but I dont remember seeing any proposal to have >>> our 4 Brazilian liaisons to Brazil meeting organising structure also be CS >>> reps on the Steering Committee. >>> >> >> That seemed to be what Jeremy proposed in his initial email, hence my >> response, but I also don't recall there being a broader discussion or >> agreement on this. >> >> Best, >> Anja >> >> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From laura at article19.org Thu Dec 5 16:13:21 2013 From: laura at article19.org (Laura Tresca) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 21:13:21 +0000 Subject: RES: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> <7F389FFA-0F74-4E5B-9BB8-5B314329D02C@ciroap.org> <52A06B55.3090303@itforchange.net> <52A0DFD8.5080304@cdt.org> <9CF11A9A-118D-4110-BF4B-EE3C95070A99@gmail.com> , Message-ID: <7C9F27BE10361942966E4835F365891A77D41B59@A19MAIL.aricle19.org> + 1 ARTICLE 19 Oficina para Sudamerica/ South America Office Rua João Adolfo, 118 - 8ºandar Anhangabaú, São Paulo, Brasil tel. +55 11 30570042/0071 www.artigo19.org/ www.article19.org ________________________________ De: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] em nome de Joana Varon [joana at varonferraz.com] Enviado: quinta-feira, 5 de dezembro de 2013 19:11 Para: Anja Kovacs Cc: Carolina Rossini; matthew shears; parminder; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Assunto: Re: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee I would also argue that going "simply as CS representatives" would make more sense, as we dont want to divide ourselves as a person from this network or another... On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Anja Kovacs > wrote: Dear all, Just to flag that I'd be interested in a 1net steering committee role as well. And Jeremy, in terms of process, could you maybe clarify though whether the CS coordination group is planning to select people as representatives of a particular network, or simply as CS representatives? I would argue that the latter makes more sense, but it would be good to know what the coordination group has in mind. Many thanks, Anja On 6 December 2013 01:53, Carolina Rossini > wrote: I am happy to play one of the roles, since I do believe we need consistency and coherency. Let me know where I could fit best. Carolina Sent from my iPad On Dec 5, 2013, at 3:19 PM, matthew shears > wrote: My understanding from some time back was that we had the following: 4 (now 3) persons directly liaising with Brazil on the meeting (not through 1net) And to fill 5 civil society slots on the 1net steering committee (recognizing that civil society liaison for the Brazil meeting is as above). And Some number of civil society slots to be filled on some combination of the actual Brazil meeting committees (to be determined although there are suggestions that there should be 2 from civil society for at least two of the committees). From deborah at accessnow.org Thu Dec 5 16:19:14 2013 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 16:19:14 -0500 Subject: RES: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: <7C9F27BE10361942966E4835F365891A77D41B59@A19MAIL.aricle19.org> References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> <7F389FFA-0F74-4E5B-9BB8-5B314329D02C@ciroap.org> <52A06B55.3090303@itforchange.net> <52A0DFD8.5080304@cdt.org> <9CF11A9A-118D-4110-BF4B-EE3C95070A99@gmail.com> <7C9F27BE10361942966E4835F365891A77D41B59@A19MAIL.aricle19.org> Message-ID: <3B62A84C-27F3-4370-974E-BAC7473EC988@accessnow.org> +1 Sent from my iPhone On Dec 5, 2013, at 4:13 PM, Laura Tresca wrote: > + 1 > > ARTICLE 19 > Oficina para Sudamerica/ South America Office > Rua João Adolfo, 118 - 8ºandar > Anhangabaú, São Paulo, Brasil > tel. +55 11 30570042/0071 > www.artigo19.org/ www.article19.org > ________________________________ > De: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] em nome de Joana Varon [joana at varonferraz.com] > Enviado: quinta-feira, 5 de dezembro de 2013 19:11 > Para: Anja Kovacs > Cc: Carolina Rossini; matthew shears; parminder; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, > Assunto: Re: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee > > I would also argue that going "simply as CS representatives" would make more sense, as we dont want to divide ourselves as a person from this network or another... > > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Anja Kovacs > wrote: > Dear all, > > Just to flag that I'd be interested in a 1net steering committee role as well. > > And Jeremy, in terms of process, could you maybe clarify though whether the CS coordination group is planning to select people as representatives of a particular network, or simply as CS representatives? I would argue that the latter makes more sense, but it would be good to know what the coordination group has in mind. > > Many thanks, > Anja > > > > > On 6 December 2013 01:53, Carolina Rossini > wrote: > I am happy to play one of the roles, since I do believe we need consistency and coherency. > Let me know where I could fit best. > Carolina > > Sent from my iPad > > On Dec 5, 2013, at 3:19 PM, matthew shears > wrote: > > My understanding from some time back was that we had the following: > > 4 (now 3) persons directly liaising with Brazil on the meeting (not through 1net) > > And to fill > > 5 civil society slots on the 1net steering committee (recognizing that civil society liaison for the Brazil meeting is as above). > > And > > Some number of civil society slots to be filled on some combination of the actual Brazil meeting committees (to be determined although there are suggestions that there should be 2 from civil society for at least two of the committees). > > From my perspective, and to echo a point made by Joana earlier, it would seem to make sense that those liaising with Brazil at the moment should probably be a part of the meeting committees to ensure consistency and coherency. > > As to 1net, it might also make sense for one of the Brazil liaisons to be a part of the 1net civil society steering committee component just to be sure that we have continuity across the various committees/liaisons. > > Finally, I realize that there is quite some debate about what 1net is or is not but I do believe that there is merit to participating and seeing where it leads us - as we have discussed before. I would also note that there is considerable merit in bringing stakeholders together and to figuring out what pressing IG related issues those stakeholders can find commonality of purpose on and work together to progress. > > Matthew > > On 05/12/2013 13:22, Anja Kovacs wrote: > On 5 December 2013 17:32, parminder > wrote: > > On Thursday 05 December 2013 04:35 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > I agree that Rafik would be a good choice. > > What I'm not so clear about is why the four Brazilian liaisons should also continue to be de facto representatives in the 1net Steering Committee, > Anja > > I might have missed it, but I dont remember seeing any proposal to have our 4 Brazilian liaisons to Brazil meeting organising structure also be CS reps on the Steering Committee. > > That seemed to be what Jeremy proposed in his initial email, hence my response, but I also don't recall there being a broader discussion or agreement on this. > > Best, > Anja > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From valeriab at apc.org Thu Dec 5 16:23:37 2013 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 16:23:37 -0500 Subject: RES: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: <3B62A84C-27F3-4370-974E-BAC7473EC988@accessnow.org> References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> <7F389FFA-0F74-4E5B-9BB8-5B314329D02C@ciroap.org> <52A06B55.3090303@itforchange.net> <52A0DFD8.5080304@cdt.org> <9CF11A9A-118D-4110-BF4B-EE3C95070A99@gmail.com> <7C9F27BE10361942966E4835F365891A77D41B59@A19MAIL.aricle19.org> <3B62A84C-27F3-4370-974E-BAC7473EC988@accessnow.org> Message-ID: I agree with Anja's approach. On 05/12/2013, at 16:19, Deborah Brown wrote: > +1 > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Dec 5, 2013, at 4:13 PM, Laura Tresca wrote: > >> + 1 >> >> ARTICLE 19 >> Oficina para Sudamerica/ South America Office >> Rua João Adolfo, 118 - 8ºandar >> Anhangabaú, São Paulo, Brasil >> tel. +55 11 30570042/0071 >> www.artigo19.org/ www.article19.org >> ________________________________ >> De: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >> ] em nome de Joana Varon [joana at varonferraz.com] >> Enviado: quinta-feira, 5 de dezembro de 2013 19:11 >> Para: Anja Kovacs >> Cc: Carolina Rossini; matthew shears; parminder; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> >, >> Assunto: Re: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net >> steering committee >> >> I would also argue that going "simply as CS representatives" would >> make more sense, as we dont want to divide ourselves as a person >> from this network or another... >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Anja Kovacs > > wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> Just to flag that I'd be interested in a 1net steering committee >> role as well. >> >> And Jeremy, in terms of process, could you maybe clarify though >> whether the CS coordination group is planning to select people as >> representatives of a particular network, or simply as CS >> representatives? I would argue that the latter makes more sense, >> but it would be good to know what the coordination group has in mind. >> >> Many thanks, >> Anja >> >> >> >> >> On 6 December 2013 01:53, Carolina Rossini > > wrote: >> I am happy to play one of the roles, since I do believe we need >> consistency and coherency. >> Let me know where I could fit best. >> Carolina >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Dec 5, 2013, at 3:19 PM, matthew shears > >> wrote: >> >> My understanding from some time back was that we had the following: >> >> 4 (now 3) persons directly liaising with Brazil on the meeting (not >> through 1net) >> >> And to fill >> >> 5 civil society slots on the 1net steering committee (recognizing >> that civil society liaison for the Brazil meeting is as above). >> >> And >> >> Some number of civil society slots to be filled on some combination >> of the actual Brazil meeting committees (to be determined although >> there are suggestions that there should be 2 from civil society for >> at least two of the committees). >> >> From my perspective, and to echo a point made by Joana earlier, it >> would seem to make sense that those liaising with Brazil at the >> moment should probably be a part of the meeting committees to >> ensure consistency and coherency. >> >> As to 1net, it might also make sense for one of the Brazil liaisons >> to be a part of the 1net civil society steering committee component >> just to be sure that we have continuity across the various >> committees/liaisons. >> >> Finally, I realize that there is quite some debate about what 1net >> is or is not but I do believe that there is merit to participating >> and seeing where it leads us - as we have discussed before. I >> would also note that there is considerable merit in bringing >> stakeholders together and to figuring out what pressing IG related >> issues those stakeholders can find commonality of purpose on and >> work together to progress. >> >> Matthew >> >> On 05/12/2013 13:22, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> On 5 December 2013 17:32, parminder > >> wrote: >> >> On Thursday 05 December 2013 04:35 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> I agree that Rafik would be a good choice. >> >> What I'm not so clear about is why the four Brazilian liaisons >> should also continue to be de facto representatives in the 1net >> Steering Committee, >> Anja >> >> I might have missed it, but I dont remember seeing any proposal to >> have our 4 Brazilian liaisons to Brazil meeting organising >> structure also be CS reps on the Steering Committee. >> >> That seemed to be what Jeremy proposed in his initial email, hence >> my response, but I also don't recall there being a broader >> discussion or agreement on this. >> >> Best, >> Anja >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> The Internet Democracy Project >> >> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> www.internetdemocracy.in >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> -- >> -- >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> @joana_varon >> PGP 0x016B8E73 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ------------- Valeria Betancourt Directora / Manager Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and Information Policy Programme Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for Progressive Communications, APC http://www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From valeriab at apc.org Thu Dec 5 16:25:12 2013 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 16:25:12 -0500 Subject: RES: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> <7F389FFA-0F74-4E5B-9BB8-5B314329D02C@ciroap.org> <52A06B55.3090303@itforchange.net> <52A0DFD8.5080304@cdt.org> <9CF11A9A-118D-4110-BF4B-EE3C95070A99@gmail.com> <7C9F27BE10361942966E4835F365891A77D41B59@A19MAIL.aricle19.org> <3B62A84C-27F3-4370-974E-BAC7473EC988@accessnow.org> Message-ID: <4B33F6AB-80A4-420B-A701-9138DCFB4CA9@apc.org> Sorry, I should have said Joana. So, I support the that going as CS representatives makes more sense and it is more strategic. Valeria On 05/12/2013, at 16:23, Valeria Betancourt wrote: > I agree with Anja's approach. > > On 05/12/2013, at 16:19, Deborah Brown wrote: > >> +1 >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Dec 5, 2013, at 4:13 PM, Laura Tresca wrote: >> >>> + 1 >>> >>> ARTICLE 19 >>> Oficina para Sudamerica/ South America Office >>> Rua João Adolfo, 118 - 8ºandar >>> Anhangabaú, São Paulo, Brasil >>> tel. +55 11 30570042/0071 >>> www.artigo19.org/ www.article19.org >>> ________________________________ >>> De: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>> ] em nome de Joana Varon [joana at varonferraz.com] >>> Enviado: quinta-feira, 5 de dezembro de 2013 19:11 >>> Para: Anja Kovacs >>> Cc: Carolina Rossini; matthew shears; parminder; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> >, >>> Assunto: Re: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net >>> steering committee >>> >>> I would also argue that going "simply as CS representatives" would >>> make more sense, as we dont want to divide ourselves as a person >>> from this network or another... >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Anja Kovacs >> > wrote: >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Just to flag that I'd be interested in a 1net steering committee >>> role as well. >>> >>> And Jeremy, in terms of process, could you maybe clarify though >>> whether the CS coordination group is planning to select people as >>> representatives of a particular network, or simply as CS >>> representatives? I would argue that the latter makes more sense, >>> but it would be good to know what the coordination group has in >>> mind. >>> >>> Many thanks, >>> Anja >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 6 December 2013 01:53, Carolina Rossini >> > wrote: >>> I am happy to play one of the roles, since I do believe we need >>> consistency and coherency. >>> Let me know where I could fit best. >>> Carolina >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>> On Dec 5, 2013, at 3:19 PM, matthew shears >> >> wrote: >>> >>> My understanding from some time back was that we had the following: >>> >>> 4 (now 3) persons directly liaising with Brazil on the meeting >>> (not through 1net) >>> >>> And to fill >>> >>> 5 civil society slots on the 1net steering committee (recognizing >>> that civil society liaison for the Brazil meeting is as above). >>> >>> And >>> >>> Some number of civil society slots to be filled on some >>> combination of the actual Brazil meeting committees (to be >>> determined although there are suggestions that there should be 2 >>> from civil society for at least two of the committees). >>> >>> From my perspective, and to echo a point made by Joana earlier, it >>> would seem to make sense that those liaising with Brazil at the >>> moment should probably be a part of the meeting committees to >>> ensure consistency and coherency. >>> >>> As to 1net, it might also make sense for one of the Brazil >>> liaisons to be a part of the 1net civil society steering committee >>> component just to be sure that we have continuity across the >>> various committees/liaisons. >>> >>> Finally, I realize that there is quite some debate about what 1net >>> is or is not but I do believe that there is merit to participating >>> and seeing where it leads us - as we have discussed before. I >>> would also note that there is considerable merit in bringing >>> stakeholders together and to figuring out what pressing IG related >>> issues those stakeholders can find commonality of purpose on and >>> work together to progress. >>> >>> Matthew >>> >>> On 05/12/2013 13:22, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>> On 5 December 2013 17:32, parminder >> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Thursday 05 December 2013 04:35 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>> I agree that Rafik would be a good choice. >>> >>> What I'm not so clear about is why the four Brazilian liaisons >>> should also continue to be de facto representatives in the 1net >>> Steering Committee, >>> Anja >>> >>> I might have missed it, but I dont remember seeing any proposal to >>> have our 4 Brazilian liaisons to Brazil meeting organising >>> structure also be CS reps on the Steering Committee. >>> >>> That seemed to be what Jeremy proposed in his initial email, hence >>> my response, but I also don't recall there being a broader >>> discussion or agreement on this. >>> >>> Best, >>> Anja >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>> The Internet Democracy Project >>> >>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>> www.internetdemocracy.in >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> >>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>> @joana_varon >>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ------------- > Valeria Betancourt > Directora / Manager > Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication > and Information Policy Programme > Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for > Progressive Communications, APC > http://www.apc.org > > > > > ------------- Valeria Betancourt Directora / Manager Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and Information Policy Programme Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for Progressive Communications, APC http://www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From valeriab at apc.org Thu Dec 5 16:31:44 2013 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 16:31:44 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> <7F389FFA-0F74-4E5B-9BB8-5B314329D02C@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <9FA57571-1D13-4407-8CE6-57B51BE609A8@apc.org> I concur with Anja and Joana. Valeria On 05/12/2013, at 6:41, Joana Varon wrote: > I agree with Anja, on both: > 1) nominating Rafik and > 2) reconsidering nominating all the 4 Brazilians to 1net (I'm not > even sure they all want/are available to fulfill this role, a > question to double check, I guess. Carol, Lau, CA?). I can also step > back if needed. > best > joana > > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 9:05 AM, Anja Kovacs > wrote: > I agree that Rafik would be a good choice. > > What I'm not so clear about is why the four Brazilian liaisons > should also continue to be de facto representatives in the 1net > Steering Committee, if such a thing is indeed going to be put into > place immediately (I quite liked Andrew Sullivan's suggestions on > the 1net email list to simply let people take up responsibility for > things they are interested in for now). > > As Jeremy argued, when there are really good candidates, I'm ok with > people being representatives on both the Brazil committees and on > 1net, and I can imagine that it would be good to have one or two > Brazilians on both, to make the link. But now that 1net has been > delinked in many ways from Brazil, surely it would be good to have a > broader representation there? Even if I am sure they'd all do a > great job, somehow having four out of five 1net reps being Brazilian > just doesn't seem like the right balance to me.... > > What do others think? > > Best, > Anja > > > > > On 5 December 2013 15:51, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > Rafik is the elected chair of NCSG, which comprises a) NCUC, with > 313 members from 78 countries, including 88 noncommercial > organizations and 225 individuals; b) NPOC, with 52 nonprofit > organizations in a couple dozen countries; and c) some free floating > individual members that are in neither constituency. NCSG dwarfs in > size most other networks in this space, operates in a transparent > and accountable manner, and has ongoing working relations with other > stakeholder groups and ICANN, so one would think he’d be an obvious > choice. > > Best, > > Bill > > On Dec 4, 2013, at 8:57 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> On 4 Dec 2013, at 11:37 pm, Carolina Rossini > > wrote: >> >>> Robin Gross? Rafik? >>> I have a feeling that could be interesting to have the same people >>> in different committees to ensure that we have clear information >>> (or make the questions to try to gather better information based >>> on a cross-fora observation). I am just not sure they are part of >>> BB. They are part of other CS coalitions... >> >> That isn't necessarily a barrier. But in the case of Robin Gross, >> she is not eligible as she is on the joint committee. Rafik seems >> like a good choice, if he is willing (we'll ask). >> >> Also, the whole question about these nominations are necessary has >> just been reopened on the 1net list, so who knows whether things >> may change... at least, we are hoping to get more time to come back >> with names (perhaps until 16 December). > > ********************************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************************** > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Dec 5 16:38:46 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 16:38:46 -0500 Subject: RES: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: <3B62A84C-27F3-4370-974E-BAC7473EC988@accessnow.org> References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> <7F389FFA-0F74-4E5B-9BB8-5B314329D02C@ciroap.org> <52A06B55.3090303@itforchange.net> <52A0DFD8.5080304@cdt.org> <9CF11A9A-118D-4110-BF4B-EE3C95070A99@gmail.com> <7C9F27BE10361942966E4835F365891A77D41B59@A19MAIL.aricle19.org> <3B62A84C-27F3-4370-974E-BAC7473EC988@accessnow.org> Message-ID: +1 Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 5, 2013, at 4:19 PM, Deborah Brown wrote: > > +1 > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Dec 5, 2013, at 4:13 PM, Laura Tresca wrote: >> >> + 1 >> >> ARTICLE 19 >> Oficina para Sudamerica/ South America Office >> Rua João Adolfo, 118 - 8ºandar >> Anhangabaú, São Paulo, Brasil >> tel. +55 11 30570042/0071 >> www.artigo19.org/ www.article19.org >> ________________________________ >> De: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] em nome de Joana Varon [joana at varonferraz.com] >> Enviado: quinta-feira, 5 de dezembro de 2013 19:11 >> Para: Anja Kovacs >> Cc: Carolina Rossini; matthew shears; parminder; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, >> Assunto: Re: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee >> >> I would also argue that going "simply as CS representatives" would make more sense, as we dont want to divide ourselves as a person from this network or another... >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Anja Kovacs > wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> Just to flag that I'd be interested in a 1net steering committee role as well. >> >> And Jeremy, in terms of process, could you maybe clarify though whether the CS coordination group is planning to select people as representatives of a particular network, or simply as CS representatives? I would argue that the latter makes more sense, but it would be good to know what the coordination group has in mind. >> >> Many thanks, >> Anja >> >> >> >> >> On 6 December 2013 01:53, Carolina Rossini > wrote: >> I am happy to play one of the roles, since I do believe we need consistency and coherency. >> Let me know where I could fit best. >> Carolina >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Dec 5, 2013, at 3:19 PM, matthew shears > wrote: >> >> My understanding from some time back was that we had the following: >> >> 4 (now 3) persons directly liaising with Brazil on the meeting (not through 1net) >> >> And to fill >> >> 5 civil society slots on the 1net steering committee (recognizing that civil society liaison for the Brazil meeting is as above). >> >> And >> >> Some number of civil society slots to be filled on some combination of the actual Brazil meeting committees (to be determined although there are suggestions that there should be 2 from civil society for at least two of the committees). >> >> From my perspective, and to echo a point made by Joana earlier, it would seem to make sense that those liaising with Brazil at the moment should probably be a part of the meeting committees to ensure consistency and coherency. >> >> As to 1net, it might also make sense for one of the Brazil liaisons to be a part of the 1net civil society steering committee component just to be sure that we have continuity across the various committees/liaisons. >> >> Finally, I realize that there is quite some debate about what 1net is or is not but I do believe that there is merit to participating and seeing where it leads us - as we have discussed before. I would also note that there is considerable merit in bringing stakeholders together and to figuring out what pressing IG related issues those stakeholders can find commonality of purpose on and work together to progress. >> >> Matthew >> >> On 05/12/2013 13:22, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> On 5 December 2013 17:32, parminder > wrote: >> >> On Thursday 05 December 2013 04:35 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> I agree that Rafik would be a good choice. >> >> What I'm not so clear about is why the four Brazilian liaisons should also continue to be de facto representatives in the 1net Steering Committee, >> Anja >> >> I might have missed it, but I dont remember seeing any proposal to have our 4 Brazilian liaisons to Brazil meeting organising structure also be CS reps on the Steering Committee. >> >> That seemed to be what Jeremy proposed in his initial email, hence my response, but I also don't recall there being a broader discussion or agreement on this. >> >> Best, >> Anja >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> The Internet Democracy Project >> >> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> www.internetdemocracy.in >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> -- >> -- >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> @joana_varon >> PGP 0x016B8E73 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From valeriab at apc.org Thu Dec 5 16:42:01 2013 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 16:42:01 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> <7F389FFA-0F74-4E5B-9BB8-5B314329D02C@ciroap.org> <52A06B55.3090303@itforchange.net> <52A0DFD8.5080304@cdt.org> <9CF11A9A-118D-4110-BF4B-EE3C95070A99@gmail.com> Message-ID: <80045D94-1CE1-4594-A98A-CCCE09CAA906@apc.org> Dear all, We would like to propose Anriette's name for the 1net steering committee role. Going as CS representatives instead of as representatives of a particular network would be much better, if possible. Valeria On 05/12/2013, at 15:57, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Dear all, > > Just to flag that I'd be interested in a 1net steering committee > role as well. > > And Jeremy, in terms of process, could you maybe clarify though > whether the CS coordination group is planning to select people as > representatives of a particular network, or simply as CS > representatives? I would argue that the latter makes more sense, but > it would be good to know what the coordination group has in mind. > > Many thanks, > Anja > > > > > On 6 December 2013 01:53, Carolina Rossini > wrote: > I am happy to play one of the roles, since I do believe we need > consistency and coherency. > Let me know where I could fit best. > Carolina > > Sent from my iPad > > On Dec 5, 2013, at 3:19 PM, matthew shears wrote: > >> My understanding from some time back was that we had the following: >> >> 4 (now 3) persons directly liaising with Brazil on the meeting (not >> through 1net) >> >> And to fill >> >> 5 civil society slots on the 1net steering committee (recognizing >> that civil society liaison for the Brazil meeting is as above). >> >> And >> >> Some number of civil society slots to be filled on some combination >> of the actual Brazil meeting committees (to be determined although >> there are suggestions that there should be 2 from civil society for >> at least two of the committees). >> >> From my perspective, and to echo a point made by Joana earlier, it >> would seem to make sense that those liaising with Brazil at the >> moment should probably be a part of the meeting committees to >> ensure consistency and coherency. >> >> As to 1net, it might also make sense for one of the Brazil liaisons >> to be a part of the 1net civil society steering committee component >> just to be sure that we have continuity across the various >> committees/liaisons. >> >> Finally, I realize that there is quite some debate about what 1net >> is or is not but I do believe that there is merit to participating >> and seeing where it leads us - as we have discussed before. I >> would also note that there is considerable merit in bringing >> stakeholders together and to figuring out what pressing IG related >> issues those stakeholders can find commonality of purpose on and >> work together to progress. >> >> Matthew >> >> On 05/12/2013 13:22, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>> On 5 December 2013 17:32, parminder >>> wrote: >>> >>> On Thursday 05 December 2013 04:35 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>>> I agree that Rafik would be a good choice. >>>> >>>> What I'm not so clear about is why the four Brazilian liaisons >>>> should also continue to be de facto representatives in the 1net >>>> Steering Committee, >>> Anja >>> >>> I might have missed it, but I dont remember seeing any proposal to >>> have our 4 Brazilian liaisons to Brazil meeting organising >>> structure also be CS reps on the Steering Committee. >>> >>> That seemed to be what Jeremy proposed in his initial email, hence >>> my response, but I also don't recall there being a broader >>> discussion or agreement on this. >>> >>> Best, >>> Anja >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ------------- Valeria Betancourt Directora / Manager Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and Information Policy Programme Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for Progressive Communications, APC http://www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Dec 5 23:12:11 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 15:12:11 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org><7F389FFA-0F74-4E5B-9BB8-5B314329D02C@ciroap.org><52A06B55.3090303@itforchange.net><52A0DFD8.5080304@cdt.org><9CF11A9A-118D-4110-BF4B-EE3C95070A99@gmail.com> Message-ID: just catching up - yes that has been discussed and agreed to a couple of days ago. All reps are definitely CS reps, not reps of individual organisations. Ian From: Anja Kovacs Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 7:57 AM To: Carolina Rossini Cc: matthew shears ; parminder ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee Dear all, Just to flag that I'd be interested in a 1net steering committee role as well. And Jeremy, in terms of process, could you maybe clarify though whether the CS coordination group is planning to select people as representatives of a particular network, or simply as CS representatives? I would argue that the latter makes more sense, but it would be good to know what the coordination group has in mind. Many thanks, Anja On 6 December 2013 01:53, Carolina Rossini wrote: I am happy to play one of the roles, since I do believe we need consistency and coherency. Let me know where I could fit best. Carolina Sent from my iPad On Dec 5, 2013, at 3:19 PM, matthew shears wrote: My understanding from some time back was that we had the following: 4 (now 3) persons directly liaising with Brazil on the meeting (not through 1net) And to fill 5 civil society slots on the 1net steering committee (recognizing that civil society liaison for the Brazil meeting is as above). And Some number of civil society slots to be filled on some combination of the actual Brazil meeting committees (to be determined although there are suggestions that there should be 2 from civil society for at least two of the committees). From my perspective, and to echo a point made by Joana earlier, it would seem to make sense that those liaising with Brazil at the moment should probably be a part of the meeting committees to ensure consistency and coherency. As to 1net, it might also make sense for one of the Brazil liaisons to be a part of the 1net civil society steering committee component just to be sure that we have continuity across the various committees/liaisons. Finally, I realize that there is quite some debate about what 1net is or is not but I do believe that there is merit to participating and seeing where it leads us - as we have discussed before. I would also note that there is considerable merit in bringing stakeholders together and to figuring out what pressing IG related issues those stakeholders can find commonality of purpose on and work together to progress. Matthew On 05/12/2013 13:22, Anja Kovacs wrote: On 5 December 2013 17:32, parminder wrote: On Thursday 05 December 2013 04:35 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: I agree that Rafik would be a good choice. What I'm not so clear about is why the four Brazilian liaisons should also continue to be de facto representatives in the 1net Steering Committee, Anja I might have missed it, but I dont remember seeing any proposal to have our 4 Brazilian liaisons to Brazil meeting organising structure also be CS reps on the Steering Committee. That seemed to be what Jeremy proposed in his initial email, hence my response, but I also don't recall there being a broader discussion or agreement on this. Best, Anja ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Dec 5 23:33:54 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 15:33:54 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org><7F389FFA-0F74-4E5B-9BB8-5B314329D02C@ciroap.org><52A06B55.3090303@itforchange.net><52A0DFD8.5080304@cdt.org><9CF11A9A-118D-4110-BF4B-EE3C95070A99@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7C15769E173E41F183644B78049753B3@Toshiba> and just to be clear – this is for appointments to 1net steering committee, not for Brazil. CS will be doing its own nominations for Brazil, not through 1net, but not yet. Despite Adiel’s announcement elsewhere it is confirmed that Brazil has not asked for reps yet or set a deadline. So we can do that later. 5 people need to be appointed, representing all of civil society, for 1net steering. I am not sure myself, given this is an ongoing initiative quite independent of Brazil, whether we should necessarily keep all current reps for Brazil on 1net steering. Calls have gone out here, in APC, via Diplo, and NCSG. Not sure where the call on IGC list it, I might have missed it but Sala can advise. IN any case please make sure IGC list people who may not be reading here are aware. Nominations close midnight UTC Monday. Ian Peter From: Ian Peter Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 3:12 PM To: Anja Kovacs ; Carolina Rossini Cc: matthew shears ; parminder ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee just catching up - yes that has been discussed and agreed to a couple of days ago. All reps are definitely CS reps, not reps of individual organisations. Ian From: Anja Kovacs Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 7:57 AM To: Carolina Rossini Cc: matthew shears ; parminder ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee Dear all, Just to flag that I'd be interested in a 1net steering committee role as well. And Jeremy, in terms of process, could you maybe clarify though whether the CS coordination group is planning to select people as representatives of a particular network, or simply as CS representatives? I would argue that the latter makes more sense, but it would be good to know what the coordination group has in mind. Many thanks, Anja On 6 December 2013 01:53, Carolina Rossini wrote: I am happy to play one of the roles, since I do believe we need consistency and coherency. Let me know where I could fit best. Carolina Sent from my iPad On Dec 5, 2013, at 3:19 PM, matthew shears wrote: My understanding from some time back was that we had the following: 4 (now 3) persons directly liaising with Brazil on the meeting (not through 1net) And to fill 5 civil society slots on the 1net steering committee (recognizing that civil society liaison for the Brazil meeting is as above). And Some number of civil society slots to be filled on some combination of the actual Brazil meeting committees (to be determined although there are suggestions that there should be 2 from civil society for at least two of the committees). From my perspective, and to echo a point made by Joana earlier, it would seem to make sense that those liaising with Brazil at the moment should probably be a part of the meeting committees to ensure consistency and coherency. As to 1net, it might also make sense for one of the Brazil liaisons to be a part of the 1net civil society steering committee component just to be sure that we have continuity across the various committees/liaisons. Finally, I realize that there is quite some debate about what 1net is or is not but I do believe that there is merit to participating and seeing where it leads us - as we have discussed before. I would also note that there is considerable merit in bringing stakeholders together and to figuring out what pressing IG related issues those stakeholders can find commonality of purpose on and work together to progress. Matthew On 05/12/2013 13:22, Anja Kovacs wrote: On 5 December 2013 17:32, parminder wrote: On Thursday 05 December 2013 04:35 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: I agree that Rafik would be a good choice. What I'm not so clear about is why the four Brazilian liaisons should also continue to be de facto representatives in the 1net Steering Committee, Anja I might have missed it, but I dont remember seeing any proposal to have our 4 Brazilian liaisons to Brazil meeting organising structure also be CS reps on the Steering Committee. That seemed to be what Jeremy proposed in his initial email, hence my response, but I also don't recall there being a broader discussion or agreement on this. Best, Anja ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Dec 5 23:47:23 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 06:47:23 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> <52A035EC.7090107@itforchange.net> <2B7B7219-6FDC-4879-8E10-8387F350710B@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <3250E70D-828B-4A18-9ABC-6BAC11659C92@ciroap.org> On 5 Dec 2013, at 4:15 pm, Adam Peake wrote: >> I was speaking as the Best Bits liaison with the civil society "coordination group" (to use Bill's nice name for it), to confirm that I am passing names to that group for its consideration. And yes, we all know the process is lacking and are scrambling to put a better one together for next time... > > OK, didn't know there was a formal bestbits liaison role to do this kind of thing. But things have to get done, so thanks for doing. > > Couple of hours ago I got an email from Diplo "Civil Society nominees for 1Net Steering Committee" for "a very short self-nomination period, until 1200 noon UTC 7 December". Diplo's also part of the coalition, do they agree with the betsbits/IGC position on the Brazilian CS reps? I replied to you off-list on this, but for the benefit of the list too... yes, this is expected. The way that the coordination group is working is that each participant (of which Diplo is one) polls its own members for their recommendations, using their own process. All the names gathered will then be discussed in the coordination group which will try to reach a consensus on them. So Diplo's call, like this thread, is part of that process. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From mshears at cdt.org Fri Dec 6 04:48:55 2013 From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 09:48:55 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> <7F389FFA-0F74-4E5B-9BB8-5B314329D02C@ciroap.org> <52A06B55.3090303@itforchange.net> <52A0DFD8.5080304@cdt.org> <9CF11A9A-118D-4110-BF4B-EE3C95070A99@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52A19D87.7070507@cdt.org> I am also interested in a 1net SC role. Thanks. Matthew On 05/12/2013 20:57, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Dear all, > > Just to flag that I'd be interested in a 1net steering committee role > as well. > > And Jeremy, in terms of process, could you maybe clarify though > whether the CS coordination group is planning to select people as > representatives of a particular network, or simply as CS > representatives? I would argue that the latter makes more sense, but > it would be good to know what the coordination group has in mind. > > Many thanks, > Anja > > > > > On 6 December 2013 01:53, Carolina Rossini > wrote: > > I am happy to play one of the roles, since I do believe we need > consistency and coherency. > Let me know where I could fit best. > Carolina > > Sent from my iPad > > On Dec 5, 2013, at 3:19 PM, matthew shears > wrote: > >> My understanding from some time back was that we had the following: >> >> 4 (now 3) persons directly liaising with Brazil on the meeting >> (_not_ through 1net) >> >> And to fill >> >> 5 civil society slots on the 1net steering committee (recognizing >> that civil society liaison for the Brazil meeting is as above). >> >> And >> >> Some number of civil society slots to be filled on some >> combination of the actual Brazil meeting committees (to be >> determined although there are suggestions that there should be 2 >> from civil society for at least two of the committees). >> >> From my perspective, and to echo a point made by Joana earlier, >> it would seem to make sense that those liaising with Brazil at >> the moment should probably be a part of the meeting committees to >> ensure consistency and coherency. >> >> As to 1net, it might also make sense for one of the Brazil >> liaisons to be a part of the 1net civil society steering >> committee component just to be sure that we have continuity >> across the various committees/liaisons. >> >> Finally, I realize that there is quite some debate about what >> 1net is or is not but I do believe that there is merit to >> participating and seeing where it leads us - as we have discussed >> before. I would also note that there is considerable merit in >> bringing stakeholders together and to figuring out what pressing >> IG related issues those stakeholders can find commonality of >> purpose on and work together to progress. >> >> Matthew >> >> On 05/12/2013 13:22, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>> On 5 December 2013 17:32, parminder >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Thursday 05 December 2013 04:35 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>>> I agree that Rafik would be a good choice. >>>> >>>> What I'm not so clear about is why the four Brazilian >>>> liaisons should also continue to be de facto >>>> representatives in the 1net Steering Committee, >>> Anja >>> >>> I might have missed it, but I dont remember seeing any >>> proposal to have our 4 Brazilian liaisons to Brazil meeting >>> organising structure also be CS reps on the Steering Committee. >>> >>> >>> That seemed to be what Jeremy proposed in his initial email, >>> hence my response, but I also don't recall there being a broader >>> discussion or agreement on this. >>> >>> Best, >>> Anja >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in -- Matthew Shears Director and Representative Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) mshears at cdt.org +44 (0) 771 247 2987 Skype: mshears -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Dec 6 06:38:51 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 17:08:51 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: <52A035EC.7090107@itforchange.net> References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> <52A035EC.7090107@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52A1B74B.9040808@itforchange.net> On Thursday 05 December 2013 01:44 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Wednesday 04 December 2013 07:25 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> >> Each of those networks is now urgently reaching out to their >> constituents, as I'm doing so now, to ask for expressions of interest >> in serving on the 1net steering committee. On the part of the Best >> Bits participants, in Bali we already nominated the same four >> Brazilian representatives (Carolina, Joana, Carlos and Laura) to be >> on that committee. As far as I know, they are willing to continue, >> but have expressed the wish that someone else also join, who has a >> closer association with the ICANN community. That being the case, we >> need to put forward one name. > > Is this a view communicated by all the 4 reps... I am not so sure of > the justification. Why not for instance have someone from the ICTD > community... I think Carlos have deep connections enough with the > ICANN community, no... We need to take the Brazil summit outwards > towards key global Internet related public policy issues that are real > concerns for the world, and not more inwards towards narrow ICANN > issues, which are a very limited set. But I agree that the four > existing reps being all from Brazil, a developing country, maybe the > additional person can be from a developed country. Crossing these two > considerations, I think Michael Gurstein should make a great choice. I must confess that I have been a victim of the huge amount of parallel stuff going on, and I really thought I was nominating Michael for CS reps for 'Brazil meeting' organising committee .... However, Jeremy, the confusion came from your note above saying that 4 current liaisons to Brazil Meeting will 'continue' and we need to 'add' only one more.... These 4 are not currently on the 1net committee, and so terms like 'continue' do not make sense to me. By the way is it a decided thing that the current 4 Brazilian CS liaisons to the 'Brazil Meeting' would also be 4 persons in the 1net steering committee, whereby the civil society coordination committee will be choosing only one person t 'add'.. If so, who made that decision, which is really a big one... Anyway, as I said, I meant to nominate Michael as a CS rep for the 'Brazil Meeting' .... Well, now since Carlos has stepped down, maybe we can fill that one opening ... On the other hand, if Michael accepts nomination for the 1net committee, I am happy to do that as well... Although, I must confess I am still not clear what this steering committee is all about.. Anyway, an earnet request to everyone, especially process responsbility holders - pl clearly mark everytime we talk about selections or any such thing seperately - whether it is about 1Net or the "Brazil Meeitng' for which , as per our present decision we are engaging directly with CGI.Br. parminder parminder > > parminder > > >> >> If you would like to be put yourself forward to join the 1net >> steering committee, or would like to nominate someone else, then this >> thread is for that purpose. The thread can also be used to discuss >> the criteria that you think should be used by the joint committee in >> considering the nominees to put forward. If you disagree that the >> four Brazilian representatives should be amongst the five civil >> society representatives on the 1net steering committee, then you can >> put forward that view too. >> >> In closing, I do need to acknowledge that the joint committee is >> still an imperfect vehicle for nominating civil society >> representatives to the 1net steering committee, because it doesn't >> yet have an elaborate procedure in place for making the selection - >> and I know how sensitive some of us are about that sort of thing. >> All I can say about that is that in parallel to this call for >> expressions of interest, the committee is also considering how >> procedures it could put in place that would satisfy their >> constituents' expectations for a transparent and accountable process. >> Meanwhile, that remains a work in progress. >> >> I will forward the views put forward in this thread to the other >> members of the joint committee (who are currently from APC, Diplo, >> the IGC and the NCSG - Michael Gurstein's interest in joining has >> also been noted and is under discussion). We will then discuss the >> nominations within the committee, and attempt to come back to you all >> with a suggestion that will hopefully be generally acceptable. If >> you have any process-related queries, it is probably appropriate that >> you direct those to Ian Peter who is the independent chair of the >> joint committee for now. >> >> -- >> >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala >> Lumpur, Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement >> knowledge hub >> |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org >> | >> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice >> . Don't >> print this email unless necessary. >> >> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly >> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For >> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Dec 6 08:45:51 2013 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 22:45:51 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT In-Reply-To: References: <4cw8diiesyylf3jwi8kxd4px.1386040791760@email.android.com> Message-ID: Hi Carolina, I will do my best here, while some info were shared already. The main element in ICANN meeting was the wednesday ad-hoc meeting aka 7:00am meeting where Fadi explained about the high level panel , the brazil conference and 1net. there were a lot of critics from business side about how things are moving so quickly, also about the fuzziness regarding 1net (things didn't improve so much since ). The other news was to create a cross-community working group within ICANN community to provide inputs and feedback to him about Brazil conference , however it was not clear at that time what he is expecting exactly . We also carried the message (thanks to Bill) that CS should be more engaged and voiced CS concerns. I know that is short summary but I think is what is still relevant now Rafik 2013/12/4 Carolina Rossini > Noncommercial Stakeholders Group in ICANN > > > On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi Carolina >> >> Finally, Rafik, is there any news from your conversations at ICANN that >>> you may have accessed and could share with us due to current mandate? >>> >>> I am not sure about this request, what news are you asking about? >> >> Rafik >> >> >>> C >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:19 PM, genekimmelman at gmail.com < >>> genekimmelman at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Rafik, sorry if my message came across as aggressive, it was not meant >>>> that way. I won't debate further either, you raise important points that >>>> deserve consideration. I believe there have been some interesting process >>>> proposals put on the table to work out. My tone was only meant to express >>>> my sense that we need to reach a point of resolution so we can focus >>>> adequate attention to substantive policy concerns. And I must also admit >>>> that as a 30 year veteran of policy strategy, I have never placed >>>> transparency as a goal equal to social equity, economic justice, or the >>>> protection of fundamental human rights. Maybe others in CS have a >>>> different hierarchy of concerns and therefore are more focused on how >>>> internal process rules are consistent with external demands of >>>> policymakers. I'm just explaining that I personally think internal >>>> legitimacy of our group among those who opt in requires a sense of trust >>>> that may be quite different from transparency rules. And I look forward to >>>> working out how we can generate and maintain that trust as we actively >>>> engage in our work. >>>> >>>> >>>> -------- Original message -------- >>>> From: Rafik Dammak >>>> Date: 12/02/2013 9:49 PM (GMT-05:00) >>>> To: genekimmelman at gmail.com >>>> Cc: William Drake ,Parminder < >>>> parminder at itforchange.net>,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - >>>> URGENT >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Gene, >>>> >>>> thanks for the reply. I feel some aggressive tone there with kind of >>>> mix of "shut-up" , "take it or leave it" and "if you don't like, you can >>>> quit", at least that is my interpretation . For sure that is not the best >>>> way to engage and convince people . >>>> >>>> If I recall correctly the interim steering committee started this >>>> summer (july) and that is before the brazil meeting announcement in >>>> October. I guess that any interim steering committee has a first goal to >>>> propose a long-term setting or process and moving from the transitional >>>> phase. we can every time postpone that arguing we have new challenges and >>>> issues to handle, but till when? it looks like technical debt in the >>>> software development world. >>>> >>>> There are concerns and I don't share all of them, but dismissing is not >>>> the answer .Why? because for every decision, move , they will pop-up again >>>> over again, why not to respond them now ? >>>> >>>> I can live with Anriette proposal and find it acceptable while I found >>>> that term is long and can be shorten. >>>> >>>> I feel that people are in defensive mode and react to critics. this >>>> discussion is not about individuals at all. >>>> >>>> We as individuals involved in CS world in different manners and fora, >>>> we tend to lecture others about accountability, transparency, sometimes in >>>> the borderline of patronizing, shouldn't we live to those principles first? >>>> >>>> I am not going further in this discussion since I think I expressed >>>> what I have to say already and not willing to disturb the social peace. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> 2013/12/2 genekimmelman at gmail.com >>>> >>>>> To be more specific, maybe those with lingering concerns need to >>>>> decide whether they want to participate on the best bits platform or not. >>>>> You decide. If you think you can make it work better, please offer ideas >>>>> like Anriette, Michael and others have done. I believe we decided in Bali >>>>> on an approach and I endorse Anriette's path toward formalizing this. And I >>>>> suggest we wrap up this conversation for now and move on to substance. >>>>> Otherwise we delegitimze the broad support people worked towards over two >>>>> days in Bali and make it more difficult to prepare for Brazil. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -------- Original message -------- >>>>> From: Rafik Dammak >>>>> Date: 12/02/2013 8:22 AM (GMT-05:00) >>>>> To: genekimmelman at gmail.com >>>>> Cc: William Drake ,Parminder < >>>>> parminder at itforchange.net>,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - >>>>> URGENT >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> every response with such reluctance and such kind of arguments raise >>>>> more questions than giving answers or appeasing those with concerns. >>>>> as reminder BestBits initiative started in august 2012 when people >>>>> were talking about WCIT and prepared first meeting IGF Baku, we will be in >>>>> 2014 in few weeks and we are still with temporary settings. >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> 2013/12/2 genekimmelman at gmail.com >>>>> >>>>>> Internal accountability to a group with shared goals may differ from >>>>>> societal/global policy goals that the group will agree to if all others >>>>>> with power agree as well. Best not to confuse these. We should be >>>>>> accountable but not create internal processes that make it impossible to >>>>>> coordinate policy actions. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -------- Original message -------- >>>>>> From: William Drake >>>>>> Date: 12/02/2013 3:52 AM (GMT-05:00) >>>>>> To: Parminder Singh >>>>>> Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Best Bits" < >>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - >>>>>> URGENT >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> +1! >>>>>> >>>>>> On Dec 2, 2013, at 9:23 AM, parminder >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Civil society must always remain very vary of thinking of themselves >>>>>> as somehow so morally superior that they are exempt from normal >>>>>> accountability and transparency requirements >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *Carolina Rossini* >>> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* >>> Open Technology Institute >>> *New America Foundation* >>> // >>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>> + 1 6176979389 >>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>> skype: carolrossini >>> @carolinarossini >>> >>> >> > > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* > Open Technology Institute > *New America Foundation* > // > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pwilson at apnic.net Sun Dec 1 00:31:12 2013 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 15:31:12 +1000 Subject: [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC In-Reply-To: <054001ceed39$1ce87c00$56b97400$@gmail.com> References: <054001ceed39$1ce87c00$56b97400$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks Nnenna. Hi Michael, When I mention "Internet community" (or "the community") I am referring to the multistakeholder community in the broadest sense, including any and all Internet stakeholders, whether individuals or organisations. I tried to make broad inclusion clear enough in all references, but I suppose it is useful to clarify this. Paul. On 30/11/2013, at 5:27 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Thanks for the pointer to this very interesting post Nnenna. > > Paul uses the term “Internet community” in several places and I’m curious what he means by it… > > I have a feeling that we may not all have a similar definition (or that our definitions are evolving) and that that might be one reason why our discussions often go off the rails—we have different conceptions of who the audience or target group is for various of the policy issues that we address from time to time. > > (I provided my own definition in my current blogpost, but I’m not sure that everyone here agrees with mine J and of course ISOC, ICANN, IETF also all use the term “Internet community” and if those folks also want to chime in it would be greatly appreciated. > > M > > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Nnenna Nwakanma > Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 8:21 AM > To: Governance; > Subject: [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC > > > Just published here: > http://www.circleid.com/posts/2013112_what_is_1net_to_me/ > > N[MG>] > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From brett at accessnow.org Fri Dec 6 16:40:20 2013 From: brett at accessnow.org (Brett Solomon) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 16:40:20 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Save the Date: RightsCon Silicon Valley March 3rd-5th, 2014 Message-ID: Dear friends, As you may know, RightsCon Silicon Valley is taking place March 3-5 in San Francisco at Mission Bay Conference Center. This is an opportunity for different communities to come together - global activists, companies, thinkers, investors, engineers and government officials - to discuss the tensions and opportunities at the intersection of human rights and the internet. RightsCon Silicon Valley has a particular focus on technology companies and aims to create a space for multistakeholder dialogue on human rights best practices and learnings in the context of the private sector. The event also takes place 7 weeks before the Brazil meeting and as I mentioned could be used as a venue to discuss strategy and plans for April. The program is open to submissions, and we're looking to a range of networks, including the Bestbits community to help shape the agenda. Here is the link to propose a session. The deadline for submission is December 20th. If you have questions, check out the website at rightscon.org, or email Rian Wanstreet at rian at accessnow.org, or we can chat more on this list. For those of you who have participated in RightsCon in the past, we look forward to seeing you again. Enjoy your weekends! Brett *Speakers to date include: *Rebecca MacKinnon (Ranking Digital Rights); Alaa Abd El Fattah (one of Egypt's most respected activists and software engineers (currently detained)); Jim Cowie (CTO, Renesys); John Donahoe (President & CEO, eBay); Moez Chakchouk (Founder of Tunisia's IXP and 404Labs); Brad Burnham (Union Square Ventures); Colin Crowell (Head of Global Public Policy, Twitter); Michael Posner (NYU Professor of Business and Society); Eileen Donahoe (former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Human Rights Council); Jillian York (Director for International Freedom of Expression, EFF); ; Richard Stallman (Founder GNU Project and Free Software Foundation); David Gorodyansky (CEO & Founder, AnchorFree); Mitchell Baker (Chairperson, Mozilla Corporation) and many more. Brett Solomon Executive Director | Access accessnow.org +1 917 969 6077 | skype: brettsolomon | @accessnow Key ID: 0x312B641A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Dec 6 16:45:39 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 13:45:39 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: <52A1B74B.9040808@itforchange.net> References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> <52A035EC.7090107@itforchange.net> <52A1B74B.9040808@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <05d501cef2cc$83480b30$89d82190$@gmail.com> Thanks Parminder and I should say that I am equally confused. My primary interest in all this is to ensure that there is a community informatics (CI) voice in pertinent Internet Governance discussions as they go forward; and the CI community is, as we speak, working to formulate rather explicitly what the contents of that intervention should include. Given the way that things have been evolving and the lack of accountability and transparency in various procedures being followed I have concerns that an “Steering/Coordinating Committee” from CS would not be such as to ensure that the CI voices are heard. But this of course, for me is secondary to ensuring that there is a grassroots/CI intervention into the Brazil meeting and following. Further the specific role of Inet in all of this is still unclear to me… and whether a priority should be Inet or the Brazil committee ;and I feel reluctant to make an either/or until that lack of clarity has been resolved and at this time feel it necessary to proceed on both tracks at once. And as with any normal ethical process in this space (or any other) I would as a matter of course recuse myself from any selection process of which I was a direct party. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 3:39 AM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee On Thursday 05 December 2013 01:44 PM, parminder wrote: On Wednesday 04 December 2013 07:25 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: Each of those networks is now urgently reaching out to their constituents, as I'm doing so now, to ask for expressions of interest in serving on the 1net steering committee. On the part of the Best Bits participants, in Bali we already nominated the same four Brazilian representatives (Carolina, Joana, Carlos and Laura) to be on that committee. As far as I know, they are willing to continue, but have expressed the wish that someone else also join, who has a closer association with the ICANN community. That being the case, we need to put forward one name. Is this a view communicated by all the 4 reps... I am not so sure of the justification. Why not for instance have someone from the ICTD community... I think Carlos have deep connections enough with the ICANN community, no... We need to take the Brazil summit outwards towards key global Internet related public policy issues that are real concerns for the world, and not more inwards towards narrow ICANN issues, which are a very limited set. But I agree that the four existing reps being all from Brazil, a developing country, maybe the additional person can be from a developed country. Crossing these two considerations, I think Michael Gurstein should make a great choice. I must confess that I have been a victim of the huge amount of parallel stuff going on, and I really thought I was nominating Michael for CS reps for 'Brazil meeting' organising committee .... However, Jeremy, the confusion came from your note above saying that 4 current liaisons to Brazil Meeting will 'continue' and we need to 'add' only one more.... These 4 are not currently on the 1net committee, and so terms like 'continue' do not make sense to me. By the way is it a decided thing that the current 4 Brazilian CS liaisons to the 'Brazil Meeting' would also be 4 persons in the 1net steering committee, whereby the civil society coordination committee will be choosing only one person t 'add'.. If so, who made that decision, which is really a big one... Anyway, as I said, I meant to nominate Michael as a CS rep for the 'Brazil Meeting' .... Well, now since Carlos has stepped down, maybe we can fill that one opening ... On the other hand, if Michael accepts nomination for the 1net committee, I am happy to do that as well... Although, I must confess I am still not clear what this steering committee is all about.. Anyway, an earnet request to everyone, especially process responsbility holders - pl clearly mark everytime we talk about selections or any such thing seperately - whether it is about 1Net or the "Brazil Meeitng' for which , as per our present decision we are engaging directly with CGI.Br. parminder parminder parminder If you would like to be put yourself forward to join the 1net steering committee, or would like to nominate someone else, then this thread is for that purpose. The thread can also be used to discuss the criteria that you think should be used by the joint committee in considering the nominees to put forward. If you disagree that the four Brazilian representatives should be amongst the five civil society representatives on the 1net steering committee, then you can put forward that view too. In closing, I do need to acknowledge that the joint committee is still an imperfect vehicle for nominating civil society representatives to the 1net steering committee, because it doesn't yet have an elaborate procedure in place for making the selection - and I know how sensitive some of us are about that sort of thing. All I can say about that is that in parallel to this call for expressions of interest, the committee is also considering how procedures it could put in place that would satisfy their constituents' expectations for a transparent and accountable process. Meanwhile, that remains a work in progress. I will forward the views put forward in this thread to the other members of the joint committee (who are currently from APC, Diplo, the IGC and the NCSG - Michael Gurstein's interest in joining has also been noted and is under discussion). We will then discuss the nominations within the committee, and attempt to come back to you all with a suggestion that will hopefully be generally acceptable. If you have any process-related queries, it is probably appropriate that you direct those to Ian Peter who is the independent chair of the joint committee for now. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Dec 6 16:49:58 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 13:49:58 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> Thanks for this Ian, could someone please explain to me what is meant by this fifth panel as more independent (in partnership with two other organizations.. Is he referring to Inet here? Who are the other two organizations? M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Ian Peter Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:34 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Adam Peake Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps Hi Adam, Because it would be inappropriate I am deliberately not taking on a role of coordinating back to various networks as that is what the various reps should do. But here is the reply from Fadi to Robin (copied to the reps earlier). Hello Robin, I hope you had a good thanksgiving holiday. I took several days off and regained a lot of energy after our busy week in Buenos Aires. I just got back and ready for the next phase of work. As I noted below and in Buenos Aires, we were never in a position to grow the panel any further. In BA, however, after the panel was announced, we made a final commitment to add only one panelist from the cc community, and only one more from civil society -- understanding the need for broader participation. Byron Holland from the cc community agreed to serve while in Buenos Aires. At this stage, and now that we have established this fifth panel as more independent (in partnership with two other organizations), I will need to confer with our partners on your request, as well as with the Chairman of the panel. I predict that they will be sensitive to diversity. I cannot meet with the chairman until next week on Wednesday. I will keep you posted. It may be a little late for London but rest assured that Frank La Rue, Lynn St. Amour, and myself will have our communities interests very vigilantly on top of our agendas. Fadi -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:03 PM To: Ian Peter Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps Hi Ian, Any reply to the CS coalition's recommendations? The high level panel is due to meet December 12-13 (London), a week from now. Best, Adam On Nov 30, 2013, at 5:50 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Please find a letter just send to Fadi Chehade under my signatory as > an independent facilitator as regards civil society representation at > this meeting in two weeks time. > > Let me be the first to admit the process was imperfect, the result was > imperfect. But so was the task we were given, the timeframe, the > people involved in making the decision, and the facilitation process. > > I can only say that there was widespread agreement we should submit > names, and for the names submitted. And that doing and saying nothing > would have been the alternative in this timeframe. > > > Ian Peter > > > 29 November 2013 > RE: Civil Society Representation on High Level Panel in London > > Dear Fadi and Nora: > > I am writing to you following from discussions held by a coalition of > representatives of the civil society networks most involved in > Internet governance deliberations, we appreciate your willingness to > engage civil society in discussions regarding the future of Internet > governance. We also appreciate your recognition that civil society is > under-represented on your High Level Panel and your willingness to > accept additional civil society participants to this panel to provide > more balance. > After consultations with our networks, we propose adding the following > 2 civil society representatives to begin to balance against the much > larger numbers from government, the private sector, and technical > representatives placed on the initial panel. > Civil society's two nominated representatives for the London High > Level Panel are: > 1. Anriette Esterhuysen ( anriette at apc.org) 2. Milton Mueller > ( mueller at syr.edu) Would you please kindly confirm your acceptance of > these names, and contact our representatives directly to arrange their > participation? > We also strongly recommend the involvement of Jovan Kurbalija of the > Diplo Foundation as a highly experienced and knowledgeable > facilitator. > We trust that in future we will be able to look at much more equitable > representation of civil society in such panels and committees. > Persons involved with these deliberations and choice of names from > various civil society networks were: > Virginia Paque, Diplo Foundation > Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications (APC) > Robin Gross, ICANN's Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) Norbert > Bollow and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Internet Governance Caucus > (IGC) > Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits > Signed, > Ian Peter, Independent Facilitator > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Dec 8 09:34:54 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2013 15:34:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> Message-ID: cc list trimmed to only one list. /transcript-president-opening-18nov13-en.pdf "USC, University of Southern California-Annenberg Foundation as well as the World Economic Forum, the WEF, have partnered with us so we ensure that this panel has some level of independency and is functioning on a broader scale globally" On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:49 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Thanks for this Ian, could someone please explain to me what is meant by > this fifth panel as more independent (in partnership with two other > organizations.. Is he referring to Inet here? Who are the other two > organizations? > > > > M > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Ian Peter > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:34 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Adam Peake > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps > > > > Hi Adam, > > > > Because it would be inappropriate I am deliberately not taking on a role of > coordinating back to various networks as that is what the various reps > should do. But here is the reply from Fadi to Robin (copied to the reps > earlier). > > > > Hello Robin, > > > > I hope you had a good thanksgiving holiday. I took several days off and > regained a lot of energy after our busy week in Buenos Aires. I just got > back and ready for the next phase of work. > > > > As I noted below and in Buenos Aires, we were never in a position to grow > the panel any further. In BA, however, after the panel was announced, we > made a final commitment to add only one panelist from the cc community, and > only one more from civil society -- understanding the need for broader > participation. Byron Holland from the cc community agreed to serve while in > Buenos Aires. > > > > At this stage, and now that we have established this fifth panel as more > independent (in partnership with two other organizations), I will need to > confer with our partners on your request, as well as with the Chairman of > the panel. I predict that they will be sensitive to diversity. > > > > I cannot meet with the chairman until next week on Wednesday. I will keep > you posted. It may be a little late for London but rest assured that Frank > La Rue, Lynn St. Amour, and myself will have our communities interests very > vigilantly on top of our agendas. > > > > Fadi > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Adam Peake > > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:03 PM > > To: Ian Peter > > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps > > > > Hi Ian, > > > > Any reply to the CS coalition's recommendations? The high level panel is > due to meet December 12-13 (London), a week from now. > > > > Best, > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > On Nov 30, 2013, at 5:50 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > >> Please find a letter just send to Fadi Chehade under my signatory as > >> an independent facilitator as regards civil society representation at > >> this meeting in two weeks time. > >> > >> Let me be the first to admit the process was imperfect, the result was > >> imperfect. But so was the task we were given, the timeframe, the > >> people involved in making the decision, and the facilitation process. > >> > >> I can only say that there was widespread agreement we should submit > >> names, and for the names submitted. And that doing and saying nothing > >> would have been the alternative in this timeframe. > >> > >> > >> Ian Peter > >> > >> > >> 29 November 2013 > >> RE: Civil Society Representation on High Level Panel in London > >> > >> Dear Fadi and Nora: > >> > >> I am writing to you following from discussions held by a coalition of > >> representatives of the civil society networks most involved in > >> Internet governance deliberations, we appreciate your willingness to > >> engage civil society in discussions regarding the future of Internet > >> governance. We also appreciate your recognition that civil society is > >> under-represented on your High Level Panel and your willingness to > >> accept additional civil society participants to this panel to provide > >> more balance. > >> After consultations with our networks, we propose adding the following > >> 2 civil society representatives to begin to balance against the much > >> larger numbers from government, the private sector, and technical > >> representatives placed on the initial panel. > >> Civil society’s two nominated representatives for the London High > >> Level Panel are: > >> 1. Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org) 2. Milton Mueller > >> (mueller at syr.edu) Would you please kindly confirm your acceptance of > >> these names, and contact our representatives directly to arrange their > >> participation? > >> We also strongly recommend the involvement of Jovan Kurbalija of the > >> Diplo Foundation as a highly experienced and knowledgeable > >> facilitator. > >> We trust that in future we will be able to look at much more equitable > >> representation of civil society in such panels and committees. > >> Persons involved with these deliberations and choice of names from > >> various civil society networks were: > >> Virginia Paque, Diplo Foundation > >> Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications (APC) > >> Robin Gross, ICANN's Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) Norbert > >> Bollow and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Internet Governance Caucus > >> (IGC) > >> Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits > >> Signed, > >> Ian Peter, Independent Facilitator > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Dec 8 21:27:01 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 11:27:01 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Dec 8, 2013, at 11:34 PM, McTim wrote: > cc list trimmed to only one list. > > /transcript-president-opening-18nov13-en.pdf > > "USC, University of Southern California-Annenberg Foundation as well > as the World Economic Forum, the WEF, have partnered with us so we > ensure that this panel has some level of independency and is functioning > on a broader scale globally" > > WEF Adam > > On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:49 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> Thanks for this Ian, could someone please explain to me what is meant by >> this fifth panel as more independent (in partnership with two other >> organizations.. Is he referring to Inet here? Who are the other two >> organizations? >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Ian Peter >> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:34 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Adam Peake >> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps >> >> >> >> Hi Adam, >> >> >> >> Because it would be inappropriate I am deliberately not taking on a role of >> coordinating back to various networks as that is what the various reps >> should do. But here is the reply from Fadi to Robin (copied to the reps >> earlier). >> >> >> >> Hello Robin, >> >> >> >> I hope you had a good thanksgiving holiday. I took several days off and >> regained a lot of energy after our busy week in Buenos Aires. I just got >> back and ready for the next phase of work. >> >> >> >> As I noted below and in Buenos Aires, we were never in a position to grow >> the panel any further. In BA, however, after the panel was announced, we >> made a final commitment to add only one panelist from the cc community, and >> only one more from civil society -- understanding the need for broader >> participation. Byron Holland from the cc community agreed to serve while in >> Buenos Aires. >> >> >> >> At this stage, and now that we have established this fifth panel as more >> independent (in partnership with two other organizations), I will need to >> confer with our partners on your request, as well as with the Chairman of >> the panel. I predict that they will be sensitive to diversity. >> >> >> >> I cannot meet with the chairman until next week on Wednesday. I will keep >> you posted. It may be a little late for London but rest assured that Frank >> La Rue, Lynn St. Amour, and myself will have our communities interests very >> vigilantly on top of our agendas. >> >> >> >> Fadi >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Adam Peake >> >> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:03 PM >> >> To: Ian Peter >> >> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> >> Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps >> >> >> >> Hi Ian, >> >> >> >> Any reply to the CS coalition's recommendations? The high level panel is >> due to meet December 12-13 (London), a week from now. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Nov 30, 2013, at 5:50 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> >> >>> Please find a letter just send to Fadi Chehade under my signatory as >> >>> an independent facilitator as regards civil society representation at >> >>> this meeting in two weeks time. >> >>> >> >>> Let me be the first to admit the process was imperfect, the result was >> >>> imperfect. But so was the task we were given, the timeframe, the >> >>> people involved in making the decision, and the facilitation process. >> >>> >> >>> I can only say that there was widespread agreement we should submit >> >>> names, and for the names submitted. And that doing and saying nothing >> >>> would have been the alternative in this timeframe. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Ian Peter >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> 29 November 2013 >> >>> RE: Civil Society Representation on High Level Panel in London >> >>> >> >>> Dear Fadi and Nora: >> >>> >> >>> I am writing to you following from discussions held by a coalition of >> >>> representatives of the civil society networks most involved in >> >>> Internet governance deliberations, we appreciate your willingness to >> >>> engage civil society in discussions regarding the future of Internet >> >>> governance. We also appreciate your recognition that civil society is >> >>> under-represented on your High Level Panel and your willingness to >> >>> accept additional civil society participants to this panel to provide >> >>> more balance. >> >>> After consultations with our networks, we propose adding the following >> >>> 2 civil society representatives to begin to balance against the much >> >>> larger numbers from government, the private sector, and technical >> >>> representatives placed on the initial panel. >> >>> Civil society’s two nominated representatives for the London High >> >>> Level Panel are: >> >>> 1. Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org) 2. Milton Mueller >> >>> (mueller at syr.edu) Would you please kindly confirm your acceptance of >> >>> these names, and contact our representatives directly to arrange their >> >>> participation? >> >>> We also strongly recommend the involvement of Jovan Kurbalija of the >> >>> Diplo Foundation as a highly experienced and knowledgeable >> >>> facilitator. >> >>> We trust that in future we will be able to look at much more equitable >> >>> representation of civil society in such panels and committees. >> >>> Persons involved with these deliberations and choice of names from >> >>> various civil society networks were: >> >>> Virginia Paque, Diplo Foundation >> >>> Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications (APC) >> >>> Robin Gross, ICANN's Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) Norbert >> >>> Bollow and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Internet Governance Caucus >> >>> (IGC) >> >>> Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits >> >>> Signed, >> >>> Ian Peter, Independent Facilitator >> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From william.drake at uzh.ch Mon Dec 9 04:57:16 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 10:57:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello I’ve mentioned this to a couple people privately and should probably state publicly as well that I will be participating in the High Level Panel process as an “expert” advisor, e.g. in London I’ll be giving a talk about the nature of IG, running a break out session, etc. I believe there may be a couple other people from other SGs similarly appointed, TBC. I don’t know how they intend to deal with the request for a CS “representative” panel member, but understand nothing will happen in time for the London meeting. I have suggested publicly announcing the agenda and providing options for people to provide written inputs, we’ll see what happens. The London meeting is in four days and there’s a lot late rushing around to pull it together, so it’s a bit difficult to predict exactly how everything will play out. Best, Bill ********************************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************************** On Dec 9, 2013, at 3:27 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > > On Dec 8, 2013, at 11:34 PM, McTim wrote: > >> cc list trimmed to only one list. >> >> /transcript-president-opening-18nov13-en.pdf >> >> "USC, University of Southern California-Annenberg Foundation as well >> as the World Economic Forum, the WEF, have partnered with us so we >> ensure that this panel has some level of independency and is functioning >> on a broader scale globally" >> >> > > > WEF > > Adam > > > >> >> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:49 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >>> Thanks for this Ian, could someone please explain to me what is meant by >>> this fifth panel as more independent (in partnership with two other >>> organizations.. Is he referring to Inet here? Who are the other two >>> organizations? >>> >>> >>> >>> M >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Ian Peter >>> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:34 AM >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Adam Peake >>> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Adam, >>> >>> >>> >>> Because it would be inappropriate I am deliberately not taking on a role of >>> coordinating back to various networks as that is what the various reps >>> should do. But here is the reply from Fadi to Robin (copied to the reps >>> earlier). >>> >>> >>> >>> Hello Robin, >>> >>> >>> >>> I hope you had a good thanksgiving holiday. I took several days off and >>> regained a lot of energy after our busy week in Buenos Aires. I just got >>> back and ready for the next phase of work. >>> >>> >>> >>> As I noted below and in Buenos Aires, we were never in a position to grow >>> the panel any further. In BA, however, after the panel was announced, we >>> made a final commitment to add only one panelist from the cc community, and >>> only one more from civil society -- understanding the need for broader >>> participation. Byron Holland from the cc community agreed to serve while in >>> Buenos Aires. >>> >>> >>> >>> At this stage, and now that we have established this fifth panel as more >>> independent (in partnership with two other organizations), I will need to >>> confer with our partners on your request, as well as with the Chairman of >>> the panel. I predict that they will be sensitive to diversity. >>> >>> >>> >>> I cannot meet with the chairman until next week on Wednesday. I will keep >>> you posted. It may be a little late for London but rest assured that Frank >>> La Rue, Lynn St. Amour, and myself will have our communities interests very >>> vigilantly on top of our agendas. >>> >>> >>> >>> Fadi >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> >>> From: Adam Peake >>> >>> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:03 PM >>> >>> To: Ian Peter >>> >>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> >>> Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Ian, >>> >>> >>> >>> Any reply to the CS coalition's recommendations? The high level panel is >>> due to meet December 12-13 (London), a week from now. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Nov 30, 2013, at 5:50 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Please find a letter just send to Fadi Chehade under my signatory as >>> >>>> an independent facilitator as regards civil society representation at >>> >>>> this meeting in two weeks time. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Let me be the first to admit the process was imperfect, the result was >>> >>>> imperfect. But so was the task we were given, the timeframe, the >>> >>>> people involved in making the decision, and the facilitation process. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I can only say that there was widespread agreement we should submit >>> >>>> names, and for the names submitted. And that doing and saying nothing >>> >>>> would have been the alternative in this timeframe. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Ian Peter >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> 29 November 2013 >>> >>>> RE: Civil Society Representation on High Level Panel in London >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Dear Fadi and Nora: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I am writing to you following from discussions held by a coalition of >>> >>>> representatives of the civil society networks most involved in >>> >>>> Internet governance deliberations, we appreciate your willingness to >>> >>>> engage civil society in discussions regarding the future of Internet >>> >>>> governance. We also appreciate your recognition that civil society is >>> >>>> under-represented on your High Level Panel and your willingness to >>> >>>> accept additional civil society participants to this panel to provide >>> >>>> more balance. >>> >>>> After consultations with our networks, we propose adding the following >>> >>>> 2 civil society representatives to begin to balance against the much >>> >>>> larger numbers from government, the private sector, and technical >>> >>>> representatives placed on the initial panel. >>> >>>> Civil society’s two nominated representatives for the London High >>> >>>> Level Panel are: >>> >>>> 1. Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org) 2. Milton Mueller >>> >>>> (mueller at syr.edu) Would you please kindly confirm your acceptance of >>> >>>> these names, and contact our representatives directly to arrange their >>> >>>> participation? >>> >>>> We also strongly recommend the involvement of Jovan Kurbalija of the >>> >>>> Diplo Foundation as a highly experienced and knowledgeable >>> >>>> facilitator. >>> >>>> We trust that in future we will be able to look at much more equitable >>> >>>> representation of civil society in such panels and committees. >>> >>>> Persons involved with these deliberations and choice of names from >>> >>>> various civil society networks were: >>> >>>> Virginia Paque, Diplo Foundation >>> >>>> Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications (APC) >>> >>>> Robin Gross, ICANN's Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) Norbert >>> >>>> Bollow and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Internet Governance Caucus >>> >>>> (IGC) >>> >>>> Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits >>> >>>> Signed, >>> >>>> Ian Peter, Independent Facilitator >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Dec 9 05:08:47 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 19:08:47 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Bill. Thanks for letting us know. Good to know you'll be involved -- hope it goes well and please keep us informed. Adam On Dec 9, 2013, at 6:57 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hello > > I’ve mentioned this to a couple people privately and should probably state publicly as well that I will be participating in the High Level Panel process as an “expert” advisor, e.g. in London I’ll be giving a talk about the nature of IG, running a break out session, etc. I believe there may be a couple other people from other SGs similarly appointed, TBC. I don’t know how they intend to deal with the request for a CS “representative” panel member, but understand nothing will happen in time for the London meeting. > > I have suggested publicly announcing the agenda and providing options for people to provide written inputs, we’ll see what happens. The London meeting is in four days and there’s a lot late rushing around to pull it together, so it’s a bit difficult to predict exactly how everything will play out. > > Best, > > Bill > > ********************************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************************** > > > > > > On Dec 9, 2013, at 3:27 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> >> On Dec 8, 2013, at 11:34 PM, McTim wrote: >> >>> cc list trimmed to only one list. >>> >>> /transcript-president-opening-18nov13-en.pdf >>> >>> "USC, University of Southern California-Annenberg Foundation as well >>> as the World Economic Forum, the WEF, have partnered with us so we >>> ensure that this panel has some level of independency and is functioning >>> on a broader scale globally" >>> >>> >> >> >> WEF >> >> Adam >> >> >> >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:49 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >>>> Thanks for this Ian, could someone please explain to me what is meant by >>>> this fifth panel as more independent (in partnership with two other >>>> organizations.. Is he referring to Inet here? Who are the other two >>>> organizations? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> M >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Ian Peter >>>> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:34 AM >>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Adam Peake >>>> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Adam, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Because it would be inappropriate I am deliberately not taking on a role of >>>> coordinating back to various networks as that is what the various reps >>>> should do. But here is the reply from Fadi to Robin (copied to the reps >>>> earlier). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hello Robin, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I hope you had a good thanksgiving holiday. I took several days off and >>>> regained a lot of energy after our busy week in Buenos Aires. I just got >>>> back and ready for the next phase of work. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> As I noted below and in Buenos Aires, we were never in a position to grow >>>> the panel any further. In BA, however, after the panel was announced, we >>>> made a final commitment to add only one panelist from the cc community, and >>>> only one more from civil society -- understanding the need for broader >>>> participation. Byron Holland from the cc community agreed to serve while in >>>> Buenos Aires. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> At this stage, and now that we have established this fifth panel as more >>>> independent (in partnership with two other organizations), I will need to >>>> confer with our partners on your request, as well as with the Chairman of >>>> the panel. I predict that they will be sensitive to diversity. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I cannot meet with the chairman until next week on Wednesday. I will keep >>>> you posted. It may be a little late for London but rest assured that Frank >>>> La Rue, Lynn St. Amour, and myself will have our communities interests very >>>> vigilantly on top of our agendas. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Fadi >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> >>>> From: Adam Peake >>>> >>>> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:03 PM >>>> >>>> To: Ian Peter >>>> >>>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>> >>>> Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Ian, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Any reply to the CS coalition's recommendations? The high level panel is >>>> due to meet December 12-13 (London), a week from now. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Nov 30, 2013, at 5:50 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Please find a letter just send to Fadi Chehade under my signatory as >>>> >>>>> an independent facilitator as regards civil society representation at >>>> >>>>> this meeting in two weeks time. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Let me be the first to admit the process was imperfect, the result was >>>> >>>>> imperfect. But so was the task we were given, the timeframe, the >>>> >>>>> people involved in making the decision, and the facilitation process. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> I can only say that there was widespread agreement we should submit >>>> >>>>> names, and for the names submitted. And that doing and saying nothing >>>> >>>>> would have been the alternative in this timeframe. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Ian Peter >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> 29 November 2013 >>>> >>>>> RE: Civil Society Representation on High Level Panel in London >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Dear Fadi and Nora: >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> I am writing to you following from discussions held by a coalition of >>>> >>>>> representatives of the civil society networks most involved in >>>> >>>>> Internet governance deliberations, we appreciate your willingness to >>>> >>>>> engage civil society in discussions regarding the future of Internet >>>> >>>>> governance. We also appreciate your recognition that civil society is >>>> >>>>> under-represented on your High Level Panel and your willingness to >>>> >>>>> accept additional civil society participants to this panel to provide >>>> >>>>> more balance. >>>> >>>>> After consultations with our networks, we propose adding the following >>>> >>>>> 2 civil society representatives to begin to balance against the much >>>> >>>>> larger numbers from government, the private sector, and technical >>>> >>>>> representatives placed on the initial panel. >>>> >>>>> Civil society’s two nominated representatives for the London High >>>> >>>>> Level Panel are: >>>> >>>>> 1. Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org) 2. Milton Mueller >>>> >>>>> (mueller at syr.edu) Would you please kindly confirm your acceptance of >>>> >>>>> these names, and contact our representatives directly to arrange their >>>> >>>>> participation? >>>> >>>>> We also strongly recommend the involvement of Jovan Kurbalija of the >>>> >>>>> Diplo Foundation as a highly experienced and knowledgeable >>>> >>>>> facilitator. >>>> >>>>> We trust that in future we will be able to look at much more equitable >>>> >>>>> representation of civil society in such panels and committees. >>>> >>>>> Persons involved with these deliberations and choice of names from >>>> >>>>> various civil society networks were: >>>> >>>>> Virginia Paque, Diplo Foundation >>>> >>>>> Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications (APC) >>>> >>>>> Robin Gross, ICANN's Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) Norbert >>>> >>>>> Bollow and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Internet Governance Caucus >>>> >>>>> (IGC) >>>> >>>>> Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits >>>> >>>>> Signed, >>>> >>>>> Ian Peter, Independent Facilitator >>>> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Mon Dec 9 11:58:58 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 11:58:58 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <3d6e6d1c-671c-4269-9c37-a2a4742cf0b9@email.android.com> As i understood it, he has not been appointed to the HLLN, but rather that they have approached him as an expert, which he is, on many things. These are very different things. ~~~ avri Milton L Mueller wrote: >Let me be indelicate enough to raise an issue that probably no one >wants to deal with but needs to be raised. And despite certain >appearances, it is not a personal interest here but a process one. >The IGC, and several other groups, worked together to forward two >recommended names to the President of ICANN. > >Congrats to some extent on being appointed to this HLLM, but your name >was not on that CS-provided list, Bill. At this stage of the game I am >certainly not suggesting that you turn it down, but one does want to >know what kind of a process we are in and what kind of criteria are >being applied? > >Other people are asking us for recommended lists of names for various >positions. Aside from the usual junk associated with people positioning >for these things, we need to assess the good faith and cooperative >spirit of those who are making these requests. To put a finer point on >it, what are the implications of CS being asked to provide recommended >names, providing them, and then having a completely different name >selected? > >I know it's an uncomfortable topic but I think we'd have to be >self-delusional not to discuss it. > >From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of William >Drake >Sent: Monday, December 9, 2013 4:57 AM >To: Governance; Adam Peake >Cc: McTim McTim; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Best Bits >Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps > >Hello > >I've mentioned this to a couple people privately and should probably >state publicly as well that I will be participating in the High Level >Panel process as an "expert" advisor, e.g. in London I'll be giving a >talk about the nature of IG, running a break out session, etc. I >believe there may be a couple other people from other SGs similarly >appointed, TBC. I don't know how they intend to deal with the request >for a CS "representative" panel member, but understand nothing will >happen in time for the London meeting. > >I have suggested publicly announcing the agenda and providing options >for people to provide written inputs, we'll see what happens. The >London meeting is in four days and there's a lot late rushing around to >pull it together, so it's a bit difficult to predict exactly how >everything will play out. > >Best, > >Bill > >********************************************************** >William J. Drake >International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland >Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org >william.drake at uzh.ch (w), >wjdrake at gmail.com (h), > www.williamdrake.org >*********************************************************** > > > > >On Dec 9, 2013, at 3:27 AM, Adam Peake >> wrote: > > > >On Dec 8, 2013, at 11:34 PM, McTim wrote: > > >cc list trimmed to only one list. > >/transcript-president-opening-18nov13-en.pdf > >"USC, University of Southern California-Annenberg Foundation as well >as the World Economic Forum, the WEF, have partnered with us so we >ensure that this panel has some level of independency and is >functioning >on a broader scale globally" > > > >WEF > > >Adam > > > > > >On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:49 PM, michael gurstein >> wrote: > >Thanks for this Ian, could someone please explain to me what is meant >by >this fifth panel as more independent (in partnership with two other >organizations.. Is he referring to Inet here? Who are the other two >organizations? > > > >M > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: >bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Ian Peter >Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:34 AM >To: >governance at lists.igcaucus.org; >Adam Peake >Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps > > > >Hi Adam, > > > >Because it would be inappropriate I am deliberately not taking on a >role of >coordinating back to various networks as that is what the various reps >should do. But here is the reply from Fadi to Robin (copied to the reps >earlier). > > > >Hello Robin, > > > >I hope you had a good thanksgiving holiday. I took several days off and >regained a lot of energy after our busy week in Buenos Aires. I just >got >back and ready for the next phase of work. > > > >As I noted below and in Buenos Aires, we were never in a position to >grow >the panel any further. In BA, however, after the panel was announced, >we >made a final commitment to add only one panelist from the cc community, >and >only one more from civil society -- understanding the need for broader >participation. Byron Holland from the cc community agreed to serve >while in >Buenos Aires. > > > >At this stage, and now that we have established this fifth panel as >more >independent (in partnership with two other organizations), I will need >to >confer with our partners on your request, as well as with the Chairman >of >the panel. I predict that they will be sensitive to diversity. > > > >I cannot meet with the chairman until next week on Wednesday. I will >keep >you posted. It may be a little late for London but rest assured that >Frank >La Rue, Lynn St. Amour, and myself will have our communities interests >very >vigilantly on top of our agendas. > > > >Fadi > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Adam Peake > >Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:03 PM > >To: Ian Peter > >Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > >Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps > > > >Hi Ian, > > > >Any reply to the CS coalition's recommendations? The high level panel >is >due to meet December 12-13 (London), a week from now. > > > >Best, > > > >Adam > > > > > > > >On Nov 30, 2013, at 5:50 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > > >Please find a letter just send to Fadi Chehade under my signatory as > > >an independent facilitator as regards civil society representation at > > >this meeting in two weeks time. > > > > > >Let me be the first to admit the process was imperfect, the result was > > >imperfect. But so was the task we were given, the timeframe, the > > >people involved in making the decision, and the facilitation process. > > > > > >I can only say that there was widespread agreement we should submit > > >names, and for the names submitted. And that doing and saying nothing > > >would have been the alternative in this timeframe. > > > > > > > > >Ian Peter > > > > > > > > >29 November 2013 > > >RE: Civil Society Representation on High Level Panel in London > > > > > >Dear Fadi and Nora: > > > > > >I am writing to you following from discussions held by a coalition of > > >representatives of the civil society networks most involved in > > >Internet governance deliberations, we appreciate your willingness to > > >engage civil society in discussions regarding the future of Internet > > >governance. We also appreciate your recognition that civil society is > > >under-represented on your High Level Panel and your willingness to > > >accept additional civil society participants to this panel to provide > > >more balance. > > >After consultations with our networks, we propose adding the following > > >2 civil society representatives to begin to balance against the much > > >larger numbers from government, the private sector, and technical > > >representatives placed on the initial panel. > > >Civil society's two nominated representatives for the London High > > >Level Panel are: > > >1. Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org) 2. >Milton Mueller > > >(mueller at syr.edu) Would you please kindly >confirm your acceptance of > > >these names, and contact our representatives directly to arrange their > > >participation? > > >We also strongly recommend the involvement of Jovan Kurbalija of the > > >Diplo Foundation as a highly experienced and knowledgeable > > >facilitator. > > >We trust that in future we will be able to look at much more equitable > > >representation of civil society in such panels and committees. > > >Persons involved with these deliberations and choice of names from > > >various civil society networks were: > > >Virginia Paque, Diplo Foundation > > >Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications (APC) > > >Robin Gross, ICANN's Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) Norbert > > >Bollow and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Internet Governance Caucus > > >(IGC) > > >Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits > > >Signed, > > >Ian Peter, Independent Facilitator -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mctimconsulting at gmail.com Mon Dec 9 12:02:27 2013 From: mctimconsulting at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 18:02:27 +0100 Subject: Fwd: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Milton, On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Let me be indelicate enough to raise an issue that probably no one wants to > deal with but needs to be raised. And despite certain appearances, it is not > a personal interest here but a process one. > > The IGC, and several other groups, worked together to forward two > recommended names to the President of ICANN. We were deluding ourselves into thinking that 2 would be named to the Panel. One was offered IIUC, and only post-London. > > > > Congrats to some extent on being appointed to this HLLM IIUC, he is not on the Panel itself, just advising/capacity-building. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Dec 9 12:14:37 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 02:14:37 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <1B42F8D7-5D3B-4B76-BF5A-C7F900454A95@glocom.ac.jp> What is "IIUC"? Adam On Dec 10, 2013, at 2:02 AM, McTim wrote: > Milton, > > On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> Let me be indelicate enough to raise an issue that probably no one wants to >> deal with but needs to be raised. And despite certain appearances, it is not >> a personal interest here but a process one. >> >> The IGC, and several other groups, worked together to forward two >> recommended names to the President of ICANN. > > > We were deluding ourselves into thinking that 2 would be named > to the Panel. One was offered IIUC, and only post-London. > >> >> >> >> Congrats to some extent on being appointed to this HLLM > > IIUC, he is not on the Panel itself, just advising/capacity-building. > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Dec 1 11:00:11 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2013 21:30:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574406@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <528A37DC.1030908@apc.org> <528B71FB.2090504@itforchange.net> <528DF07A.204@itforchange.net> <528E12DB.3030902@itforchange.net> <5291F450.9040908@itforchange.net> <8841C2DC-64D3-4FA5-AAC0-8186478B5BCF@glocom.ac.jp> <52741740-24C3-477B-9BDC-A5BBA60ADCDC@glocom.ac.jp> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133225A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>, <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574406@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <529B5D0B.2040304@itforchange.net> On Sunday 01 December 2013 08:51 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Here is a factual account of what happened > http://www.internetgovernance.org/2011/06/28/civil-society-defects-from-oecd-internet-policy-principles/ One really wonders why we are not able to settle something which is a simple matter of fact.... Yes, civil society groups did not initially sign these principles but later signed a latter version . In Dec 2013, if someone says, 'OCED's Internet policy making principles', what is meant is the final version issues by the OECD Council, and *not* the initial communiqué which in effect is superseded by the Council document. And civil society groups did sign the latter Council document .... http://csisac.org/2011/12/oecd_principles_internet_policy.php That is all that was asserted in the first instance by me which has got this long thread running... parminder > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* sama.digitalpolicy at gmail.com [sama.digitalpolicy at gmail.com] on > behalf of Andrea Glorioso [andrea at digitalpolicy.it] > *Sent:* Sunday, November 24, 2013 12:55 PM > *To:* Kleinwächter, Wolfgang > *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Adam Peake; Andrea Glorioso; > parminder; Dixie Hawtin; Andrew Puddephatt; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* [governance] Re: [bestbits] Proposal by the Government of > India to the WGEC > > To be clear: my understanding is that the statement that CSOs > did endorse a set of principles produced within the OECD was > challenged. It seems to me - and, unless I misinterpret the relevant > messages, confirmed inter alia by Jeremy and Wolfgang - that a number > of CSOs did indeed endorse a set of OECD principles which was > acceptable to them. > > Again if I understand correctly, the point was not on the substance of > such principles but on the legitimacy of policy-making done within > "restricted" environments, especially when such principles / > policies have ambitions of broader adoption; as well as, relatedly, on > the approach to be taken towards broader settings. > > Please note that I'm not taking a position either on the OECD > principles or on the related debate re: broader settings. > > P.S. I would not be so sure that people outside of the rather small IG > circle (which are, according to some, stakeholders as well) are so > clear on the details of who signed what, when and for which reason. > > On Sunday, November 24, 2013, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > > Again: The two principles which did not get a CISAC endorsement > was IPR and intermediarities. The opposition of CISAC to the two > principles was ere outspoken but ignored by an article in the > Washington Post by David Weitzer. This was corrected later when > CISAC reconfirmed that it had its own position and did not change > it. In contrary, as the statement - re-distributed by Andrea - > says clearly, CISAC expected a continuation of the debate around > the two controvrsial principles with the aim to improve the > lanague and to make it acceptable to civil society. This OECD > debate did influence also the final stage of the elaboration of > the Council of Europe principles - which was negotiated in > parallel. In the COE we avoided controversial OECD language and > got the full endorsement by all parties. > > w > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > im Auftrag von Adam Peake > Gesendet: So 24.11.2013 15:07 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Andrea > Glorioso > Cc: parminder; Dixie Hawtin; Andrew Puddephatt; > <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >, > Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Proposal by the > Government of India to the WGEC > > I think we know what was endorsed and what wasn't. Please, just > read the documents, it's pretty clear. > > Adam > > > > On Nov 24, 2013, at 10:51 PM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > > > As far as I understood when I used to follow this process, > CSISAC did support a modified version of these principles. I'm > happy to stand corrected by those who know more. > > > > http://csisac.org/2011/12/oecd_principles_internet_policy.php > > > > CSISAC Welcomes OECD Recommendation on Principles for Internet > Policy Making > > In a press release published on 19 December 2011, the CSISAC > welcomes the Recommendation on Principles for Internet Policy > Making adoped by the OECD Council on 13 December 2011, which > reaffirms OECD commitment to a free, open and inclusive Internet. > > > > Most critically, this Recommendation envisions a collaborative > decision-making process that is inclusive of civil society issues > and concerns, such as those expressed by CSISAC when it declined > to support a previous Communique resulting from the OECD High > Level Meeting of June 2011. > > > > CSISAC looks forward to working with the OECD in order to > develop the Principles itemized in the December Recommendation in > greater detail and in a manner that promotes openness, is grounded > in respect for human rights and the rule of law, and strengthens > the capacity to improve the quality of life for all citizens. > > > > > > On Sunday, November 24, 2013, Adam Peake wrote: > > > > On Nov 24, 2013, at 9:42 PM, parminder wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thursday 21 November 2013 10:54 PM, Dixie Hawtin wrote: > > >> I've never ever entered these debates before either, but I > want to add my 2 cents too! > > >> > > >> On the OECD principles - CSISAC did not endorse the > principles, on the basis of the intellectual property rights > provision. > > >> > > > > > > This is not true, Dixie. CSISAC did endorse them. > > > > > > > > > No Parminder, you're wrong. Civil society (CSISAC: Civil > Society Information Society Advisory Council) did not endorse the > OECD principles on Internet policy making (June 2011 > ) Read the > document. > > > > No point in any further discussion, the document is what it is. > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > > However, I have stayed away from discussing the substantive > merit of the outcomes of OECD kind of 'global' public policy > processes. I only spoke about their procedural aspects - like > inclusiveness, multistakeholder versus multilateral, etc . That > these processes > > > > > > 1. do not involve all countries/ governments, and > > > 2. are no less multilateral, and no more multistakeholder , > than some of the proposed UN based Internet policy fora, like > India's CIRP proposal. > > > > > > And the fact that civil society seems never to bother with > this particular problem of global Internet governance. As for > instance we are fond of regularly writing to ITU about its > processes, and have even started to speak against proposed WSIS + > 10, which is supposed to follow WSIS model which was one of the > most participatory of processes that I have ever seen. > > > > > > Can you show me an instance where we have addressed the above > problem of global governance - something which is a constant > refrain in most discussions of global governance in the South . > How can we simply dismiss this concern. > > > > > > Ok, to make it topical: The mandate of OCED's CCICP (OECD's > Internet policy organ) is up for renewal sometime now ( I think it > is supposed to be this December). As they renew their mandate, I > propose that we write to them, that > > > > > > 1. CCICP should seek "full and equal' engagement with UN and > other regional bodies on Internet policy issues that really have > implications across the globe, to ensure global democracy. > > > 2. CCICP should never seek to post facto push their policy > frameworks on other countries - if they indeed think/ know that a > particular Internet policy issue is of a global dimension they > should from the start itself take it up at a global forum and > accordingly develop policies regarding it . > > > 3. CCICP should be made fully multistakeholder on the same > principles of multistakeholderism that OECD countries seek for > global Internet policy related bodies. In this regard, OECD should > clearly specify the role of different stakeholders in terms of > Internet policy making by OECD/ CCICP, and whether they are same > or different than what they > >> Development House, 56-64 Leonard > Street, London EC2A 4LT > > >> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: > andrewpuddephatt > > >> gp-digital.org > > >> > > >> From: parminder [ > > >> mailto:parminder at itforchange.net > > >> ] > > >> Sent: 21 November 2013 11:38 > > >> To: Andrew Puddephatt > > >> Cc: > > >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org; > <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > > >> , > > >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the > Government of India to the WGEC > > >> > > >> Andrew > > >> > > >> I have a strong feeling that you asking me to shut up, and I > am not quite sure that is a good thing to do. > > >> > > >> Many here in the last few weeks posted their views on the > proceedings of the WGEC, triggering a very legitimate and needed > debate. Some of them directly referred by name to positions > presented by me/ my organisation which is also quite fair because > we are all in a public space and people need to be able to say > whatever they want to (apart from some obnoxious personal comments > by Adam which is where I think IGC and BB group > responsibility-holders should be focussing; which they regrettably > have let pass.) What I cant understand is why in your view should > I not be able to present and defend my views, the below being my > very first email on the issue. > > >> > > >> my responses below... > > >> On Tuesday 19 November 2013 08:37 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > > >> > > >> I don't normally respond to these discussions but > occasionally I feel > > >> > > >> I think one should enter a debate with enough respect for > those who are engaging in it.... > > >> > > >> > > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > -- > > I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with > myself. Keep it in mind. > > Twitter: @andreaglorioso > > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso > > LinkedIn: > http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.go > > > > > -- > > -- > I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. > Keep it in mind. > Twitter: @andreaglorioso > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lmcknigh at syr.edu Mon Dec 9 12:18:32 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 17:18:32 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> ,<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2BBF0B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Point taken Milton given this ongoing rush of events, as much cs-self-transparency as possible is welcome/required, so thanks Bill for sharing and good luck! There is a difference in role/responsibility between being an appointed cs expert contributor and process facilitator, and designated CS rep. And there's room for more than a few more cesers in both categories I suggest, which would also help distribute the work-load. And, would lend further instant global credibility by demonstrate Fadi's/ICANN's/1net's/hllm's/whomever's good faith efforts to lead an all-inclusive step-forward effort towards and beyond Brazil. Lee PS Yeah Fadi that's a hint that we want more ; ) ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Milton L Mueller [mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 11:53 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Best Bits Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps Let me be indelicate enough to raise an issue that probably no one wants to deal with but needs to be raised. And despite certain appearances, it is not a personal interest here but a process one. The IGC, and several other groups, worked together to forward two recommended names to the President of ICANN. Congrats to some extent on being appointed to this HLLM, but your name was not on that CS-provided list, Bill. At this stage of the game I am certainly not suggesting that you turn it down, but one does want to know what kind of a process we are in and what kind of criteria are being applied? Other people are asking us for recommended lists of names for various positions. Aside from the usual junk associated with people positioning for these things, we need to assess the good faith and cooperative spirit of those who are making these requests. To put a finer point on it, what are the implications of CS being asked to provide recommended names, providing them, and then having a completely different name selected? I know it’s an uncomfortable topic but I think we’d have to be self-delusional not to discuss it. From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Monday, December 9, 2013 4:57 AM To: Governance; Adam Peake Cc: McTim McTim; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Best Bits Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps Hello I’ve mentioned this to a couple people privately and should probably state publicly as well that I will be participating in the High Level Panel process as an “expert” advisor, e.g. in London I’ll be giving a talk about the nature of IG, running a break out session, etc. I believe there may be a couple other people from other SGs similarly appointed, TBC. I don’t know how they intend to deal with the request for a CS “representative” panel member, but understand nothing will happen in time for the London meeting. I have suggested publicly announcing the agenda and providing options for people to provide written inputs, we’ll see what happens. The London meeting is in four days and there’s a lot late rushing around to pull it together, so it’s a bit difficult to predict exactly how everything will play out. Best, Bill ********************************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************************** On Dec 9, 2013, at 3:27 AM, Adam Peake > wrote: On Dec 8, 2013, at 11:34 PM, McTim wrote: cc list trimmed to only one list. /transcript-president-opening-18nov13-en.pdf "USC, University of Southern California-Annenberg Foundation as well as the World Economic Forum, the WEF, have partnered with us so we ensure that this panel has some level of independency and is functioning on a broader scale globally" WEF Adam On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:49 PM, michael gurstein > wrote: Thanks for this Ian, could someone please explain to me what is meant by this fifth panel as more independent (in partnership with two other organizations.. Is he referring to Inet here? Who are the other two organizations? M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Ian Peter Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:34 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Adam Peake Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps Hi Adam, Because it would be inappropriate I am deliberately not taking on a role of coordinating back to various networks as that is what the various reps should do. But here is the reply from Fadi to Robin (copied to the reps earlier). Hello Robin, I hope you had a good thanksgiving holiday. I took several days off and regained a lot of energy after our busy week in Buenos Aires. I just got back and ready for the next phase of work. As I noted below and in Buenos Aires, we were never in a position to grow the panel any further. In BA, however, after the panel was announced, we made a final commitment to add only one panelist from the cc community, and only one more from civil society -- understanding the need for broader participation. Byron Holland from the cc community agreed to serve while in Buenos Aires. At this stage, and now that we have established this fifth panel as more independent (in partnership with two other organizations), I will need to confer with our partners on your request, as well as with the Chairman of the panel. I predict that they will be sensitive to diversity. I cannot meet with the chairman until next week on Wednesday. I will keep you posted. It may be a little late for London but rest assured that Frank La Rue, Lynn St. Amour, and myself will have our communities interests very vigilantly on top of our agendas. Fadi -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:03 PM To: Ian Peter Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps Hi Ian, Any reply to the CS coalition's recommendations? The high level panel is due to meet December 12-13 (London), a week from now. Best, Adam On Nov 30, 2013, at 5:50 AM, Ian Peter wrote: Please find a letter just send to Fadi Chehade under my signatory as an independent facilitator as regards civil society representation at this meeting in two weeks time. Let me be the first to admit the process was imperfect, the result was imperfect. But so was the task we were given, the timeframe, the people involved in making the decision, and the facilitation process. I can only say that there was widespread agreement we should submit names, and for the names submitted. And that doing and saying nothing would have been the alternative in this timeframe. Ian Peter 29 November 2013 RE: Civil Society Representation on High Level Panel in London Dear Fadi and Nora: I am writing to you following from discussions held by a coalition of representatives of the civil society networks most involved in Internet governance deliberations, we appreciate your willingness to engage civil society in discussions regarding the future of Internet governance. We also appreciate your recognition that civil society is under-represented on your High Level Panel and your willingness to accept additional civil society participants to this panel to provide more balance. After consultations with our networks, we propose adding the following 2 civil society representatives to begin to balance against the much larger numbers from government, the private sector, and technical representatives placed on the initial panel. Civil society’s two nominated representatives for the London High Level Panel are: 1. Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org) 2. Milton Mueller (mueller at syr.edu) Would you please kindly confirm your acceptance of these names, and contact our representatives directly to arrange their participation? We also strongly recommend the involvement of Jovan Kurbalija of the Diplo Foundation as a highly experienced and knowledgeable facilitator. We trust that in future we will be able to look at much more equitable representation of civil society in such panels and committees. Persons involved with these deliberations and choice of names from various civil society networks were: Virginia Paque, Diplo Foundation Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications (APC) Robin Gross, ICANN's Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) Norbert Bollow and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits Signed, Ian Peter, Independent Facilitator -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at ella.com Mon Dec 9 12:20:14 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 12:20:14 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: <1B42F8D7-5D3B-4B76-BF5A-C7F900454A95@glocom.ac.jp> References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <1B42F8D7-5D3B-4B76-BF5A-C7F900454A95@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: If I understand correctly? ~~~ avri Adam Peake wrote: >What is "IIUC"? > >Adam > > >On Dec 10, 2013, at 2:02 AM, McTim wrote: > >> Milton, >> >> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Milton L Mueller >wrote: >>> Let me be indelicate enough to raise an issue that probably no one >wants to >>> deal with but needs to be raised. And despite certain appearances, >it is not >>> a personal interest here but a process one. >>> >>> The IGC, and several other groups, worked together to forward two >>> recommended names to the President of ICANN. >> >> >> We were deluding ourselves into thinking that 2 would be named >> to the Panel. One was offered IIUC, and only post-London. >> >>> >>> >>> >>> Congrats to some extent on being appointed to this HLLM >> >> IIUC, he is not on the Panel itself, just advising/capacity-building. >> >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mctimconsulting at gmail.com Mon Dec 9 12:41:21 2013 From: mctimconsulting at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 18:41:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: <1B42F8D7-5D3B-4B76-BF5A-C7F900454A95@glocom.ac.jp> References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <1B42F8D7-5D3B-4B76-BF5A-C7F900454A95@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > What is "IIUC"? If I Understand Correctly. rgds, McTim From william.drake at uzh.ch Mon Dec 9 14:50:03 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 20:50:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: <3d6e6d1c-671c-4269-9c37-a2a4742cf0b9@email.android.com> References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3d6e6d1c-671c-4269-9c37-a2a4742cf0b9@email.android.com> Message-ID: <9A696999-3990-42C6-89ED-808188B5BE75@uzh.ch> Hi Thanks, Avri. Milton I told you about this F2F in Bern the other day and said it again in the message to which you replied, so I’m not sure what the disconnect is. Read it again? No relation to the process you mention. Cheers Bill On Dec 9, 2013, at 5:58 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > As i understood it, he has not been appointed to the HLLN, but rather that they have approached him as an expert, which he is, on many things. > > These are very different things. > ~~~ > avri > > Milton L Mueller wrote: > Let me be indelicate enough to raise an issue that probably no one wants to deal with but needs to be raised. And despite certain appearances, it is not a personal interest here but a process one. > > > The IGC, and several other groups, worked together to forward two recommended names to the President of ICANN. > > > > > Congrats to some extent on being appointed to this HLLM, but your name was not on that CS-provided list, Bill. At this stage of the game I am certainly not suggesting that you turn it down, but one does want to know what kind of a process we are in and what kind of criteria are being applied? > > > > > Other people are asking us for recommended lists of names for various positions. Aside from the usual junk associated with people positioning for these things, we need to assess the good faith and cooperative spirit of those who are making these requests. To put a finer point on it, what are the implications of CS being asked to provide recommended names, providing them, and then having a completely different name selected? > > > > > I know it’s an uncomfortable topic but I think we’d have to be self-delusional not to discuss it. > > > > > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of William Drake > Sent: Monday, December 9, 2013 4:57 AM > To: Governance; Adam Peake > Cc: McTim McTim; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Best Bits > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps > > > > Hello > > > I’ve mentioned this to a couple people privately and should probably state publicly as well that I will be participating in the High Level Panel process as an “expert” advisor, e.g. in London I’ll be giving a talk about the nature of IG, running a break out session, etc. I believe there may be a couple other people from other SGs similarly appointed, TBC. I don’t know how they intend to deal with the request for a CS “representative” panel member, but understand nothing will happen in time for the London meeting. > > > I have suggested publicly announcing the agenda and providing options for people to provide written inputs, we’ll see what happens. The London meeting is in four days and there’s a lot late rushing around to pull it together, so it’s a bit difficult to predict exactly how everything will play out. > > > Best, > > > Bill > > > ********************************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), > > > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************************** > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 9, 2013, at 3:27 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 8, 2013, at 11:34 PM, McTim wrote: > > > > cc list trimmed to only one list. > > /transcript-president-opening-18nov13-en.pdf > > "USC, University of Southern California-Annenberg Foundation as well > as the World Economic Forum, the WEF, have partnered with us so we > ensure that this panel has some level of independency and is functioning > on a broader scale globally" > > > > > > WEF > > Adam > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:49 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > > Thanks for this Ian, could someone please explain to me what is meant by > this fifth panel as more independent (in partnership with two other > organizations.. Is he referring to Inet here? Who are the other two > organizations? > > > > M > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Ian Peter > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:34 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Adam Peake > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps > > > > Hi Adam, > > > > Because it would be inappropriate I am deliberately not taking on a role of > coordinating back to various networks as that is what the various reps > should do. But here is the reply from Fadi to Robin (copied to the reps > earlier). > > > > Hello Robin, > > > > I hope you had a good thanksgiving holiday. I took several days off and > regained a lot of energy after our busy week in Buenos Aires. I just got > back and ready for the next phase of work. > > > > As I noted below and in Buenos Aires, we were never in a position to grow > the panel any further. In BA, however, after the panel was announced, we > made a final commitment to add only one panelist from the cc community, and > only one more from civil society -- understanding the need for broader > participation. Byron Holland from the cc community agreed to serve while in > Buenos Aires. > > > > At this stage, and now that we have established this fifth panel as more > independent (in partnership with two other organizations), I will need to > confer with our partners on your request, as well as with the Chairman of > the panel. I predict that they will be sensitive to diversity. > > > > I cannot meet with the chairman until next week on Wednesday. I will keep > you posted. It may be a little late for London but rest assured that Frank > La Rue, Lynn St. Amour, and myself will have our communities interests very > vigilantly on top of our agendas. > > > > Fadi > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Adam Peake > > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:03 PM > > To: Ian Peter > > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps > > > > Hi Ian, > > > > Any reply to the CS coalition's recommendations? The high level panel is > due to meet December 12-13 (London), a week from now. > > > > Best, > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > On Nov 30, 2013, at 5:50 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > > > > Please find a letter just send to Fadi Chehade under my signatory as > > > > > an independent facilitator as regards civil society representation at > > > > > this meeting in two weeks time. > > > > > > > > > Let me be the first to admit the process was imperfect, the result was > > > > > imperfect. But so was the task we were given, the timeframe, the > > > > > people involved in making the decision, and the facilitation process. > > > > > > > > > I can only say that there was widespread agreement we should submit > > > > > names, and for the names submitted. And that doing and saying nothing > > > > > would have been the alternative in this timeframe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > > > > > > > > 29 November 2013 > > > > > RE: Civil Society Representation on High Level Panel in London > > > > > > > > > Dear Fadi and Nora: > > > > > > > > > I am writing to you following from discussions held by a coalition of > > > > > representatives of the civil society networks most involved in > > > > > Internet governance deliberations, we appreciate your willingness to > > > > > engage civil society in discussions regarding the future of Internet > > > > > governance. We also appreciate your recognition that civil society is > > > > > under-represented on your High Level Panel and your willingness to > > > > > accept additional civil society participants to this panel to provide > > > > > more balance. > > > > > After consultations with our networks, we propose adding the following > > > > > 2 civil society representatives to begin to balance against the much > > > > > larger numbers from government, the private sector, and technical > > > > > representatives placed on the initial panel. > > > > > Civil society’s two nominated representatives for the London High > > > > > Level Panel are: > > > > > 1. Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org) 2. Milton Mueller > > > > > (mueller at syr.edu) Would you please kindly confirm your acceptance of > > > > > these names, and contact our representatives directly to arrange their > > > > > participation? > > > > > We also strongly recommend the involvement of Jovan Kurbalija of the > > > > > Diplo Foundation as a highly experienced and knowledgeable > > > > > facilitator. > > > > > We trust that in future we will be able to look at much more equitable > > > > > representation of civil society in such panels and committees. > > > > > Persons involved with these deliberations and choice of names from > > > > > various civil society networks were: > > > > > Virginia Paque, Diplo Foundation > > > > > Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications (APC) > > > > > Robin Gross, ICANN's Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) Norbert > > > > > Bollow and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Internet Governance Caucus > > > > > (IGC) > > > > > Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits > > > > > Signed, > > > > > Ian Peter, Independent Facilitator > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ********************************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mishi at softwarefreedom.org Mon Dec 9 17:20:47 2013 From: mishi at softwarefreedom.org (Mishi Choudhary) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 17:20:47 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Brice Schneier & Eben Moglen In-Reply-To: <9A696999-3990-42C6-89ED-808188B5BE75@uzh.ch> References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3d6e6d1c-671c-4269-9c37-a2a4742cf0b9@email.android.com> <9A696999-3990-42C6-89ED-808188B5BE75@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <52A6423F.2000200@softwarefreedom.org> Hi Everyone, December 9, 2013 This Thursday, December 12th, join us at Columbia Law School as renowned security expert Bruce Schneier talks with Eben Moglen about what we can learn from the Snowden documents, the NSA's efforts to weaken global cryptography, and how we can keep our own free software tools from being subverted. The talk is open to the public and will take place in Columbia Law School's Jerome Greene Hall on Amsterdam Avenue and 116th street in New York City. The talk begins at 6:30pm EST (UTC-5). http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2013/dec/09/a-conversation-with-bruce-schneier/ -- Warm Regards Mishi Choudhary, Esq. Legal Director Software Freedom Law Center 1995 Broadway Floor 17 New York, NY-10023 (tel) 212-461-1912 (fax) 212-580-0898 www.softwarefreedom.org Executive Director SFLC.IN K-9, Second Floor Jangpura Extn. New Delhi-110014 (tel) +91-11-43587126 (fax) +91-11-24323530 www.sflc.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From laura at article19.org Mon Dec 9 17:23:17 2013 From: laura at article19.org (Laura Tresca) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 22:23:17 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Reform surveillance Message-ID: <7C9F27BE10361942966E4835F365891A77D424C6@A19MAIL.aricle19.org> Hello everyone, Sorry about the crossposting. I just want to make sure that we are in the same page. Have you seen http://reformgovernmentsurveillance.com/ ? It´s amazing how the companies are one step before us! Best, Laura. ARTICLE 19 Oficina para Sudamerica/ South America Office Rua João Adolfo, 118 - 8ºandar Anhangabaú, São Paulo, Brasil tel. +55 11 30570042/0071 www.artigo19.org/ www.article19.org From ca at cafonso.ca Mon Dec 9 17:27:18 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 20:27:18 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] Reform surveillance In-Reply-To: <7C9F27BE10361942966E4835F365891A77D424C6@A19MAIL.aricle19.org> References: <7C9F27BE10361942966E4835F365891A77D424C6@A19MAIL.aricle19.org> Message-ID: <52A643C6.1000809@cafonso.ca> One step *ahead* of us, I guess... :) --c.a. On 12/09/2013 08:23 PM, Laura Tresca wrote: > Hello everyone, > Sorry about the crossposting. I just want to make sure that we are in the same page. Have you seen http://reformgovernmentsurveillance.com/ ? > It´s amazing how the companies are one step before us! > Best, > Laura. > > ARTICLE 19 > Oficina para Sudamerica/ South America Office > Rua João Adolfo, 118 - 8ºandar > Anhangabaú, São Paulo, Brasil > tel. +55 11 30570042/0071 > www.artigo19.org/ www.article19.org > From mishi at softwarefreedom.org Mon Dec 9 17:30:19 2013 From: mishi at softwarefreedom.org (Mishi Choudhary) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 17:30:19 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Reform surveillance In-Reply-To: <52A643C6.1000809@cafonso.ca> References: <7C9F27BE10361942966E4835F365891A77D424C6@A19MAIL.aricle19.org> <52A643C6.1000809@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <52A6447B.6020801@softwarefreedom.org> Well! Important also to note is the following point captured in the NYTimes story about this: "While the Internet companies fight to maintain authority over their customers’ data, their business models depend on collecting the same information that the spy agencies want, and they have long cooperated with the government to some extent by handing over data in response to legal requests. The new principles outlined by the companies contain little information and few promises about their own practices, which privacy advocates say contribute to the government’s desire to tap into the companies’ data systems. “The companies are placing their users at risk by collecting and retaining so much information,” said Marc Rotenberg, president and executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a nonprofit research and advocacy organization. “As long as this much personal data is collected and kept by these companies, they are always going to be the target of government collection efforts.” For instance, Internet companies store email messages, search queries, payment details and other personal information to provide online services and show personalized ads. They are trying to blunt the spying revelations’ effects on their businesses. Each disclosure risks alienating users, and foreign governments are considering laws that would discourage their citizens from using services from American Internet companies. The cloud computing industry could lose $180 billion, or a quarter of its revenue, by 2016, according to Forrester Research." http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/09/technology/tech-giants-issue-call-for-limits-on-government-surveillance-of-users.html?ref=technology&_r=0 On 12/09/2013 05:27 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > One step *ahead* of us, I guess... :) > > --c.a. > > On 12/09/2013 08:23 PM, Laura Tresca wrote: >> Hello everyone, >> Sorry about the crossposting. I just want to make sure that we are in the same page. Have you seen http://reformgovernmentsurveillance.com/ ? >> It´s amazing how the companies are one step before us! >> Best, >> Laura. >> >> ARTICLE 19 >> Oficina para Sudamerica/ South America Office >> Rua João Adolfo, 118 - 8ºandar >> Anhangabaú, São Paulo, Brasil >> tel. +55 11 30570042/0071 >> www.artigo19.org/ www.article19.org >> -- Warm Regards Mishi Choudhary, Esq. Legal Director Software Freedom Law Center 1995 Broadway Floor 17 New York, NY-10023 (tel) 212-461-1912 (fax) 212-580-0898 www.softwarefreedom.org Executive Director SFLC.IN K-9, Second Floor Jangpura Extn. New Delhi-110014 (tel) +91-11-43587126 (fax) +91-11-24323530 www.sflc.in From joana at varonferraz.com Mon Dec 9 17:31:56 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 20:31:56 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] Reform surveillance In-Reply-To: <52A643C6.1000809@cafonso.ca> References: <7C9F27BE10361942966E4835F365891A77D424C6@A19MAIL.aricle19.org> <52A643C6.1000809@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Wouldnt say "ahead" at least in this particular case, as many CS folks managed to draft this: http://www.necessaryandproportionate.org/ now the debate is: would companies also go for a wider set of principles in protection of privacy rights like these 13? On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > One step *ahead* of us, I guess... :) > > --c.a. > > On 12/09/2013 08:23 PM, Laura Tresca wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > Sorry about the crossposting. I just want to make sure that we are in > the same page. Have you seen http://reformgovernmentsurveillance.com/ ? > > It´s amazing how the companies are one step before us! > > Best, > > Laura. > > > > ARTICLE 19 > > Oficina para Sudamerica/ South America Office > > Rua João Adolfo, 118 - 8ºandar > > Anhangabaú, São Paulo, Brasil > > tel. +55 11 30570042/0071 > > www.artigo19.org/ www.article19.org > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG Mon Dec 9 19:10:16 2013 From: mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG (Mike Godwin (mgodwin@INTERNEWS.ORG)) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 19:10:16 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Reform surveillance In-Reply-To: <52A6447B.6020801@softwarefreedom.org> References: <7C9F27BE10361942966E4835F365891A77D424C6@A19MAIL.aricle19.org> <52A643C6.1000809@cafonso.ca> <52A6447B.6020801@softwarefreedom.org> Message-ID: Mishi quotes the Times: >"While the Internet companies fight to maintain authority over their >customers¹ data, their business models depend on collecting the same >information that the spy agencies want, and they have long cooperated >with the government to some extent by handing over data in response to >legal requests. This statement strikes me as disingenuously oversimplistic on the Times¹s part ‹ specifically, in saying that the Internet companies are collecting ³the same information that the spy agencies want.² Yes, the agencies want the data the companies have, but the companies are gathering data about consumption and viewing patterns, primarily. What the agencies want is traffic and association analysis, and they know they can draw inferences if they have large datasets. This may seem like a subtle distinction, but really it¹s not. It¹s like saying ³I listen to changes in the tone of your voice when you speak to me, and so does the snooping spy who wiretaps your phone, and therefore, implicitly, the spy and I are both culpable somehow.² What I perceive in all this is an attempt to muddy the issue and delegitimize the internet companies¹ sincere efforts to build and/or restore consumer trust. I¹m critical of the companies from time to time (and there are times when I¹m mostly critical of what all the companies are doing), but to me the real analysis here is that governments have opportunistically taken advantage of what the companies have been gathering, most of the time in good faith, from users. >The new principles outlined by the companies contain little information >and few promises about their own practices, which privacy advocates say >contribute to the government¹s desire to tap into the companies¹ data >systems. > >³The companies are placing their users at risk by collecting and >retaining so much information,² said Marc Rotenberg, president and >executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a >nonprofit research and advocacy organization. ³As long as this much >personal data is collected and kept by these companies, they are always >going to be the target of government collection efforts.² I take Marc at his word, as always, but the fact is that if the companies cut their data gathering in half ‹ or even by a factor of 10 or 100 ‹ governments will want to engage in bulk collection and interception. The key approach, in my view, is to try to reduce the demand-side (by regulating what governments can do) rather conflate it with the supply side (the fact that commercial enterprises gather data from actual and potential customers (or for them). ‹Mike, speaking only for myself From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Dec 1 13:26:41 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 10:26:41 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC In-Reply-To: References: <054001ceed39$1ce87c00$56b97400$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <03ef01ceeec2$e227d350$a67779f0$@gmail.com> Thanks Paul, What about my argument (made concerning Internet users) that I made in my blogpost on Internet Justice Much of the discussion to date has focused on "Internet users" as the most general category. The problem with this of course, is that it excludes those and still a majority of the world's population - who, for whatever reason are not able or willing to use the Internet. Meanwhile, given the global reach and penetration of the Internet even those currently unable or uninterested in "using" the Internet are equally impacted by it. Based on simple principles of democratic participation even they should have some say in how the Internet is deployed and managed in relation to matters of most general concern. We are all now citizens of an Internet-enabled world whether we are "users" or not. M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Paul Wilson Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 9:31 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: 'Nnenna Nwakanma'; 'Governance'; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC Thanks Nnenna. Hi Michael, When I mention "Internet community" (or "the community") I am referring to the multistakeholder community in the broadest sense, including any and all Internet stakeholders, whether individuals or organisations. I tried to make broad inclusion clear enough in all references, but I suppose it is useful to clarify this. Paul. On 30/11/2013, at 5:27 AM, michael gurstein < gurstein at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for the pointer to this very interesting post Nnenna. > > Paul uses the term "Internet community" in several places and I'm curious what he means by it. > > I have a feeling that we may not all have a similar definition (or that our definitions are evolving) and that that might be one reason why our discussions often go off the rails-we have different conceptions of who the audience or target group is for various of the policy issues that we address from time to time. > > (I provided my own definition in my current blogpost, but I'm not sure that everyone here agrees with mine J and of course ISOC, ICANN, IETF also all use the term "Internet community" and if those folks also want to chime in it would be greatly appreciated. > > M > > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [ mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Nnenna Nwakanma > Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 8:21 AM > To: Governance; < bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > Subject: [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC > > > Just published here: > http://www.circleid.com/posts/2013112_what_is_1net_to_me/ > > N[MG>] > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mueller at syr.edu Mon Dec 9 11:53:15 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 16:53:15 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Let me be indelicate enough to raise an issue that probably no one wants to deal with but needs to be raised. And despite certain appearances, it is not a personal interest here but a process one. The IGC, and several other groups, worked together to forward two recommended names to the President of ICANN. Congrats to some extent on being appointed to this HLLM, but your name was not on that CS-provided list, Bill. At this stage of the game I am certainly not suggesting that you turn it down, but one does want to know what kind of a process we are in and what kind of criteria are being applied? Other people are asking us for recommended lists of names for various positions. Aside from the usual junk associated with people positioning for these things, we need to assess the good faith and cooperative spirit of those who are making these requests. To put a finer point on it, what are the implications of CS being asked to provide recommended names, providing them, and then having a completely different name selected? I know it's an uncomfortable topic but I think we'd have to be self-delusional not to discuss it. From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Monday, December 9, 2013 4:57 AM To: Governance; Adam Peake Cc: McTim McTim; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Best Bits Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps Hello I've mentioned this to a couple people privately and should probably state publicly as well that I will be participating in the High Level Panel process as an "expert" advisor, e.g. in London I'll be giving a talk about the nature of IG, running a break out session, etc. I believe there may be a couple other people from other SGs similarly appointed, TBC. I don't know how they intend to deal with the request for a CS "representative" panel member, but understand nothing will happen in time for the London meeting. I have suggested publicly announcing the agenda and providing options for people to provide written inputs, we'll see what happens. The London meeting is in four days and there's a lot late rushing around to pull it together, so it's a bit difficult to predict exactly how everything will play out. Best, Bill ********************************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************************** On Dec 9, 2013, at 3:27 AM, Adam Peake > wrote: On Dec 8, 2013, at 11:34 PM, McTim wrote: cc list trimmed to only one list. /transcript-president-opening-18nov13-en.pdf "USC, University of Southern California-Annenberg Foundation as well as the World Economic Forum, the WEF, have partnered with us so we ensure that this panel has some level of independency and is functioning on a broader scale globally" WEF Adam On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:49 PM, michael gurstein > wrote: Thanks for this Ian, could someone please explain to me what is meant by this fifth panel as more independent (in partnership with two other organizations.. Is he referring to Inet here? Who are the other two organizations? M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Ian Peter Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:34 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Adam Peake Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps Hi Adam, Because it would be inappropriate I am deliberately not taking on a role of coordinating back to various networks as that is what the various reps should do. But here is the reply from Fadi to Robin (copied to the reps earlier). Hello Robin, I hope you had a good thanksgiving holiday. I took several days off and regained a lot of energy after our busy week in Buenos Aires. I just got back and ready for the next phase of work. As I noted below and in Buenos Aires, we were never in a position to grow the panel any further. In BA, however, after the panel was announced, we made a final commitment to add only one panelist from the cc community, and only one more from civil society -- understanding the need for broader participation. Byron Holland from the cc community agreed to serve while in Buenos Aires. At this stage, and now that we have established this fifth panel as more independent (in partnership with two other organizations), I will need to confer with our partners on your request, as well as with the Chairman of the panel. I predict that they will be sensitive to diversity. I cannot meet with the chairman until next week on Wednesday. I will keep you posted. It may be a little late for London but rest assured that Frank La Rue, Lynn St. Amour, and myself will have our communities interests very vigilantly on top of our agendas. Fadi -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:03 PM To: Ian Peter Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps Hi Ian, Any reply to the CS coalition's recommendations? The high level panel is due to meet December 12-13 (London), a week from now. Best, Adam On Nov 30, 2013, at 5:50 AM, Ian Peter wrote: Please find a letter just send to Fadi Chehade under my signatory as an independent facilitator as regards civil society representation at this meeting in two weeks time. Let me be the first to admit the process was imperfect, the result was imperfect. But so was the task we were given, the timeframe, the people involved in making the decision, and the facilitation process. I can only say that there was widespread agreement we should submit names, and for the names submitted. And that doing and saying nothing would have been the alternative in this timeframe. Ian Peter 29 November 2013 RE: Civil Society Representation on High Level Panel in London Dear Fadi and Nora: I am writing to you following from discussions held by a coalition of representatives of the civil society networks most involved in Internet governance deliberations, we appreciate your willingness to engage civil society in discussions regarding the future of Internet governance. We also appreciate your recognition that civil society is under-represented on your High Level Panel and your willingness to accept additional civil society participants to this panel to provide more balance. After consultations with our networks, we propose adding the following 2 civil society representatives to begin to balance against the much larger numbers from government, the private sector, and technical representatives placed on the initial panel. Civil society's two nominated representatives for the London High Level Panel are: 1. Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org) 2. Milton Mueller (mueller at syr.edu) Would you please kindly confirm your acceptance of these names, and contact our representatives directly to arrange their participation? We also strongly recommend the involvement of Jovan Kurbalija of the Diplo Foundation as a highly experienced and knowledgeable facilitator. We trust that in future we will be able to look at much more equitable representation of civil society in such panels and committees. Persons involved with these deliberations and choice of names from various civil society networks were: Virginia Paque, Diplo Foundation Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications (APC) Robin Gross, ICANN's Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) Norbert Bollow and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits Signed, Ian Peter, Independent Facilitator -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mueller at syr.edu Tue Dec 10 01:24:47 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 06:24:47 +0000 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: <9A696999-3990-42C6-89ED-808188B5BE75@uzh.ch> References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3d6e6d1c-671c-4269-9c37-a2a4742cf0b9@email.android.com>,<9A696999-3990-42C6-89ED-808188B5BE75@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2578F49@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> The distinction between Bill's appointment as an expert and the CS groups' nomination of people to be on the committee is not so clear to me, and we cannot assume that it is clear to Fadi, especially since the London meeting of the group starts in two days. Either one could be seen as Fadi making a concession to CS demands to be included in the HLLM, and he may consider one to be a substitute for the other. At this stage, I would assume that if there is no appointment of another CS rep to the HL Panel by now, that there will not be one at all, and Bill is all we will be given. The fact that Bill's appointment came from a random F2F hallway meeting isn't something that inspires confidence, is it? ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of William Drake [william.drake at uzh.ch] Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 2:50 PM To: Avri Doria Cc: Governance; Best Bits Subject: Re: Re: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps Hi Thanks, Avri. Milton I told you about this F2F in Bern the other day and said it again in the message to which you replied, so I’m not sure what the disconnect is. Read it again? No relation to the process you mention. Cheers Bill On Dec 9, 2013, at 5:58 PM, Avri Doria > wrote: As i understood it, he has not been appointed to the HLLN, but rather that they have approached him as an expert, which he is, on many things. These are very different things. ~~~ avri Milton L Mueller > wrote: Let me be indelicate enough to raise an issue that probably no one wants to deal with but needs to be raised. And despite certain appearances, it is not a personal interest here but a process one. The IGC, and several other groups, worked together to forward two recommended names to the President of ICANN. Congrats to some extent on being appointed to this HLLM, but your name was not on that CS-provided list, Bill. At this stage of the game I am certainly not suggesting that you turn it down, but one does want to know what kind of a process we are in and what kind of criteria are being applied? Other people are asking us for recommended lists of names for various positions. Aside from the usual junk associated with people positioning for these things, we need to assess the good faith and cooperative spirit of those who are making these requests. To put a finer point on it, what are the implications of CS being asked to provide recommended names, providing them, and then having a completely different name selected? I know it’s an uncomfortable topic but I think we’d have to be self-delusional not to discuss it. From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Monday, December 9, 2013 4:57 AM To: Governance; Adam Peake Cc: McTim McTim; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Best Bits Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps Hello I’ve mentioned this to a couple people privately and should probably state publicly as well that I will be participating in the High Level Panel process as an “expert” advisor, e.g. in London I’ll be giving a talk about the nature of IG, running a break out session, etc. I believe there may be a couple other people from other SGs similarly appointed, TBC. I don’t know how they intend to deal with the request for a CS “representative” panel member, but understand nothing will happen in time for the London meeting. I have suggested publicly announcing the agenda and providing options for people to provide written inputs, we’ll see what happens. The London meeting is in four days and there’s a lot late rushing around to pull it together, so it’s a bit difficult to predict exactly how everything will play out. Best, Bill ********************************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************************** On Dec 9, 2013, at 3:27 AM, Adam Peake > wrote: On Dec 8, 2013, at 11:34 PM, McTim wrote: cc list trimmed to only one list. /transcript-president-opening-18nov13-en.pdf "USC, University of Southern California-Annenberg Foundation as well as the World Economic Forum, the WEF, have partnered with us so we ensure that this panel has some level of independency and is functioning on a broader scale globally" WEF Adam On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:49 PM, michael gurstein > wrote: Thanks for this Ian, could someone please explain to me what is meant by this fifth panel as more independent (in partnership with two other organizations.. Is he referring to Inet here? Who are the other two organizations? M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Ian Peter Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:34 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Adam Peake Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps Hi Adam, Because it would be inappropriate I am deliberately not taking on a role of coordinating back to various networks as that is what the various reps should do. But here is the reply from Fadi to Robin (copied to the reps earlier). Hello Robin, I hope you had a good thanksgiving holiday. I took several days off and regained a lot of energy after our busy week in Buenos Aires. I just got back and ready for the next phase of work. As I noted below and in Buenos Aires, we were never in a position to grow the panel any further. In BA, however, after the panel was announced, we made a final commitment to add only one panelist from the cc community, and only one more from civil society -- understanding the need for broader participation. Byron Holland from the cc community agreed to serve while in Buenos Aires. At this stage, and now that we have established this fifth panel as more independent (in partnership with two other organizations), I will need to confer with our partners on your request, as well as with the Chairman of the panel. I predict that they will be sensitive to diversity. I cannot meet with the chairman until next week on Wednesday. I will keep you posted. It may be a little late for London but rest assured that Frank La Rue, Lynn St. Amour, and myself will have our communities interests very vigilantly on top of our agendas. Fadi -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:03 PM To: Ian Peter Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps Hi Ian, Any reply to the CS coalition's recommendations? The high level panel is due to meet December 12-13 (London), a week from now. Best, Adam On Nov 30, 2013, at 5:50 AM, Ian Peter wrote: Please find a letter just send to Fadi Chehade under my signatory as an independent facilitator as regards civil society representation at this meeting in two weeks time. Let me be the first to admit the process was imperfect, the result was imperfect. But so was the task we were given, the timeframe, the people involved in making the decision, and the facilitation process. I can only say that there was widespread agreement we should submit names, and for the names submitted. And that doing and saying nothing would have been the alternative in this timeframe. Ian Peter 29 November 2013 RE: Civil Society Representation on High Level Panel in London Dear Fadi and Nora: I am writing to you following from discussions held by a coalition of representatives of the civil society networks most involved in Internet governance deliberations, we appreciate your willingness to engage civil society in discussions regarding the future of Internet governance. We also appreciate your recognition that civil society is under-represented on your High Level Panel and your willingness to accept additional civil society participants to this panel to provide more balance. After consultations with our networks, we propose adding the following 2 civil society representatives to begin to balance against the much larger numbers from government, the private sector, and technical representatives placed on the initial panel. Civil society’s two nominated representatives for the London High Level Panel are: 1. Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org) 2. Milton Mueller (mueller at syr.edu) Would you please kindly confirm your acceptance of these names, and contact our representatives directly to arrange their participation? We also strongly recommend the involvement of Jovan Kurbalija of the Diplo Foundation as a highly experienced and knowledgeable facilitator. We trust that in future we will be able to look at much more equitable representation of civil society in such panels and committees. Persons involved with these deliberations and choice of names from various civil society networks were: Virginia Paque, Diplo Foundation Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications (APC) Robin Gross, ICANN's Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) Norbert Bollow and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits Signed, Ian Peter, Independent Facilitator ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ********************************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Dec 10 02:43:24 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 02:43:24 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Reform surveillance In-Reply-To: References: <7C9F27BE10361942966E4835F365891A77D424C6@A19MAIL.aricle19.org> <52A643C6.1000809@cafonso.ca> <52A6447B.6020801@softwarefreedom.org> Message-ID: bringing more info to the table, this may be useful as a background info https://www.cdt.org/pr_statement/cdt-brings-together-major-internet-companies-advocates-demand-more-transparency-around- and the letter https://www.cdt.org/files/pdfs/weneedtoknow-transparency-letter.pdf On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) < mgodwin at internews.org> wrote: > Mishi quotes the Times: > > > >"While the Internet companies fight to maintain authority over their > >customers¹ data, their business models depend on collecting the same > >information that the spy agencies want, and they have long cooperated > >with the government to some extent by handing over data in response to > >legal requests. > > This statement strikes me as disingenuously oversimplistic on the Times¹s > part ‹ specifically, in saying that the Internet companies are collecting > ³the same information that the spy agencies want.² Yes, the agencies want > the data the companies have, but the companies are gathering data about > consumption and viewing patterns, primarily. What the agencies want is > traffic and association analysis, and they know they can draw inferences > if they have large datasets. > > This may seem like a subtle distinction, but really it¹s not. It¹s like > saying ³I listen to changes in the tone of your voice when you speak to > me, and so does the snooping spy who wiretaps your phone, and therefore, > implicitly, the spy and I are both culpable somehow.² > > What I perceive in all this is an attempt to muddy the issue and > delegitimize the internet companies¹ sincere efforts to build and/or > restore consumer trust. I¹m critical of the companies from time to time > (and there are times when I¹m mostly critical of what all the companies > are doing), but to me the real analysis here is that governments have > opportunistically taken advantage of what the companies have been > gathering, most of the time in good faith, from users. > > >The new principles outlined by the companies contain little information > >and few promises about their own practices, which privacy advocates say > >contribute to the government¹s desire to tap into the companies¹ data > >systems. > > > >³The companies are placing their users at risk by collecting and > >retaining so much information,² said Marc Rotenberg, president and > >executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a > >nonprofit research and advocacy organization. ³As long as this much > >personal data is collected and kept by these companies, they are always > >going to be the target of government collection efforts.² > > I take Marc at his word, as always, but the fact is that if the companies > cut their data gathering in half ‹ or even by a factor of 10 or 100 ‹ > governments will want to engage in bulk collection and interception. The > key approach, in my view, is to try to reduce the demand-side (by > regulating what governments can do) rather conflate it with the supply > side (the fact that commercial enterprises gather data from actual and > potential customers (or for them). > > > ‹Mike, speaking only for myself > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew at gp-digital.org Tue Dec 10 05:13:42 2013 From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:13:42 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] final chance to complete survey giving your views on internet governance Message-ID: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/YXPV2BD Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nb at bollow.ch Tue Dec 10 05:35:09 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 11:35:09 +0100 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2578F49@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3d6e6d1c-671c-4269-9c37-a2a4742cf0b9@email.android.com> <9A696999-3990-42C6-89ED-808188B5BE75@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2578F49@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20131210113509.71808d4b@quill> Milton L Mueller wrote: > The distinction between Bill's appointment as an expert and the CS > groups' nomination of people to be on the committee is not so clear > to me, and we cannot assume that it is clear to Fadi, especially > since the London meeting of the group starts in two days. Either one > could be seen as Fadi making a concession to CS demands to be > included in the HLLM, and he may consider one to be a substitute for > the other. At this stage, I would assume that if there is no > appointment of another CS rep to the HL Panel by now, that there will > not be one at all, and Bill is all we will be given. The fact that > Bill's appointment came from a random F2F hallway meeting isn't > something that inspires confidence, is it? +1 Especially given that there was in fact a coordinated civil society process through which names have been put forward. Greetings, Norbert From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue Dec 10 08:05:00 2013 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 11:05:00 -0200 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: <20131210113509.71808d4b@quill> References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3d6e6d1c-671c-4269-9c37-a2a4742cf0b9@email.android.com> <9A696999-3990-42C6-89ED-808188B5BE75@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2578F49@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131210113509.71808d4b@quill> Message-ID: Milton is right about the (lack of) process. On the one hand, it is positive that we have someone we trust there. On the other hand, it does seem that they are including who they want and how they want, totally disregarding the serious process we have been conducting to appoint names. I think that a letter signed by all organizations that participated in the nomination process should be sent to ICANN and ideally read during the meeting, expressing our frustration and adding some concrete suggestions. I come back to the points I made earlier: - the agenda of the HL panel meetings should be publicized in advance - channels to receive inputs (procedural or substantive) should be created or clarified - their meetings should be open to observers (like the meetings of the CSTD ECWG) - Reports of the meetings should be published. They could follow Chatam House rules And - CS representatives (names), who were appointed following an internal and legitimate process carried out by CS, should be immediately included in the HL panel to ensure minimum CS representation. Marília On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > The distinction between Bill's appointment as an expert and the CS > > groups' nomination of people to be on the committee is not so clear > > to me, and we cannot assume that it is clear to Fadi, especially > > since the London meeting of the group starts in two days. Either one > > could be seen as Fadi making a concession to CS demands to be > > included in the HLLM, and he may consider one to be a substitute for > > the other. At this stage, I would assume that if there is no > > appointment of another CS rep to the HL Panel by now, that there will > > not be one at all, and Bill is all we will be given. The fact that > > Bill's appointment came from a random F2F hallway meeting isn't > > something that inspires confidence, is it? > > +1 > > Especially given that there was in fact a coordinated civil society > process through which names have been put forward. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Dec 10 08:49:26 2013 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 22:49:26 +0900 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3d6e6d1c-671c-4269-9c37-a2a4742cf0b9@email.android.com> <9A696999-3990-42C6-89ED-808188B5BE75@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2578F49@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131210113509.71808d4b@quill> Message-ID: Hello, I am wondering if we are not giving too much weight to HLM than it should be and doing for it a free promotion! honestly, I was not in favour of the ICANN strategic panels since they are not bottom-up, formed by handpicked members and bypassing the usual process. I found now that we want badly to be in that high level panel and making it relevant and maybe even giving it a big role for Brazil meeting! hope that we wont regret such decision later. we can ask for giving inputs, openness etc but that will be definitely depending to the will ICANN/WEF/Anneberg Foundation and there won't be any guarantee on how they process the inputs or how it will be included in their deliverable. everything is ad-hoc there and any decision will depend to the will of the organisers. why shall we encourage such process? Back to the previous discussion, Bill was invited as expert and the name of panel is not "an expert group" , I don't see the confusion here. Rafik 2013/12/10 Marilia Maciel > Milton is right about the (lack of) process. On the one hand, it is > positive that we have someone we trust there. On the other hand, it does > seem that they are including who they want and how they want, totally > disregarding the serious process we have been conducting to appoint names. > > I think that a letter signed by all organizations that participated in the > nomination process should be sent to ICANN and ideally read during the > meeting, expressing our frustration and adding some concrete suggestions. I > come back to the points I made earlier: > - the agenda of the HL panel meetings should be publicized in advance > - channels to receive inputs (procedural or substantive) should be created > or clarified > - their meetings should be open to observers (like the meetings of the > CSTD ECWG) > - Reports of the meetings should be published. They could follow Chatam > House rules > And > - CS representatives (names), who were appointed following an internal and > legitimate process carried out by CS, should be immediately included in the > HL panel to ensure minimum CS representation. > > Marília > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> > The distinction between Bill's appointment as an expert and the CS >> > groups' nomination of people to be on the committee is not so clear >> > to me, and we cannot assume that it is clear to Fadi, especially >> > since the London meeting of the group starts in two days. Either one >> > could be seen as Fadi making a concession to CS demands to be >> > included in the HLLM, and he may consider one to be a substitute for >> > the other. At this stage, I would assume that if there is no >> > appointment of another CS rep to the HL Panel by now, that there will >> > not be one at all, and Bill is all we will be given. The fact that >> > Bill's appointment came from a random F2F hallway meeting isn't >> > something that inspires confidence, is it? >> >> +1 >> >> Especially given that there was in fact a coordinated civil society >> process through which names have been put forward. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > *Marília Maciel* > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue Dec 10 09:11:13 2013 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 12:11:13 -0200 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3d6e6d1c-671c-4269-9c37-a2a4742cf0b9@email.android.com> <9A696999-3990-42C6-89ED-808188B5BE75@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2578F49@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131210113509.71808d4b@quill> Message-ID: Hi Rafik, in the diplomatic world, I think this panel is likely to have some weight, wether we like it or not. It is not CS's attention to the panel (or lack of it) that will make a huge difference, or will be a measure of the importance of this panel to next year's meeting. Once the panel is already created and once we already decided to engage with it when we put together a NomCom (I was personally against the idea of a HL panel too, but this train has left the station), we cannot pretend that this lack of due process is irrelevant or has "nothing to do" with us. That this is ICANN's turf and we should just disregard it. If we chose to give names, we should now go all the way and push for our names to be included, as promised. And we should make noise and re-asses our strategy of engagement if they are not. And again, it is not about Bill personally or the invitation of some experts. This is about not finding the conditions no nominate either name from CS, while finding the time to invite experts of their choosing. Invited experts should go to London and make the best contributions they can. But I think they should also raise the point of the problems of lack of transparency surrounding this meeting. There is no clear information about the agenda or the admission of observers. We would not be complacent with such an opaque process in the UN. Why should be complacent now, when things under discussion are of interest to the wide community as well? Our decision about how much to engage and about the importance and value of this process depends on accountability and transparency. Best Marília On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hello, > > I am wondering if we are not giving too much weight to HLM than it should > be and doing for it a free promotion! honestly, I was not in favour of > the ICANN strategic panels since they are not bottom-up, formed by > handpicked members and bypassing the usual process. I found now that we > want badly to be in that high level panel and making it relevant and maybe > even giving it a big role for Brazil meeting! hope that we wont regret such > decision later. > > we can ask for giving inputs, openness etc but that will be definitely > depending to the will ICANN/WEF/Anneberg Foundation and there won't be any > guarantee on how they process the inputs or how it will be included in > their deliverable. everything is ad-hoc there and any decision will depend > to the will of the organisers. why shall we encourage such process? > > Back to the previous discussion, Bill was invited as expert and the name > of panel is not "an expert group" , I don't see the confusion here. > > Rafik > > > 2013/12/10 Marilia Maciel > >> Milton is right about the (lack of) process. On the one hand, it is >> positive that we have someone we trust there. On the other hand, it does >> seem that they are including who they want and how they want, totally >> disregarding the serious process we have been conducting to appoint names. >> >> I think that a letter signed by all organizations that participated in >> the nomination process should be sent to ICANN and ideally read during the >> meeting, expressing our frustration and adding some concrete suggestions. I >> come back to the points I made earlier: >> - the agenda of the HL panel meetings should be publicized in advance >> - channels to receive inputs (procedural or substantive) should be >> created or clarified >> - their meetings should be open to observers (like the meetings of the >> CSTD ECWG) >> - Reports of the meetings should be published. They could follow Chatam >> House rules >> And >> - CS representatives (names), who were appointed following an internal >> and legitimate process carried out by CS, should be immediately included in >> the HL panel to ensure minimum CS representation. >> >> Marília >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >>> Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> >>> > The distinction between Bill's appointment as an expert and the CS >>> > groups' nomination of people to be on the committee is not so clear >>> > to me, and we cannot assume that it is clear to Fadi, especially >>> > since the London meeting of the group starts in two days. Either one >>> > could be seen as Fadi making a concession to CS demands to be >>> > included in the HLLM, and he may consider one to be a substitute for >>> > the other. At this stage, I would assume that if there is no >>> > appointment of another CS rep to the HL Panel by now, that there will >>> > not be one at all, and Bill is all we will be given. The fact that >>> > Bill's appointment came from a random F2F hallway meeting isn't >>> > something that inspires confidence, is it? >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> Especially given that there was in fact a coordinated civil society >>> process through which names have been put forward. >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Norbert >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> *Marília Maciel* >> Pesquisadora Gestora >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >> >> Researcher and Coordinator >> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >> >> DiploFoundation associate >> www.diplomacy.edu >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Dec 10 09:25:16 2013 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 23:25:16 +0900 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3d6e6d1c-671c-4269-9c37-a2a4742cf0b9@email.android.com> <9A696999-3990-42C6-89ED-808188B5BE75@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2578F49@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131210113509.71808d4b@quill> Message-ID: Hi Marilia, 2013/12/10 Marilia Maciel > Hi Rafik, in the diplomatic world, I think this panel is likely to have > some weight, wether we like it or not. It is not CS's attention to the > panel (or lack of it) that will make a huge difference, or will be a > measure of the importance of this panel to next year's meeting. > > which diplomatic world are we talking about? some people already made comparison here to WEF to the global agenda council on internet http://www.weforum.org/content/global-agenda-council-future-internet-2012-2014and yet it is not relevant too. giving it weight looks like self-fulfilling prophecy . you gave importance to the panel so to its outcome and so diminishing the importance of direct inputs from the community to brazil conf. Once the panel is already created and once we already decided to engage > with it when we put together a NomCom (I was personally against the idea of > a HL panel too, but this train has left the station), we cannot pretend > that this lack of due process is irrelevant or has "nothing to do" with us. > That this is ICANN's turf and we should just disregard it. If we chose to > give names, we should now go all the way and push for our names to be > included, as promised. And we should make noise and re-asses our strategy > of engagement if they are not. > > well, we decided to play the game because we went in hurry to appoint people, we didn't have time(or we didnt make) to strategize for it and it is too late to complain for sure but we can assess the situation. And again, it is not about Bill personally or the invitation of some > experts. This is about not finding the conditions no nominate either name > from CS, while finding the time to invite experts of their choosing. > Invited experts should go to London and make the best contributions they > can. But I think they should also raise the point of the problems of lack > of transparency surrounding this meeting. > yes we can raise the issue. but like other who experienced that before, we will hear just a sorry . > There is no clear information about the agenda or the admission of > observers. We would not be complacent with such an opaque process in the > UN. Why should be complacent now, when things under discussion are of > interest to the wide community as well? Our decision about how much to > engage and about the importance and value of this process depends on > accountability and transparency. > lesson to learn, never run to engage when you don't have any minimal guarantee about openness because it will be always too late to ask for that after you join . anyway, we can ask for having the two representatives from CS there and about openness. something we didn't discuss how our representative will "represent" us there and work to carry a community PoV in such panel? Best, Rafik > Best > Marília > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I am wondering if we are not giving too much weight to HLM than it should >> be and doing for it a free promotion! honestly, I was not in favour of >> the ICANN strategic panels since they are not bottom-up, formed by >> handpicked members and bypassing the usual process. I found now that we >> want badly to be in that high level panel and making it relevant and maybe >> even giving it a big role for Brazil meeting! hope that we wont regret such >> decision later. >> >> we can ask for giving inputs, openness etc but that will be definitely >> depending to the will ICANN/WEF/Anneberg Foundation and there won't be any >> guarantee on how they process the inputs or how it will be included in >> their deliverable. everything is ad-hoc there and any decision will depend >> to the will of the organisers. why shall we encourage such process? >> >> Back to the previous discussion, Bill was invited as expert and the name >> of panel is not "an expert group" , I don't see the confusion here. >> >> Rafik >> >> >> 2013/12/10 Marilia Maciel >> >>> Milton is right about the (lack of) process. On the one hand, it is >>> positive that we have someone we trust there. On the other hand, it does >>> seem that they are including who they want and how they want, totally >>> disregarding the serious process we have been conducting to appoint names. >>> >>> I think that a letter signed by all organizations that participated in >>> the nomination process should be sent to ICANN and ideally read during the >>> meeting, expressing our frustration and adding some concrete suggestions. I >>> come back to the points I made earlier: >>> - the agenda of the HL panel meetings should be publicized in advance >>> - channels to receive inputs (procedural or substantive) should be >>> created or clarified >>> - their meetings should be open to observers (like the meetings of the >>> CSTD ECWG) >>> - Reports of the meetings should be published. They could follow Chatam >>> House rules >>> And >>> - CS representatives (names), who were appointed following an internal >>> and legitimate process carried out by CS, should be immediately included in >>> the HL panel to ensure minimum CS representation. >>> >>> Marília >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> >>>> Milton L Mueller wrote: >>>> >>>> > The distinction between Bill's appointment as an expert and the CS >>>> > groups' nomination of people to be on the committee is not so clear >>>> > to me, and we cannot assume that it is clear to Fadi, especially >>>> > since the London meeting of the group starts in two days. Either one >>>> > could be seen as Fadi making a concession to CS demands to be >>>> > included in the HLLM, and he may consider one to be a substitute for >>>> > the other. At this stage, I would assume that if there is no >>>> > appointment of another CS rep to the HL Panel by now, that there will >>>> > not be one at all, and Bill is all we will be given. The fact that >>>> > Bill's appointment came from a random F2F hallway meeting isn't >>>> > something that inspires confidence, is it? >>>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> Especially given that there was in fact a coordinated civil society >>>> process through which names have been put forward. >>>> >>>> Greetings, >>>> Norbert >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *Marília Maciel* >>> Pesquisadora Gestora >>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >>> >>> Researcher and Coordinator >>> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >>> >>> DiploFoundation associate >>> www.diplomacy.edu >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >> > > > -- > *Marília Maciel* > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From william.drake at uzh.ch Tue Dec 10 09:39:48 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 15:39:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2578F49@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3d6e6d1c-671c-4269-9c37-a2a4742cf0b9@email.android.com>,<9A696999-3990-42C6-89ED-808188B5BE75@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2578F49@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Dec 10, 2013, at 7:24 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > The distinction between Bill's appointment as an expert and the CS groups' nomination of people to be on the committee is not so clear to me, Well, don’t let that stop you. It is however crystal clear to me, to ICANN, to the HLP, and to everyone else involved. For the third time Milton, I was invited as an “expert” advisor to “speak to” the group. I am NOT a member of the group. I am NOT the CS representative to the group. In fact, as far as I know, there are no representatives to the group. That’s what business was complaining about in Buenos Aires. The registries don’t have a representative. The registrars don’t have a representative. The intellectual property constituency doesn’t have a representative. The ISP constituency doesn’t have a representative. And so on. I have no idea how they may be dealing with that now, but I’m guessing it’s not in the same manner. More to the point, I’ve been told of others who were were similarly invited as speakers, at least three of whom are subscribed to these lists. I don’t know if they have accepted or not, as they have not been stupid enough to mention it here. Should they do so, I look forward to you explaining their status to them in the same manner. > and we cannot assume that it is clear to Fadi, You are saying he lacks the clarity to understand the difference between the panelists and the speakers to the panelists? And yet you demand that he appoint you as a panelist, right? > especially since the London meeting of the group starts in two days. Either one could be seen as Fadi making a concession to CS demands to be included in the HLLM, and he may consider one to be a substitute for the other. Yes, the only possible explanation for my being invited to speak about Internet governance is that a concession is being made to “CS demands". > At this stage, I would assume that if there is no appointment of another CS rep to the HL Panel by now, that there will not be one at all, Given how you are playing this, that may well prove true. If it does, please take it up with Fadi and leave me out of it. > and Bill is all we will be given. I am not being given to anyone. > The fact that Bill's appointment came from a random F2F hallway meeting isn't something that inspires confidence, is it? I am unaware of any random F2F hallway meeting. I have never met the person who wrote to invite me. > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of William Drake [william.drake at uzh.ch] > Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 2:50 PM > To: Avri Doria > Cc: Governance; Best Bits > Subject: Re: Re: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps > > Hi > > Thanks, Avri. Milton I told you about this F2F in Bern the other day and said it again in the message to which you replied, so I’m not sure what the disconnect is. Read it again? No relation to the process you mention. > > Cheers > > Bill > > > > On Dec 9, 2013, at 5:58 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> As i understood it, he has not been appointed to the HLLN, but rather that they have approached him as an expert, which he is, on many things. >> >> These are very different things. >> ~~~ >> avri >> >> Milton L Mueller wrote: >> Let me be indelicate enough to raise an issue that probably no one wants to deal with but needs to be raised. And despite certain appearances, it is not a personal interest here but a process one. >> >> >> The IGC, and several other groups, worked together to forward two recommended names to the President of ICANN. >> >> >> >> >> >> Congrats to some extent on being appointed to this HLLM, but your name was not on that CS-provided list, Bill. At this stage of the game I am certainly not suggesting that you turn it down, but one does want to know what kind of a process we are in and what kind of criteria are being applied? >> >> >> >> >> >> Other people are asking us for recommended lists of names for various positions. Aside from the usual junk associated with people positioning for these things, we need to assess the good faith and cooperative spirit of those who are making these requests. To put a finer point on it, what are the implications of CS being asked to provide recommended names, providing them, and then having a completely different name selected? >> >> >> >> >> >> I know it’s an uncomfortable topic but I think we’d have to be self-delusional not to discuss it. >> >> >> >> >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of William Drake >> Sent: Monday, December 9, 2013 4:57 AM >> To: Governance; Adam Peake >> Cc: McTim McTim; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Best Bits >> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps >> >> >> >> >> Hello >> >> >> >> I’ve mentioned this to a couple people privately and should probably state publicly as well that I will be participating in the High Level Panel process as an “expert” advisor, e.g. in London I’ll be giving a talk about the nature of IG, running a break out session, etc. I believe there may be a couple other people from other SGs similarly appointed, TBC. I don’t know how they intend to deal with the request for a CS “representative” panel member, but understand nothing will happen in time for the London meeting. >> >> >> >> I have suggested publicly announcing the agenda and providing options for people to provide written inputs, we’ll see what happens. The London meeting is in four days and there’s a lot late rushing around to pull it together, so it’s a bit difficult to predict exactly how everything will play out. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Bill >> >> >> >> ********************************************************** >> William J. Drake >> International Fellow & Lecturer >> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >> University of Zurich, Switzerland >> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, >> ICANN, www.ncuc.org >> william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), >> >> >> www.williamdrake.org >> *********************************************************** >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Dec 9, 2013, at 3:27 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Dec 8, 2013, at 11:34 PM, McTim wrote: >> >> >> >> cc list trimmed to only one list. >> >> /transcript-president-opening-18nov13-en.pdf >> >> "USC, University of Southern California-Annenberg Foundation as well >> as the World Economic Forum, the WEF, have partnered with us so we >> ensure that this panel has some level of independency and is functioning >> on a broader scale globally" >> >> >> >> >> >> WEF >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:49 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> >> >> Thanks for this Ian, could someone please explain to me what is meant by >> this fifth panel as more independent (in partnership with two other >> organizations.. Is he referring to Inet here? Who are the other two >> organizations? >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Ian Peter >> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:34 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Adam Peake >> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps >> >> >> >> Hi Adam, >> >> >> >> Because it would be inappropriate I am deliberately not taking on a role of >> coordinating back to various networks as that is what the various reps >> should do. But here is the reply from Fadi to Robin (copied to the reps >> earlier). >> >> >> >> Hello Robin, >> >> >> >> I hope you had a good thanksgiving holiday. I took several days off and >> regained a lot of energy after our busy week in Buenos Aires. I just got >> back and ready for the next phase of work. >> >> >> >> As I noted below and in Buenos Aires, we were never in a position to grow >> the panel any further. In BA, however, after the panel was announced, we >> made a final commitment to add only one panelist from the cc community, and >> only one more from civil society -- understanding the need for broader >> participation. Byron Holland from the cc community agreed to serve while in >> Buenos Aires. >> >> >> >> At this stage, and now that we have established this fifth panel as more >> independent (in partnership with two other organizations), I will need to >> confer with our partners on your request, as well as with the Chairman of >> the panel. I predict that they will be sensitive to diversity. >> >> >> >> I cannot meet with the chairman until next week on Wednesday. I will keep >> you posted. It may be a little late for London but rest assured that Frank >> La Rue, Lynn St. Amour, and myself will have our communities interests very >> vigilantly on top of our agendas. >> >> >> >> Fadi >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Adam Peake >> >> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:03 PM >> >> To: Ian Peter >> >> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> >> Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps >> >> >> >> Hi Ian, >> >> >> >> Any reply to the CS coalition's recommendations? The high level panel is >> due to meet December 12-13 (London), a week from now. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Nov 30, 2013, at 5:50 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Please find a letter just send to Fadi Chehade under my signatory as >> >> >> >> >> an independent facilitator as regards civil society representation at >> >> >> >> >> this meeting in two weeks time. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Let me be the first to admit the process was imperfect, the result was >> >> >> >> >> imperfect. But so was the task we were given, the timeframe, the >> >> >> >> >> people involved in making the decision, and the facilitation process. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I can only say that there was widespread agreement we should submit >> >> >> >> >> names, and for the names submitted. And that doing and saying nothing >> >> >> >> >> would have been the alternative in this timeframe. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 29 November 2013 >> >> >> >> >> RE: Civil Society Representation on High Level Panel in London >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Dear Fadi and Nora: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I am writing to you following from discussions held by a coalition of >> >> >> >> >> representatives of the civil society networks most involved in >> >> >> >> >> Internet governance deliberations, we appreciate your willingness to >> >> >> >> >> engage civil society in discussions regarding the future of Internet >> >> >> >> >> governance. We also appreciate your recognition that civil society is >> >> >> >> >> under-represented on your High Level Panel and your willingness to >> >> >> >> >> accept additional civil society participants to this panel to provide >> >> >> >> >> more balance. >> >> >> >> >> After consultations with our networks, we propose adding the following >> >> >> >> >> 2 civil society representatives to begin to balance against the much >> >> >> >> >> larger numbers from government, the private sector, and technical >> >> >> >> >> representatives placed on the initial panel. >> >> >> >> >> Civil society’s two nominated representatives for the London High >> >> >> >> >> Level Panel are: >> >> >> >> >> 1. Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org) 2. Milton Mueller >> >> >> >> >> (mueller at syr.edu) Would you please kindly confirm your acceptance of >> >> >> >> >> these names, and contact our representatives directly to arrange their >> >> >> >> >> participation? >> >> >> >> >> We also strongly recommend the involvement of Jovan Kurbalija of the >> >> >> >> >> Diplo Foundation as a highly experienced and knowledgeable >> >> >> >> >> facilitator. >> >> >> >> >> We trust that in future we will be able to look at much more equitable >> >> >> >> >> representation of civil society in such panels and committees. >> >> >> >> >> Persons involved with these deliberations and choice of names from >> >> >> >> >> various civil society networks were: >> >> >> >> >> Virginia Paque, Diplo Foundation >> >> >> >> >> Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications (APC) >> >> >> >> >> Robin Gross, ICANN's Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) Norbert >> >> >> >> >> Bollow and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Internet Governance Caucus >> >> >> >> >> (IGC) >> >> >> >> >> Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits >> >> >> >> >> Signed, >> >> >> >> >> Ian Peter, Independent Facilitator >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ********************************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************************** > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ********************************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tisrael at cippic.ca Sun Dec 1 14:33:39 2013 From: tisrael at cippic.ca (Tamir Israel) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2013 14:33:39 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC In-Reply-To: <529B5D0B.2040304@itforchange.net> References: <528A37DC.1030908@apc.org> <528B71FB.2090504@itforchange.net> <528DF07A.204@itforchange.net> <528E12DB.3030902@itforchange.net> <5291F450.9040908@itforchange.net> <8841C2DC-64D3-4FA5-AAC0-8186478B5BCF@glocom.ac.jp> <52741740-24C3-477B-9BDC-A5BBA60ADCDC@glocom.ac.jp> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133225A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>, <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574406@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <529B5D0B.2040304@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <529B8F13.4010506@cippic.ca> That's right Parminder. To be really precise, what CSISAC was willing to live with was the principles themselves: 1. Promote and protect the global free flow of information; 2. Promote the open, distributed and interconnected nature of the Internet; 3. Promote investment and competition in high speed networks and services; 4. Promote and enable the cross-border delivery of services; 5. Encourage multi-stakeholder co-operation in policy development processes; 6. Foster voluntarily developed codes of conduct; 7. Develop capacities to bring publicly available, reliable data into the policy-making process; 8. Ensure transparency, fair process, and accountability; 9. Strengthen consistency and effectiveness in privacy protection at a global level; 10. Maximise individual empowerment; 11. Promote creativity and innovation; 12. Limit Internet intermediary liability; 13. Encourage co-operation to promote Internet security; 14. Give appropriate priority to enforcement efforts. which are relatively harmless as extremely high level statements. What CSISAC rejected was the more detailed explanation of how they are to be applied. There were many problems with the way the principles were intended to be applied, relating mostly to intermediary liability and IPR enforcement. Best, Tamir On 12/1/2013 11:00 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Sunday 01 December 2013 08:51 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> Here is a factual account of what happened >> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2011/06/28/civil-society-defects-from-oecd-internet-policy-principles/ > > One really wonders why we are not able to settle something which is a > simple matter of fact.... Yes, civil society groups did not initially > sign these principles but later signed a latter version . > > In Dec 2013, if someone says, 'OCED's Internet policy making > principles', what is meant is the final version issues by the OECD > Council, and *not* the initial communiqué which in effect is > superseded by the Council document. And civil society groups did sign > the latter Council document .... > http://csisac.org/2011/12/oecd_principles_internet_policy.php > > That is all that was asserted in the first instance by me which has > got this long thread running... > > parminder > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* sama.digitalpolicy at gmail.com [sama.digitalpolicy at gmail.com] >> on behalf of Andrea Glorioso [andrea at digitalpolicy.it] >> *Sent:* Sunday, November 24, 2013 12:55 PM >> *To:* Kleinwächter, Wolfgang >> *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Adam Peake; Andrea Glorioso; >> parminder; Dixie Hawtin; Andrew Puddephatt; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> *Subject:* [governance] Re: [bestbits] Proposal by the Government of >> India to the WGEC >> >> To be clear: my understanding is that the statement that CSOs >> did endorse a set of principles produced within the OECD was >> challenged. It seems to me - and, unless I misinterpret the relevant >> messages, confirmed inter alia by Jeremy and Wolfgang - that a number >> of CSOs did indeed endorse a set of OECD principles which was >> acceptable to them. >> >> Again if I understand correctly, the point was not on the substance >> of such principles but on the legitimacy of policy-making done within >> "restricted" environments, especially when such principles / >> policies have ambitions of broader adoption; as well as, relatedly, >> on the approach to be taken towards broader settings. >> >> Please note that I'm not taking a position either on the OECD >> principles or on the related debate re: broader settings. >> >> P.S. I would not be so sure that people outside of the rather small >> IG circle (which are, according to some, stakeholders as well) are so >> clear on the details of who signed what, when and for which reason. >> >> On Sunday, November 24, 2013, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >> >> Again: The two principles which did not get a CISAC endorsement >> was IPR and intermediarities. The opposition of CISAC to the two >> principles was ere outspoken but ignored by an article in the >> Washington Post by David Weitzer. This was corrected later when >> CISAC reconfirmed that it had its own position and did not change >> it. In contrary, as the statement - re-distributed by Andrea - >> says clearly, CISAC expected a continuation of the debate around >> the two controvrsial principles with the aim to improve the >> lanague and to make it acceptable to civil society. This OECD >> debate did influence also the final stage of the elaboration of >> the Council of Europe principles - which was negotiated in >> parallel. In the COE we avoided controversial OECD language and >> got the full endorsement by all parties. >> >> w >> >> >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> im Auftrag von Adam Peake >> Gesendet: So 24.11.2013 15:07 >> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Andrea >> Glorioso >> Cc: parminder; Dixie Hawtin; Andrew Puddephatt; >> <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >, >> Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Proposal by the >> Government of India to the WGEC >> >> I think we know what was endorsed and what wasn't. Please, just >> read the documents, it's pretty clear. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> On Nov 24, 2013, at 10:51 PM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: >> >> > As far as I understood when I used to follow this process, >> CSISAC did support a modified version of these principles. I'm >> happy to stand corrected by those who know more. >> > >> > http://csisac.org/2011/12/oecd_principles_internet_policy.php >> > >> > CSISAC Welcomes OECD Recommendation on Principles for Internet >> Policy Making >> > In a press release published on 19 December 2011, the CSISAC >> welcomes the Recommendation on Principles for Internet Policy >> Making adoped by the OECD Council on 13 December 2011, which >> reaffirms OECD commitment to a free, open and inclusive Internet. >> > >> > Most critically, this Recommendation envisions a collaborative >> decision-making process that is inclusive of civil society issues >> and concerns, such as those expressed by CSISAC when it declined >> to support a previous Communique resulting from the OECD High >> Level Meeting of June 2011. >> > >> > CSISAC looks forward to working with the OECD in order to >> develop the Principles itemized in the December Recommendation in >> greater detail and in a manner that promotes openness, is >> grounded in respect for human rights and the rule of law, and >> strengthens the capacity to improve the quality of life for all >> citizens. >> > >> > >> > On Sunday, November 24, 2013, Adam Peake wrote: >> > >> > On Nov 24, 2013, at 9:42 PM, parminder wrote: >> > >> > > >> > > On Thursday 21 November 2013 10:54 PM, Dixie Hawtin wrote: >> > >> I've never ever entered these debates before either, but I >> want to add my 2 cents too! >> > >> >> > >> On the OECD principles - CSISAC did not endorse the >> principles, on the basis of the intellectual property rights >> provision. >> > >> >> > > >> > > This is not true, Dixie. CSISAC did endorse them. >> > > >> > >> > >> > No Parminder, you're wrong. Civil society (CSISAC: Civil >> Society Information Society Advisory Council) did not endorse the >> OECD principles on Internet policy making (June 2011 >> ) Read the >> document. >> > >> > No point in any further discussion, the document is what it is. >> > >> > Adam >> > >> > >> > >> > > However, I have stayed away from discussing the substantive >> merit of the outcomes of OECD kind of 'global' public policy >> processes. I only spoke about their procedural aspects - like >> inclusiveness, multistakeholder versus multilateral, etc . That >> these processes >> > > >> > > 1. do not involve all countries/ governments, and >> > > 2. are no less multilateral, and no more multistakeholder , >> than some of the proposed UN based Internet policy fora, like >> India's CIRP proposal. >> > > >> > > And the fact that civil society seems never to bother with >> this particular problem of global Internet governance. As for >> instance we are fond of regularly writing to ITU about its >> processes, and have even started to speak against proposed WSIS + >> 10, which is supposed to follow WSIS model which was one of the >> most participatory of processes that I have ever seen. >> > > >> > > Can you show me an instance where we have addressed the above >> problem of global governance - something which is a constant >> refrain in most discussions of global governance in the South . >> How can we simply dismiss this concern. >> > > >> > > Ok, to make it topical: The mandate of OCED's CCICP (OECD's >> Internet policy organ) is up for renewal sometime now ( I think >> it is supposed to be this December). As they renew their mandate, >> I propose that we write to them, that >> > > >> > > 1. CCICP should seek "full and equal' engagement with UN and >> other regional bodies on Internet policy issues that really have >> implications across the globe, to ensure global democracy. >> > > 2. CCICP should never seek to post facto push their policy >> frameworks on other countries - if they indeed think/ know that >> a particular Internet policy issue is of a global dimension they >> should from the start itself take it up at a global forum and >> accordingly develop policies regarding it . >> > > 3. CCICP should be made fully multistakeholder on the same >> principles of multistakeholderism that OECD countries seek for >> global Internet policy related bodies. In this regard, OECD >> should clearly specify the role of different stakeholders in >> terms of Internet policy making by OECD/ CCICP, and whether they >> are same or different than what they > >> Development House, >> 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT >> > >> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: >> andrewpuddephatt >> > >> gp-digital.org >> > >> >> > >> From: parminder [ >> > >> mailto:parminder at itforchange.net >> > >> ] >> > >> Sent: 21 November 2013 11:38 >> > >> To: Andrew Puddephatt >> > >> Cc: >> > >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; >> <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> >> > >> , >> > >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the >> Government of India to the WGEC >> > >> >> > >> Andrew >> > >> >> > >> I have a strong feeling that you asking me to shut up, and I >> am not quite sure that is a good thing to do. >> > >> >> > >> Many here in the last few weeks posted their views on the >> proceedings of the WGEC, triggering a very legitimate and needed >> debate. Some of them directly referred by name to positions >> presented by me/ my organisation which is also quite fair >> because we are all in a public space and people need to be able >> to say whatever they want to (apart from some obnoxious personal >> comments by Adam which is where I think IGC and BB group >> responsibility-holders should be focussing; which they >> regrettably have let pass.) What I cant understand is why in your >> view should I not be able to present and defend my views, the >> below being my very first email on the issue. >> > >> >> > >> my responses below... >> > >> On Tuesday 19 November 2013 08:37 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: >> > >> >> > >> I don't normally respond to these discussions but >> occasionally I feel >> > >> >> > >> I think one should enter a debate with enough respect for >> those who are engaging in it.... >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ >> > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > > >> > > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > > >> > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > >> > -- >> > I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with >> myself. Keep it in mind. >> > Twitter: @andreaglorioso >> > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso >> > LinkedIn: >> http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.go >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> -- >> I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. >> Keep it in mind. >> Twitter: @andreaglorioso >> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso >> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 488 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From gpaque at gmail.com Tue Dec 10 10:13:35 2013 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 09:13:35 -0600 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3d6e6d1c-671c-4269-9c37-a2a4742cf0b9@email.android.com> <9A696999-3990-42C6-89ED-808188B5BE75@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2578F49@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: I think this is an important discussion, as a healthy part of our transparency process. In particular, we must learn how to institutionalize CS inclusion. I certainly don't think we can boycott meetings--removing ourselves from the very spaces we need to increase our engagement. In this case, DiploFoundation was also invited to be an observer at the HLM. After serious discussion, we have decided it is important to have someone attend. If possible, (travel arrangements, etc.) Vlada Radunovic will attend (as an observer), and will report back to the IGC/CS. I am sharing this prematurely, in the interests of that same transparency, and to add detail/substance to Bill's point. Thanks for sharing your attendance, Bill. I am sure you can take the flak :) Ginger Ginger (Virginia) Paque IG Programmes, DiploFoundation *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses * On 10 December 2013 08:39, William Drake wrote: > > On Dec 10, 2013, at 7:24 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > The distinction between Bill's appointment as an expert and the CS > groups' nomination of people to be on the committee is not so clear to me, > > > Well, don’t let that stop you. It is however crystal clear to me, to > ICANN, to the HLP, and to everyone else involved. For the third time > Milton, I was invited as an “expert” advisor to “speak to” the group. I am > NOT a member of the group. I am NOT the CS representative to the group. > In fact, as far as I know, there are no representatives to the group. > That’s what business was complaining about in Buenos Aires. The > registries don’t have a representative. The registrars don’t have a > representative. The intellectual property constituency doesn’t have a > representative. The ISP constituency doesn’t have a representative. And > so on. I have no idea how they may be dealing with that now, but I’m > guessing it’s not in the same manner. > > More to the point, I’ve been told of others who were were similarly > invited as speakers, at least three of whom are subscribed to these lists. > I don’t know if they have accepted or not, as they have not been stupid > enough to mention it here. Should they do so, I look forward to you > explaining their status to them in the same manner. > > and we cannot assume that it is clear to Fadi, > > > You are saying he lacks the clarity to understand the difference between > the panelists and the speakers to the panelists? And yet you demand that > he appoint you as a panelist, right? > > especially since the London meeting of the group starts in two > days. Either one could be seen as Fadi making a concession to CS demands > to be included in the HLLM, and he may consider one to be a substitute > for the other. > > > Yes, the only possible explanation for my being invited to speak about > Internet governance is that a concession is being made to “CS demands". > > At this stage, I would assume that if there is no appointment of another > CS rep to the HL Panel by now, that there will not be one at all, > > > Given how you are playing this, that may well prove true. If it does, > please take it up with Fadi and leave me out of it. > > and Bill is all we will be given. > > > I am not being given to anyone. > > The fact that Bill's appointment came from a random F2F hallway meeting > isn't something that inspires confidence, is it? > > > I am unaware of any random F2F hallway meeting. I have never met the > person who wrote to invite me. > > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of William Drake [ > william.drake at uzh.ch] > *Sent:* Monday, December 09, 2013 2:50 PM > *To:* Avri Doria > *Cc:* Governance; Best Bits > *Subject:* Re: Re: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps > > Hi > > Thanks, Avri. Milton I told you about this F2F in Bern the other day and > said it again in the message to which you replied, so I’m not sure what the > disconnect is. Read it again? No relation to the process you mention. > > Cheers > > Bill > > > > On Dec 9, 2013, at 5:58 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > As i understood it, he has not been appointed to the HLLN, but rather that > they have approached him as an expert, which he is, on many things. > > These are very different things. > ~~~ > avri > > Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> Let me be indelicate enough to raise an issue that probably no one wants >> to deal with but needs to be raised. And despite certain appearances, it is >> not a personal interest here but a process one. >> >> >> The IGC, and several other groups, worked together to forward two >> recommended names to the President of ICANN. >> >> >> >> >> >> Congrats to some extent on being appointed to this HLLM, but your name >> was not on that CS-provided list, Bill. At this stage of the game I am >> certainly not suggesting that you turn it down, but one does want to know >> what kind of a process we are in and what kind of criteria are being >> applied? >> >> >> >> >> >> Other people are asking us for recommended lists of names for various >> positions. Aside from the usual junk associated with people positioning for >> these things, we need to assess the good faith and cooperative spirit of >> those who are making these requests. To put a finer point on it, what are >> the implications of CS being asked to provide recommended names, providing >> them, and then having a completely different name selected? >> >> >> >> >> >> I know it’s an uncomfortable topic but I think we’d have to be >> self-delusional not to discuss it. >> >> >> >> >> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ >> mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> ] *On Behalf Of *William Drake >> *Sent:* Monday, December 9, 2013 4:57 AM >> *To:* Governance; Adam Peake >> *Cc:* McTim McTim; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Best Bits >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps >> >> >> >> >> Hello >> >> >> >> I’ve mentioned this to a couple people privately and should probably >> state publicly as well that I will be participating in the High Level Panel >> process as an “expert” advisor, e.g. in London I’ll be giving a talk about >> the nature of IG, running a break out session, etc. I believe there may be >> a couple other people from other SGs similarly appointed, TBC. I don’t >> know how they intend to deal with the request for a CS “representative” >> panel member, but understand nothing will happen in time for the London >> meeting. >> >> >> >> I have suggested publicly announcing the agenda and providing options for >> people to provide written inputs, we’ll see what happens. The London >> meeting is in four days and there’s a lot late rushing around to pull it >> together, so it’s a bit difficult to predict exactly how everything will >> play out. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Bill >> >> >> >> ********************************************************** >> William J. Drake >> International Fellow & Lecturer >> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >> University of Zurich, Switzerland >> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, >> ICANN, www.ncuc.org >> william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), >> >> >> www.williamdrake.org >> *********************************************************** >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Dec 9, 2013, at 3:27 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Dec 8, 2013, at 11:34 PM, McTim wrote: >> >> >> >> cc list trimmed to only one list. >> >> /transcript-president-opening-18nov13-en.pdf >> >> "USC, University of Southern California-Annenberg Foundation as well >> as the World Economic Forum, the WEF, have partnered with us so we >> ensure that this panel has some level of independency and is functioning >> on a broader scale globally" >> >> >> >> >> WEF < >> http://www.weforum.org/content/global-agenda-council-future-internet-2012-2014 >> > >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:49 PM, michael gurstein >> wrote: >> >> >> Thanks for this Ian, could someone please explain to me what is meant by >> this fifth panel as more independent (in partnership with two other >> organizations.. Is he referring to Inet here? Who are the other two >> organizations? >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] >> On Behalf Of Ian Peter >> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:34 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Adam Peake >> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps >> >> >> >> Hi Adam, >> >> >> >> Because it would be inappropriate I am deliberately not taking on a role >> of >> coordinating back to various networks as that is what the various reps >> should do. But here is the reply from Fadi to Robin (copied to the reps >> earlier). >> >> >> >> Hello Robin, >> >> >> >> I hope you had a good thanksgiving holiday. I took several days off and >> regained a lot of energy after our busy week in Buenos Aires. I just got >> back and ready for the next phase of work. >> >> >> >> As I noted below and in Buenos Aires, we were never in a position to grow >> the panel any further. In BA, however, after the panel was announced, we >> made a final commitment to add only one panelist from the cc community, >> and >> only one more from civil society -- understanding the need for broader >> participation. Byron Holland from the cc community agreed to serve while >> in >> Buenos Aires. >> >> >> >> At this stage, and now that we have established this fifth panel as more >> independent (in partnership with two other organizations), I will need to >> confer with our partners on your request, as well as with the Chairman of >> the panel. I predict that they will be sensitive to diversity. >> >> >> >> I cannot meet with the chairman until next week on Wednesday. I will keep >> you posted. It may be a little late for London but rest assured that Frank >> La Rue, Lynn St. Amour, and myself will have our communities interests >> very >> vigilantly on top of our agendas. >> >> >> >> Fadi >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Adam Peake >> >> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:03 PM >> >> To: Ian Peter >> >> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> >> Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps >> >> >> >> Hi Ian, >> >> >> >> Any reply to the CS coalition's recommendations? The high level panel is >> due to meet December 12-13 (London), a week from now. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Nov 30, 2013, at 5:50 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Please find a letter just send to Fadi Chehade under my signatory as >> >> >> >> >> an independent facilitator as regards civil society representation at >> >> >> >> >> this meeting in two weeks time. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Let me be the first to admit the process was imperfect, the result was >> >> >> >> >> imperfect. But so was the task we were given, the timeframe, the >> >> >> >> >> people involved in making the decision, and the facilitation process. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I can only say that there was widespread agreement we should submit >> >> >> >> >> names, and for the names submitted. And that doing and saying nothing >> >> >> >> >> would have been the alternative in this timeframe. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 29 November 2013 >> >> >> >> >> RE: Civil Society Representation on High Level Panel in London >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Dear Fadi and Nora: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I am writing to you following from discussions held by a coalition of >> >> >> >> >> representatives of the civil society networks most involved in >> >> >> >> >> Internet governance deliberations, we appreciate your willingness to >> >> >> >> >> engage civil society in discussions regarding the future of Internet >> >> >> >> >> governance. We also appreciate your recognition that civil society is >> >> >> >> >> under-represented on your High Level Panel and your willingness to >> >> >> >> >> accept additional civil society participants to this panel to provide >> >> >> >> >> more balance. >> >> >> >> >> After consultations with our networks, we propose adding the following >> >> >> >> >> 2 civil society representatives to begin to balance against the much >> >> >> >> >> larger numbers from government, the private sector, and technical >> >> >> >> >> representatives placed on the initial panel. >> >> >> >> >> Civil society’s two nominated representatives for the London High >> >> >> >> >> Level Panel are: >> >> >> >> >> 1. Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org) 2. Milton Mueller >> >> >> >> >> (mueller at syr.edu) Would you please kindly confirm your acceptance of >> >> >> >> >> these names, and contact our representatives directly to arrange their >> >> >> >> >> participation? >> >> >> >> >> We also strongly recommend the involvement of Jovan Kurbalija of the >> >> >> >> >> Diplo Foundation as a highly experienced and knowledgeable >> >> >> >> >> facilitator. >> >> >> >> >> We trust that in future we will be able to look at much more equitable >> >> >> >> >> representation of civil society in such panels and committees. >> >> >> >> >> Persons involved with these deliberations and choice of names from >> >> >> >> >> various civil society networks were: >> >> >> >> >> Virginia Paque, Diplo Foundation >> >> >> >> >> Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications (APC) >> >> >> >> >> Robin Gross, ICANN's Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) Norbert >> >> >> >> >> Bollow and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Internet Governance Caucus >> >> >> >> >> (IGC) >> >> >> >> >> Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits >> >> >> >> >> Signed, >> >> >> >> >> Ian Peter, Independent Facilitator >> >> >> >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ********************************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************************** > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ********************************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************************** > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mishi at softwarefreedom.org Tue Dec 10 10:52:27 2013 From: mishi at softwarefreedom.org (Mishi Choudhary) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:52:27 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Reform surveillance In-Reply-To: References: <7C9F27BE10361942966E4835F365891A77D424C6@A19MAIL.aricle19.org> <52A643C6.1000809@cafonso.ca> <52A6447B.6020801@softwarefreedom.org> Message-ID: <52A738BB.30009@softwarefreedom.org> I agree with Mike that its crucial to reduce the "demand-side" by regulating government access but I think the suppliers of data are not as informed as they should and could be and the companies have more to do at their end. On 12/09/2013 07:10 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) wrote: > Mishi quotes the Times: > > >> "While the Internet companies fight to maintain authority over their >> customers¹ data, their business models depend on collecting the same >> information that the spy agencies want, and they have long cooperated >> with the government to some extent by handing over data in response to >> legal requests. > This statement strikes me as disingenuously oversimplistic on the Times¹s > part ‹ specifically, in saying that the Internet companies are collecting > ³the same information that the spy agencies want.² Yes, the agencies want > the data the companies have, but the companies are gathering data about > consumption and viewing patterns, primarily. What the agencies want is > traffic and association analysis, and they know they can draw inferences > if they have large datasets. > > This may seem like a subtle distinction, but really it¹s not. It¹s like > saying ³I listen to changes in the tone of your voice when you speak to > me, and so does the snooping spy who wiretaps your phone, and therefore, > implicitly, the spy and I are both culpable somehow.² > > What I perceive in all this is an attempt to muddy the issue and > delegitimize the internet companies¹ sincere efforts to build and/or > restore consumer trust. I¹m critical of the companies from time to time > (and there are times when I¹m mostly critical of what all the companies > are doing), but to me the real analysis here is that governments have > opportunistically taken advantage of what the companies have been > gathering, most of the time in good faith, from users. > >> The new principles outlined by the companies contain little information >> and few promises about their own practices, which privacy advocates say >> contribute to the government¹s desire to tap into the companies¹ data >> systems. >> >> ³The companies are placing their users at risk by collecting and >> retaining so much information,² said Marc Rotenberg, president and >> executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a >> nonprofit research and advocacy organization. ³As long as this much >> personal data is collected and kept by these companies, they are always >> going to be the target of government collection efforts.² > I take Marc at his word, as always, but the fact is that if the companies > cut their data gathering in half ‹ or even by a factor of 10 or 100 ‹ > governments will want to engage in bulk collection and interception. The > key approach, in my view, is to try to reduce the demand-side (by > regulating what governments can do) rather conflate it with the supply > side (the fact that commercial enterprises gather data from actual and > potential customers (or for them). > > > ‹Mike, speaking only for myself > > > > > > -- Warm Regards Mishi Choudhary, Esq. Legal Director Software Freedom Law Center 1995 Broadway Floor 17 New York, NY-10023 (tel) 212-461-1912 (fax) 212-580-0898 www.softwarefreedom.org Executive Director SFLC.IN K-9, Second Floor Jangpura Extn. New Delhi-110014 (tel) +91-11-43587126 (fax) +91-11-24323530 www.sflc.in From genekimmelman at gmail.com Tue Dec 10 11:02:18 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 11:02:18 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Reform surveillance Message-ID: <1t8rfqtmbwtcrwynlo30far4.1386691338487@email.android.com> If the supply side insists on personal information for targeted advertising,  isn't that entangled with the data governments seek?  -------- Original message -------- From: Mishi Choudhary Date: 12/10/2013 10:52 AM (GMT-05:00) To: "Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG)" ,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Reform surveillance I agree with Mike that its crucial to reduce the "demand-side" by regulating government access but I think the suppliers of data are not as informed as they should and could be and the companies have more to do at their end. On 12/09/2013 07:10 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) wrote: > Mishi quotes the Times: > > >> "While the Internet companies fight to maintain authority over their >> customers¹ data, their business models depend on collecting the same >> information that the spy agencies want, and they have long cooperated >> with the government to some extent by handing over data in response to >> legal requests. > This statement strikes me as disingenuously oversimplistic on the Times¹s > part ‹ specifically, in saying that the Internet companies are collecting > ³the same information that the spy agencies want.²  Yes, the agencies want > the data the companies have, but the companies are gathering data about > consumption and viewing patterns, primarily. What the agencies want is > traffic and association analysis, and they know they can draw inferences > if they have large datasets. > > This may seem like a subtle distinction, but really it¹s not. It¹s like > saying ³I listen to changes in the tone of your voice when you speak to > me, and so does the snooping spy who wiretaps your phone, and therefore, > implicitly, the spy and I are both culpable somehow.² > > What I perceive in all this is an attempt to muddy the issue and > delegitimize the internet companies¹ sincere efforts to build and/or > restore consumer trust. I¹m critical of the companies from time to time > (and there are times when I¹m mostly critical of what all the companies > are doing), but to me the real analysis here is that governments have > opportunistically taken advantage of what the companies have been > gathering, most of the time in good faith, from users. > >> The new principles outlined by the companies contain little information >> and few promises about their own practices, which privacy advocates say >> contribute to the government¹s desire to tap into the companies¹ data >> systems. >> >> ³The companies are placing their users at risk by collecting and >> retaining so much information,² said Marc Rotenberg, president and >> executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a >> nonprofit research and advocacy organization. ³As long as this much >> personal data is collected and kept by these companies, they are always >> going to be the target of government collection efforts.² > I take Marc at his word, as always, but the fact is that if the companies > cut their data gathering in half ‹ or even by a factor of 10 or 100 ‹ > governments will want to engage in bulk collection and interception. The > key approach, in my view, is to try to reduce the demand-side (by > regulating what governments can do) rather conflate it with the supply > side (the fact that commercial enterprises gather data from actual and > potential customers (or for them). > > > ‹Mike, speaking only for myself > > > > > > -- Warm Regards Mishi Choudhary, Esq. Legal Director Software Freedom Law Center 1995 Broadway Floor 17 New York, NY-10023 (tel) 212-461-1912 (fax) 212-580-0898 www.softwarefreedom.org Executive Director SFLC.IN K-9, Second Floor Jangpura Extn. New Delhi-110014 (tel) +91-11-43587126 (fax) +91-11-24323530 www.sflc.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mishi at softwarefreedom.org Tue Dec 10 11:04:08 2013 From: mishi at softwarefreedom.org (Mishi Choudhary) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 11:04:08 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Reform surveillance In-Reply-To: <1t8rfqtmbwtcrwynlo30far4.1386691338487@email.android.com> References: <1t8rfqtmbwtcrwynlo30far4.1386691338487@email.android.com> Message-ID: <52A73B78.1040609@softwarefreedom.org> Exactly! On 12/10/2013 11:02 AM, genekimmelman at gmail.com wrote: > If the supply side insists on personal information for targeted > advertising, isn't that entangled with the data governments seek? > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Mishi Choudhary > Date: 12/10/2013 10:52 AM (GMT-05:00) > To: "Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG)" > ,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Reform surveillance > > > I agree with Mike that its crucial to reduce the "demand-side" by > regulating government access but I think the suppliers of data are not > as informed as they should and could be and the companies have more to > do at their end. > > > On 12/09/2013 07:10 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) wrote: > > Mishi quotes the Times: > > > > > >> "While the Internet companies fight to maintain authority over their > >> customers¹ data, their business models depend on collecting the same > >> information that the spy agencies want, and they have long cooperated > >> with the government to some extent by handing over data in response to > >> legal requests. > > This statement strikes me as disingenuously oversimplistic on the > Times¹s > > part ‹ specifically, in saying that the Internet companies are > collecting > > ³the same information that the spy agencies want.² Yes, the > agencies want > > the data the companies have, but the companies are gathering data about > > consumption and viewing patterns, primarily. What the agencies want is > > traffic and association analysis, and they know they can draw inferences > > if they have large datasets. > > > > This may seem like a subtle distinction, but really it¹s not. It¹s like > > saying ³I listen to changes in the tone of your voice when you speak to > > me, and so does the snooping spy who wiretaps your phone, and therefore, > > implicitly, the spy and I are both culpable somehow.² > > > > What I perceive in all this is an attempt to muddy the issue and > > delegitimize the internet companies¹ sincere efforts to build and/or > > restore consumer trust. I¹m critical of the companies from time to time > > (and there are times when I¹m mostly critical of what all the companies > > are doing), but to me the real analysis here is that governments have > > opportunistically taken advantage of what the companies have been > > gathering, most of the time in good faith, from users. > > > >> The new principles outlined by the companies contain little information > >> and few promises about their own practices, which privacy advocates say > >> contribute to the government¹s desire to tap into the companies¹ data > >> systems. > >> > >> ³The companies are placing their users at risk by collecting and > >> retaining so much information,² said Marc Rotenberg, president and > >> executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a > >> nonprofit research and advocacy organization. ³As long as this much > >> personal data is collected and kept by these companies, they are always > >> going to be the target of government collection efforts.² > > I take Marc at his word, as always, but the fact is that if the > companies > > cut their data gathering in half ‹ or even by a factor of 10 or 100 ‹ > > governments will want to engage in bulk collection and interception. The > > key approach, in my view, is to try to reduce the demand-side (by > > regulating what governments can do) rather conflate it with the supply > > side (the fact that commercial enterprises gather data from actual and > > potential customers (or for them). > > > > > > ‹Mike, speaking only for myself > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Warm Regards > Mishi Choudhary, Esq. > Legal Director > Software Freedom Law Center > 1995 Broadway Floor 17 > New York, NY-10023 > (tel) 212-461-1912 > (fax) 212-580-0898 > www.softwarefreedom.org > > > Executive Director > SFLC.IN > K-9, Second Floor > Jangpura Extn. > New Delhi-110014 > (tel) +91-11-43587126 > (fax) +91-11-24323530 > www.sflc.in > -- Warm Regards Mishi Choudhary, Esq. Legal Director Software Freedom Law Center 1995 Broadway Floor 17 New York, NY-10023 (tel) 212-461-1912 (fax) 212-580-0898 www.softwarefreedom.org Executive Director SFLC.IN K-9, Second Floor Jangpura Extn. New Delhi-110014 (tel) +91-11-43587126 (fax) +91-11-24323530 www.sflc.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG Tue Dec 10 11:19:58 2013 From: mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG (Mike Godwin (mgodwin@INTERNEWS.ORG)) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 11:19:58 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Reform surveillance In-Reply-To: <1t8rfqtmbwtcrwynlo30far4.1386691338487@email.android.com> References: <1t8rfqtmbwtcrwynlo30far4.1386691338487@email.android.com> Message-ID: Gene and Mishi, I think it means this for some value of “insists,” but this takes us back to the old debate about “opt-in” versus “opt-out.” This does, in fact, remain a really good debate to have — whether, say, Google should require us to sign in for search, or what the default settings of internet services should be. And so on. But, to me, those remain nuanced discussions. Governments engaging in bulk collection of data is not a nuanced issue, in my view — it centers squarely on whether governments should be in the habit of engaging in such activities, especially without transparency and accountability. My priorities are, in this order, (1) get governments out of the unaccountable bulk-collection business, if we can, and (2) have a thorough discussion of what we will allow commercial entities to do with regard to collection of private data. Without saying everyone should share my ordered priorities, I hope it’s clear why I think (1) is the more immediate and urgent problem. Also, I think achievability of public policy relies on disentangling the issues rather than on assuming they’re hopelessly entangled. As I noted earlier, I think we could reduce commercial data-gathering a thousandfold and still not address the fundamental problem of what governments want to do. —Mike -- Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project mgodwin at internews.org | Mobile 415-793-4446 Skype mnemonic1026 Address 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA INTERNEWS | Local Voices. Global Change. www.internews.org | @internews | facebook.com/internews From: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" > Reply-To: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" > Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 at 11:02 AM To: "mishi at softwarefreedom.org" >, Mike Godwin >, "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Reform surveillance If the supply side insists on personal information for targeted advertising, isn't that entangled with the data governments seek? -------- Original message -------- From: Mishi Choudhary > Date: 12/10/2013 10:52 AM (GMT-05:00) To: "Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG)" >,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Reform surveillance I agree with Mike that its crucial to reduce the "demand-side" by regulating government access but I think the suppliers of data are not as informed as they should and could be and the companies have more to do at their end. On 12/09/2013 07:10 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) wrote: > Mishi quotes the Times: > > >> "While the Internet companies fight to maintain authority over their >> customers¹ data, their business models depend on collecting the same >> information that the spy agencies want, and they have long cooperated >> with the government to some extent by handing over data in response to >> legal requests. > This statement strikes me as disingenuously oversimplistic on the Times¹s > part ‹ specifically, in saying that the Internet companies are collecting > ³the same information that the spy agencies want.² Yes, the agencies want > the data the companies have, but the companies are gathering data about > consumption and viewing patterns, primarily. What the agencies want is > traffic and association analysis, and they know they can draw inferences > if they have large datasets. > > This may seem like a subtle distinction, but really it¹s not. It¹s like > saying ³I listen to changes in the tone of your voice when you speak to > me, and so does the snooping spy who wiretaps your phone, and therefore, > implicitly, the spy and I are both culpable somehow.² > > What I perceive in all this is an attempt to muddy the issue and > delegitimize the internet companies¹ sincere efforts to build and/or > restore consumer trust. I¹m critical of the companies from time to time > (and there are times when I¹m mostly critical of what all the companies > are doing), but to me the real analysis here is that governments have > opportunistically taken advantage of what the companies have been > gathering, most of the time in good faith, from users. > >> The new principles outlined by the companies contain little information >> and few promises about their own practices, which privacy advocates say >> contribute to the government¹s desire to tap into the companies¹ data >> systems. >> >> ³The companies are placing their users at risk by collecting and >> retaining so much information,² said Marc Rotenberg, president and >> executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a >> nonprofit research and advocacy organization. ³As long as this much >> personal data is collected and kept by these companies, they are always >> going to be the target of government collection efforts.² > I take Marc at his word, as always, but the fact is that if the companies > cut their data gathering in half ‹ or even by a factor of 10 or 100 ‹ > governments will want to engage in bulk collection and interception. The > key approach, in my view, is to try to reduce the demand-side (by > regulating what governments can do) rather conflate it with the supply > side (the fact that commercial enterprises gather data from actual and > potential customers (or for them). > > > ‹Mike, speaking only for myself > > > > > > -- Warm Regards Mishi Choudhary, Esq. Legal Director Software Freedom Law Center 1995 Broadway Floor 17 New York, NY-10023 (tel) 212-461-1912 (fax) 212-580-0898 www.softwarefreedom.org Executive Director SFLC.IN K-9, Second Floor Jangpura Extn. New Delhi-110014 (tel) +91-11-43587126 (fax) +91-11-24323530 www.sflc.in Click here to report this email as spam. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From genekimmelman at gmail.com Tue Dec 10 11:24:33 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 11:24:33 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Reform surveillance In-Reply-To: References: <1t8rfqtmbwtcrwynlo30far4.1386691338487@email.android.com> Message-ID: Mike, I appreciate your intellectual clarity and segmentation of priorities. However, as a political matter (particularly for non - US citizens), the companies are practically aiding and abetting the governments until THE COMPANIES reform their practices; I therefore think we need to address both problems, even if one is much more significant as a matter of principle. On Dec 10, 2013, at 11:19 AM, "Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG)" wrote: > > Gene and Mishi, I think it means this for some value of “insists,” but this takes us back to the old debate about “opt-in” versus “opt-out.” This does, in fact, remain a really good debate to have — whether, say, Google should require us to sign in for search, or what the default settings of internet services should be. And so on. But, to me, those remain nuanced discussions. Governments engaging in bulk collection of data is not a nuanced issue, in my view — it centers squarely on whether governments should be in the habit of engaging in such activities, especially without transparency and accountability. > > My priorities are, in this order, (1) get governments out of the unaccountable bulk-collection business, if we can, and (2) have a thorough discussion of what we will allow commercial entities to do with regard to collection of private data. Without saying everyone should share my ordered priorities, I hope it’s clear why I think (1) is the more immediate and urgent problem. > > Also, I think achievability of public policy relies on disentangling the issues rather than on assuming they’re hopelessly entangled. As I noted earlier, I think we could reduce commercial data-gathering a thousandfold and still not address the fundamental problem of what governments want to do. > > > —Mike > > > -- > Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project > mgodwin at internews.org | Mobile 415-793-4446 > Skype mnemonic1026 > Address 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA > > INTERNEWS | Local Voices. Global Change. > www.internews.org | @internews | facebook.com/internews > > From: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" > Reply-To: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" > Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 at 11:02 AM > To: "mishi at softwarefreedom.org" , Mike Godwin , "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Reform surveillance > > If the supply side insists on personal information for targeted advertising, isn't that entangled with the data governments seek? > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Mishi Choudhary > Date: 12/10/2013 10:52 AM (GMT-05:00) > To: "Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG)" ,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Reform surveillance > > > I agree with Mike that its crucial to reduce the "demand-side" by > regulating government access but I think the suppliers of data are not > as informed as they should and could be and the companies have more to > do at their end. > > > On 12/09/2013 07:10 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) wrote: > > Mishi quotes the Times: > > > > > >> "While the Internet companies fight to maintain authority over their > >> customers¹ data, their business models depend on collecting the same > >> information that the spy agencies want, and they have long cooperated > >> with the government to some extent by handing over data in response to > >> legal requests. > > This statement strikes me as disingenuously oversimplistic on the Times¹s > > part ‹ specifically, in saying that the Internet companies are collecting > > ³the same information that the spy agencies want.² Yes, the agencies want > > the data the companies have, but the companies are gathering data about > > consumption and viewing patterns, primarily. What the agencies want is > > traffic and association analysis, and they know they can draw inferences > > if they have large datasets. > > > > This may seem like a subtle distinction, but really it¹s not. It¹s like > > saying ³I listen to changes in the tone of your voice when you speak to > > me, and so does the snooping spy who wiretaps your phone, and therefore, > > implicitly, the spy and I are both culpable somehow.² > > > > What I perceive in all this is an attempt to muddy the issue and > > delegitimize the internet companies¹ sincere efforts to build and/or > > restore consumer trust. I¹m critical of the companies from time to time > > (and there are times when I¹m mostly critical of what all the companies > > are doing), but to me the real analysis here is that governments have > > opportunistically taken advantage of what the companies have been > > gathering, most of the time in good faith, from users. > > > >> The new principles outlined by the companies contain little information > >> and few promises about their own practices, which privacy advocates say > >> contribute to the government¹s desire to tap into the companies¹ data > >> systems. > >> > >> ³The companies are placing their users at risk by collecting and > >> retaining so much information,² said Marc Rotenberg, president and > >> executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a > >> nonprofit research and advocacy organization. ³As long as this much > >> personal data is collected and kept by these companies, they are always > >> going to be the target of government collection efforts.² > > I take Marc at his word, as always, but the fact is that if the companies > > cut their data gathering in half ‹ or even by a factor of 10 or 100 ‹ > > governments will want to engage in bulk collection and interception. The > > key approach, in my view, is to try to reduce the demand-side (by > > regulating what governments can do) rather conflate it with the supply > > side (the fact that commercial enterprises gather data from actual and > > potential customers (or for them). > > > > > > ‹Mike, speaking only for myself > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Warm Regards > Mishi Choudhary, Esq. > Legal Director > Software Freedom Law Center > 1995 Broadway Floor 17 > New York, NY-10023 > (tel) 212-461-1912 > (fax) 212-580-0898 > www.softwarefreedom.org > > > Executive Director > SFLC.IN > K-9, Second Floor > Jangpura Extn. > New Delhi-110014 > (tel) +91-11-43587126 > (fax) +91-11-24323530 > www.sflc.in > > > > Click here to report this email as spam. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Tue Dec 10 11:38:20 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 22:08:20 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Reform surveillance In-Reply-To: References: <1t8rfqtmbwtcrwynlo30far4.1386691338487@email.android.com> Message-ID: This might also be of interest in the framework of this discussion, as another initiative to push for reforms: World's leading authors say state surveillance of personal data is theft, and demand a digital bill of rights, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/10/surveillance-theft-worlds-leading-authors?CMP=twt_gu Best, Anja On 10 December 2013 21:54, Gene Kimmelman wrote: > Mike, I appreciate your intellectual clarity and segmentation of > priorities. However, as a political matter (particularly for non - US > citizens), the companies are practically aiding and abetting the > governments until THE COMPANIES reform their practices; I therefore think > we need to address both problems, even if one is much more significant as a > matter of principle. > > On Dec 10, 2013, at 11:19 AM, "Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG)" < > mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG> wrote: > > > Gene and Mishi, I think it means this for some value of “insists,” but > this takes us back to the old debate about “opt-in” versus “opt-out.” This > does, in fact, remain a really good debate to have — whether, say, Google > should require us to sign in for search, or what the default settings of > internet services should be. And so on. But, to me, those remain nuanced > discussions. Governments engaging in bulk collection of data is not a > nuanced issue, in my view — it centers squarely on whether governments > should be in the habit of engaging in such activities, especially without > transparency and accountability. > > My priorities are, in this order, (1) get governments out of the > unaccountable bulk-collection business, if we can, and (2) have a thorough > discussion of what we will allow commercial entities to do with regard to > collection of private data. Without saying everyone should share my ordered > priorities, I hope it’s clear why I think (1) is the more immediate and > urgent problem. > > Also, I think achievability of public policy relies on disentangling the > issues rather than on assuming they’re hopelessly entangled. As I noted > earlier, I think we could reduce commercial data-gathering a thousandfold > and still not address the fundamental problem of what governments want to > do. > > > —Mike > > > -- > *Mike Godwin* | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project > mgodwin at internews.org | *Mobile* 415-793-4446 > *Skype* mnemonic1026 > *Address* 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA > > *INTERNEWS* | *Local Voices. Global Change.* > www.internews.org | @internews | > facebook.com/internews > > From: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" > Reply-To: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" > Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 at 11:02 AM > To: "mishi at softwarefreedom.org" , Mike Godwin < > mgodwin at internews.org>, "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" < > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Reform surveillance > > If the supply side insists on personal information for targeted > advertising, isn't that entangled with the data governments seek? > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Mishi Choudhary > Date: 12/10/2013 10:52 AM (GMT-05:00) > To: "Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG)" , > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Reform surveillance > > > I agree with Mike that its crucial to reduce the "demand-side" by > regulating government access but I think the suppliers of data are not > as informed as they should and could be and the companies have more to > do at their end. > > > On 12/09/2013 07:10 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) wrote: > > Mishi quotes the Times: > > > > > >> "While the Internet companies fight to maintain authority over their > >> customers¹ data, their business models depend on collecting the same > >> information that the spy agencies want, and they have long cooperated > >> with the government to some extent by handing over data in response to > >> legal requests. > > This statement strikes me as disingenuously oversimplistic on the Times¹s > > part ‹ specifically, in saying that the Internet companies are collecting > > ³the same information that the spy agencies want.² Yes, the agencies > want > > the data the companies have, but the companies are gathering data about > > consumption and viewing patterns, primarily. What the agencies want is > > traffic and association analysis, and they know they can draw inferences > > if they have large datasets. > > > > This may seem like a subtle distinction, but really it¹s not. It¹s like > > saying ³I listen to changes in the tone of your voice when you speak to > > me, and so does the snooping spy who wiretaps your phone, and therefore, > > implicitly, the spy and I are both culpable somehow.² > > > > What I perceive in all this is an attempt to muddy the issue and > > delegitimize the internet companies¹ sincere efforts to build and/or > > restore consumer trust. I¹m critical of the companies from time to time > > (and there are times when I¹m mostly critical of what all the companies > > are doing), but to me the real analysis here is that governments have > > opportunistically taken advantage of what the companies have been > > gathering, most of the time in good faith, from users. > > > >> The new principles outlined by the companies contain little information > >> and few promises about their own practices, which privacy advocates say > >> contribute to the government¹s desire to tap into the companies¹ data > >> systems. > >> > >> ³The companies are placing their users at risk by collecting and > >> retaining so much information,² said Marc Rotenberg, president and > >> executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a > >> nonprofit research and advocacy organization. ³As long as this much > >> personal data is collected and kept by these companies, they are always > >> going to be the target of government collection efforts.² > > I take Marc at his word, as always, but the fact is that if the companies > > cut their data gathering in half ‹ or even by a factor of 10 or 100 ‹ > > governments will want to engage in bulk collection and interception. The > > key approach, in my view, is to try to reduce the demand-side (by > > regulating what governments can do) rather conflate it with the supply > > side (the fact that commercial enterprises gather data from actual and > > potential customers (or for them). > > > > > > ‹Mike, speaking only for myself > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Warm Regards > Mishi Choudhary, Esq. > Legal Director > Software Freedom Law Center > 1995 Broadway Floor 17 > New York, NY-10023 > (tel) 212-461-1912 > (fax) 212-580-0898 > www.softwarefreedom.org > > > Executive Director > SFLC.IN > K-9, Second Floor > Jangpura Extn. > New Delhi-110014 > (tel) +91-11-43587126 > (fax) +91-11-24323530 > www.sflc.in > > > > Click hereto report this email as spam. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG Tue Dec 10 11:47:59 2013 From: mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG (Mike Godwin (mgodwin@INTERNEWS.ORG)) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 11:47:59 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Reform surveillance In-Reply-To: References: <1t8rfqtmbwtcrwynlo30far4.1386691338487@email.android.com> Message-ID: I like the idea of “digital bills of rights,” as many people on this list know, but I am less enamored of analogizing everything we find offensive to “theft,” which, legally speaking, is an insufficiently elastic legal concept to support the analogy. (Like many of us here, I'm quite troubled, for example, when copyright infringement is labelled “theft” by copyright holders.) —Mike -- Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project mgodwin at internews.org | Mobile 415-793-4446 Skype mnemonic1026 Address 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA INTERNEWS | Local Voices. Global Change. www.internews.org | @internews | facebook.com/internews From: Anja Kovacs > Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 at 11:38 AM To: Gene Kimmelman > Cc: Mike Godwin >, "mishi at softwarefreedom.org" >, "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Reform surveillance This might also be of interest in the framework of this discussion, as another initiative to push for reforms: World's leading authors say state surveillance of personal data is theft, and demand a digital bill of rights, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/10/surveillance-theft-worlds-leading-authors?CMP=twt_gu Best, Anja -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mishi at softwarefreedom.org Tue Dec 10 11:49:15 2013 From: mishi at softwarefreedom.org (Mishi Choudhary) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 11:49:15 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Reform surveillance In-Reply-To: References: <1t8rfqtmbwtcrwynlo30far4.1386691338487@email.android.com> Message-ID: <52A7460B.10701@softwarefreedom.org> There are three/four major players here depending on how one sees it: U.S Government spying and then other Governments Network Operators Commercial data miners who are all different in their operations. The problems are different w.r.t to all of these and need to be addressed simultaneously. On 12/10/2013 11:24 AM, Gene Kimmelman wrote: > Mike, I appreciate your intellectual clarity and segmentation of > priorities. However, as a political matter (particularly for non - US > citizens), the companies are practically aiding and abetting the > governments until THE COMPANIES reform their practices; I therefore > think we need to address both problems, even if one is much more > significant as a matter of principle. > On Dec 10, 2013, at 11:19 AM, "Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG > )" > wrote: > >> >> Gene and Mishi, I think it means this for some value of “insists,” >> but this takes us back to the old debate about “opt-in” versus >> “opt-out.” This does, in fact, remain a really good debate to have — >> whether, say, Google should require us to sign in for search, or what >> the default settings of internet services should be. And so on. But, >> to me, those remain nuanced discussions. Governments engaging in bulk >> collection of data is not a nuanced issue, in my view — it centers >> squarely on whether governments should be in the habit of engaging in >> such activities, especially without transparency and accountability. >> >> My priorities are, in this order, (1) get governments out of the >> unaccountable bulk-collection business, if we can, and (2) have a >> thorough discussion of what we will allow commercial entities to do >> with regard to collection of private data. Without saying everyone >> should share my ordered priorities, I hope it’s clear why I think (1) >> is the more immediate and urgent problem. >> >> Also, I think achievability of public policy relies on disentangling >> the issues rather than on assuming they’re hopelessly entangled. As I >> noted earlier, I think we could reduce commercial data-gathering a >> thousandfold and still not address the fundamental problem of what >> governments want to do. >> >> >> —Mike >> >> >> -- >> *Mike Godwin* | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project >> mgodwin at internews.org >> | *Mobile* 415-793-4446 >> *Skype* mnemonic1026 >> *Address* 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA >> >> *INTERNEWS* |* **Local Voices. Global Change.* >> www.internews.org | @internews >> | facebook.com/internews >> >> >> From: "genekimmelman at gmail.com " >> > >> Reply-To: "genekimmelman at gmail.com " >> > >> Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 at 11:02 AM >> To: "mishi at softwarefreedom.org " >> >, Mike >> Godwin >, >> "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net " >> > >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Reform surveillance >> >> If the supply side insists on personal information for targeted >> advertising, isn't that entangled with the data governments seek? >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Mishi Choudhary > > >> Date: 12/10/2013 10:52 AM (GMT-05:00) >> To: "Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG >> )" > >,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Reform surveillance >> >> >> I agree with Mike that its crucial to reduce the "demand-side" by >> regulating government access but I think the suppliers of data are not >> as informed as they should and could be and the companies have more to >> do at their end. >> >> >> On 12/09/2013 07:10 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG >> ) wrote: >> > Mishi quotes the Times: >> > >> > >> >> "While the Internet companies fight to maintain authority over their >> >> customers¹ data, their business models depend on collecting the same >> >> information that the spy agencies want, and they have long cooperated >> >> with the government to some extent by handing over data in response to >> >> legal requests. >> > This statement strikes me as disingenuously oversimplistic on the >> Times¹s >> > part ‹ specifically, in saying that the Internet companies are >> collecting >> > ³the same information that the spy agencies want.² Yes, the >> agencies want >> > the data the companies have, but the companies are gathering data about >> > consumption and viewing patterns, primarily. What the agencies want is >> > traffic and association analysis, and they know they can draw >> inferences >> > if they have large datasets. >> > >> > This may seem like a subtle distinction, but really it¹s not. It¹s like >> > saying ³I listen to changes in the tone of your voice when you speak to >> > me, and so does the snooping spy who wiretaps your phone, and >> therefore, >> > implicitly, the spy and I are both culpable somehow.² >> > >> > What I perceive in all this is an attempt to muddy the issue and >> > delegitimize the internet companies¹ sincere efforts to build and/or >> > restore consumer trust. I¹m critical of the companies from time to time >> > (and there are times when I¹m mostly critical of what all the companies >> > are doing), but to me the real analysis here is that governments have >> > opportunistically taken advantage of what the companies have been >> > gathering, most of the time in good faith, from users. >> > >> >> The new principles outlined by the companies contain little >> information >> >> and few promises about their own practices, which privacy >> advocates say >> >> contribute to the government¹s desire to tap into the companies¹ data >> >> systems. >> >> >> >> ³The companies are placing their users at risk by collecting and >> >> retaining so much information,² said Marc Rotenberg, president and >> >> executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a >> >> nonprofit research and advocacy organization. ³As long as this much >> >> personal data is collected and kept by these companies, they are >> always >> >> going to be the target of government collection efforts.² >> > I take Marc at his word, as always, but the fact is that if the >> companies >> > cut their data gathering in half ‹ or even by a factor of 10 or 100 ‹ >> > governments will want to engage in bulk collection and >> interception. The >> > key approach, in my view, is to try to reduce the demand-side (by >> > regulating what governments can do) rather conflate it with the supply >> > side (the fact that commercial enterprises gather data from actual and >> > potential customers (or for them). >> > >> > >> > ‹Mike, speaking only for myself >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> -- >> Warm Regards >> Mishi Choudhary, Esq. >> Legal Director >> Software Freedom Law Center >> 1995 Broadway Floor 17 >> New York, NY-10023 >> (tel) 212-461-1912 >> (fax) 212-580-0898 >> www.softwarefreedom.org >> >> >> Executive Director >> SFLC.IN >> K-9, Second Floor >> Jangpura Extn. >> New Delhi-110014 >> (tel) +91-11-43587126 >> (fax) +91-11-24323530 >> www.sflc.in >> >> >> >> Click here >> >> to report this email as spam. > -- Warm Regards Mishi Choudhary, Esq. Legal Director Software Freedom Law Center 1995 Broadway Floor 17 New York, NY-10023 (tel) 212-461-1912 (fax) 212-580-0898 www.softwarefreedom.org Executive Director SFLC.IN K-9, Second Floor Jangpura Extn. New Delhi-110014 (tel) +91-11-43587126 (fax) +91-11-24323530 www.sflc.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hofmann at internetundgesellschaft.de Tue Dec 10 10:26:14 2013 From: hofmann at internetundgesellschaft.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 16:26:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3d6e6d1c-671c-4269-9c37-a2a4742cf0b9@email.android.com> <9A696999-3990-42C6-89ED-808188B5BE75@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2578F49@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131210113509.71808d4b@quill> Message-ID: <52A73296.1040309@internetundgesellschaft.de> I fully agree with Rafik's concern. In fact, both the IGC and the bestbits list seem to have become rather obsessed with filling positions on various committtees. In another message from last week that probably got lost or still awaits the moderator's approvement, I noticed a growing madness about committee positions and other appointments which is more or less pushing aside the debate over issues and opinions. Besides, I also think that a distinction should be made between appointed experts and stakeholder representatives. Generally, I wished we paid less attention to the issue of representatives and focused more on the message we want to convey. jeanette Am 10.12.13 14:49, schrieb Rafik Dammak: > Hello,dfasfd > > I am wondering if we are not giving too much weight to HLM than it > should be and doing for it a free promotion! honestly, I was not in > favour of the ICANN strategic panels since they are not bottom-up, > formed by handpicked members and bypassing the usual process. I found > now that we want badly to be in that high level panel and making it > relevant and maybe even giving it a big role for Brazil meeting! hope > that we wont regret such decision later. > > we can ask for giving inputs, openness etc but that will be definitely > depending to the will ICANN/WEF/Anneberg Foundation and there won't be > any guarantee on how they process the inputs or how it will be included > in their deliverable. everything is ad-hoc there and any decision will > depend to the will of the organisers. why shall we encourage such process? > > Back to the previous discussion, Bill was invited as expert and the name > of panel is not "an expert group" , I don't see the confusion here. > > Rafik > > > 2013/12/10 Marilia Maciel > > > Milton is right about the (lack of) process. On the one hand, it is > positive that we have someone we trust there. On the other hand, it > does seem that they are including who they want and how they want, > totally disregarding the serious process we have been conducting to > appoint names. > > I think that a letter signed by all organizations that participated > in the nomination process should be sent to ICANN and ideally read > during the meeting, expressing our frustration and adding some > concrete suggestions. I come back to the points I made earlier: > - the agenda of the HL panel meetings should be publicized in advance > - channels to receive inputs (procedural or substantive) should be > created or clarified > - their meetings should be open to observers (like the meetings of > the CSTD ECWG) > - Reports of the meetings should be published. They could follow > Chatam House rules > And > - CS representatives (names), who were appointed following an > internal and legitimate process carried out by CS, should be > immediately included in the HL panel to ensure minimum CS > representation. > > Marília > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Norbert Bollow > wrote: > > Milton L Mueller > wrote: > > > The distinction between Bill's appointment as an expert and > the CS > > groups' nomination of people to be on the committee is not so > clear > > to me, and we cannot assume that it is clear to Fadi, especially > > since the London meeting of the group starts in two days. > Either one > > could be seen as Fadi making a concession to CS demands to be > > included in the HLLM, and he may consider one to be a > substitute for > > the other. At this stage, I would assume that if there is no > > appointment of another CS rep to the HL Panel by now, that > there will > > not be one at all, and Bill is all we will be given. The fact > that > > Bill's appointment came from a random F2F hallway meeting isn't > > something that inspires confidence, is it? > > +1 > > Especially given that there was in fact a coordinated civil society > process through which names have been put forward. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > *Marília Maciel* > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Dec 1 16:25:19 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 13:25:19 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto In-Reply-To: <033801ceeb99$2f08e9c0$8d1abd40$@gmail.com> References: <8CBC2521-BEEB-45C5-A8DE-B0248CCC272C@1st-mile.org> <033801ceeb99$2f08e9c0$8d1abd40$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <052701ceeedb$d73471b0$859d5510$@gmail.com> Anyone wondering why a grassroots/community informatics perspective is necessary in the WSIS and related ICT4D venues should take a close look at this corporate driven top-down techno-fantasy of what could/should be done with no attention being given to how it might actually be accomplished on the ground even after almost twenty years of similar pronouncements and failed (and hugely wasteful) similarly top down initiatives. M http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2013/67.asp Broadband infrastructure, applications and services have become critical to driving growth, delivering social services, improving environmental management, and transforming people's lives, according to a new Manifesto released by the Broadband Commission for Digital Development and signed by 48 members of the Commission, along with other prominent figures from industry, civil society and the United Nations. "Overcoming the digital divide makes sense not only on the basis of principles of fairness and justice; connecting the world makes sound commercial sense," the Manifesto reads. "The vital role of broadband needs to be acknowledged at the core of any post-2015 sustainable development framework, to ensure that all countries - developed and developing alike - are empowered to participate in the global digital economy." Supporting Document http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Documents/working-groups/bb-wg-taskforce- report.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matthias.kettemann at gmail.com Tue Dec 10 13:23:11 2013 From: matthias.kettemann at gmail.com (Matthias C. Kettemann) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 19:23:11 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Reform surveillance Message-ID: Dear all, unfortunately the authors misrepresent the state of internaitonal law and fail to mention the important documents we already have. They call on "the United Nations to acknowledge the central importance of protecting civil rights in the digital age, and to create an international bill of digital rights." The Human RIghts Council has already done so in its groundbreaking resolution 20/8 and the GA in the recent resolution on privacy. We already have documents enshrining human rights which are applicable in the digital age - offline just as online. Kind regards Matthias On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > This might also be of interest in the framework of this discussion, as > another initiative to push for reforms: > > World's leading authors say state surveillance of personal data is theft, > and demand a digital bill of rights, > http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/10/surveillance-theft-worlds-leading-authors?CMP=twt_gu > > Best, > Anja > > > > > On 10 December 2013 21:54, Gene Kimmelman wrote: > >> Mike, I appreciate your intellectual clarity and segmentation of >> priorities. However, as a political matter (particularly for non - US >> citizens), the companies are practically aiding and abetting the >> governments until THE COMPANIES reform their practices; I therefore think >> we need to address both problems, even if one is much more significant as a >> matter of principle. >> >> On Dec 10, 2013, at 11:19 AM, "Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG)" < >> mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG> wrote: >> >> >> Gene and Mishi, I think it means this for some value of “insists,” but >> this takes us back to the old debate about “opt-in” versus “opt-out.” This >> does, in fact, remain a really good debate to have — whether, say, Google >> should require us to sign in for search, or what the default settings of >> internet services should be. And so on. But, to me, those remain nuanced >> discussions. Governments engaging in bulk collection of data is not a >> nuanced issue, in my view — it centers squarely on whether governments >> should be in the habit of engaging in such activities, especially without >> transparency and accountability. >> >> My priorities are, in this order, (1) get governments out of the >> unaccountable bulk-collection business, if we can, and (2) have a thorough >> discussion of what we will allow commercial entities to do with regard to >> collection of private data. Without saying everyone should share my ordered >> priorities, I hope it’s clear why I think (1) is the more immediate and >> urgent problem. >> >> Also, I think achievability of public policy relies on disentangling the >> issues rather than on assuming they’re hopelessly entangled. As I noted >> earlier, I think we could reduce commercial data-gathering a thousandfold >> and still not address the fundamental problem of what governments want to >> do. >> >> >> —Mike >> >> >> -- >> *Mike Godwin* | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project >> mgodwin at internews.org | *Mobile* 415-793-4446 >> *Skype* mnemonic1026 >> *Address* 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA >> >> *INTERNEWS* | *Local Voices. Global Change.* >> www.internews.org | @internews | >> facebook.com/internews >> >> From: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" >> Reply-To: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" >> Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 at 11:02 AM >> To: "mishi at softwarefreedom.org" , Mike Godwin >> , "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" < >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Reform surveillance >> >> If the supply side insists on personal information for targeted >> advertising, isn't that entangled with the data governments seek? >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Mishi Choudhary >> Date: 12/10/2013 10:52 AM (GMT-05:00) >> To: "Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG)" , >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Reform surveillance >> >> >> I agree with Mike that its crucial to reduce the "demand-side" by >> regulating government access but I think the suppliers of data are not >> as informed as they should and could be and the companies have more to >> do at their end. >> >> >> On 12/09/2013 07:10 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) wrote: >> > Mishi quotes the Times: >> > >> > >> >> "While the Internet companies fight to maintain authority over their >> >> customers¹ data, their business models depend on collecting the same >> >> information that the spy agencies want, and they have long cooperated >> >> with the government to some extent by handing over data in response to >> >> legal requests. >> > This statement strikes me as disingenuously oversimplistic on the >> Times¹s >> > part ‹ specifically, in saying that the Internet companies are >> collecting >> > ³the same information that the spy agencies want.² Yes, the agencies >> want >> > the data the companies have, but the companies are gathering data about >> > consumption and viewing patterns, primarily. What the agencies want is >> > traffic and association analysis, and they know they can draw inferences >> > if they have large datasets. >> > >> > This may seem like a subtle distinction, but really it¹s not. It¹s like >> > saying ³I listen to changes in the tone of your voice when you speak to >> > me, and so does the snooping spy who wiretaps your phone, and therefore, >> > implicitly, the spy and I are both culpable somehow.² >> > >> > What I perceive in all this is an attempt to muddy the issue and >> > delegitimize the internet companies¹ sincere efforts to build and/or >> > restore consumer trust. I¹m critical of the companies from time to time >> > (and there are times when I¹m mostly critical of what all the companies >> > are doing), but to me the real analysis here is that governments have >> > opportunistically taken advantage of what the companies have been >> > gathering, most of the time in good faith, from users. >> > >> >> The new principles outlined by the companies contain little information >> >> and few promises about their own practices, which privacy advocates say >> >> contribute to the government¹s desire to tap into the companies¹ data >> >> systems. >> >> >> >> ³The companies are placing their users at risk by collecting and >> >> retaining so much information,² said Marc Rotenberg, president and >> >> executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a >> >> nonprofit research and advocacy organization. ³As long as this much >> >> personal data is collected and kept by these companies, they are always >> >> going to be the target of government collection efforts.² >> > I take Marc at his word, as always, but the fact is that if the >> companies >> > cut their data gathering in half ‹ or even by a factor of 10 or 100 ‹ >> > governments will want to engage in bulk collection and interception. The >> > key approach, in my view, is to try to reduce the demand-side (by >> > regulating what governments can do) rather conflate it with the supply >> > side (the fact that commercial enterprises gather data from actual and >> > potential customers (or for them). >> > >> > >> > ‹Mike, speaking only for myself >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> -- >> Warm Regards >> Mishi Choudhary, Esq. >> Legal Director >> Software Freedom Law Center >> 1995 Broadway Floor 17 >> New York, NY-10023 >> (tel) 212-461-1912 >> (fax) 212-580-0898 >> www.softwarefreedom.org >> >> >> Executive Director >> SFLC.IN >> K-9, Second Floor >> Jangpura Extn. >> New Delhi-110014 >> (tel) +91-11-43587126 >> (fax) +91-11-24323530 >> www.sflc.in >> >> >> >> Click hereto report this email as spam. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Dr. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard) Post-Doc Fellow | Cluster of Excellence „Normative Orders ”, University of Frankfurt/Main Lecturer | Institute of International Law and International Relations, University of Graz Research Affiliate | European Training and Research Centre for Human Rights and Democracy, University of Graz Exzellenzcluster "Normative Ordnungen", Goethe-Universität Frankfurt/Main EXC-8, Grüneburgplatz 1 60323 Frankfurt/Main, Deutschland E | matthias.kettemann at gmail.com T | 0049 176 817 50 920 (mobile, Germany) T | 0043 676 7017175 (mobile, Austria) T | 0049 69 798 31508 (office) Blog | SSRN | Google Scholar | my new book | Amazon Authors' Page Twitter | Facebook | Google+ Recent publications: Netzpolitik in Österreich [Net Politics in Austria] (2013, ed.) Grenzen im Völkerrecht [Limits of International Law] (2013, ed.) The Future of Individuals in International Law (2013) European Yearbook on Human Rights 2013 (2013, co-edited) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bankston at opentechinstitute.org Tue Dec 10 14:57:42 2013 From: bankston at opentechinstitute.org (Kevin Bankston) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 14:57:42 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Reform surveillance In-Reply-To: <1t8rfqtmbwtcrwynlo30far4.1386691338487@email.android.com> References: <1t8rfqtmbwtcrwynlo30far4.1386691338487@email.android.com> Message-ID: Since 2005 when news about the NSA programs first broke, through to today, I've yet to see anything reported anywhere about any of the data being sought being data that would not have been collected but for targeted advertising needs. Have I missed something? On Dec 10, 2013, at 11:02 AM, "genekimmelman at gmail.com" wrote: > If the supply side insists on personal information for targeted advertising, isn't that entangled with the data governments seek? > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Mishi Choudhary > Date: 12/10/2013 10:52 AM (GMT-05:00) > To: "Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG)" ,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Reform surveillance > > > I agree with Mike that its crucial to reduce the "demand-side" by > regulating government access but I think the suppliers of data are not > as informed as they should and could be and the companies have more to > do at their end. > > > On 12/09/2013 07:10 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) wrote: > > Mishi quotes the Times: > > > > > >> "While the Internet companies fight to maintain authority over their > >> customers¹ data, their business models depend on collecting the same > >> information that the spy agencies want, and they have long cooperated > >> with the government to some extent by handing over data in response to > >> legal requests. > > This statement strikes me as disingenuously oversimplistic on the Times¹s > > part ‹ specifically, in saying that the Internet companies are collecting > > ³the same information that the spy agencies want.² Yes, the agencies want > > the data the companies have, but the companies are gathering data about > > consumption and viewing patterns, primarily. What the agencies want is > > traffic and association analysis, and they know they can draw inferences > > if they have large datasets. > > > > This may seem like a subtle distinction, but really it¹s not. It¹s like > > saying ³I listen to changes in the tone of your voice when you speak to > > me, and so does the snooping spy who wiretaps your phone, and therefore, > > implicitly, the spy and I are both culpable somehow.² > > > > What I perceive in all this is an attempt to muddy the issue and > > delegitimize the internet companies¹ sincere efforts to build and/or > > restore consumer trust. I¹m critical of the companies from time to time > > (and there are times when I¹m mostly critical of what all the companies > > are doing), but to me the real analysis here is that governments have > > opportunistically taken advantage of what the companies have been > > gathering, most of the time in good faith, from users. > > > >> The new principles outlined by the companies contain little information > >> and few promises about their own practices, which privacy advocates say > >> contribute to the government¹s desire to tap into the companies¹ data > >> systems. > >> > >> ³The companies are placing their users at risk by collecting and > >> retaining so much information,² said Marc Rotenberg, president and > >> executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a > >> nonprofit research and advocacy organization. ³As long as this much > >> personal data is collected and kept by these companies, they are always > >> going to be the target of government collection efforts.² > > I take Marc at his word, as always, but the fact is that if the companies > > cut their data gathering in half ‹ or even by a factor of 10 or 100 ‹ > > governments will want to engage in bulk collection and interception. The > > key approach, in my view, is to try to reduce the demand-side (by > > regulating what governments can do) rather conflate it with the supply > > side (the fact that commercial enterprises gather data from actual and > > potential customers (or for them). > > > > > > ‹Mike, speaking only for myself > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Warm Regards > Mishi Choudhary, Esq. > Legal Director > Software Freedom Law Center > 1995 Broadway Floor 17 > New York, NY-10023 > (tel) 212-461-1912 > (fax) 212-580-0898 > www.softwarefreedom.org > > > Executive Director > SFLC.IN > K-9, Second Floor > Jangpura Extn. > New Delhi-110014 > (tel) +91-11-43587126 > (fax) +91-11-24323530 > www.sflc.in > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From Guru at ITforChange.net Tue Dec 10 15:17:30 2013 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 22:17:30 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] India to push for freeing Internet from U.S. control Message-ID: <52A776DA.2010701@ITforChange.net> source - http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/india-to-push-for-freeing-internet-from-us-control/article5434095.ece?homepage=true In view of its growing cyber security concerns, India has decided to challenge the U.S. government’s control over the Internet and ensure that the trio of the U.S., Russia and China does not ignore India’s concerns while developing an international regime for Internet governance. India will also push for storing all Internet data within the country, besides ensuring control and management of servers. “The control of Internet was in the hands of the U.S. government and the key levers relating to its management was dominated by its security agencies…Mere location of root servers in India would not serve any purpose unless we were also allowed a role in their control and management. We should insist that data of all domain names originating from India…should be stored in India. Similarly, all traffic originating/landing in India should be stored in India,” says an internal note prepared after the meeting of Sub-Committee on International Cooperation on Cyber Security under the National Security Council Secretariat (NSCS). Notably, the key function of domain name system (DNS) management today is in the hands of the U.S. National Telecommunication and Information Administration and the Department of Commerce. Though after persistently putting pressure on companies, India managed to get root servers installed in the country, it wants a say in management of these servers. India is also seeking a key role in policy making on Internet governance at the international level, said a senior government official engaged in India’s cyber security preparedness. “It was important that management and control of the DNS should be supervised by a ‘Board’ consisting of technical experts nominated by governments and India should be represented on this Board. We should seek a larger determinate role for the GAC [Government Advisory Committee] in ICANN [Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Number] a U.S.-based non-profit organisation that coordinates global Internet systems, which we should be effectively represented,” the note adds. Significantly, under the ‘Affirmation of Commitments’ between the ICANN and the U.S. Department of Commerce, the ICANN committed that it would not shift outside of the U.S. without the concurrence of the U.S. government and the process of Internet management would be led by private sector. At the meeting, held last month and headed by Deputy National Security Advisor and NSCS Secretary Nehchal Sandhu, it was decided that the Ministry of External Affairs along with the Department of Electronic and Information Technology (DEITy) and the NSCS, will develop a position paper, highlighting India’s concerns regarding representation and management control in the Internet governance domain. India is also concerned about the proximity of the U.S., Russia and China while deciding on issue of Internet governance. “There was a possibility that the U.S., Russia and China may work out an arrangement that met their concerns and this arrangement was thereafter forced upon other countries. We need to guard against this possibility and ensure that India’s concerns were also accommodated in whatever international regime for Internet governance that ultimately emerged,” the note adds. Notably, today India has third largest Internet users in the world at over 15 crore, only after China (56 crore) and the U.S. (25 crore). Similarly, India has also decided to favour a pre-dominantly multilateral approach on issues related to Internet governance rather than multi-stakeholder approach which is mainly being advocated by the West. “India feels that the very term multi-stakeholder was something of a ‘misnomer’. A small unrepresentative group of certain individuals, supported by vested interests, appear to have arrogated themselves the right to present certain views in discussions relating to Internet governance. It was not clear as to who they represent and whether who they claimed to represent had in fact nominated them. These persons undermine the positions of the government and were really spokespersons of certain Western interests,” the note says. -- Gurumurthy Kasinathan Director, IT for Change /In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC/ www.ITforChange.Net | Cell:91 9845437730 | Tel:91 80 26654134, 26536890 http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: graphics1 Type: image/png Size: 6531 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mishi at softwarefreedom.org Tue Dec 10 15:31:27 2013 From: mishi at softwarefreedom.org (Mishi Choudhary) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 15:31:27 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Reform surveillance In-Reply-To: References: <1t8rfqtmbwtcrwynlo30far4.1386691338487@email.android.com> Message-ID: <52A77A1F.9010006@softwarefreedom.org> I can't help but point to this third part of the lecture series which talks exactly about this: http://snowdenandthefuture.info/snowdenandthefuture-unionpreserved.pdf On 12/10/2013 02:57 PM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > Since 2005 when news about the NSA programs first broke, through to today, I've yet to see anything reported anywhere about any of the data being sought being data that would not have been collected but for targeted advertising needs. Have I missed something? > > On Dec 10, 2013, at 11:02 AM, "genekimmelman at gmail.com" wrote: > >> If the supply side insists on personal information for targeted advertising, isn't that entangled with the data governments seek? >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Mishi Choudhary >> Date: 12/10/2013 10:52 AM (GMT-05:00) >> To: "Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG)" ,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Reform surveillance >> >> >> I agree with Mike that its crucial to reduce the "demand-side" by >> regulating government access but I think the suppliers of data are not >> as informed as they should and could be and the companies have more to >> do at their end. >> >> >> On 12/09/2013 07:10 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) wrote: >>> Mishi quotes the Times: >>> >>> >>>> "While the Internet companies fight to maintain authority over their >>>> customers¹ data, their business models depend on collecting the same >>>> information that the spy agencies want, and they have long cooperated >>>> with the government to some extent by handing over data in response to >>>> legal requests. >>> This statement strikes me as disingenuously oversimplistic on the Times¹s >>> part ‹ specifically, in saying that the Internet companies are collecting >>> ³the same information that the spy agencies want.² Yes, the agencies want >>> the data the companies have, but the companies are gathering data about >>> consumption and viewing patterns, primarily. What the agencies want is >>> traffic and association analysis, and they know they can draw inferences >>> if they have large datasets. >>> >>> This may seem like a subtle distinction, but really it¹s not. It¹s like >>> saying ³I listen to changes in the tone of your voice when you speak to >>> me, and so does the snooping spy who wiretaps your phone, and therefore, >>> implicitly, the spy and I are both culpable somehow.² >>> >>> What I perceive in all this is an attempt to muddy the issue and >>> delegitimize the internet companies¹ sincere efforts to build and/or >>> restore consumer trust. I¹m critical of the companies from time to time >>> (and there are times when I¹m mostly critical of what all the companies >>> are doing), but to me the real analysis here is that governments have >>> opportunistically taken advantage of what the companies have been >>> gathering, most of the time in good faith, from users. >>> >>>> The new principles outlined by the companies contain little information >>>> and few promises about their own practices, which privacy advocates say >>>> contribute to the government¹s desire to tap into the companies¹ data >>>> systems. >>>> >>>> ³The companies are placing their users at risk by collecting and >>>> retaining so much information,² said Marc Rotenberg, president and >>>> executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a >>>> nonprofit research and advocacy organization. ³As long as this much >>>> personal data is collected and kept by these companies, they are always >>>> going to be the target of government collection efforts.² >>> I take Marc at his word, as always, but the fact is that if the companies >>> cut their data gathering in half ‹ or even by a factor of 10 or 100 ‹ >>> governments will want to engage in bulk collection and interception. The >>> key approach, in my view, is to try to reduce the demand-side (by >>> regulating what governments can do) rather conflate it with the supply >>> side (the fact that commercial enterprises gather data from actual and >>> potential customers (or for them). >>> >>> >>> ‹Mike, speaking only for myself >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Warm Regards >> Mishi Choudhary, Esq. >> Legal Director >> Software Freedom Law Center >> 1995 Broadway Floor 17 >> New York, NY-10023 >> (tel) 212-461-1912 >> (fax) 212-580-0898 >> www.softwarefreedom.org >> >> >> Executive Director >> SFLC.IN >> K-9, Second Floor >> Jangpura Extn. >> New Delhi-110014 >> (tel) +91-11-43587126 >> (fax) +91-11-24323530 >> www.sflc.in >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Warm Regards Mishi Choudhary, Esq. Legal Director Software Freedom Law Center 1995 Broadway Floor 17 New York, NY-10023 (tel) 212-461-1912 (fax) 212-580-0898 www.softwarefreedom.org Executive Director SFLC.IN K-9, Second Floor Jangpura Extn. New Delhi-110014 (tel) +91-11-43587126 (fax) +91-11-24323530 www.sflc.in From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Dec 10 16:01:23 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 04:01:23 +0700 Subject: [bestbits] Reform surveillance In-Reply-To: References: <1t8rfqtmbwtcrwynlo30far4.1386691338487@email.android.com> Message-ID: <0b0601cef5ea$fe36a6f0$faa3f4d0$@gmail.com> Hi Kevin, I'm not sure that I understand what it is you are saying here. Could you elaborate a bit. (for example "data being sought" ... sought by who? "collected" ... collected by who? And so on... Tks, M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Kevin Bankston Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 2:58 AM To: genekimmelman at gmail.com Cc: mishi at softwarefreedom.org; mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Reform surveillance Since 2005 when news about the NSA programs first broke, through to today, I've yet to see anything reported anywhere about any of the data being sought being data that would not have been collected but for targeted advertising needs. Have I missed something? On Dec 10, 2013, at 11:02 AM, "genekimmelman at gmail.com" wrote: > If the supply side insists on personal information for targeted advertising, isn't that entangled with the data governments seek? > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Mishi Choudhary > Date: 12/10/2013 10:52 AM (GMT-05:00) > To: "Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG)" > ,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Reform surveillance > > > I agree with Mike that its crucial to reduce the "demand-side" by > regulating government access but I think the suppliers of data are not > as informed as they should and could be and the companies have more to > do at their end. > > > On 12/09/2013 07:10 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) wrote: > > Mishi quotes the Times: > > > > > >> "While the Internet companies fight to maintain authority over > >> their customers¹ data, their business models depend on collecting > >> the same information that the spy agencies want, and they have long > >> cooperated with the government to some extent by handing over data > >> in response to legal requests. > > This statement strikes me as disingenuously oversimplistic on the > > Times¹s part ‹ specifically, in saying that the Internet companies > > are collecting ³the same information that the spy agencies want.² > > Yes, the agencies want the data the companies have, but the > > companies are gathering data about consumption and viewing patterns, > > primarily. What the agencies want is traffic and association > > analysis, and they know they can draw inferences if they have large datasets. > > > > This may seem like a subtle distinction, but really it¹s not. It¹s > > like saying ³I listen to changes in the tone of your voice when you > > speak to me, and so does the snooping spy who wiretaps your phone, > > and therefore, implicitly, the spy and I are both culpable somehow.² > > > > What I perceive in all this is an attempt to muddy the issue and > > delegitimize the internet companies¹ sincere efforts to build and/or > > restore consumer trust. I¹m critical of the companies from time to > > time (and there are times when I¹m mostly critical of what all the > > companies are doing), but to me the real analysis here is that > > governments have opportunistically taken advantage of what the > > companies have been gathering, most of the time in good faith, from users. > > > >> The new principles outlined by the companies contain little > >> information and few promises about their own practices, which > >> privacy advocates say contribute to the government¹s desire to tap > >> into the companies¹ data systems. > >> > >> ³The companies are placing their users at risk by collecting and > >> retaining so much information,² said Marc Rotenberg, president and > >> executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a > >> nonprofit research and advocacy organization. ³As long as this much > >> personal data is collected and kept by these companies, they are > >> always going to be the target of government collection efforts.² > > I take Marc at his word, as always, but the fact is that if the > > companies cut their data gathering in half ‹ or even by a factor of > > 10 or 100 ‹ governments will want to engage in bulk collection and > > interception. The key approach, in my view, is to try to reduce the > > demand-side (by regulating what governments can do) rather conflate > > it with the supply side (the fact that commercial enterprises gather > > data from actual and potential customers (or for them). > > > > > > ‹Mike, speaking only for myself > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Warm Regards > Mishi Choudhary, Esq. > Legal Director > Software Freedom Law Center > 1995 Broadway Floor 17 > New York, NY-10023 > (tel) 212-461-1912 > (fax) 212-580-0898 > www.softwarefreedom.org > > > Executive Director > SFLC.IN > K-9, Second Floor > Jangpura Extn. > New Delhi-110014 > (tel) +91-11-43587126 > (fax) +91-11-24323530 > www.sflc.in > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Tue Dec 10 16:11:10 2013 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 22:11:10 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Reform surveillance In-Reply-To: <0b0601cef5ea$fe36a6f0$faa3f4d0$@gmail.com> References: <1t8rfqtmbwtcrwynlo30far4.1386691338487@email.android.com> <0b0601cef5ea$fe36a6f0$faa3f4d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: +1 JC (lost in translation - or - don't follow me I'm lost too) Le 10 déc. 2013 à 22:01, michael gurstein a écrit : > Hi Kevin, > > I'm not sure that I understand what it is you are saying here. Could you > elaborate a bit. (for example "data being sought" ... sought by who? > "collected" ... collected by who? And so on... > > Tks, > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Kevin Bankston > Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 2:58 AM > To: genekimmelman at gmail.com > Cc: mishi at softwarefreedom.org; mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG; > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Reform surveillance > > Since 2005 when news about the NSA programs first broke, through to today, > I've yet to see anything reported anywhere about any of the data being > sought being data that would not have been collected but for targeted > advertising needs. Have I missed something? > > On Dec 10, 2013, at 11:02 AM, "genekimmelman at gmail.com" > wrote: > >> If the supply side insists on personal information for targeted > advertising, isn't that entangled with the data governments seek? >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Mishi Choudhary >> Date: 12/10/2013 10:52 AM (GMT-05:00) >> To: "Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG)" >> ,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Reform surveillance >> >> >> I agree with Mike that its crucial to reduce the "demand-side" by >> regulating government access but I think the suppliers of data are not >> as informed as they should and could be and the companies have more to >> do at their end. >> >> >> On 12/09/2013 07:10 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) wrote: >>> Mishi quotes the Times: >>> >>> >>>> "While the Internet companies fight to maintain authority over >>>> their customers¹ data, their business models depend on collecting >>>> the same information that the spy agencies want, and they have long >>>> cooperated with the government to some extent by handing over data >>>> in response to legal requests. >>> This statement strikes me as disingenuously oversimplistic on the >>> Times¹s part ‹ specifically, in saying that the Internet companies >>> are collecting ³the same information that the spy agencies want.² >>> Yes, the agencies want the data the companies have, but the >>> companies are gathering data about consumption and viewing patterns, >>> primarily. What the agencies want is traffic and association >>> analysis, and they know they can draw inferences if they have large > datasets. >>> >>> This may seem like a subtle distinction, but really it¹s not. It¹s >>> like saying ³I listen to changes in the tone of your voice when you >>> speak to me, and so does the snooping spy who wiretaps your phone, >>> and therefore, implicitly, the spy and I are both culpable somehow.² >>> >>> What I perceive in all this is an attempt to muddy the issue and >>> delegitimize the internet companies¹ sincere efforts to build and/or >>> restore consumer trust. I¹m critical of the companies from time to >>> time (and there are times when I¹m mostly critical of what all the >>> companies are doing), but to me the real analysis here is that >>> governments have opportunistically taken advantage of what the >>> companies have been gathering, most of the time in good faith, from > users. >>> >>>> The new principles outlined by the companies contain little >>>> information and few promises about their own practices, which >>>> privacy advocates say contribute to the government¹s desire to tap >>>> into the companies¹ data systems. >>>> >>>> ³The companies are placing their users at risk by collecting and >>>> retaining so much information,² said Marc Rotenberg, president and >>>> executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a >>>> nonprofit research and advocacy organization. ³As long as this much >>>> personal data is collected and kept by these companies, they are >>>> always going to be the target of government collection efforts.² >>> I take Marc at his word, as always, but the fact is that if the >>> companies cut their data gathering in half ‹ or even by a factor of >>> 10 or 100 ‹ governments will want to engage in bulk collection and >>> interception. The key approach, in my view, is to try to reduce the >>> demand-side (by regulating what governments can do) rather conflate >>> it with the supply side (the fact that commercial enterprises gather >>> data from actual and potential customers (or for them). >>> >>> >>> ‹Mike, speaking only for myself >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Warm Regards >> Mishi Choudhary, Esq. >> Legal Director >> Software Freedom Law Center >> 1995 Broadway Floor 17 >> New York, NY-10023 >> (tel) 212-461-1912 >> (fax) 212-580-0898 >> www.softwarefreedom.org >> >> >> Executive Director >> SFLC.IN >> K-9, Second Floor >> Jangpura Extn. >> New Delhi-110014 >> (tel) +91-11-43587126 >> (fax) +91-11-24323530 >> www.sflc.in >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joy at apc.org Tue Dec 10 16:16:18 2013 From: joy at apc.org (joy) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 10:16:18 +1300 Subject: [bestbits] Reform surveillance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52A784A2.1060900@apc.org> Hi - well, i would respond 'yes' and 'no' to your comments Matthias .... yes on the one hand there is some failure to mention documents that already exist ... but no, it would not be accurate to elevate those and other existing HRC resolutions to an "international bill of digital rights" - which is not to under-rate their significance, but just to put it in a broader context - there is more work that could be done to articulate these. I do wonder, for example, if one concrete outcome civil society could suggest for the UN OHCHR session on surveillance next year (the action proposed in the UN General Assembly resolution) is a stronger and more explicit human rights standard for online rights and freedoms .... joy On 11/12/2013 7:23 a.m., Matthias C. Kettemann wrote: > Dear all, > > unfortunately the authors misrepresent the state of internaitonal law > and fail to mention the important documents we already have. They call > on "the United Nations to acknowledge the central importance of > protecting civil rights in the digital age, and to create an > international bill of digital rights." > > The Human RIghts Council has already done so in its groundbreaking > resolution 20/8 and the GA in the recent resolution on privacy. We > already have documents enshrining human rights which are applicable in > the digital age - offline just as online. > > Kind regards > Matthias > > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Anja Kovacs > > wrote: > > This might also be of interest in the framework of this > discussion, as another initiative to push for reforms: > > World's leading authors say state surveillance of personal data is > theft, and demand a digital bill of rights, > http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/10/surveillance-theft-worlds-leading-authors?CMP=twt_gu > > > Best, > Anja > > > > > On 10 December 2013 21:54, Gene Kimmelman > wrote: > > Mike, I appreciate your intellectual clarity and segmentation > of priorities. However, as a political matter (particularly > for non - US citizens), the companies are practically aiding > and abetting the governments until THE COMPANIES reform their > practices; I therefore think we need to address both problems, > even if one is much more significant as a matter of principle. > > On Dec 10, 2013, at 11:19 AM, "Mike Godwin > (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG )" > > wrote: > >> >> Gene and Mishi, I think it means this for some value of >> “insists,” but this takes us back to the old debate about >> “opt-in” versus “opt-out.” This does, in fact, remain a >> really good debate to have — whether, say, Google should >> require us to sign in for search, or what the default >> settings of internet services should be. And so on. But, to >> me, those remain nuanced discussions. Governments engaging in >> bulk collection of data is not a nuanced issue, in my view — >> it centers squarely on whether governments should be in the >> habit of engaging in such activities, especially without >> transparency and accountability. >> >> My priorities are, in this order, (1) get governments out of >> the unaccountable bulk-collection business, if we can, and >> (2) have a thorough discussion of what we will allow >> commercial entities to do with regard to collection of >> private data. Without saying everyone should share my ordered >> priorities, I hope it’s clear why I think (1) is the more >> immediate and urgent problem. >> >> Also, I think achievability of public policy relies on >> disentangling the issues rather than on assuming they’re >> hopelessly entangled. As I noted earlier, I think we could >> reduce commercial data-gathering a thousandfold and still not >> address the fundamental problem of what governments want to do. >> >> >> —Mike >> >> >> -- >> *Mike Godwin* | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy >> Project >> mgodwin at internews.org >> | *Mobile* 415-793-4446 >> *Skype* mnemonic1026 >> *Address* 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA >> >> *INTERNEWS* |* **Local Voices. Global Change.* >> www.internews.org | @internews >> | facebook.com/internews >> >> >> From: "genekimmelman at gmail.com >> " > > >> Reply-To: "genekimmelman at gmail.com >> " > > >> Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 at 11:02 AM >> To: "mishi at softwarefreedom.org >> " >> > >, Mike Godwin >> >, >> "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> " >> > > >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Reform surveillance >> >> If the supply side insists on personal information for >> targeted advertising, isn't that entangled with the data >> governments seek? >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Mishi Choudhary > > >> Date: 12/10/2013 10:52 AM (GMT-05:00) >> To: "Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG >> )" > >,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Reform surveillance >> >> >> I agree with Mike that its crucial to reduce the "demand-side" by >> regulating government access but I think the suppliers of >> data are not >> as informed as they should and could be and the companies >> have more to >> do at their end. >> >> >> On 12/09/2013 07:10 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG >> ) wrote: >> > Mishi quotes the Times: >> > >> > >> >> "While the Internet companies fight to maintain authority >> over their >> >> customers¹ data, their business models depend on >> collecting the same >> >> information that the spy agencies want, and they have long >> cooperated >> >> with the government to some extent by handing over data in >> response to >> >> legal requests. >> > This statement strikes me as disingenuously oversimplistic >> on the Times¹s >> > part ‹ specifically, in saying that the Internet companies >> are collecting >> > ³the same information that the spy agencies want.² Yes, >> the agencies want >> > the data the companies have, but the companies are >> gathering data about >> > consumption and viewing patterns, primarily. What the >> agencies want is >> > traffic and association analysis, and they know they can >> draw inferences >> > if they have large datasets. >> > >> > This may seem like a subtle distinction, but really it¹s >> not. It¹s like >> > saying ³I listen to changes in the tone of your voice when >> you speak to >> > me, and so does the snooping spy who wiretaps your phone, >> and therefore, >> > implicitly, the spy and I are both culpable somehow.² >> > >> > What I perceive in all this is an attempt to muddy the >> issue and >> > delegitimize the internet companies¹ sincere efforts to >> build and/or >> > restore consumer trust. I¹m critical of the companies from >> time to time >> > (and there are times when I¹m mostly critical of what all >> the companies >> > are doing), but to me the real analysis here is that >> governments have >> > opportunistically taken advantage of what the companies >> have been >> > gathering, most of the time in good faith, from users. >> > >> >> The new principles outlined by the companies contain >> little information >> >> and few promises about their own practices, which privacy >> advocates say >> >> contribute to the government¹s desire to tap into the >> companies¹ data >> >> systems. >> >> >> >> ³The companies are placing their users at risk by >> collecting and >> >> retaining so much information,² said Marc Rotenberg, >> president and >> >> executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information >> Center, a >> >> nonprofit research and advocacy organization. ³As long as >> this much >> >> personal data is collected and kept by these companies, >> they are always >> >> going to be the target of government collection efforts.² >> > I take Marc at his word, as always, but the fact is that if >> the companies >> > cut their data gathering in half ‹ or even by a factor of >> 10 or 100 ‹ >> > governments will want to engage in bulk collection and >> interception. The >> > key approach, in my view, is to try to reduce the >> demand-side (by >> > regulating what governments can do) rather conflate it with >> the supply >> > side (the fact that commercial enterprises gather data from >> actual and >> > potential customers (or for them). >> > >> > >> > ‹Mike, speaking only for myself >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> -- >> Warm Regards >> Mishi Choudhary, Esq. >> Legal Director >> Software Freedom Law Center >> 1995 Broadway Floor 17 >> New York, NY-10023 >> (tel) 212-461-1912 >> (fax) 212-580-0898 >> www.softwarefreedom.org >> >> >> Executive Director >> SFLC.IN >> K-9, Second Floor >> Jangpura Extn. >> New Delhi-110014 >> (tel) +91-11-43587126 >> (fax) +91-11-24323530 >> www.sflc.in >> >> >> >> Click here >> >> to report this email as spam. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > > Dr. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard) > Post-Doc Fellow | Cluster of Excellence „ > Normative > Orders > ” > , > University of Frankfurt/Main > Lecturer | Institute of International Law and International Relations, > University of Graz > Research Affiliate | European Training and Research Centre for Human > Rights and Democracy, University of Graz > > > Exzellenzcluster "Normative Ordnungen", Goethe-Universität Frankfurt/Main > EXC-8, Grüneburgplatz 1 > 60323 Frankfurt/Main, Deutschland > > E | matthias.kettemann at gmail.com > T | 0049 176 817 50 920 (mobile, Germany) > T | 0043 676 7017175 (mobile, Austria) > T | 0049 69 798 31508 (office) > Blog | SSRN > | Google Scholar > | my new book > | Amazon > Authors' Page > Twitter | Facebook > | Google+ > > > Recent publications: > Netzpolitik in Österreich [Net Politics in Austria] (2013, ed.) > > Grenzen im Völkerrecht [Limits of International Law] (2013, ed.) > > The Future of Individuals in International Law (2013) > > European Yearbook on Human Rights 2013 (2013, co-edited) > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bankston at opentechinstitute.org Tue Dec 10 16:32:56 2013 From: bankston at opentechinstitute.org (Kevin Bankston) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 16:32:56 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Reform surveillance In-Reply-To: <0b0601cef5ea$fe36a6f0$faa3f4d0$@gmail.com> References: <1t8rfqtmbwtcrwynlo30far4.1386691338487@email.android.com> <0b0601cef5ea$fe36a6f0$faa3f4d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <038114CE-6488-4826-B573-1C35F71F07BA@opentechinstitute.org> Hi Michael. Sorry. To clarify my language: > Since 2005 when news about the NSA programs first broke, through to today, > I've yet to see anything reported anywhere about any of the data being > sought by the NSA > being data that would not have been collected by the Internet companies > but for the Internet companies' > targeted > advertising needs. Have I missed something? To clarify my point: Although I agree with Mike's prioritization, I also agree with the general impulse to leverage the NSA scandal to advance a broader consumer privacy agenda. And I definitely share the general concern that creating large honeypots of behavioral tracking data creates a tempting target for the government. But I've seen a lot of vague overstatements in the press lately on this point, basically saying "this is all the fault of the Internet companies' advertising-driven data-hoarding practices", so I just felt the need to point out that as best I can tell, the types of data and communications content that we know the NSA is seeking would exist and be stored and be available even if there was no such thing as targeted advertising or behavioral tracking. On Dec 10, 2013, at 4:01 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Hi Kevin, > > I'm not sure that I understand what it is you are saying here. Could you > elaborate a bit. (for example "data being sought" ... sought by who? > "collected" ... collected by who? And so on... > > Tks, > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Kevin Bankston > Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 2:58 AM > To: genekimmelman at gmail.com > Cc: mishi at softwarefreedom.org; mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG; > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Reform surveillance > > Since 2005 when news about the NSA programs first broke, through to today, > I've yet to see anything reported anywhere about any of the data being > sought by the NSA > being data that would not have been collected by the Internet companies > but for the Internet companies' > targeted > advertising needs. Have I missed something? > > On Dec 10, 2013, at 11:02 AM, "genekimmelman at gmail.com" > wrote: > >> If the supply side insists on personal information for targeted > advertising, isn't that entangled with the data governments seek? >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Mishi Choudhary >> Date: 12/10/2013 10:52 AM (GMT-05:00) >> To: "Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG)" >> ,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Reform surveillance >> >> >> I agree with Mike that its crucial to reduce the "demand-side" by >> regulating government access but I think the suppliers of data are not >> as informed as they should and could be and the companies have more to >> do at their end. >> >> >> On 12/09/2013 07:10 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) wrote: >>> Mishi quotes the Times: >>> >>> >>>> "While the Internet companies fight to maintain authority over >>>> their customers¹ data, their business models depend on collecting >>>> the same information that the spy agencies want, and they have long >>>> cooperated with the government to some extent by handing over data >>>> in response to legal requests. >>> This statement strikes me as disingenuously oversimplistic on the >>> Times¹s part ‹ specifically, in saying that the Internet companies >>> are collecting ³the same information that the spy agencies want.² >>> Yes, the agencies want the data the companies have, but the >>> companies are gathering data about consumption and viewing patterns, >>> primarily. What the agencies want is traffic and association >>> analysis, and they know they can draw inferences if they have large > datasets. >>> >>> This may seem like a subtle distinction, but really it¹s not. It¹s >>> like saying ³I listen to changes in the tone of your voice when you >>> speak to me, and so does the snooping spy who wiretaps your phone, >>> and therefore, implicitly, the spy and I are both culpable somehow.² >>> >>> What I perceive in all this is an attempt to muddy the issue and >>> delegitimize the internet companies¹ sincere efforts to build and/or >>> restore consumer trust. I¹m critical of the companies from time to >>> time (and there are times when I¹m mostly critical of what all the >>> companies are doing), but to me the real analysis here is that >>> governments have opportunistically taken advantage of what the >>> companies have been gathering, most of the time in good faith, from > users. >>> >>>> The new principles outlined by the companies contain little >>>> information and few promises about their own practices, which >>>> privacy advocates say contribute to the government¹s desire to tap >>>> into the companies¹ data systems. >>>> >>>> ³The companies are placing their users at risk by collecting and >>>> retaining so much information,² said Marc Rotenberg, president and >>>> executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a >>>> nonprofit research and advocacy organization. ³As long as this much >>>> personal data is collected and kept by these companies, they are >>>> always going to be the target of government collection efforts.² >>> I take Marc at his word, as always, but the fact is that if the >>> companies cut their data gathering in half ‹ or even by a factor of >>> 10 or 100 ‹ governments will want to engage in bulk collection and >>> interception. The key approach, in my view, is to try to reduce the >>> demand-side (by regulating what governments can do) rather conflate >>> it with the supply side (the fact that commercial enterprises gather >>> data from actual and potential customers (or for them). >>> >>> >>> ‹Mike, speaking only for myself >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Warm Regards >> Mishi Choudhary, Esq. >> Legal Director >> Software Freedom Law Center >> 1995 Broadway Floor 17 >> New York, NY-10023 >> (tel) 212-461-1912 >> (fax) 212-580-0898 >> www.softwarefreedom.org >> >> >> Executive Director >> SFLC.IN >> K-9, Second Floor >> Jangpura Extn. >> New Delhi-110014 >> (tel) +91-11-43587126 >> (fax) +91-11-24323530 >> www.sflc.in >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > From mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG Tue Dec 10 17:19:14 2013 From: mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG (Mike Godwin (mgodwin@INTERNEWS.ORG)) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 17:19:14 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Reform surveillance In-Reply-To: <038114CE-6488-4826-B573-1C35F71F07BA@opentechinstitute.org> References: <1t8rfqtmbwtcrwynlo30far4.1386691338487@email.android.com> <0b0601cef5ea$fe36a6f0$faa3f4d0$@gmail.com> <038114CE-6488-4826-B573-1C35F71F07BA@opentechinstitute.org> Message-ID: On 12/10/13, 4:32 PM, "Kevin Bankston" wrote: >To clarify my point: Although I agree with Mike's prioritization, I also >agree with the general impulse to leverage the NSA scandal to advance a >broader consumer privacy agenda. And I definitely share the general >concern that creating large honeypots of behavioral tracking data creates >a tempting target for the government. But I've seen a lot of vague >overstatements in the press lately on this point, basically saying "this >is all the fault of the Internet companies' advertising-driven >data-hoarding practices", so I just felt the need to point out that as >best I can tell, the types of data and communications content that we >know the NSA is seeking would exist and be stored and be available even >if there was no such thing as targeted advertising or behavioral tracking. I absolutely agree with all of this. I think building an international consensus on consumer-privacy best practices is very important. But I worry that it distracts us ‹ at this critical historical moment ‹ from the fact that bulk data collection/surveillance is the crack cocaine of governments. We could have the best international consumer privacy regime possible, and every country and company in the world could subscribe to it, and governments would still be sucking up the same data. They¹d just get at it a different way, probably through regulated industries like telcos, banks, and credit-card services. Again, speaking only for myself here. ‹Mike From joy at apc.org Tue Dec 10 20:33:21 2013 From: joy at apc.org (joy) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 14:33:21 +1300 Subject: [bestbits] Reform surveillance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52A7C0E1.9040606@apc.org> Hi - well, i would respond 'yes' and 'no' to your comments Matthias .... yes on the one hand there is some failure to mention documents that already exist ... but no, it would not be accurate to elevate those and other existing HRC resolutions to an "international bill of digital rights" - which is not to under-rate their significance, but just to put it in a broader context - there is more work that could be done to articulate these. I do wonder, for example, if one concrete outcome civil society could suggest for the UN OHCHR session on surveillance next year (the action proposed in the UN General Assembly resolution) is a stronger and more explicit human rights standard for online rights and freedoms .... joy On 11/12/2013 7:23 a.m., Matthias C. Kettemann wrote: > Dear all, > > unfortunately the authors misrepresent the state of internaitonal law > and fail to mention the important documents we already have. They call > on "the United Nations to acknowledge the central importance of > protecting civil rights in the digital age, and to create an > international bill of digital rights." > > The Human RIghts Council has already done so in its groundbreaking > resolution 20/8 and the GA in the recent resolution on privacy. We > already have documents enshrining human rights which are applicable in > the digital age - offline just as online. > > Kind regards > Matthias > > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Anja Kovacs > > wrote: > > This might also be of interest in the framework of this > discussion, as another initiative to push for reforms: > > World's leading authors say state surveillance of personal data is > theft, and demand a digital bill of rights, > http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/10/surveillance-theft-worlds-leading-authors?CMP=twt_gu > > > Best, > Anja > > > > > On 10 December 2013 21:54, Gene Kimmelman > wrote: > > Mike, I appreciate your intellectual clarity and segmentation > of priorities. However, as a political matter (particularly > for non - US citizens), the companies are practically aiding > and abetting the governments until THE COMPANIES reform their > practices; I therefore think we need to address both problems, > even if one is much more significant as a matter of principle. > > On Dec 10, 2013, at 11:19 AM, "Mike Godwin > (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG )" > > wrote: > >> >> Gene and Mishi, I think it means this for some value of >> “insists,” but this takes us back to the old debate about >> “opt-in” versus “opt-out.” This does, in fact, remain a >> really good debate to have — whether, say, Google should >> require us to sign in for search, or what the default >> settings of internet services should be. And so on. But, to >> me, those remain nuanced discussions. Governments engaging in >> bulk collection of data is not a nuanced issue, in my view — >> it centers squarely on whether governments should be in the >> habit of engaging in such activities, especially without >> transparency and accountability. >> >> My priorities are, in this order, (1) get governments out of >> the unaccountable bulk-collection business, if we can, and >> (2) have a thorough discussion of what we will allow >> commercial entities to do with regard to collection of >> private data. Without saying everyone should share my ordered >> priorities, I hope it’s clear why I think (1) is the more >> immediate and urgent problem. >> >> Also, I think achievability of public policy relies on >> disentangling the issues rather than on assuming they’re >> hopelessly entangled. As I noted earlier, I think we could >> reduce commercial data-gathering a thousandfold and still not >> address the fundamental problem of what governments want to do. >> >> >> —Mike >> >> >> -- >> *Mike Godwin* | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy >> Project >> mgodwin at internews.org >> | *Mobile* 415-793-4446 >> *Skype* mnemonic1026 >> *Address* 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA >> >> *INTERNEWS* |* **Local Voices. Global Change.* >> www.internews.org | @internews >> | facebook.com/internews >> >> >> From: "genekimmelman at gmail.com >> " > > >> Reply-To: "genekimmelman at gmail.com >> " > > >> Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 at 11:02 AM >> To: "mishi at softwarefreedom.org >> " >> > >, Mike Godwin >> >, >> "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> " >> > > >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Reform surveillance >> >> If the supply side insists on personal information for >> targeted advertising, isn't that entangled with the data >> governments seek? >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Mishi Choudhary > > >> Date: 12/10/2013 10:52 AM (GMT-05:00) >> To: "Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG >> )" > >,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Reform surveillance >> >> >> I agree with Mike that its crucial to reduce the "demand-side" by >> regulating government access but I think the suppliers of >> data are not >> as informed as they should and could be and the companies >> have more to >> do at their end. >> >> >> On 12/09/2013 07:10 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG >> ) wrote: >> > Mishi quotes the Times: >> > >> > >> >> "While the Internet companies fight to maintain authority >> over their >> >> customers¹ data, their business models depend on >> collecting the same >> >> information that the spy agencies want, and they have long >> cooperated >> >> with the government to some extent by handing over data in >> response to >> >> legal requests. >> > This statement strikes me as disingenuously oversimplistic >> on the Times¹s >> > part ‹ specifically, in saying that the Internet companies >> are collecting >> > ³the same information that the spy agencies want.² Yes, >> the agencies want >> > the data the companies have, but the companies are >> gathering data about >> > consumption and viewing patterns, primarily. What the >> agencies want is >> > traffic and association analysis, and they know they can >> draw inferences >> > if they have large datasets. >> > >> > This may seem like a subtle distinction, but really it¹s >> not. It¹s like >> > saying ³I listen to changes in the tone of your voice when >> you speak to >> > me, and so does the snooping spy who wiretaps your phone, >> and therefore, >> > implicitly, the spy and I are both culpable somehow.² >> > >> > What I perceive in all this is an attempt to muddy the >> issue and >> > delegitimize the internet companies¹ sincere efforts to >> build and/or >> > restore consumer trust. I¹m critical of the companies from >> time to time >> > (and there are times when I¹m mostly critical of what all >> the companies >> > are doing), but to me the real analysis here is that >> governments have >> > opportunistically taken advantage of what the companies >> have been >> > gathering, most of the time in good faith, from users. >> > >> >> The new principles outlined by the companies contain >> little information >> >> and few promises about their own practices, which privacy >> advocates say >> >> contribute to the government¹s desire to tap into the >> companies¹ data >> >> systems. >> >> >> >> ³The companies are placing their users at risk by >> collecting and >> >> retaining so much information,² said Marc Rotenberg, >> president and >> >> executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information >> Center, a >> >> nonprofit research and advocacy organization. ³As long as >> this much >> >> personal data is collected and kept by these companies, >> they are always >> >> going to be the target of government collection efforts.² >> > I take Marc at his word, as always, but the fact is that if >> the companies >> > cut their data gathering in half ‹ or even by a factor of >> 10 or 100 ‹ >> > governments will want to engage in bulk collection and >> interception. The >> > key approach, in my view, is to try to reduce the >> demand-side (by >> > regulating what governments can do) rather conflate it with >> the supply >> > side (the fact that commercial enterprises gather data from >> actual and >> > potential customers (or for them). >> > >> > >> > ‹Mike, speaking only for myself >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> -- >> Warm Regards >> Mishi Choudhary, Esq. >> Legal Director >> Software Freedom Law Center >> 1995 Broadway Floor 17 >> New York, NY-10023 >> (tel) 212-461-1912 >> (fax) 212-580-0898 >> www.softwarefreedom.org >> >> >> Executive Director >> SFLC.IN >> K-9, Second Floor >> Jangpura Extn. >> New Delhi-110014 >> (tel) +91-11-43587126 >> (fax) +91-11-24323530 >> www.sflc.in >> >> >> >> Click here >> >> to report this email as spam. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > > Dr. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard) > Post-Doc Fellow | Cluster of Excellence „ > Normative > Orders > ” > , > University of Frankfurt/Main > Lecturer | Institute of International Law and International Relations, > University of Graz > Research Affiliate | European Training and Research Centre for Human > Rights and Democracy, University of Graz > > > Exzellenzcluster "Normative Ordnungen", Goethe-Universität Frankfurt/Main > EXC-8, Grüneburgplatz 1 > 60323 Frankfurt/Main, Deutschland > > E | matthias.kettemann at gmail.com > T | 0049 176 817 50 920 (mobile, Germany) > T | 0043 676 7017175 (mobile, Austria) > T | 0049 69 798 31508 (office) > Blog | SSRN > | Google Scholar > | my new book > | Amazon > Authors' Page > Twitter | Facebook > | Google+ > > > Recent publications: > Netzpolitik in Österreich [Net Politics in Austria] (2013, ed.) > > Grenzen im Völkerrecht [Limits of International Law] (2013, ed.) > > The Future of Individuals in International Law (2013) > > European Yearbook on Human Rights 2013 (2013, co-edited) > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nashton at consensus.pro Sun Dec 1 19:04:42 2013 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 05:49:42 +0545 Subject: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto In-Reply-To: <052701ceeedb$d73471b0$859d5510$@gmail.com> References: <8CBC2521-BEEB-45C5-A8DE-B0248CCC272C@1st-mile.org> <033801ceeb99$2f08e9c0$8d1abd40$@gmail.com> <052701ceeedb$d73471b0$859d5510$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3644866f-2f33-488f-ab5c-4275d34327d8@email.android.com> The merits of the report aside, your point, Michael, is one I believe strongly to be true: the whole WSIS follow-up system is top-down, because the ITU took control of it. What's needed is national-level action plans, drawn up by all stakeholders, which can then be compared like-for-like as to results internationally so countries can learn from what works in other countries. The irony is that this model is how "Agenda 21" the climate change process from the first Rio conference works; sadly WSIS didn't pick this up despite it postdating Rio by more than a decade. In the WSIS review, we should fix this. The digital divide is not going to be met in Geneva at one-annual "WSIS review" meetings where INGOs (however well-meaning) compare notes and report cards - it will be met at the grassroots level, with buyin from that level. michael gurstein wrote: >Anyone wondering why a grassroots/community informatics perspective is >necessary in the WSIS and related ICT4D venues should take a close look >at >this corporate driven top-down techno-fantasy of what could/should be >done >with no attention being given to how it might actually be accomplished >on >the ground even after almost twenty years of similar pronouncements and >failed (and hugely wasteful) similarly top down initiatives. > > > >M > > > >http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2013/67.asp > > > >Broadband infrastructure, applications and services have become >critical to >driving growth, delivering social services, improving environmental >management, and transforming people's lives, according to a new >Manifesto >released by the Broadband Commission for Digital Development and signed >by >48 members of the Commission, along with other prominent figures from >industry, civil society and the United Nations. "Overcoming the digital >divide makes sense not only on the basis of principles of fairness and >justice; connecting the world makes sound commercial sense," the >Manifesto >reads. "The vital role of broadband needs to be acknowledged at the >core of >any post-2015 sustainable development framework, to ensure that all >countries - developed and developing alike - are empowered to >participate in >the global digital economy." > > > >Supporting Document > > > >http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Documents/working-groups/bb-wg-taskforce- >report.pdf > > -- Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From genekimmelman at gmail.com Tue Dec 10 21:45:54 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 21:45:54 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Reform surveillance Message-ID: Let's just not forget that this isn't just a question of whether governments can get personal information,  it is a question of how much it costs to get that data. Governments could always invest heavily in surveillance if they wanted to. The relevant question in the digital age is whether commercial practices are making it too easy and cheap for governments. And whether those commercial interests can pursue profit without unduly jeopardizing their customers' privacy.  -------- Original message -------- From: "Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG)" Date: 12/10/2013 5:19 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Kevin Bankston ,michael gurstein Cc: genekimmelman at gmail.com,mishi at softwarefreedom.org,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Reform surveillance On 12/10/13, 4:32 PM, "Kevin Bankston" wrote: >To clarify my point: Although I agree with Mike's prioritization, I also >agree with the general impulse to leverage the NSA scandal to advance a >broader consumer privacy agenda.  And I definitely share the general >concern that creating large honeypots of behavioral tracking data creates >a tempting target for the government.  But I've seen a lot of vague >overstatements in the press lately on this point, basically saying "this >is all the fault of the Internet companies' advertising-driven >data-hoarding practices", so I just felt the need to point out that as >best I can tell, the types of data and communications content that we >know the NSA is seeking would exist and be stored and be available even >if there was no such thing as targeted advertising or behavioral tracking. I absolutely agree with all of this. I think building an international consensus on consumer-privacy best practices is very important. But I worry that it distracts us ‹ at this critical historical moment ‹ from the fact that bulk data collection/surveillance is the crack cocaine of governments. We could have the best international consumer privacy regime possible, and every country and company in the world could subscribe to it, and governments would still be sucking up the same data. They¹d just get at it a different way, probably through regulated industries like telcos, banks, and credit-card services. Again, speaking only for myself here. ‹Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jstyre at jstyre.com Tue Dec 10 21:58:20 2013 From: jstyre at jstyre.com (James S. Tyre) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 18:58:20 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] Reform surveillance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <048801cef61c$e09dacb0$a1d90610$@jstyre.com> Interesting timing for this new article: NSA uses Google cookies to pinpoint targets for hacking BY ASHKAN SOLTANI, ANDREA PETERSON, AND BARTON GELLMAN December 10 at 8:50 pm http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/?p=11378 -- James S. Tyre Law Offices of James S. Tyre 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) jstyre at jstyre.com Special Counsel, Electronic Frontier Foundation https://www.eff.org From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of genekimmelman at gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 6:46 PM To: mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG; bankston at opentechinstitute.org; gurstein at gmail.com Cc: mishi at softwarefreedom.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Reform surveillance Let's just not forget that this isn't just a question of whether governments can get personal information, it is a question of how much it costs to get that data. Governments could always invest heavily in surveillance if they wanted to. The relevant question in the digital age is whether commercial practices are making it too easy and cheap for governments. And whether those commercial interests can pursue profit without unduly jeopardizing their customers' privacy. -------- Original message -------- From: "Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG)" Date: 12/10/2013 5:19 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Kevin Bankston ,michael gurstein Cc: genekimmelman at gmail.com,mishi at softwarefreedom.org,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Reform surveillance On 12/10/13, 4:32 PM, "Kevin Bankston" wrote: >To clarify my point: Although I agree with Mike's prioritization, I also >agree with the general impulse to leverage the NSA scandal to advance a >broader consumer privacy agenda. And I definitely share the general >concern that creating large honeypots of behavioral tracking data creates >a tempting target for the government. But I've seen a lot of vague >overstatements in the press lately on this point, basically saying "this >is all the fault of the Internet companies' advertising-driven >data-hoarding practices", so I just felt the need to point out that as >best I can tell, the types of data and communications content that we >know the NSA is seeking would exist and be stored and be available even >if there was no such thing as targeted advertising or behavioral tracking. I absolutely agree with all of this. I think building an international consensus on consumer-privacy best practices is very important. But I worry that it distracts us ‹ at this critical historical moment ‹ from the fact that bulk data collection/surveillance is the crack cocaine of governments. We could have the best international consumer privacy regime possible, and every country and company in the world could subscribe to it, and governments would still be sucking up the same data. They¹d just get at it a different way, probably through regulated industries like telcos, banks, and credit-card services. Again, speaking only for myself here. ‹Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG Wed Dec 11 01:21:50 2013 From: mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG (Mike Godwin (mgodwin@INTERNEWS.ORG)) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 01:21:50 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Reform surveillance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Gene, it’s hard to assess your suggestion without the numbers, but, if history is any guide, it does not seem to be the case that the NSA has ever been constrained by budget limitations. If privacy advocates succeeded in profoundly limiting what internet companies collect, so that the cost to NSA for bulk collection would be 2X instead of X, do we really think NSA wouldn’t be able to get get 2X in appropriations for that particular component of its intelligence gathering? If the argument instead is that limits on commercial data-gathering would increase the cost from X to, say, 10X, I’d find that a persuasive argument for focusing on “supply side” instead of “demand side," by the way — but I’d have to see some numbers in support of that argument to be persuaded. In the absence of numbers, I think we have a good historical window for putting limits on USA’s “demand side.” There actually seems to be a taste for that discussion in policy circles right now in the United States. —Mike -- Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project mgodwin at internews.org | Mobile 415-793-4446 Skype mnemonic1026 Address 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA INTERNEWS | Local Voices. Global Change. www.internews.org | @internews | facebook.com/internews From: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" > Reply-To: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" > Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 at 9:45 PM To: Mike Godwin >, "bankston at opentechinstitute.org" >, "gurstein at gmail.com" > Cc: "mishi at softwarefreedom.org" >, "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Reform surveillance Let's just not forget that this isn't just a question of whether governments can get personal information, it is a question of how much it costs to get that data. Governments could always invest heavily in surveillance if they wanted to. The relevant question in the digital age is whether commercial practices are making it too easy and cheap for governments. And whether those commercial interests can pursue profit without unduly jeopardizing their customers' privacy. Click here to report this email as spam. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Dec 11 02:03:13 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 09:03:13 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: <52A19D87.7070507@cdt.org> References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> <7F389FFA-0F74-4E5B-9BB8-5B314329D02C@ciroap.org> <52A06B55.3090303@itforchange.net> <52A0DFD8.5080304@cdt.org> <9CF11A9A-118D-4110-BF4B-EE3C95070A99@gmail.com> <52A19D87.7070507@cdt.org> Message-ID: <947CE775-274E-469E-BB52-DF92C15FE21D@ciroap.org> Being sensitive to the fact that some people don't want to be overloaded with information about procedural matters, whereas others want a maximum of transparency in civil society processes, this is just a short update about the call for nominations to the 1net steering committee, which the joint civil society coordination group has been handling. Feel free to ignore if this is not of interest to you. Between the participating networks that discussed nominees (Best Bits, Diplo and NCSG - the IGC did not actively discuss, and APC did so through the other groups), the following pool of nominees was received (in no particular order): • Vladimir Radunovic • Marilia Maciel • Michael Gurstein • Rafik Dammak • Joana Varon • Matthew Shears • Carolina Rossini • Anja Kovacs • Anriette Esterhuysen • Nuno Garcia • Marie-laure Lemineur • Remmy Nweke • Klaus Stoll The strongest support was received across all of the civil society networks was for Rafik, Joana and Anja to be appointed to the 1net steering committee, and we are debating which other two members should be added to these. Amongst the criteria being considered are ability to represent civil society as a whole, ability to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups, and knowledge about internet governance issues - but all the liaisons are free to specify what criteria their constituents feel are important, so we can do that too. We aim to finalise the decision today, so if you have thoughts relevant to the criteria or to the shortlisted nominees, feel free to add them to this thread or to email me privately, so that I can pass them on to the coordinating group. Note again that this only relates to the 1net steering committee appointment. We are still liaising with the Brazilian organisers about the process to be used for nomination of civil society representatives to the two Brazil meeting committees and do not have final information about that yet. But I will write a separate thread about that. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From nnenna75 at gmail.com Wed Dec 11 07:00:54 2013 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 12:00:54 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: <947CE775-274E-469E-BB52-DF92C15FE21D@ciroap.org> References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> <7F389FFA-0F74-4E5B-9BB8-5B314329D02C@ciroap.org> <52A06B55.3090303@itforchange.net> <52A0DFD8.5080304@cdt.org> <9CF11A9A-118D-4110-BF4B-EE3C95070A99@gmail.com> <52A19D87.7070507@cdt.org> <947CE775-274E-469E-BB52-DF92C15FE21D@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Thanks, Jeremy for the update. And please kindly extend our appreciation to the team working with you. Here is my input: 1. Some consideration should be given to policy experience 2. We may need to add a male European/ a male African for balance 3. An interesting name is one person who I know if from the media, a CS sector that we have not heard much from. Going by the above, I will recommend the addition of Vladimir Radunovic and Remmy Nweke. Vlada has policy and legal experience and is an IG old timer and EuroDig facilitator. Remmy has just published a book: "10 years of ICT reporting" and also has IG experience, organising forums in Nigeria and contributing in West Africa. My 2 cents N On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 7:03 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Being sensitive to the fact that some people don't want to be overloaded > with information about procedural matters, whereas others want a maximum of > transparency in civil society processes, this is just a short update about > the call for nominations to the 1net steering committee, which the joint > civil society coordination group has been handling. Feel free to ignore if > this is not of interest to you. > > Between the participating networks that discussed nominees (Best Bits, > Diplo and NCSG - the IGC did not actively discuss, and APC did so through > the other groups), the following pool of nominees was received (in no > particular order): > > • Vladimir Radunovic > • Marilia Maciel > • Michael Gurstein > • Rafik Dammak > • Joana Varon > • Matthew Shears > • Carolina Rossini > • Anja Kovacs > • Anriette Esterhuysen > • Nuno Garcia > • Marie-laure Lemineur > • Remmy Nweke > • Klaus Stoll > > The strongest support was received across all of the civil society > networks was for Rafik, Joana and Anja to be appointed to the 1net steering > committee, and we are debating which other two members should be added to > these. Amongst the criteria being considered are ability to represent > civil society as a whole, ability to work collegiately with other > stakeholder groups, and knowledge about internet governance issues - but > all the liaisons are free to specify what criteria their constituents feel > are important, so we can do that too. > > We aim to finalise the decision today, so if you have thoughts relevant to > the criteria or to the shortlisted nominees, feel free to add them to this > thread or to email me privately, so that I can pass them on to the > coordinating group. > > Note again that this only relates to the 1net steering committee > appointment. We are still liaising with the Brazilian organisers about the > process to be used for nomination of civil society representatives to the > two Brazil meeting committees and do not have final information about that > yet. But I will write a separate thread about that. > > -- > > > > *Dr Jeremy MalcolmSenior Policy OfficerConsumers International | the > global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub > |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bankston at opentechinstitute.org Wed Dec 11 07:16:15 2013 From: bankston at opentechinstitute.org (Kevin Bankston) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 07:16:15 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Reform surveillance In-Reply-To: <048801cef61c$e09dacb0$a1d90610$@jstyre.com> References: <048801cef61c$e09dacb0$a1d90610$@jstyre.com> Message-ID: Indeed. Now *this* is a hook of talking about ad-motivated tracking in relation to NSA! As the story says... The National Security Agency is secretly piggybacking on the tools that enable Internet advertisers to track consumers, using "cookies" and location data to pinpoint targets for government hacking and to bolster surveillance. ... For years, privacy advocates have raised concerns about the use of commercial tracking tools to identify and target consumers with advertisements. The online ad industry has said its practices are innocuous and benefit consumers by serving them ads that are more likely to be of interest to them. The revelation that the NSA is piggybacking on these commercial technologies could shift that debate, handing privacy advocates a new argument for reining in commercial surveillance. On Dec 10, 2013, at 9:58 PM, "James S. Tyre" wrote: > Interesting timing for this new article: > > NSA uses Google cookies to pinpoint targets for hacking > > BY ASHKAN SOLTANI, ANDREA PETERSON, AND BARTON GELLMAN > > December 10 at 8:50 pm > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/?p=11378 > > -- > James S. Tyre > Law Offices of James S. Tyre > 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 > Culver City, CA 90230-4969 > 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) > jstyre at jstyre.com > Special Counsel, Electronic Frontier Foundation > https://www.eff.org > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of genekimmelman at gmail.com > Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 6:46 PM > To: mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG; bankston at opentechinstitute.org; gurstein at gmail.com > Cc: mishi at softwarefreedom.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Reform surveillance > > Let's just not forget that this isn't just a question of whether governments can get personal information, it is a question of how much it costs to get that data. Governments could always invest heavily in surveillance if they wanted to. The relevant question in the digital age is whether commercial practices are making it too easy and cheap for governments. And whether those commercial interests can pursue profit without unduly jeopardizing their customers' privacy. > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: "Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG)" > Date: 12/10/2013 5:19 PM (GMT-05:00) > To: Kevin Bankston ,michael gurstein > Cc: genekimmelman at gmail.com,mishi at softwarefreedom.org,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Reform surveillance > > > > > > > On 12/10/13, 4:32 PM, "Kevin Bankston" > wrote: > > > >To clarify my point: Although I agree with Mike's prioritization, I also > >agree with the general impulse to leverage the NSA scandal to advance a > >broader consumer privacy agenda. And I definitely share the general > >concern that creating large honeypots of behavioral tracking data creates > >a tempting target for the government. But I've seen a lot of vague > >overstatements in the press lately on this point, basically saying "this > >is all the fault of the Internet companies' advertising-driven > >data-hoarding practices", so I just felt the need to point out that as > >best I can tell, the types of data and communications content that we > >know the NSA is seeking would exist and be stored and be available even > >if there was no such thing as targeted advertising or behavioral tracking. > > I absolutely agree with all of this. > > I think building an international consensus on consumer-privacy best > practices is very important. But I worry that it distracts us ‹ at this > critical historical moment ‹ from the fact that bulk data > collection/surveillance is the crack cocaine of governments. We could have > the best international consumer privacy regime possible, and every country > and company in the world could subscribe to it, and governments would > still be sucking up the same data. They¹d just get at it a different way, > probably through regulated industries like telcos, banks, and credit-card > services. > > Again, speaking only for myself here. > > > ‹Mike > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG Wed Dec 11 07:23:21 2013 From: mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG (Mike Godwin (mgodwin@INTERNEWS.ORG)) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 07:23:21 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Reform surveillance In-Reply-To: References: <048801cef61c$e09dacb0$a1d90610$@jstyre.com> Message-ID: By comparison, see Ryan Lizza’s long article in this week’s New Yorker: 'In recent years, Americans have become accustomed to the idea of advertisers gathering wide swaths of information about their private transactions. The N.S.A.’s collecting of data looks a lot like what Facebook does, but it is fundamentally different. It inverts the crucial legal principle of probable cause: the government may not seize or inspect private property or information without evidence of a crime. The N.S.A. contends that it needs haystacks in order to find the terrorist needle. Its definition of a haystack is expanding; there are indications that, under the auspices of the “business records” provision of the Patriot Act, the intelligence community is now trying to assemble databases of financial transactions and cell-phone location information.’ Ryan Lizza: Why Won’t Obama Rein in the N.S.A.? http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/12/16/131216fa_fact_lizza?mbid=social_retweet via @NewYorker (Note: I want to emphasize again that I think what commercial internet companies do is absolutely worth scrutinizing, but agencies’ capture of commercial data-mining is a symptom of surveillance culture, not its cause.) -- Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project mgodwin at internews.org | Mobile 415-793-4446 Skype mnemonic1026 Address 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA INTERNEWS | Local Voices. Global Change. www.internews.org | @internews | facebook.com/internews From: Kevin Bankston > Date: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 at 7:16 AM To: "James S. Tyre" > Cc: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" >, Mike Godwin >, "gurstein at gmail.com" >, "mishi at softwarefreedom.org" >, "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Reform surveillance Indeed. Now *this* is a hook of talking about ad-motivated tracking in relation to NSA! As the story says... The National Security Agency is secretly piggybacking on the tools that enable Internet advertisers to track consumers, using "cookies" and location data to pinpoint targets for government hacking and to bolster surveillance. ... For years, privacy advocates have raised concerns about the use of commercial tracking tools to identify and target consumers with advertisements. The online ad industry has said its practices are innocuous and benefit consumers by serving them ads that are more likely to be of interest to them. The revelation that the NSA is piggybacking on these commercial technologies could shift that debate, handing privacy advocates a new argument for reining in commercial surveillance. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG Wed Dec 11 08:37:49 2013 From: mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG (Mike Godwin (mgodwin@INTERNEWS.ORG)) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 08:37:49 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Reform surveillance References: [bestbits] Reform surveillance Message-ID: <1DEB7534D981B444BF234789326B22A8A24BC09413@MBX.INTERNEWS.LOCAL> Just to add a small comment to this, and without detracting at all from the great Washington Post story today about the use of Google cookies, I think the Ryan Lizza piece in the New Yorker goes into great detail about the culture of surveillance in the intelligence agencies and where it comes from. It's not built on commercial data-mining, although it is happy to capture commercial data-mining opportunistically. As Kevin pointed out earlier in the thread, when we first learned about NSA's bulk data collection, we learned how they were using the phone companies (willing participants) as distinct from the tech companies (who, from everything we've elicited so far, have not been willing collaborators). We could eliminate Google cookies tomorrow, and the whole bulk-collection culture and apparatus would remain in place. --Mike Sent from my iPad using Mail+ for Outlook From: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) Sent: 12/11/13, 7:23 To: Kevin Bankston, James S. Tyre Cc: Gene Kimmelman, michael gurstein, Mishi Choudhary, bestbits Subject: Re: [bestbits] Reform surveillance By comparison, see Ryan Lizza’s long article in this week’s New Yorker: 'In recent years, Americans have become accustomed to the idea of advertisers gathering wide swaths of information about their private transactions. The N.S.A.’s collecting of data looks a lot like what Facebook does, but it is fundamentally different. It inverts the crucial legal principle of probable cause: the government may not seize or inspect private property or information without evidence of a crime. The N.S.A. contends that it needs haystacks in order to find the terrorist needle. Its definition of a haystack is expanding; there are indications that, under the auspices of the “business records” provision of the Patriot Act, the intelligence community is now trying to assemble databases of financial transactions and cell-phone location information.’ Ryan Lizza: Why Won’t Obama Rein in the N.S.A.? http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/12/16/131216fa_fact_lizza?mbid=social_retweet via @NewYorker (Note: I want to emphasize again that I think what commercial internet companies do is absolutely worth scrutinizing, but agencies’ capture of commercial data-mining is a symptom of surveillance culture, not its cause.) -- Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project 415-793-4446 Skype mnemonic1026 Address 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA INTERNEWS | Local Voices. Global Change. www.internews.org | @internews | facebook.com/internews From: Kevin Bankston > Date: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 at 7:16 AM To: "James S. Tyre" > Cc: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" >, Mike Godwin >, "gurstein at gmail.com" >, "mishi at softwarefreedom.org" >, "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Reform surveillance Indeed. Now *this* is a hook of talking about ad-motivated tracking in relation to NSA! As the story says... The National Security Agency is secretly piggybacking on the tools that enable Internet advertisers to track consumers, using "cookies" and location data to pinpoint targets for government hacking and to bolster surveillance. ... For years, privacy advocates have raised concerns about the use of commercial tracking tools to identify and target consumers with advertisements. The online ad industry has said its practices are innocuous and benefit consumers by serving them ads that are more likely to be of interest to them. The revelation that the NSA is piggybacking on these commercial technologies could shift that debate, handing privacy advocates a new argument for reining in commercial surveillance. Click here to report this email as spam. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From genekimmelman at gmail.com Wed Dec 11 08:52:57 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 08:52:57 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Reform surveillance Message-ID: And Mike,  you'll never change that culture!  Yes, use policy to constrain the best we can. But even the most likely US self-correction is unlikely to touch Prism/section 702 concerns for non-US law abiding citizens.  So why not raise the cost of blanket surveillance? I don't want to do strategy on this list but will just observe that civil society isn't strong enough to move policy without business support.  And that support tends to grow the more policy threatens business' bottom line.... -------- Original message -------- From: "Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG)" Date: 12/11/2013 8:37 AM (GMT-05:00) To: Kevin Bankston ,"James S. Tyre" Cc: Gene Kimmelman ,michael gurstein ,Mishi Choudhary ,bestbits Subject: RE: [bestbits] Reform surveillance Just to add a small comment to this, and without detracting at all from the great Washington Post story today about the use of Google cookies, I think the Ryan Lizza piece in the New Yorker goes into great detail about the culture of surveillance in the intelligence agencies and where it comes from. It's not built on commercial data-mining, although it is happy to capture commercial data-mining opportunistically.  As Kevin pointed out earlier in the thread, when we first learned about NSA's bulk data collection, we learned how they were using the phone companies (willing participants) as distinct from the tech companies (who, from everything we've elicited so far, have not been willing collaborators). We could eliminate Google cookies tomorrow, and the whole bulk-collection culture and apparatus would remain in place. --Mike Sent from my iPad using Mail+ for Outlook From: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) Sent: 12/11/13, 7:23 To: Kevin Bankston, James S. Tyre Cc: Gene Kimmelman, michael gurstein, Mishi Choudhary, bestbits Subject: Re: [bestbits] Reform surveillance By comparison, see Ryan Lizza’s long article in this week’s New Yorker: 'In recent years, Americans have become accustomed to the idea of advertisers gathering wide swaths of information about their private transactions. The N.S.A.’s collecting of data looks a lot like what Facebook does, but it is fundamentally different. It inverts the crucial legal principle of probable cause: the government may not seize or inspect private property or information without evidence of a crime. The N.S.A. contends that it needs haystacks in order to find the terrorist needle. Its definition of a haystack is expanding; there are indications that, under the auspices of the “business records” provision of the Patriot Act, the intelligence community is now trying to assemble databases of financial transactions and cell-phone location information.’ Ryan Lizza: Why Won’t Obama Rein in the N.S.A.?  http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/12/16/131216fa_fact_lizza?mbid=social_retweet  via @NewYorker (Note: I want to emphasize again that I think what commercial internet companies do is absolutely worth scrutinizing, but agencies’ capture of commercial data-mining is a symptom of surveillance culture, not its cause.) --  Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project 415-793-4446 Skype mnemonic1026 Address 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA   INTERNEWS | Local Voices. Global Change. www.internews.org | @internews | facebook.com/internews From: Kevin Bankston Date: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 at 7:16 AM To: "James S. Tyre" Cc: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" , Mike Godwin , "gurstein at gmail.com" , "mishi at softwarefreedom.org" , "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" Subject: Re: [bestbits] Reform surveillance Indeed.  Now *this* is a hook of talking about ad-motivated tracking in relation to NSA!  As the story says... The National Security Agency is secretly piggybacking on the tools that enable Internet advertisers to track consumers, using "cookies" and location data to pinpoint targets for government hacking and to bolster surveillance. ... For years, privacy advocates have raised concerns about the use of commercial tracking tools to identify and target consumers with advertisements. The online ad industry has said its practices are innocuous and benefit consumers by serving them ads that are more likely to be of interest to them. The revelation that the NSA is piggybacking on these commercial technologies could shift that debate, handing privacy advocates a new argument for reining in commercial surveillance. Click here to report this email as spam. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG Wed Dec 11 09:50:50 2013 From: mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG (Mike Godwin (mgodwin@INTERNEWS.ORG)) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 09:50:50 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Reform surveillance References: [bestbits] Reform surveillance Message-ID: <1DEB7534D981B444BF234789326B22A8A24BC09415@MBX.INTERNEWS.LOCAL> I take your point, Gene. As I've said, I'm okay with putting commercial entities under scrutiny for their roles in this. But -- speaking only for myself -- I can't be satisfied with focusing on search-engine cookies as if they were the root of the problem. The Ryan Lizza article demonstrates how peripheral a concern they are, if our issue is with massive government-driven surveillance. Certainly happy to discuss strategic and tactical approaches further off-list. --Mike Sent from my iPad using Mail+ for Outlook From: Gene Kimmelman Sent: 12/11/13, 8:52 To: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG), Kevin Bankston, James S. Tyre Cc: michael gurstein, Mishi Choudhary, bestbits Subject: RE: [bestbits] Reform surveillance And Mike, you'll never change that culture! Yes, use policy to constrain the best we can. But even the most likely US self-correction is unlikely to touch Prism/section 702 concerns for non-US law abiding citizens. So why not raise the cost of blanket surveillance? I don't want to do strategy on this list but will just observe that civil society isn't strong enough to move policy without business support. And that support tends to grow the more policy threatens business' bottom line.... -------- Original message -------- From: "Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG> Date: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Subject: RE: [bestbits] Reform surveillance Just to add a small comment to this, and without detracting at all from the great Washington Post story today about the use of Google cookies, I think the Ryan Lizza piece in the New Yorker goes into great detail about the culture of surveillance in the intelligence agencies and where it comes from. It's not built on commercial data-mining, although it is happy to capture commercial data-mining opportunistically. As Kevin pointed out earlier in the thread, when we first learned about NSA's bulk data collection, we learned how they were using the phone companies (willing participants) as distinct from the tech companies (who, from everything we've elicited so far, have not been willing collaborators). We could eliminate Google cookies tomorrow, and the whole bulk-collection culture and apparatus would remain in place. --Mike Sent from my iPad using Mail+ for Outlook From: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) Sent: 12/11/13, 7:23 To: Kevin Bankston, James S. Tyre Cc: Gene Kimmelman, michael gurstein, Mishi Choudhary, bestbits Subject: Re: [bestbits] Reform surveillance By comparison, see Ryan Lizza’s long article in this week’s New Yorker: 'In recent years, Americans have become accustomed to the idea of advertisers gathering wide swaths of information about their private transactions. The N.S.A.’s collecting of data looks a lot like what Facebook does, but it is fundamentally different. It inverts the crucial legal principle of probable cause: the government may not seize or inspect private property or information without evidence of a crime. The N.S.A. contends that it needs haystacks in order to find the terrorist needle. Its definition of a haystack is expanding; there are indications that, under the auspices of the “business records” provision of the Patriot Act, the intelligence community is now trying to assemble databases of financial transactions and cell-phone location information.’ Ryan Lizza: Why Won’t Obama Rein in the N.S.A.? http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/12/16/131216fa_fact_lizza?mbid=social_retweet via @NewYorker (Note: I want to emphasize again that I think what commercial internet companies do is absolutely worth scrutinizing, but agencies’ capture of commercial data-mining is a symptom of surveillance culture, not its cause.) -- Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project 415-793-4446 Skype mnemonic1026 Address 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA INTERNEWS | Local Voices. Global Change. www.internews.org | @internews | facebook.com/internews From: Kevin Bankston > Date: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 at 7:16 AM To: "James S. Tyre" > Cc: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" >, Mike Godwin >, "gurstein at gmail.com" >, "mishi at softwarefreedom.org" >, "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Reform surveillance Indeed. Now *this* is a hook of talking about ad-motivated tracking in relation to NSA! As the story says... The National Security Agency is secretly piggybacking on the tools that enable Internet advertisers to track consumers, using "cookies" and location data to pinpoint targets for government hacking and to bolster surveillance. ... For years, privacy advocates have raised concerns about the use of commercial tracking tools to identify and target consumers with advertisements. The online ad industry has said its practices are innocuous and benefit consumers by serving them ads that are more likely to be of interest to them. The revelation that the NSA is piggybacking on these commercial technologies could shift that debate, handing privacy advocates a new argument for reining in commercial surveillance. Click here to report this email as spam. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Dec 1 19:36:05 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 16:36:05 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto In-Reply-To: <3644866f-2f33-488f-ab5c-4275d34327d8@email.android.com> References: <8CBC2521-BEEB-45C5-A8DE-B0248CCC272C@1st-mile.org> <033801ceeb99$2f08e9c0$8d1abd40$@gmail.com> <052701ceeedb$d73471b0$859d5510$@gmail.com> <3644866f-2f33-488f-ab5c-4275d34327d8@email.android.com> Message-ID: <05ec01ceeef6$878f3d00$96adb700$@gmail.com> +1 M From: nashton at consensus.pro [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro] Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 4:05 PM To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits Subject: Re: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto The merits of the report aside, your point, Michael, is one I believe strongly to be true: the whole WSIS follow-up system is top-down, because the ITU took control of it. What's needed is national-level action plans, drawn up by all stakeholders, which can then be compared like-for-like as to results internationally so countries can learn from what works in other countries. The irony is that this model is how "Agenda 21" the climate change process from the first Rio conference works; sadly WSIS didn't pick this up despite it postdating Rio by more than a decade. In the WSIS review, we should fix this. The digital divide is not going to be met in Geneva at one-annual "WSIS review" meetings where INGOs (however well-meaning) compare notes and report cards - it will be met at the grassroots level, with buyin from that level. michael gurstein wrote: Anyone wondering why a grassroots/community informatics perspective is necessary in the WSIS and related ICT4D venues should take a close look at this corporate driven top-down techno-fantasy of what could/should be done with no attention being given to how it might actually be accomplished on the ground even after almost twenty years of similar pronouncements and failed (and hugely wasteful) similarly top down initiatives. M http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2013/67.asp Broadband infrastructure, applications and services have become critical to driving growth, delivering social services, improving environmental management, and transforming people’s lives, according to a new Manifesto released by the Broadband Commission for Digital Development and signed by 48 members of the Commission, along with other prominent figures from industry, civil society and the United Nations. “Overcoming the digital divide makes sense not only on the basis of principles of fairness and justice; connecting the world makes soun d commercial sense,” the Manifesto reads. “The vital role of broadband needs to be acknowledged at the core of any post-2015 sustainable development framework, to ensure that all countries – developed and developing alike – are empowered to participate in the global digital economy.” Supporting Document http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Documents/working-groups/bb-wg-taskforce-report.pdf -- Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nnenna75 at gmail.com Wed Dec 11 16:26:34 2013 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 21:26:34 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] BB listers and IGC listers Message-ID: To persons subscribed to the Best Bits list and Internet Governance list I have started a sheet here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-TSs6WAZLtaGs-wHmw-cBxr4tF3Ix7tNEGV7JeXYa3E/edit#gid=1819847878 This sheet contains the 250 addresses subcribed to the Best Bits list. This list is available for all subscribed members. I am now auditing the BB list members who are/may be also in the IGC list. The list of IGC members is here: http://igcaucus.org/node/12/ One list uses email addresses and the other uses Names and profiles. There are about 347 at the moment (dunno if it is up to date) at the IGC list. This exercise follows the "double dipping" idea of BB and IGC. This comparison is only of BB and IGC. But in going through, I noticed there was still overlapping in APC, Diplo and NCSG of ICANN members. But since those communities are not being construed to be double dipping, we may spare ouselves that audit. But if someone has time, patience and access, it may be worthwhile to do same for the other networks! Hoping this will be useful to some of us Nnenna -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From george.sadowsky at gmail.com Wed Dec 11 17:00:18 2013 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 17:00:18 -0500 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257BFB5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <52A73296.1040309@internetundgesellschaft.de> <52A73347.3010807@wzb.eu> <39F5446A-7F85-4E20-9165-6CF77666E5C5@gmail.com>, <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257BFB5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Dear Milton, I'm sorry that you are especially unimpressed by my statements, but you do have a right to feel that way. However, I would appreciate it if you would be precise in quoting me I never said what you quoted me as saying below. Rather, what you have in quotes below appears to be a negative paraphrase of what you thought I meant. Milton, let's make a deal. I'll try to impress you more, and you try to quote me accurately, without paraphrasing me pejoratively. You don't have to like what I say, but please don't distort it. OK? Now, with regard to substance, perhaps the segué from the HLLM discssion to the general representation issue was imperfect. I think that neither Jeanette nor I were arguing specifically with respect to the issue of representation on the HLLM. I at least was addressing the general issue of concentrating so heavily upon representation processes in general and paying little attention to issues of substance. I wasn't thinking about the HLLM at all. Perhaps the poor segué caused you to miss that point. There is quite a confusion caused by the number of committees that have recently been formed. Here's my tally, and be aware that it may contain inaccuracies and misunderstandings: 1. Four Strategy Advisory Committees in a variety of issue areas, discussed over the summer, all internal to ICANN. 2. One HLLM, originally the fifth committee in the above group, repurposed from within ICANN sometime in October to provide a more general discussion of Internet governance, precipitated largely (I think) by the offer of Brazil to host a high-level meeting. The committee was essentially formed, but had not been announced, prior to the Brazil offer. 3. One steering committee for the i-coordination effort, with five members each from each stakeholder group. It was the selection process for this committee that I had in mind when I wrote the text that underwhelmed you. 4. Three committees specifically to support the Brazil meeting; according to Carlos Afonso, planning has not ye reached the stage when recommendations should be solicited for possible stakeholder representation. Are there any more committees lurking out there? I hope not! Now here is a question for you,Milton. When you use the plural in the sentence, "If it truly doesn't matter who is on these committees, why did ICANN appoint some people to them and not others?" Which committees are you implying that ICANN is , let's say, controlling by appoint some people and not others? I only see the HLLM committee as having a possible dispute regarding representation, not any other. Your use of plural implies otherwise. Can you explain? Next, you ask me to apologize for 'the mess.' Two points: first, the entire discussion regarding Internet governance is messy, because in general we know where we want to leave from, but we don't know where we want to end up. If we did, then that end state would have been widely articulated in detail and accepted. That is a problem that we all share, in common, and there's no need to apologize for it by me, or by you. That is just the reality of the current situation. Second, it is correct that the 1net initiative got off to a shaky start, but it is developing. My sense of 1net is that it is a place for multiple stakeholder groups to met and discuss IG issues of common concern. It is not tied to a meeting in Brazl, although if it were to produce useful output, it could be used there. AFAIK there isn't another discussion space like it except IGF, and the results of IGF are ephemeral. Perhaps you are aware of others. Perhaps you feel that the effort is in the wrong direction. Finally, as you are aware, I think that it's better to engage than to keep silent. I'd like to engage on courteous and professional terms. I hope that we can agree to that. Regards, George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On Dec 11, 2013, at 3:53 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Thank you. Marilia's position as stated below reflects exactly my own. > > The point is not, as Jeanette mistakenly argues, that there is a "madness" about filling committee positions to the exclusion of substantive debate. No one can fairly accuse me, of all people, of failing to actively formulate positions on the substantive issues. That's what I spend most of my time doing. > > The problem is that we were told to provide names, we did a lot of work to do so, and then those names were disregarded. This will have long term consequences regarding other requests by 1net (and we still do not have a statement as to who is actually making decisions on behalf of 1net) for participation in the future. 1net really needs to think carefully about what kind of precedents it is setting and how much trust it is or is not building here. > > I have to say I am especially unimpressed with the statements from Mr. Sadowsky. When he says, "concentrate on substance, don't pay any attention to who is represented on committees," it has absolutely no credibility, because it comes from a person who is at least connected to, or more likely is actually one of the people making, decisions behind the scenes. George might do better to keep silent or to just recognize that a mess was made and apologize for it. If it truly doesn't matter who is on these committees, why did ICANN appoint some people to them and not others? And why not tell us who is making decisions for 1net? > > Let me make it clear: I attribute most of this problem to disorganization and bad procedure rather than ill intent. But when lame rationalizations are offered for the effects of the disorganization it contributes to ill will. > > --MM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Dec 11 20:38:01 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 08:38:01 +0700 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257BFB5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <52A73296.1040309@internetundgesellschaft.de> <52A73347.3010807@wzb.eu> <39F5446A-7F85-4E20-9165-6CF77666E5C5@gmail.com>, <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257BFB5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <117101cef6da$cd94af60$68be0e20$@gmail.com> I think the issues are rather different from the polarity Milton (and George) are posing. It isn't just an issue of representation or substance but rather representation and substance or rather representation being necessary for substance. Even though there appears to be some issues with recognizing this in our current context. I'm also copying this to BestBits and by implication the "steering committee" (or whatever it is currently being called). So far, I have yet to see any specific recognition or more importantly accommodation to the quite evident differences as between various groupings within Civil Society as to the nature of the substantive inputs that will be given into any framework for which nominations are/will/should be solicited. There are I believe, quite significant differences with respect to how matters of Internet Governance could/should be addressed/resolved within (IG based) CS (as there is of course, in the larger CS and non-CS world. These differences apart from the cartoonish mis-characterizations pro-offered by certain irresponsible elements are serious and reflect different perspectives (and broad societally based interests) on how an overall balance towards a democratic, just and inclusive Internet can be achieved. Either these differences are reflected first within whatever approach to selection is entered into and then in the range of nominees themselves; or the selection process will be illegitimate, have done CS overall a major disservice, and any illusions of a common CS front will be impossible. And one can expect that the resulting parallel strategies for representation will be pursued with the utmost vigour including through whatever means of public visibility might be available. The usual process within CS of opting for "identity" based modes of "representivity" i.e. gender, region, age etc. is clearly insufficient in a context as fundamental and as normatively/substantively divided as the one that we are currently dealing with. I believe however, that there is within CS a broad underlying agreement on overall values with respect to IG and the future of the internet. I think it would be a serious mistake to not have the principled disagreements on how best to achieve those ultimate goals reflected within whatever representations CS makes in the various venues in the days going forward so that a united CS can move forward towards those goals. Best, Mike From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 3:53 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Marilia Maciel Subject: RE: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps Thank you. Marilia's position as stated below reflects exactly my own. The point is not, as Jeanette mistakenly argues, that there is a "madness" about filling committee positions to the exclusion of substantive debate. No one can fairly accuse me, of all people, of failing to actively formulate positions on the substantive issues. That's what I spend most of my time doing. The problem is that we were told to provide names, we did a lot of work to do so, and then those names were disregarded. This will have long term consequences regarding other requests by 1net (and we still do not have a statement as to who is actually making decisions on behalf of 1net) for participation in the future. 1net really needs to think carefully about what kind of precedents it is setting and how much trust it is or is not building here. I have to say I am especially unimpressed with the statements from Mr. Sadowsky. When he says, "concentrate on substance, don't pay any attention to who is represented on committees," it has absolutely no credibility, because it comes from a person who is at least connected to, or more likely is actually one of the people making, decisions behind the scenes. George might do better to keep silent or to just recognize that a mess was made and apologize for it. If it truly doesn't matter who is on these committees, why did ICANN appoint some people to them and not others? And why not tell us who is making decisions for 1net? Let me make it clear: I attribute most of this problem to disorganization and bad procedure rather than ill intent. But when lame rationalizations are offered for the effects of the disorganization it contributes to ill will. --MM _____ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gpaque at gmail.com Wed Dec 11 20:48:55 2013 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 19:48:55 -0600 Subject: [bestbits] BB listers and IGC listers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks, Nnenna. Explain this to me again? Why does it matter? Isn't overlap of networks natural? Can't we be members of more than one? It's not double-dipping. It's assorted flavors. gp Ginger (Virginia) Paque IG Programmes, DiploFoundation *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses * On 11 December 2013 15:26, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > To persons subscribed to the Best Bits list and Internet Governance list > > I have started a sheet here: > > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-TSs6WAZLtaGs-wHmw-cBxr4tF3Ix7tNEGV7JeXYa3E/edit#gid=1819847878 > > This sheet contains the 250 addresses subcribed to the Best Bits list. > This list is available for all subscribed members. > > I am now auditing the BB list members who are/may be also in the IGC list. > The list of IGC members is here: http://igcaucus.org/node/12/ > > One list uses email addresses and the other uses Names and profiles. > > There are about 347 at the moment (dunno if it is up to date) at the IGC > list. > > This exercise follows the "double dipping" idea of BB and IGC. This > comparison is only of BB and IGC. But in going through, I noticed there was > still overlapping in APC, Diplo and NCSG of ICANN members. But since those > communities are not being construed to be double dipping, we may spare > ouselves that audit. > > But if someone has time, patience and access, it may be worthwhile to do > same for the other networks! > > Hoping this will be useful to some of us > > Nnenna > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From george.sadowsky at gmail.com Wed Dec 11 22:28:13 2013 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 22:28:13 -0500 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: <117101cef6da$cd94af60$68be0e20$@gmail.com> References: <52A73296.1040309@internetundgesellschaft.de> <52A73347.3010807@wzb.eu> <39F5446A-7F85-4E20-9165-6CF77666E5C5@gmail.com>, <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257BFB5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <117101cef6da$cd94af60$68be0e20$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7CFD9307-1B80-4777-B759-7AD39D207063@gmail.com> I find this a refreshing view of civil society representative issues, and I take Mike's point that looking at a model with polar choices may not get at the real issue. I understand the concern about being at the table, especially when from a CS point of view, other actors have the potential, and often the intent, to weaken CS goals. Mike's comments strengthen the hypothesis that the arguments over representation really represent a proxy dispute for representation issues unsolved within the CS representative community. If that is the case, and CS is attempting to represent a diverse and apparently disparate set of views not bound by rough consensus, that helps to explain why specific representation is believed to be so important. Has there been any attempt to do some cluster analysis, quantitative or intuitive. on the divergent views, so that areas of agreement can be more sharply defined, and clusters of areas of disagreement also be identified? I suspect that these are difficult topics to discuss, in part because of believing that a united front provides more strength vis-à-vis other stakeholder groups, and exposing differences within the group could be regarded by some as an indication of weakness or disarray. Thanks for this analysis, Mike! George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On Dec 11, 2013, at 8:38 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > I think the issues are rather different from the polarity Milton (and George) are posing… It isn’t just an issue of representation or substance but rather representation and substance or rather representation being necessary for substance… Even though there appears to be some issues with recognizing this in our current context. > > I’m also copying this to BestBits and by implication the “steering committee” (or whatever it is currently being called)… > > So far, I have yet to see any specific recognition or more importantly accommodation to the quite evident differences as between various groupings within Civil Society as to the nature of the substantive inputs that will be given into any framework for which nominations are/will/should be solicited. > > There are I believe, quite significant differences with respect to how matters of Internet Governance could/should be addressed/resolved within (IG based) CS (as there is of course, in the larger CS and non-CS world… > > These differences apart from the cartoonish mis-characterizations pro-offered by certain irresponsible elements are serious and reflect different perspectives (and broad societally based interests) on how an overall balance towards a democratic, just and inclusive Internet can be achieved. > > Either these differences are reflected first within whatever approach to selection is entered into and then in the range of nominees themselves; or the selection process will be illegitimate, have done CS overall a major disservice, and any illusions of a common CS front will be impossible. And one can expect that the resulting parallel strategies for representation will be pursued with the utmost vigour including through whatever means of public visibility might be available. > > The usual process within CS of opting for “identity” based modes of “representivity” i.e. gender, region, age etc. is clearly insufficient in a context as fundamental and as normatively/substantively divided as the one that we are currently dealing with. > > I believe however, that there is within CS a broad underlying agreement on overall values with respect to IG and the future of the internet. I think it would be a serious mistake to not have the principled disagreements on how best to achieve those ultimate goals reflected within whatever representations CS makes in the various venues in the days going forward so that a united CS can move forward towards those goals. > > Best, > > Mike > > > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 3:53 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Marilia Maciel > Subject: RE: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps > > Thank you. Marilia's position as stated below reflects exactly my own. > > The point is not, as Jeanette mistakenly argues, that there is a "madness" about filling committee positions to the exclusion of substantive debate. No one can fairly accuse me, of all people, of failing to actively formulate positions on the substantive issues. That's what I spend most of my time doing. > > The problem is that we were told to provide names, we did a lot of work to do so, and then those names were disregarded. This will have long term consequences regarding other requests by 1net (and we still do not have a statement as to who is actually making decisions on behalf of 1net) for participation in the future. 1net really needs to think carefully about what kind of precedents it is setting and how much trust it is or is not building here. > > I have to say I am especially unimpressed with the statements from Mr. Sadowsky. When he says, "concentrate on substance, don't pay any attention to who is represented on committees," it has absolutely no credibility, because it comes from a person who is at least connected to, or more likely is actually one of the people making, decisions behind the scenes. George might do better to keep silent or to just recognize that a mess was made and apologize for it. If it truly doesn't matter who is on these committees, why did ICANN appoint some people to them and not others? And why not tell us who is making decisions for 1net? > > Let me make it clear: I attribute most of this problem to disorganization and bad procedure rather than ill intent. But when lame rationalizations are offered for the effects of the disorganization it contributes to ill will. > > --MM > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Dec 12 01:44:13 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 13:44:13 +0700 Subject: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: <947CE775-274E-469E-BB52-DF92C15FE21D@ciroap.org> References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> <7F389FFA-0F74-4E5B-9BB8-5B314329D02C@ciroap.org> <52A06B55.3090303@itforchange.net> <52A0DFD8.5080304@cdt.org> <9CF11A9A-118D-4110-BF4B-EE3C95070A99@gmail.com> <52A19D87.7070507@cdt.org> <947CE775-274E-469E-BB52-DF92C15FE21D@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <12c501cef705$95a0e5d0$c0e2b170$@gmail.com> Jeremy, Could you perhaps provide more detail and the specifics on which you relied for this rather interesting notification "The strongest support was received across all of the civil society networks. Thanks, M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 2:03 PM To: <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee Being sensitive to the fact that some people don't want to be overloaded with information about procedural matters, whereas others want a maximum of transparency in civil society processes, this is just a short update about the call for nominations to the 1net steering committee, which the joint civil society coordination group has been handling. Feel free to ignore if this is not of interest to you. Between the participating networks that discussed nominees (Best Bits, Diplo and NCSG - the IGC did not actively discuss, and APC did so through the other groups), the following pool of nominees was received (in no particular order): . Vladimir Radunovic . Marilia Maciel . Michael Gurstein . Rafik Dammak . Joana Varon . Matthew Shears . Carolina Rossini . Anja Kovacs . Anriette Esterhuysen . Nuno Garcia . Marie-laure Lemineur . Remmy Nweke . Klaus Stoll The strongest support was received across all of the civil society networks was for Rafik, Joana and Anja to be appointed to the 1net steering committee, and we are debating which other two members should be added to these. Amongst the criteria being considered are ability to represent civil society as a whole, ability to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups, and knowledge about internet governance issues - but all the liaisons are free to specify what criteria their constituents feel are important, so we can do that too. We aim to finalise the decision today, so if you have thoughts relevant to the criteria or to the shortlisted nominees, feel free to add them to this thread or to email me privately, so that I can pass them on to the coordinating group. Note again that this only relates to the 1net steering committee appointment. We are still liaising with the Brazilian organisers about the process to be used for nomination of civil society representatives to the two Brazil meeting committees and do not have final information about that yet. But I will write a separate thread about that. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Dec 12 03:02:04 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 10:02:04 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: <947CE775-274E-469E-BB52-DF92C15FE21D@ciroap.org> References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> <7F389FFA-0F74-4E5B-9BB8-5B314329D02C@ciroap.org> <52A06B55.3090303@itforchange.net> <52A0DFD8.5080304@cdt.org> <9CF11A9A-118D-4110-BF4B-EE3C95070A99@gmail.com> <52A19D87.7070507@cdt.org> <947CE775-274E-469E-BB52-DF92C15FE21D@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <8E981BA3-F338-4BA3-93B8-16CA208842CA@ciroap.org> Forwarding from Ian Peter: I am pleased to announce the results of the civil society coordination group process to provide representatives on the 1net steering committee. Our representatives will be Joana Varon Rafik Dammak Anriette Esterhuysen Vladimir Radunovik Anja Kovacs With Marilia Maciel to fill any vacancy should any of the others find it impossible to continue. PROCESS – The selection committee was formed from representatives of the networks of NCSG (Robin Gross), APC (Chat Garcia Ramilo), Diplo (Virginia Paque), and Best Bits (Jeremy Malcolm). Ian Peter was an independent facilitator. Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) was involved with the process and the call for nominations, but when its representative and sole co ordinator at this stage (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) withdrew at a late stage it was not possible to provide a replacement in the short time frame. Hopefully these difficulties within IGC will be resolved for future efforts (with IGC co ordinator elections due now). However, with 3 ex-coordinators of IGC involved with the selection process we believe its interests were fully represented. Calls from nominations were invited on the mailing lists of Diplo, Best Bits, IGC, NCSG and other civil society networks. Diplo community undertook a process of narrowing its large pool of nominations to two names before consideration by other selection committee members, and the result of the various calls from various networks was that 13 names were considered by the committee. The final names were arrived at by consensus of all the representatives involved. All of these representatives were chosen for their capacity to represent civil society as a whole, not just their individual organisational affiliations. We believe these representatives give a good cross section of the various interests of civil society in internet governance issues. Ian Peter Independent Facilitator for Civil Society Coordination Group -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From nb at bollow.ch Thu Dec 12 04:23:24 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 10:23:24 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] BB listers and IGC listers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20131212102324.71be5669@quill> Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > To persons subscribed to the Best Bits list and Internet Governance > list > > I have started a sheet here: > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-TSs6WAZLtaGs-wHmw-cBxr4tF3Ix7tNEGV7JeXYa3E/edit#gid=1819847878 > > This exercise follows the "double dipping" idea of BB and IGC. This > comparison is only of BB and IGC. I have concerns about that kind of thing. Carelessly creating, and signing, attendance lists has gotten people killed when surprisingly (to them) the political climate in which they were operating became totalitarian. Of course there is a threshold point at which, when someone is engaging in political processes in influential ways, the principle of transparency trumps any "personal privacy" concerns related to that political engagement. However just subscribing to a mailing list of a political kind, such as BestBits or IGC, is IMO far below that "threshold point". For that reason I object to the creation of that "sheet" for reasons of principle. I'm right now not speaking for anyone except myself, so I hereby insist that I have not given permission for any of my personal information to be included on a "sheet" of that kind, and I insist that I have the right to hereby demand that my personal information be removed from that "sheet". (I would not object to my name being included e.g. on a document listing "people who have made a great number of mailing list postings", since the creation of such a document would be justifiable on the basis of the transparency principle that I have mentioned above. But such justification does not apply to a document that includes people who are subscribed simply out of a desire to be informed.) Greetings, Norbert From nnenna75 at gmail.com Thu Dec 12 05:11:54 2013 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 10:11:54 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: <8E981BA3-F338-4BA3-93B8-16CA208842CA@ciroap.org> References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> <7F389FFA-0F74-4E5B-9BB8-5B314329D02C@ciroap.org> <52A06B55.3090303@itforchange.net> <52A0DFD8.5080304@cdt.org> <9CF11A9A-118D-4110-BF4B-EE3C95070A99@gmail.com> <52A19D87.7070507@cdt.org> <947CE775-274E-469E-BB52-DF92C15FE21D@ciroap.org> <8E981BA3-F338-4BA3-93B8-16CA208842CA@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Thanks Jeremy for forwarding. I hope the five will rep us well. I'm happy to support them in their responsbility in any way that may be useful. We need all the information we can get, in a timely manner. I have tweeted that information. Kindly also convey our thanks for the guys who played the nomcom role across the networks. Best N On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 8:02 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Forwarding from Ian Peter: > > I am pleased to announce the results of the civil society coordination > group process to provide representatives on the 1net steering committee. > > Our representatives will be > > > - Joana Varon > - Rafik Dammak > - Anriette Esterhuysen > - Vladimir Radunovik > - Anja Kovacs > > With Marilia Maciel to fill any vacancy should any of the others find it > impossible to continue. > > PROCESS – > > The selection committee was formed from representatives of the networks of > NCSG (Robin Gross), APC (Chat Garcia Ramilo), Diplo (Virginia Paque), and > Best Bits (Jeremy Malcolm). Ian Peter was an independent facilitator. > Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) was involved with the process and the call > for nominations, but when its representative and sole co ordinator at this > stage (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) withdrew at a late stage it was not > possible to provide a replacement in the short time frame. Hopefully these > difficulties within IGC will be resolved for future efforts (with IGC co > ordinator elections due now). However, with 3 ex-coordinators of IGC > involved with the selection process we believe its interests were fully > represented. > > Calls from nominations were invited on the mailing lists of Diplo, Best > Bits, IGC, NCSG and other civil society networks. Diplo community > undertook a process of narrowing its large pool of nominations to two names > before consideration by other selection committee members, and the result > of the various calls from various networks was that 13 names were > considered by the committee. The final names were arrived at by consensus > of all the representatives involved. > > All of these representatives were chosen for their capacity to represent > civil society as a whole, not just their individual organisational > affiliations. We believe these representatives give a good cross section of > the various interests of civil society in internet governance issues. > > Ian Peter > > Independent Facilitator > > for Civil Society Coordination Group > > -- > > > > *Dr Jeremy MalcolmSenior Policy OfficerConsumers International | the > global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub > |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Dec 12 05:06:07 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 23:06:07 +1300 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <897DF629-2F6E-4455-97F2-F2C6AE697963@gmail.com> Milton raises an important point. I totally get that Bill was invited as an Expert adviser and get his point. Firstly, it is important to remember that the HLLM is convened by ICANN and is an ICANN driven, initiated meeting. It follows that the ultimate discretion rests with them on who they want to invite to the party. We were informed that they only wanted and had space for one civil society representative to the table. From the outset, I was not under any illusion that they would do us any special favours. Clearly, as any normal entity would, they would be predisposed to self preservation and ensuring that all the "play nice civil society folk" will be present. Strategies to devise and shape outcomes and predetermine players whose voices will be loud in the room are all part of the political reality. Personally, I would suggest that the two nominees still go in as observers and fully deploy social media to report and offer real time commentaries. In today's modern day internet reality, power has shifted from the table to the floor so civil society can still be heard. If this was a Shared Forum, then there is room for us to kick a fuss and question the processes etc. We just have to deal with the hand that we have been given and trust that our people who are there will raise the issues. There is nothing stopping us from organizing our own high level panel and using a webcast to get it out! Best Regards, Sala Sent from my iPad > On Dec 10, 2013, at 5:53 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Let me be indelicate enough to raise an issue that probably no one wants to deal with but needs to be raised. And despite certain appearances, it is not a personal interest here but a process one. > The IGC, and several other groups, worked together to forward two recommended names to the President of ICANN. > > Congrats to some extent on being appointed to this HLLM, but your name was not on that CS-provided list, Bill. At this stage of the game I am certainly not suggesting that you turn it down, but one does want to know what kind of a process we are in and what kind of criteria are being applied? > > Other people are asking us for recommended lists of names for various positions. Aside from the usual junk associated with people positioning for these things, we need to assess the good faith and cooperative spirit of those who are making these requests. To put a finer point on it, what are the implications of CS being asked to provide recommended names, providing them, and then having a completely different name selected? > > I know it’s an uncomfortable topic but I think we’d have to be self-delusional not to discuss it. > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of William Drake > Sent: Monday, December 9, 2013 4:57 AM > To: Governance; Adam Peake > Cc: McTim McTim; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Best Bits > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps > > Hello > > I’ve mentioned this to a couple people privately and should probably state publicly as well that I will be participating in the High Level Panel process as an “expert” advisor, e.g. in London I’ll be giving a talk about the nature of IG, running a break out session, etc. I believe there may be a couple other people from other SGs similarly appointed, TBC. I don’t know how they intend to deal with the request for a CS “representative” panel member, but understand nothing will happen in time for the London meeting. > > I have suggested publicly announcing the agenda and providing options for people to provide written inputs, we’ll see what happens. The London meeting is in four days and there’s a lot late rushing around to pull it together, so it’s a bit difficult to predict exactly how everything will play out. > > Best, > > Bill > > ********************************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************************** > > > > > > On Dec 9, 2013, at 3:27 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > > > > On Dec 8, 2013, at 11:34 PM, McTim wrote: > > > cc list trimmed to only one list. > > /transcript-president-opening-18nov13-en.pdf > > "USC, University of Southern California-Annenberg Foundation as well > as the World Economic Forum, the WEF, have partnered with us so we > ensure that this panel has some level of independency and is functioning > on a broader scale globally" > > > > > WEF > > Adam > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:49 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > Thanks for this Ian, could someone please explain to me what is meant by > this fifth panel as more independent (in partnership with two other > organizations.. Is he referring to Inet here? Who are the other two > organizations? > > > > M > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Ian Peter > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:34 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Adam Peake > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps > > > > Hi Adam, > > > > Because it would be inappropriate I am deliberately not taking on a role of > coordinating back to various networks as that is what the various reps > should do. But here is the reply from Fadi to Robin (copied to the reps > earlier). > > > > Hello Robin, > > > > I hope you had a good thanksgiving holiday. I took several days off and > regained a lot of energy after our busy week in Buenos Aires. I just got > back and ready for the next phase of work. > > > > As I noted below and in Buenos Aires, we were never in a position to grow > the panel any further. In BA, however, after the panel was announced, we > made a final commitment to add only one panelist from the cc community, and > only one more from civil society -- understanding the need for broader > participation. Byron Holland from the cc community agreed to serve while in > Buenos Aires. > > > > At this stage, and now that we have established this fifth panel as more > independent (in partnership with two other organizations), I will need to > confer with our partners on your request, as well as with the Chairman of > the panel. I predict that they will be sensitive to diversity. > > > > I cannot meet with the chairman until next week on Wednesday. I will keep > you posted. It may be a little late for London but rest assured that Frank > La Rue, Lynn St. Amour, and myself will have our communities interests very > vigilantly on top of our agendas. > > > > Fadi > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Adam Peake > > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:03 PM > > To: Ian Peter > > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps > > > > Hi Ian, > > > > Any reply to the CS coalition's recommendations? The high level panel is > due to meet December 12-13 (London), a week from now. > > > > Best, > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > On Nov 30, 2013, at 5:50 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > > > Please find a letter just send to Fadi Chehade under my signatory as > > > an independent facilitator as regards civil society representation at > > > this meeting in two weeks time. > > > > > > Let me be the first to admit the process was imperfect, the result was > > > imperfect. But so was the task we were given, the timeframe, the > > > people involved in making the decision, and the facilitation process. > > > > > > I can only say that there was widespread agreement we should submit > > > names, and for the names submitted. And that doing and saying nothing > > > would have been the alternative in this timeframe. > > > > > > > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > > > > 29 November 2013 > > > RE: Civil Society Representation on High Level Panel in London > > > > > > Dear Fadi and Nora: > > > > > > I am writing to you following from discussions held by a coalition of > > > representatives of the civil society networks most involved in > > > Internet governance deliberations, we appreciate your willingness to > > > engage civil society in discussions regarding the future of Internet > > > governance. We also appreciate your recognition that civil society is > > > under-represented on your High Level Panel and your willingness to > > > accept additional civil society participants to this panel to provide > > > more balance. > > > After consultations with our networks, we propose adding the following > > > 2 civil society representatives to begin to balance against the much > > > larger numbers from government, the private sector, and technical > > > representatives placed on the initial panel. > > > Civil society’s two nominated representatives for the London High > > > Level Panel are: > > > 1. Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org) 2. Milton Mueller > > > (mueller at syr.edu) Would you please kindly confirm your acceptance of > > > these names, and contact our representatives directly to arrange their > > > participation? > > > We also strongly recommend the involvement of Jovan Kurbalija of the > > > Diplo Foundation as a highly experienced and knowledgeable > > > facilitator. > > > We trust that in future we will be able to look at much more equitable > > > representation of civil society in such panels and committees. > > > Persons involved with these deliberations and choice of names from > > > various civil society networks were: > > > Virginia Paque, Diplo Foundation > > > Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications (APC) > > > Robin Gross, ICANN's Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) Norbert > > > Bollow and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Internet Governance Caucus > > > (IGC) > > > Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits > > > Signed, > > > Ian Peter, Independent Facilitator > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Dec 1 22:43:04 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 11:43:04 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Proposal on Best Bits governance In-Reply-To: <528F2A38.4040905@apc.org> References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org> <528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net> <00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org> <528C72F0.1090703@itforchange.net> <795A5EE4-EAA1-4858-9F9A-CE652E85BF12@ciroap.org> <528C7AC8.7000203@itforchange.net> <528F2A38.4040905@apc.org> Message-ID: <529C01C8.1010008@ciroap.org> I for one can fully accept and endorse Anriette's helpful proposal. Others? On 22/11/13 17:56, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear all > > [Please note that this proposal is not about the Brazil meeting or civil > society nomcoms.] > > In some of the recent threads people have called to question the > legitimacy of the Best Bits steering committee, and of transparency and > accountability in Best Bits. I agree it will be good to strengthen Best > Bits internal processes, but we should do this in a way that does not > undermine trust in people who have worked hard to bring Best Bits to > where it is, or in one another. We should also not undermine our > ability to work together at a time when civil society is having to rise > to some pretty daunting challenges. > > In particular, we should try not to discourage those individuals who > have been volunteering their time on Best Bits bits work - either on the > SC, or on drafting inputs. Without their effort we would be in a far > weaker position than we are now. We would not have had the benefit of > two face-to-face meetings, or of several substantial letters/other > inputs submitted in response to strategic opportunities for raising > civil society voices. > > I would therefore like to propose the following: > > 1) We ask the current Best Bits Steering Committee, a group of people > who started to volunteer their time in this capacity in July 2013, to > continue to serve until 31 July 2014. > > 2) We ask them to present us with a short overview report of the work > they did in 2013 by the end of this year. > > 3) We ask them to, by the end of the first quarter of 2014, to propose a > process for the renewal of the Best Bits Steering Committee. > > Best > > Anriette > > > > > -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 263 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From nnenna75 at gmail.com Thu Dec 12 09:08:05 2013 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 14:08:05 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] BB listers and IGC listers In-Reply-To: <20131212102324.71be5669@quill> References: <20131212102324.71be5669@quill> Message-ID: Hi Norbert, all > > (I would not object to my name being included e.g. on a document > listing "people who have made a great number of mailing list > postings", since the creation of such a document would be justifiable > on the basis of the transparency principle that I have mentioned above. > But such justification does not apply to a document that includes > people who are subscribed simply out of a desire to be informed.) > > The study did not include "Reasons for being on BB and IGC". Are you suggesting we further it? That will mean a kind of survey. But I find the idea actually tempting. That may just be the kind of knowledge that may help build the CS. I did not "create" as such, I only pulled information that is available. Anybody can do the same work. I gave the sources. Mailing list archives are open by default and the members' list is available to all members, no? N -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Dec 12 10:15:38 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 00:15:38 +0900 Subject: (part 2) [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: <7CFD9307-1B80-4777-B759-7AD39D207063@gmail.com> References: <52A73296.1040309@internetundgesellschaft.de> <52A73347.3010807@wzb.eu> <39F5446A-7F85-4E20-9165-6CF77666E5C5@gmail.com>, <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257BFB5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <117101cef6da$cd94af60$68be0e20$@gmail.com> <7CFD9307-1B80-4777-B759-7AD39D207063@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3C6BE527-9146-4F83-9B28-0C2B9DCA5D7B@glocom.ac.jp> carrying on from my last email, sorry for the length... Brazil is a wonderful opportunity, so here are some ideas about how I think it could proceed. Purpose. A two-day meeting to discuss a limited number of IG issues/challenges. Address how to resolve those issues by creating a number of working groups which will report back to the 2015 IGF in Brazil. The Brazil meeting to charter each working group, charters can be reviewed and if necessary finalized at the 2014 IGF in Istanbul (IGF consultation in May can also be used.) IGF Istanbul and opportunity to check on progress, tweak, and set the WG off to report back the following year (opportunity for review during the typical February and May IGF sessions of 2015.) The IGF is an established global process with some participation from all stakeholders. Participation must be improved, but it is the best we have for interested parties to discuss as peers. Brazil is an opportunity to strengthen the IGF, make it more relevant, more useful. And at the same time give the Brazil meeting a means to be more than just another two days of talk. Themes. Importance of Bali IGF as a starting point for identifying themes. The Brazil "summit" was an important topic referred to repeatedly during sessions in Bali. The Montevideo Statement attracted almost as much interest and support. Bali's been the only opportunity we've had to hear a broad spectrum of views on the proposal to meet in Brazil, the only significant gathering of different stakeholders where that meeting and why it was called has been discussed. There were rich discussions in Bali, they are worth building on, we aren't staring from nothing. The chair's summary attempts to cover some topics , the transcripts provide a full record A few things I think there's some agreement on: - The Brazil meeting should focus on dialogue, not in itself be a decision making event. - Widespread support for the IGF: the Brazil meeting should not in anyway replace/undermine the IGF (and nor should 1net.) - Widespread support for the five principles President Rousseff proposed to the UN general assembly (they inspired Fadi Chehadé to meet her and to call for the meeting). - The Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation is widely supported (also by Brazil govt representatives during the IGF.) - The multi-stakeholder approach must be strengthened; there is concern about a coming period of multilateral processes. - Condemnation of surveillance. - Agreement that global principles protecting human rights online should be developed and adopted (a close fit with President Rousseff's principles, and also Marco Civil -- the still draft Brazilian bill of online rights.) More recently the Brazil Steering committee announcement refers to President Rousseff's UN speech and to the Montevideo Statement and says of the meeting it should "pursue consensus about universally accepted governance principles and to improve their institutional framework." I suggest the meeting should focus on universal governance principles (Rousseff) and institutional framework (Montevideo, and noting that parts of statement are complementary with Rousseff's principles.) I think we can take it that "institutional framework" refers to IANA and ICANN, the original themes of Internet governance. Gives seven main discussion themes for the meeting: President Rousseff (speech to the UN General Assembly), principles and norms to help guide the international operation of the Internet: 1. Freedom of expression, privacy of the individual and respect for human rights. 2. Open, multilateral and democratic governance, carried out with transparency by stimulating collective creativity and the participation of society, governments and the private sector. 3. Universality that ensures the social and human development and the construction of inclusive and non-discriminatory societies. 4. Cultural diversity, without the imposition of beliefs, customs and values. 5. Neutrality of the network, guided only by technical and ethical criteria, rendering it inadmissible to restrict it for political, commercial, religious or any other purposes. Original issues of Internet governance and from the Montevideo Statement: 6 & 7. The globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an equal footing, i.e. development of new institutional framework. These fall into five main areas: (1) Good work's done on Internet governance principles and cooperation in many organizations and fora, these were well presented in Bali. Bring the different actors together for Brazil, invite them to join a working group and collectively develop a set of principles for global governance, tasks completed by IGF 2015. To address aspects of Rousseff 1-4 and parts of the Montevideo Statement. (2) Global principles for protecting Human Rights online. Work's been done by various parties, from the UN Rapporteur to more recently a group leading international authors, and a collection of U.S. Internet companies. In Bali the Swedish Government presented seven fundamental principles that should apply to maintain respect for human rights when carrying out surveillance of electronic communications -- these were strongly supported, they refer to legality, legitimate aim, necessity and adequacy, proportionality, judicial authority, transparency, and public oversight. And of course there's much more. Brazil is an opportunity to bring these parties together, hear their ideas and set the tasks for a working group to develop appropriate and working principles. It is not hard to imagine working groups on these themes producing adoptable outcomes. (3) President Rousseff's fifth topic, Network Neutrality, might be harder to reach consensus on. But that doesn't mean discussion of different approaches to network neutrality would not be valuable (e.g. proposed regulation in Europe, actual situations elsewhere, the IGF net neutrality coalition reported in Bali, greater consideration of what network neutrality means in developing markets, particularly mobile). If a working group was unable to reach definite recommendations, one still might be established with the task of providing model frameworks, an overview of different approaches and critiques of them. (4) Institutional Framework for the IANA function. Internet tech community has been making recommendations since 2006, RIRs made proposals for an independent IANA function during the last re-bid of the contract. Civil society actors have made proposals and have strong opinions... so do governments. A multi-stakeholder discussion of IANA, root zone database and Verisign's contract with NTIA, the root operators and whether their work needs more oversight, this is a discussion I think needs to happen. Give a working group 18 months to develop a new institutional framework. (5) Globalization of ICANN. What would an independent ICANN look like? How would an independent ICANN be globally accountable? An affirmation of commitments between ICANN and us not U.S. From oversight by one government to no government, or oversight by all? What kind of host country agreement, what protections? And many more questions. A working group might monitor the Accountability and Transparency Review Team process and provide advice on ICANN's internal processes, while also propose new models for independence. 18 months to get an international framework for IANA into acceptable shape, for principles on good governance and human rights, for some dialogue that may or may not shape some domestic policy on net neutrality, to provide models for an independent ICANN. Between now and April 2014 various actors invited to make proposals, papers to help shape discussion, and provide ideas as to charters for the working groups. The Brazil meeting discusses issues, the charters and tasks of working groups, sets ground rules for there operation (multi-stakeholder, transparency, etc). September 2014, IGF in Istanbul can be used to review progress, perhaps recommend changes. Not hard to imagine a role for the high-level/ministerial pre-meeting. Tasks to be complete by IGF of 2015 back in Brazil. The IGF offers check-points along the way: first in May 2014 when the MAG typically meets to finalize the agenda for the year, and two meetings in 2015. The IGF is our only substantive multi-stakeholder process, it's known, it can be a means to carry work forward, so use it. And make the Brazil meeting more than talk. Adam On Dec 12, 2013, at 12:28 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: > I find this a refreshing view of civil society representative issues, and I take Mike's point that looking at a model with polar choices may not get at the real issue. > > I understand the concern about being at the table, especially when from a CS point of view, other actors have the potential, and often the intent, to weaken CS goals. > > Mike's comments strengthen the hypothesis that the arguments over representation really represent a proxy dispute for representation issues unsolved within the CS representative community. If that is the case, and CS is attempting to represent a diverse and apparently disparate set of views not bound by rough consensus, that helps to explain why specific representation is believed to be so important. > > Has there been any attempt to do some cluster analysis, quantitative or intuitive. on the divergent views, so that areas of agreement can be more sharply defined, and clusters of areas of disagreement also be identified? I suspect that these are difficult topics to discuss, in part because of believing that a united front provides more strength vis-à-vis other stakeholder groups, and exposing differences within the group could be regarded by some as an indication of weakness or disarray. > > Thanks for this analysis, Mike! > > George > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > On Dec 11, 2013, at 8:38 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > >> I think the issues are rather different from the polarity Milton (and George) are posing… It isn’t just an issue of representation or substance but rather representation and substance or rather representation being necessary for substance… Even though there appears to be some issues with recognizing this in our current context. >> >> I’m also copying this to BestBits and by implication the “steering committee” (or whatever it is currently being called)… >> >> So far, I have yet to see any specific recognition or more importantly accommodation to the quite evident differences as between various groupings within Civil Society as to the nature of the substantive inputs that will be given into any framework for which nominations are/will/should be solicited. >> >> There are I believe, quite significant differences with respect to how matters of Internet Governance could/should be addressed/resolved within (IG based) CS (as there is of course, in the larger CS and non-CS world… >> >> These differences apart from the cartoonish mis-characterizations pro-offered by certain irresponsible elements are serious and reflect different perspectives (and broad societally based interests) on how an overall balance towards a democratic, just and inclusive Internet can be achieved. >> >> Either these differences are reflected first within whatever approach to selection is entered into and then in the range of nominees themselves; or the selection process will be illegitimate, have done CS overall a major disservice, and any illusions of a common CS front will be impossible. And one can expect that the resulting parallel strategies for representation will be pursued with the utmost vigour including through whatever means of public visibility might be available. >> >> The usual process within CS of opting for “identity” based modes of “representivity” i.e. gender, region, age etc. is clearly insufficient in a context as fundamental and as normatively/substantively divided as the one that we are currently dealing with. >> >> I believe however, that there is within CS a broad underlying agreement on overall values with respect to IG and the future of the internet. I think it would be a serious mistake to not have the principled disagreements on how best to achieve those ultimate goals reflected within whatever representations CS makes in the various venues in the days going forward so that a united CS can move forward towards those goals. >> >> Best, >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller >> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 3:53 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Marilia Maciel >> Subject: RE: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps >> >> Thank you. Marilia's position as stated below reflects exactly my own. >> >> The point is not, as Jeanette mistakenly argues, that there is a "madness" about filling committee positions to the exclusion of substantive debate. No one can fairly accuse me, of all people, of failing to actively formulate positions on the substantive issues. That's what I spend most of my time doing. >> >> The problem is that we were told to provide names, we did a lot of work to do so, and then those names were disregarded. This will have long term consequences regarding other requests by 1net (and we still do not have a statement as to who is actually making decisions on behalf of 1net) for participation in the future. 1net really needs to think carefully about what kind of precedents it is setting and how much trust it is or is not building here. >> >> I have to say I am especially unimpressed with the statements from Mr. Sadowsky. When he says, "concentrate on substance, don't pay any attention to who is represented on committees," it has absolutely no credibility, because it comes from a person who is at least connected to, or more likely is actually one of the people making, decisions behind the scenes. George might do better to keep silent or to just recognize that a mess was made and apologize for it. If it truly doesn't matter who is on these committees, why did ICANN appoint some people to them and not others? And why not tell us who is making decisions for 1net? >> >> Let me make it clear: I attribute most of this problem to disorganization and bad procedure rather than ill intent. But when lame rationalizations are offered for the effects of the disorganization it contributes to ill will. >> >> --MM >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Dec 12 10:28:58 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 15:28:58 +0000 Subject: (part 2) [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: <3C6BE527-9146-4F83-9B28-0C2B9DCA5D7B@glocom.ac.jp> References: <52A73296.1040309@internetundgesellschaft.de> <52A73347.3010807@wzb.eu> <39F5446A-7F85-4E20-9165-6CF77666E5C5@gmail.com>, <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257BFB5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <117101cef6da$cd94af60$68be0e20$@gmail.com> <7CFD9307-1B80-4777-B759-7AD39D207063@gmail.com>,<3C6BE527-9146-4F83-9B28-0C2B9DCA5D7B@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2BDAF2@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> +1 ________________________________ From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Adam Peake [ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 10:15 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; George Sadowsky Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Bits Subject: Re: (part 2) [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps carrying on from my last email, sorry for the length... Brazil is a wonderful opportunity, so here are some ideas about how I think it could proceed. Purpose. A two-day meeting to discuss a limited number of IG issues/challenges. Address how to resolve those issues by creating a number of working groups which will report back to the 2015 IGF in Brazil. The Brazil meeting to charter each working group, charters can be reviewed and if necessary finalized at the 2014 IGF in Istanbul (IGF consultation in May can also be used.) IGF Istanbul and opportunity to check on progress, tweak, and set the WG off to report back the following year (opportunity for review during the typical February and May IGF sessions of 2015.) The IGF is an established global process with some participation from all stakeholders. Participation must be improved, but it is the best we have for interested parties to discuss as peers. Brazil is an opportunity to strengthen the IGF, make it more relevant, more useful. And at the same time give the Brazil meeting a means to be more than just another two days of talk. Themes. Importance of Bali IGF as a starting point for identifying themes. The Brazil "summit" was an important topic referred to repeatedly during sessions in Bali. The Montevideo Statement attracted almost as much interest and support. Bali's been the only opportunity we've had to hear a broad spectrum of views on the proposal to meet in Brazil, the only significant gathering of different stakeholders where that meeting and why it was called has been discussed. There were rich discussions in Bali, they are worth building on, we aren't staring from nothing. The chair's summary attempts to cover some topics , the transcripts provide a full record A few things I think there's some agreement on: - The Brazil meeting should focus on dialogue, not in itself be a decision making event. - Widespread support for the IGF: the Brazil meeting should not in anyway replace/undermine the IGF (and nor should 1net.) - Widespread support for the five principles President Rousseff proposed to the UN general assembly (they inspired Fadi Chehadé to meet her and to call for the meeting). - The Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation is widely supported (also by Brazil govt representatives during the IGF.) - The multi-stakeholder approach must be strengthened; there is concern about a coming period of multilateral processes. - Condemnation of surveillance. - Agreement that global principles protecting human rights online should be developed and adopted (a close fit with President Rousseff's principles, and also Marco Civil -- the still draft Brazilian bill of online rights.) More recently the Brazil Steering committee announcement refers to President Rousseff's UN speech and to the Montevideo Statement and says of the meeting it should "pursue consensus about universally accepted governance principles and to improve their institutional framework." I suggest the meeting should focus on universal governance principles (Rousseff) and institutional framework (Montevideo, and noting that parts of statement are complementary with Rousseff's principles.) I think we can take it that "institutional framework" refers to IANA and ICANN, the original themes of Internet governance. Gives seven main discussion themes for the meeting: President Rousseff (speech to the UN General Assembly), principles and norms to help guide the international operation of the Internet: 1. Freedom of expression, privacy of the individual and respect for human rights. 2. Open, multilateral and democratic governance, carried out with transparency by stimulating collective creativity and the participation of society, governments and the private sector. 3. Universality that ensures the social and human development and the construction of inclusive and non-discriminatory societies. 4. Cultural diversity, without the imposition of beliefs, customs and values. 5. Neutrality of the network, guided only by technical and ethical criteria, rendering it inadmissible to restrict it for political, commercial, religious or any other purposes. Original issues of Internet governance and from the Montevideo Statement: 6 & 7. The globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an equal footing, i.e. development of new institutional framework. These fall into five main areas: (1) Good work's done on Internet governance principles and cooperation in many organizations and fora, these were well presented in Bali. Bring the different actors together for Brazil, invite them to join a working group and collectively develop a set of principles for global governance, tasks completed by IGF 2015. To address aspects of Rousseff 1-4 and parts of the Montevideo Statement. (2) Global principles for protecting Human Rights online. Work's been done by various parties, from the UN Rapporteur to more recently a group leading international authors, and a collection of U.S. Internet companies. In Bali the Swedish Government presented seven fundamental principles that should apply to maintain respect for human rights when carrying out surveillance of electronic communications -- these were strongly supported, they refer to legality, legitimate aim, necessity and adequacy, proportionality, judicial authority, transparency, and public oversight. And of course there's much more. Brazil is an opportunity to bring these parties together, hear their ideas and set the tasks for a working group to develop appropriate and working principles. It is not hard to imagine working groups on these themes producing adoptable outcomes. (3) President Rousseff's fifth topic, Network Neutrality, might be harder to reach consensus on. But that doesn't mean discussion of different approaches to network neutrality would not be valuable (e.g. proposed regulation in Europe, actual situations elsewhere, the IGF net neutrality coalition reported in Bali, greater consideration of what network neutrality means in developing markets, particularly mobile). If a working group was unable to reach definite recommendations, one still might be established with the task of providing model frameworks, an overview of different approaches and critiques of them. (4) Institutional Framework for the IANA function. Internet tech community has been making recommendations since 2006, RIRs made proposals for an independent IANA function during the last re-bid of the contract. Civil society actors have made proposals and have strong opinions... so do governments. A multi-stakeholder discussion of IANA, root zone database and Verisign's contract with NTIA, the root operators and whether their work needs more oversight, this is a discussion I think needs to happen. Give a working group 18 months to develop a new institutional framework. (5) Globalization of ICANN. What would an independent ICANN look like? How would an independent ICANN be globally accountable? An affirmation of commitments between ICANN and us not U.S. From oversight by one government to no government, or oversight by all? What kind of host country agreement, what protections? And many more questions. A working group might monitor the Accountability and Transparency Review Team process and provide advice on ICANN's internal processes, while also propose new models for independence. 18 months to get an international framework for IANA into acceptable shape, for principles on good governance and human rights, for some dialogue that may or may not shape some domestic policy on net neutrality, to provide models for an independent ICANN. Between now and April 2014 various actors invited to make proposals, papers to help shape discussion, and provide ideas as to charters for the working groups. The Brazil meeting discusses issues, the charters and tasks of working groups, sets ground rules for there operation (multi-stakeholder, transparency, etc). September 2014, IGF in Istanbul can be used to review progress, perhaps recommend changes. Not hard to imagine a role for the high-level/ministerial pre-meeting. Tasks to be complete by IGF of 2015 back in Brazil. The IGF offers check-points along the way: first in May 2014 when the MAG typically meets to finalize the agenda for the year, and two meetings in 2015. The IGF is our only substantive multi-stakeholder process, it's known, it can be a means to carry work forward, so use it. And make the Brazil meeting more than talk. Adam On Dec 12, 2013, at 12:28 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: > I find this a refreshing view of civil society representative issues, and I take Mike's point that looking at a model with polar choices may not get at the real issue. > > I understand the concern about being at the table, especially when from a CS point of view, other actors have the potential, and often the intent, to weaken CS goals. > > Mike's comments strengthen the hypothesis that the arguments over representation really represent a proxy dispute for representation issues unsolved within the CS representative community. If that is the case, and CS is attempting to represent a diverse and apparently disparate set of views not bound by rough consensus, that helps to explain why specific representation is believed to be so important. > > Has there been any attempt to do some cluster analysis, quantitative or intuitive. on the divergent views, so that areas of agreement can be more sharply defined, and clusters of areas of disagreement also be identified? I suspect that these are difficult topics to discuss, in part because of believing that a united front provides more strength vis-à-vis other stakeholder groups, and exposing differences within the group could be regarded by some as an indication of weakness or disarray. > > Thanks for this analysis, Mike! > > George > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > On Dec 11, 2013, at 8:38 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > >> I think the issues are rather different from the polarity Milton (and George) are posing… It isn’t just an issue of representation or substance but rather representation and substance or rather representation being necessary for substance… Even though there appears to be some issues with recognizing this in our current context. >> >> I’m also copying this to BestBits and by implication the “steering committee” (or whatever it is currently being called)… >> >> So far, I have yet to see any specific recognition or more importantly accommodation to the quite evident differences as between various groupings within Civil Society as to the nature of the substantive inputs that will be given into any framework for which nominations are/will/should be solicited. >> >> There are I believe, quite significant differences with respect to how matters of Internet Governance could/should be addressed/resolved within (IG based) CS (as there is of course, in the larger CS and non-CS world… >> >> These differences apart from the cartoonish mis-characterizations pro-offered by certain irresponsible elements are serious and reflect different perspectives (and broad societally based interests) on how an overall balance towards a democratic, just and inclusive Internet can be achieved. >> >> Either these differences are reflected first within whatever approach to selection is entered into and then in the range of nominees themselves; or the selection process will be illegitimate, have done CS overall a major disservice, and any illusions of a common CS front will be impossible. And one can expect that the resulting parallel strategies for representation will be pursued with the utmost vigour including through whatever means of public visibility might be available. >> >> The usual process within CS of opting for “identity” based modes of “representivity” i.e. gender, region, age etc. is clearly insufficient in a context as fundamental and as normatively/substantively divided as the one that we are currently dealing with. >> >> I believe however, that there is within CS a broad underlying agreement on overall values with respect to IG and the future of the internet. I think it would be a serious mistake to not have the principled disagreements on how best to achieve those ultimate goals reflected within whatever representations CS makes in the various venues in the days going forward so that a united CS can move forward towards those goals. >> >> Best, >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller >> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 3:53 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Marilia Maciel >> Subject: RE: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps >> >> Thank you. Marilia's position as stated below reflects exactly my own. >> >> The point is not, as Jeanette mistakenly argues, that there is a "madness" about filling committee positions to the exclusion of substantive debate. No one can fairly accuse me, of all people, of failing to actively formulate positions on the substantive issues. That's what I spend most of my time doing. >> >> The problem is that we were told to provide names, we did a lot of work to do so, and then those names were disregarded. This will have long term consequences regarding other requests by 1net (and we still do not have a statement as to who is actually making decisions on behalf of 1net) for participation in the future. 1net really needs to think carefully about what kind of precedents it is setting and how much trust it is or is not building here. >> >> I have to say I am especially unimpressed with the statements from Mr. Sadowsky. When he says, "concentrate on substance, don't pay any attention to who is represented on committees," it has absolutely no credibility, because it comes from a person who is at least connected to, or more likely is actually one of the people making, decisions behind the scenes. George might do better to keep silent or to just recognize that a mess was made and apologize for it. If it truly doesn't matter who is on these committees, why did ICANN appoint some people to them and not others? And why not tell us who is making decisions for 1net? >> >> Let me make it clear: I attribute most of this problem to disorganization and bad procedure rather than ill intent. But when lame rationalizations are offered for the effects of the disorganization it contributes to ill will. >> >> --MM >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nb at bollow.ch Thu Dec 12 10:45:44 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 16:45:44 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] BB listers and IGC listers In-Reply-To: References: <20131212102324.71be5669@quill> Message-ID: <20131212164544.3160e974@quill> Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > > (I would not object to my name being included e.g. on a document > > listing "people who have made a great number of mailing list > > postings", since the creation of such a document would be > > justifiable on the basis of the transparency principle that I have > > mentioned above. But such justification does not apply to a > > document that includes people who are subscribed simply out of a > > desire to be informed.) > > The study did not include "Reasons for being on BB and IGC". Are you > suggesting we further it? No. I thought I was very clear that I was suggesting that the creation of a specific, different kind of document was unjustifiable, and that I insisted that my personal information be removed from it. > That will mean a kind of survey. But I find > the idea actually tempting. That may just be the kind of knowledge > that may help build the CS. For the purpose of understanding whether there is significant "double dipping", i.e. figuring out whether there is a significant number of people who feel represented (in some sense) both by a BestBits delegate to a civil society coordination group and by an IGC delegate, a survey would certainly make much more sense than to just compare who is subscribed. I certainly wouldn't want the fact that I have been a subscriber of the BestBits list since pretty much its beginning to be interpreted as wanting to be represented in any way by a "BestBits" representative to some civil society coordination group. Quite on the contrary, I'd like to give my input to such processes either directly or through the IGC. I'm not at all interested in what has been called "double dipping" even if I'm subscribed to both mailing lists. I think however (and this was for me a main reason for resigning from IGC coordinatorship) that IGC needs to get its act together before it can credibly provide any further input to any civil society coordination process; until IGC has overcome its current paralysis, the "double dipping" concern is rather pointless anyway, and it also doesn't make sense to ask people in a survey whether they wish to be represented through IGC in any civil society coordination process. > I did not "create" as such, I only pulled information that is > available. Anybody can do the same work. I gave the sources. Mailing > list archives are open by default and the members' list is available > to all members, no? Even when that information is available to all subscribers, that does not imply that it is available for every purpose. When someone is subscribed to a mailing list but not posting, they don't show up in the archives, and after they unsubscribe, the mailing list server will not disclose who was subscribed in the past. So in the case of a country changing so that it becomes dangerous to be known as a BestBits or IGC mailing list subscriber, people who were subscribed just to be informed (without posting themselves) can unsubscribe (and possibly, if they're willing to take the associated risks, resubscribe under a pseudonym). That possibility gets destroyed by creating and sharing static documents that document who was subscribed at a specific point in time. But regardless of whether this argument convinces you or not, please simply respect the fact that I do not want my personal information to be included in that "study" document. Greetings, Norbert From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Dec 12 11:14:07 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 23:14:07 +0700 Subject: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: <86636F20-A0D0-475C-BABB-B3F49D578BCF@ciroap.org> References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> <7F389FFA-0F74-4E5B-9BB8-5B314329D02C@ciroap.org> <52A06B55.3090303@itforchange.net> <52A0DFD8.5080304@cdt.org> <9CF11A9A-118D-4110-BF4B-EE3C95070A99@gmail.com> <52A19D87.7070507@cdt.org> <947CE775-274E-469E-BB52-DF92C15FE21D@ciroap.org> <12c501cef705$95a0e5d0$c0e2b170$@gmail.com> <86636F20-A0D0-475C-BABB-B3F49D578BCF@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <010d01cef755$31530bd0$93f92370$@gmail.com> From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 4:30 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: cs-coord at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee . switching lists because this is not a Best Bits process issue. Ian has already provided some more detail in the next email in the thread, which crossed with yours. But generally, all of the liaisons were asked to choose their preferred candidates based on discussions within their networks (for example, on the Best Bits list several people spoke up in favour of Rafik), and these were tallied up. The three candidates mentioned had the most common support. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm ---------------------------------------------- MG: Ah, I see, you sat down with a couple of mates, licked your finger and tested the wind and then hey presto, the "result of the civil society coordination group process"--all of course conducted with that appropriate measure of democratic transparency and accountability that we so often expect of those to whom we pro-offer advice and comment. And I particularly like the fact that you forgo humility and claim that this represents "the civil society . process". not the false modesty of "a civil society process" or perhaps "a process among a small and self-selected group of civil society actors". You are too modest, this model should be shared with the larger Civil Society community and beyond. (And as I said in another email yesterday, this is not simply about process but specifically about representing (or not) the full range of CS positions and interests which your lack of an appropriate process deliberately, it appears, was designed to preclude.) Shame. M -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Dec 12 11:23:25 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 23:23:25 +0700 Subject: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> <7F389FFA-0F74-4E5B-9BB8-5B314329D02C@ciroap.org> <52A06B55.3090303@itforchange.net> <52A0DFD8.5080304@cdt.org> <9CF11A9A-118D-4110-BF4B-EE3C95070A99@gmail.com> <52A19D87.7070507@cdt.org> <947CE775-274E-469E-BB52-DF92C15FE21D@ciroap.org> <12c501cef705$95a0e5d0$c0e2b170$@gmail.com> <86636F20-A0D0-475C-BABB-B3F49D578BCF@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <012101cef756$81573fb0$8405bf10$@gmail.com> From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 4:30 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: cs-coord at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee . switching lists because this is not a Best Bits process issue. Ian has already provided some more detail in the next email in the thread, which crossed with yours. But generally, all of the liaisons were asked to choose their preferred candidates based on discussions within their networks (for example, on the Best Bits list several people spoke up in favour of Rafik), and these were tallied up. The three candidates mentioned had the most common support. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm ---------------------------------------------- MG: Ah, I see, you sat down with a couple of mates, licked your finger and tested the wind and then hey presto, the "result of the civil society coordination group process"--all of course conducted with that appropriate measure of democratic transparency and accountability that we so often expect of those to whom we pro-offer advice and comment. And I particularly like the fact that you forgo humility and claim that this represents "the civil society . process". not the false modesty of "a civil society process" or perhaps "a process among a small and self-selected group of civil society actors". You are too modest, this model should be shared with the larger Civil Society community and beyond. (And as I said in another email yesterday, this is not simply about process but specifically about representing (or not) the full range of CS positions and interests which your lack of an appropriate process deliberately, it appears, was designed to preclude.) Shame. M -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joao.caribe at me.com Thu Dec 12 12:39:29 2013 From: joao.caribe at me.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Jo=E3o_Carlos_R=2E_Carib=E9=22?=) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 15:39:29 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] New Version of Brazil Marco Civil come with risks Message-ID: <292B6FE0-9F8E-4F7B-A712-5A5793977191@me.com> Dears, Yesterday after our Parliament leader meeting one last one version of Marco Civil are written, http://idgnow.uol.com.br/blog/circuito/2013/12/11/molon-torna-publicas-novas-mudancas-no-texto-do-marco-civil/ But I'm very worried with this version of Marco Civil, the risks are so big that I prefered to withdraw my personal support for Marco Civil and we are running a debate inside Movimento Mega to public withdraw our support for this version of Marco Civil. The troubles are: Article 16 - the dummy and dangerous insistence of our govern to the obligation of data centers of service providers at Brazil, this article under the argument for response to USA vigilance, will put the Brazilian web content more closer to our justice and content removal and user indentification will be faster, but it's not mean be good. Artciles 21 and 22 - This articles focused on unauthorized sexual material removal could be a wedge to a hardcore content removal with the words "and under copyright" material would be included. This articles is like Notify and Take down without the rights for the publisher to restore the content without a trial. That's all for now -- João Carlos R. Caribé Consultor Skype joaocaribe (021) 4042 7727 (021) 8761 1967 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew at gp-digital.org Fri Dec 13 13:30:48 2013 From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 18:30:48 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Input into Brazil summit Message-ID: Hi everyone Just to update you all. So far the folk below on the chart have indicated a desire to collaborate to produce ideas to be submitted to the Brazil summit. I've agreed to try and co-ordinate Stream 3, Matthew Shears has agreed to co-ordinate Stream 2 and Jeremy Malcolm Stream 1. So thanks to them for stepping up. Secondly I've received 20 responses to the survey monkey on Stream 3 IG governance - a couple of which were sent to me separately. So thank you all for a fantastic response - it was really encouraging to read through all the ideas and observations people had. I'm going to leave the survey open for a few days in case more ideas trickle in. I thought the best step would be to circulate the raw survey material so you all get a chance to read the different responses - it's well worth spending an hour or two on them - lots of great ideas. On reflection and discussing with the team here at GPD we thought the sensible next step was as follows. Taking the submissions we have there are four steps we plan to take: 1. Analysing and summarising what people say about the case for reform 2. Developing a set of principles for the system of IG governance that would produce outcomes supportive of human rights and social justice (e.g. transparency, participation, inclusion, human rights promoting etc) 3. Mapping/critiquing proposals for reform against these IG principles, grouping them if possible and setting out a risk/benefit analysis of the various ideas 4. Putting together those combination of reform proposals that best fit the principles and submitting them for collective discussion. I'd like to get your thoughts on this as a way forward. We plan to undertake exercise at our end and send round our findings as soon as we can. That will help define for us the areas of work that we'd be interested in pursuing. Obviously we would welcome your thoughts on this approach. And once we produce the analysis, if you prefer to see what we come up with, we'd welcome your contributions/suggestions/amendments etc. Of course you may think there's a better way of handling the volume of material and you may just want to go off and draft your own proposals - the material is available for anyone to use however they want. Everyone should free to take this forward how they wish. Best Andrew Stream 1 Stream 2 Stream 3 Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote participation, stakeholder representation and selection) Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil and/or other existing principles documents). Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder Internet governance including: 1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by Internet Governance Project and/or others). 2. Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group). Andrew Andrew at gp-digital.org Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression, privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free expression. Submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF) Matthew mshears at cdt.org x x Nnenna nnenna at webfoundation.org x Claudio claudio at derechosdigitales.org x - contribute, not lead Valeria/ APC valeriab at apc.org x - contribute x - contribute Marianne/ IRP m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk x x Jeanette hofmann at internetundgesellschaft.de x - listen and comment Anriette APC anriette at apc.org x x x Anja anja at internetdemocracy.in x x Joana joana at varonferraz.com x x x Jeremy jeremy at ciroap.org x Michael gurstein at gmail.com x x Marilia mariliamaciel at gmail.com 3.1/3.2 Rafik rafik.dammak at gmail.com x x Joy joy at apc.org x x Imran ias_pk at yahoo.com x Ian ian.peter at ianpeter.com Chinmayi chinmayiarun at gmail.com x x Cynthia wongc at hrw.org x Avri avri at acm.org x Adam ajp at glocom.ac.jp x x Pranesh pranesh at cis-india.org x x Carolina carolina.rossini at gmail.com x x x Borami squ24n at gmail.com x Sarah Sarah.Clarke at pen-international.org x Misha mishi at softwarefreedom.org x Deborah/Access deborah at accessnow.org x x Poncelet pileleji at ymca.gm x x Lorena lorena at collaboratory.de x Sana sana at bolobhi.org x Jean-Christophe jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net x x Bertrand bdelachapelle at gmail.com x Laura lmottaz at INTERNEWS.ORG x x Parminder parminder at itforchange.net x x x Burcu bkilic at citizen.org x x Matthias will offer international legal expertise on all issues matthias.kettemann at gmail.com x x x Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Survey monkey download.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 62832 bytes Desc: Survey monkey download.docx URL: From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Fri Dec 13 13:46:11 2013 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 16:46:11 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] Input into Brazil summit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you very much, Andrew. Following the option of "listen and comment", I would like to be added to stream 2, on principles. Thanks for leaving the survey open. Hope to finish answering the remaining questions by the weekend. Marília On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > Hi everyone > > Just to update you all. So far the folk below on the chart have indicated > a desire to collaborate to produce ideas to be submitted to the Brazil > summit. I’ve agreed to try and co-ordinate Stream 3, Matthew Shears has > agreed to co-ordinate Stream 2 and Jeremy Malcolm Stream 1. So thanks to > them for stepping up. > > Secondly I’ve received 20 responses to the survey monkey on Stream 3 IG > governance – a couple of which were sent to me separately. So thank you > all for a fantastic response - it was really encouraging to read through > all the ideas and observations people had. I’m going to leave the survey > open for a few days in case more ideas trickle in. > > I thought the best step would be to circulate the raw survey material so > you all get a chance to read the different responses – it’s well worth > spending an hour or two on them – lots of great ideas. > > On reflection and discussing with the team here at GPD we thought the > sensible next step was as follows. Taking the submissions we have there > are four steps we plan to take: > > 1. Analysing and summarising what people say about the case for > reform > > 2. Developing a set of principles for the system of IG governance > that would produce outcomes supportive of human rights and social justice > (e.g. transparency, participation, inclusion, human rights promoting etc) > > 3. Mapping/critiquing proposals for reform against these IG > principles, grouping them if possible and setting out a risk/benefit > analysis of the various ideas > > 4. Putting together those combination of reform proposals that best > fit the principles and submitting them for collective discussion. > > I’d like to get your thoughts on this as a way forward. We plan to > undertake exercise at our end and send round our findings as soon as we > can. That will help define for us the areas of work that we’d be > interested in pursuing. > > Obviously we would welcome your thoughts on this approach. And once we > produce the analysis, if you prefer to see what we come up with, we’d > welcome your contributions/suggestions/amendments etc. > > Of course you may think there’s a better way of handling the volume of > material and you may just want to go off and draft your own proposals – the > material is available for anyone to use however they want. Everyone should > free to take this forward how they wish. > > Best > > > > Andrew > > > > > > *Stream 1* > > *Stream 2* > > *Stream 3* > > > > > > *Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote > participation, stakeholder representation and selection)* > > *Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil > and/or other existing principles documents).* > > *Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder > Internet governance including: 1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on > existing work done by Internet Governance Project and/or others). 2. Orphan > issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the > recommendations of the Correspondence Group).* > > Andrew > > > > > > Andrew at gp-digital.org > > > > Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression, > privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free expression. > > Submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed > structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to include > ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF) > > Matthew > > mshears at cdt.org > > > > x > > x > > Nnenna > > nnenna at webfoundation.org > > x > > > > > > Claudio > > claudio at derechosdigitales.org > > > > x - contribute, not lead > > > > Valeria/ APC > > valeriab at apc.org > > > > x - contribute > > x - contribute > > Marianne/ IRP > > m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk > > > > x > > x > > Jeanette > > hofmann at internetundgesellschaft.de > > > > > > x - listen and comment > > Anriette APC > > anriette at apc.org > > x > > x > > x > > Anja > > anja at internetdemocracy.in > > x > > > > x > > Joana > > joana at varonferraz.com > > x > > x > > x > > Jeremy > > jeremy at ciroap.org > > x > > > > > > Michael > > gurstein at gmail.com > > > > x > > x > > Marilia > > mariliamaciel at gmail.com > > > > > > 3.1/3.2 > > Rafik > > rafik.dammak at gmail.com > > > > x > > x > > Joy > > joy at apc.org > > > > x > > x > > Imran > > ias_pk at yahoo.com > > > > > > x > > Ian > > ian.peter at ianpeter.com > > > > > > > > Chinmayi > > chinmayiarun at gmail.com > > > > x > > x > > Cynthia > > wongc at hrw.org > > > > x > > > > Avri > > avri at acm.org > > > > x > > > > Adam > > ajp at glocom.ac.jp > > > > x > > x > > Pranesh > > pranesh at cis-india.org > > > > x > > x > > Carolina > > carolina.rossini at gmail.com > > x > > x > > x > > Borami > > squ24n at gmail.com > > > > x > > > > Sarah > > Sarah.Clarke at pen-international.org > > > > x > > > > Misha > > mishi at softwarefreedom.org > > > > x > > > > Deborah/Access > > deborah at accessnow.org > > > > x > > x > > Poncelet > > pileleji at ymca.gm > > x > > > > x > > Lorena > > lorena at collaboratory.de > > > > x > > > > Sana > > sana at bolobhi.org > > > > x > > > > Jean-Christophe > > jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net > > > > x > > x > > Bertrand > > bdelachapelle at gmail.com > > > > > > x > > Laura > > lmottaz at INTERNEWS.ORG > > x > > x > > > > Parminder > > parminder at itforchange.net > > x > > x > > x > > Burcu > > bkilic at citizen.org > > x > > x > > > > Matthias will offer international legal expertise on all issues > > matthias.kettemann at gmail.com > > x > > x > > x > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Andrew Puddephatt* | *GLOBAL PARTNERS* DIGITAL > > Executive Director > > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > > T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt > *gp-digital.org * > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Dec 13 20:50:55 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 08:50:55 +0700 Subject: (part 2) [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps References: <52A73296.1040309@internetundgesellschaft.de> <52A73347.3010807@wzb.eu> <39F5446A-7F85-4E20-9165-6CF77666E5C5@gmail.com>, <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257BFB5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <117101cef6da$cd94af60$68be0e20$@gmail.com> <7CFD9307-1B80-4777-B759-7AD39D207063@gmail.com> <3C6BE527-9146-4F83-9B28-0C2B9DCA5D7B@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <01e401cef86e$f628c0c0$e27a4240$@gmail.com> Thanks for this Adam, it does begin to lay out some of the issues that will need to be addressed and also to clarify some of the points of disagreement that will equally need to be addressed... but I’m a bit surprised at the way that you’ve taken Rousseff and Chehade’s bold and even visionary initiative and turned it into a mini-pre-IGF. I’m not sure who will find what you are proposing of that much interest apart from those desperate to maintain the status quo, certainly I would have thought, not most in CS, at least those outside of these rather narrow and unrepresentative boundaries, but maybe that’s the point Let me comment inline... -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Adam Peake Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 10:16 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; George Sadowsky Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Bits Subject: Re: (part 2) [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps carrying on from my last email, sorry for the length... Brazil is a wonderful opportunity, so here are some ideas about how I think it could proceed. [MG>] yes Purpose. A two-day meeting to discuss a limited number of IG issues/challenges. Address how to resolve those issues by creating a number of working groups which will report back to the 2015 IGF in Brazil. The Brazil meeting to charter each working group, charters can be reviewed and if necessary finalized at the 2014 IGF in Istanbul (IGF consultation in May can also be used.) IGF Istanbul and opportunity to check on progress, tweak, and set the WG off to report back the following year (opportunity for review during the typical February and May IGF sessions of 2015.) [MG>] I think that this rather over-privileges the IGF (see comments below) and a more appropriate approach, and one which gives the Brazil event the significance that I believe it could and should warrant would be to develop working groups before the Brazil meeting to develop working papers and even proposals that might be addressed during the session. A possible outcome would then be follow-on working groups or whatever seemed appropriate under the circumstances. I think it is both presumptuous and mistaken to pre-judge the outcomes as you have done here and I’m hoping (and expecting) that the planners for Brazil will take the event rather more seriously then you seem to be doing. The IGF is an established global process with some participation from all stakeholders. Participation must be improved, but it is the best we have for interested parties to discuss as peers. [MG>] I think that one of the necessary elements and subjects for discussion should be the future of the IGF and what if any role it might play in the mechanisms for Internet Governance. From my limited observations while the scope of the IGF discussions have broadened over the years alongside the developing significance of the Internet overall, as others have also noted the range of participation/participants has become narrower and narrower—fewer high level officials, fewer significant participants from LDC’s, little if any extension in the range of content participation, little if any serious social diversity beyond the (useful) tokenism of “interns” or “trainees” or “ambassadors’ (i.e. links into other areas where the Internet is of increasing significance and concern I think that the narrowness in the perspectives and lack of imagination and overall “de-politicization” of the IGF through the deadening hand of a self-reproducing MAG, is, to a very considerable degree responsible for this and if the IGF is to have a serious role these issues will have to be addressed quite directly. I should add that what little experience I’ve had with the national/regional IGF’s strongly suggests that they are a very positive addition within their local Internet ecologies but the evident difficulties in making an appropriate linkage between them and the global IGF would seem to further reinforce my above observations. Brazil is an opportunity to strengthen the IGF, make it more relevant, more useful. And at the same time give the Brazil meeting a means to be more than just another two days of talk. [MG>] Brazil is to my mind a significant opportunity to break out of the fairly rigid and largely trivializing mode that the IGF has fallen into and one can only hope that this opportunity is taken advantage of. Themes. Importance of Bali IGF as a starting point for identifying themes. The Brazil "summit" was an important topic referred to repeatedly during sessions in Bali. The Montevideo Statement attracted almost as much interest and support. [MG>] yes Bali's been the only opportunity we've had to hear a broad spectrum of views on the proposal to meet in Brazil, the only significant gathering of different stakeholders where that meeting and why it was called has been discussed. There were rich discussions in Bali, they are worth building on, we aren't staring from nothing. The chair's summary attempts to cover some topics < http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/Chair's%20Summary%20IGF%202013%20Final.Nov1v1 .pdf>, the transcripts provide a full record < http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-2013-transcripts> A few things I think there's some agreement on: [MG>] agreement among whom, and how is this agreement ascertained apart from within the echo chamber - The Brazil meeting should focus on dialogue, not in itself be a decision making event. [MG>] see above I see no justification for this position to be taken at this time and certainly not by a shadowy group of “those who are in agreement” - Widespread support for the IGF: the Brazil meeting should not in anyway replace/undermine the IGF (and nor should 1net.) [MG>] see above ibid. - Widespread support for the five principles President Rousseff proposed to the UN general assembly (they inspired Fadi Chehadé to meet her and to call for the meeting). [MG>] yes - The Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation is widely supported (also by Brazil govt representatives during the IGF.) [MG>] yes - The multi-stakeholder approach must be strengthened; there is concern about a coming period of multilateral processes. [MG>] I have no idea whether this is true or not, but it seems to me to be a bit odd to “strengthen” something for which there is no agreed upon definition, no clear procedures for its operation, no wide agreement on who the “stakeholders” are, how they might determined, what their possible role and “powers” might be and so on.. The first priority I would have thought would be to get some clarity and consistency in what we mean by “multistakeholder” and then decide whether it should or needs to be “strengthened” - Condemnation of surveillance. [MG>] yes - Agreement that global principles protecting human rights online should be developed and adopted (a close fit with President Rousseff's principles, and also Marco Civil -- the still draft Brazilian bill of online rights.) [MG>] yes More recently the Brazil Steering committee announcement < http://www.nic.br/imprensa/releases/2013/rl-2013-62.htm> refers to President Rousseff's UN speech and to the Montevideo Statement and says of the meeting it should "pursue consensus about universally accepted governance principles and to improve their institutional framework." [MG>] yes I suggest the meeting should focus on universal governance principles (Rousseff) and institutional framework (Montevideo, and noting that parts of statement are complementary with Rousseff's principles.) [MG>] yes I think we can take it that "institutional framework" refers to IANA and ICANN, the original themes of Internet governance. Gives seven main discussion themes for the meeting: President Rousseff (speech to the UN General Assembly), principles and norms to help guide the international operation of the Internet: 1. Freedom of expression, privacy of the individual and respect for human rights. 2. Open, multilateral and democratic governance, carried out with transparency by stimulating collective creativity and the participation of society, governments and the private sector. 3. Universality that ensures the social and human development and the construction of inclusive and non-discriminatory societies. 4. Cultural diversity, without the imposition of beliefs, customs and values. 5. Neutrality of the network, guided only by technical and ethical criteria, rendering it inadmissible to restrict it for political, commercial, religious or any other purposes. [MG>] yes Original issues of Internet governance and from the Montevideo Statement: 6 & 7. The globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an equal footing, i.e. development of new institutional framework. [MG>] yes These fall into five main areas: (1) Good work's done on Internet governance principles and cooperation in many organizations and fora, these were well presented in Bali. Bring the different actors together for Brazil, invite them to join a working group and collectively develop a set of principles for global governance, tasks completed by IGF 2015. To address aspects of Rousseff 1-4 and parts of the Montevideo Statement. [MG>] This is a serious trivialization of what Ms. Rousseff articulated. I don’t see how it is possible to follow the process you are proposing i.e. “Bring the different actors together for Brazil, invite them to join a working group and collectively develop a set of principles for global governance, tasks completed by IGF 2015” and have any serious addressing of the issues the President of Brazil identified as for example, the very significant issues involved in achieving #3Universality that ensures the social and human development and the construction of inclusive and non-discriminatory societies. with similar caveats concerning Rousseff’s items #1, 2 and 4 What you have said seems to me to be deeply insulting of the very real concerns regarding the future of the Internet as a fundamental infrastructure for all aspects of daily life, that Ms. Rousseff was articulating and which many around the world responded to with hope and vigour. (2) Global principles for protecting Human Rights online. Work's been done by various parties, from the UN Rapporteur to more recently a group leading international authors, and a collection of U.S. Internet companies. In Bali the Swedish Government presented seven fundamental principles that should apply to maintain respect for human rights when carrying out surveillance of electronic communications -- these were strongly supported, they refer to legality, legitimate aim, necessity and adequacy, proportionality, judicial authority, transparency, and public oversight. And of course there's much more. Brazil is an opportunity to bring these parties together, hear their ideas and set the tasks for a working group to develop appropriate and working principles. [MG>] I would have said exactly the opposite process should be undertaken i.e. have these parties get together in advance of Brazil, develop a common position and work with others during Brazil to identify actionable items towards effective and useful ways forward It is not hard to imagine working groups on these themes producing adoptable outcome [MG>] as I said it will be much more useful to have inputs which can be processed towards actionable outputs rather than anticipate possible outcomes which are most likely to get lost in the vast windiness of the neverneverland IGF (3) President Rousseff's fifth topic, Network Neutrality, might be harder to reach consensus on. But that doesn't mean discussion of different approaches to network neutrality would not be valuable (e.g. proposed regulation in Europe, actual situations elsewhere, the IGF net neutrality coalition reported in Bali, greater consideration of what network neutrality means in developing markets, particularly mobile). If a working group was unable to reach definite recommendations, one still might be established with the task of providing model frameworks, an overview of different approaches and critiques of them. [MG>] see above (4) Institutional Framework for the IANA function. Internet tech community has been making recommendations since 2006, RIRs made proposals for an independent IANA function during the last re-bid of the contract. Civil society actors have made proposals and have strong opinions... so do governments. A multi-stakeholder discussion of IANA, root zone database and Verisign's contract with NTIA, the root operators and whether their work needs more oversight, this is a discussion I think needs to happen. Give a working group 18 months to develop a new institutional framework. [MG>] see above (5) Globalization of ICANN. What would an independent ICANN look like? How would an independent ICANN be globally accountable? An affirmation of commitments between ICANN and us not U.S. From oversight by one government to no government, or oversight by all? What kind of host country agreement, what protections? And many more questions. A working group might monitor the Accountability and Transparency Review Team process and provide advice on ICANN's internal processes, while also propose new models for independence. [MG>] see above 18 months to get an international framework for IANA into acceptable shape, for principles on good governance and human rights, for some dialogue that may or may not shape some domestic policy on net neutrality, to provide models for an independent ICANN. [MG>] see above Between now and April 2014 various actors invited to make proposals, papers to help shape discussion, and provide ideas as to charters for the working groups. The Brazil meeting discusses issues, the charters and tasks of working groups, sets ground rules for there operation (multi-stakeholder, transparency, etc). [MG>] see above September 2014, IGF in Istanbul can be used to review progress, perhaps recommend changes. Not hard to imagine a role for the high-level/ministerial pre-meeting. Tasks to be complete by IGF of 2015 back in Brazil. The IGF offers check-points along the way: first in May 2014 when the MAG typically meets to finalize the agenda for the year, and two meetings in 2015. The IGF is our only substantive multi-stakeholder process, it's known, it can be a means to carry work forward, so use it. And make the Brazil meeting more than talk. [MG>] see above I must say that your faith in the IGF (a body whose most widely acknowledged, even celebrated, achievement is that it has not achieved anything much at all) as a means of carrying out the quite ambitious tasks being set for it (by you) is either charming, if naïve, or something rather more shall we say, in the form of a deliberate misdirection. M Adam On Dec 12, 2013, at 12:28 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: > I find this a refreshing view of civil society representative issues, and I take Mike's point that looking at a model with polar choices may not get at the real issue. > > I understand the concern about being at the table, especially when from a CS point of view, other actors have the potential, and often the intent, to weaken CS goals. > > Mike's comments strengthen the hypothesis that the arguments over representation really represent a proxy dispute for representation issues unsolved within the CS representative community. If that is the case, and CS is attempting to represent a diverse and apparently disparate set of views not bound by rough consensus, that helps to explain why specific representation is believed to be so important. > > Has there been any attempt to do some cluster analysis, quantitative or intuitive. on the divergent views, so that areas of agreement can be more sharply defined, and clusters of areas of disagreement also be identified? I suspect that these are difficult topics to discuss, in part because of believing that a united front provides more strength vis-à-vis other stakeholder groups, and exposing differences within the group could be regarded by some as an indication of weakness or disarray. > > Thanks for this analysis, Mike! > > George > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > On Dec 11, 2013, at 8:38 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > >> I think the issues are rather different from the polarity Milton (and George) are posing It isn’t just an issue of representation or substance but rather representation and substance or rather representation being necessary for substance Even though there appears to be some issues with recognizing this in our current context. >> >> I’m also copying this to BestBits and by implication the “steering committee” (or whatever it is currently being called) >> >> So far, I have yet to see any specific recognition or more importantly accommodation to the quite evident differences as between various groupings within Civil Society as to the nature of the substantive inputs that will be given into any framework for which nominations are/will/should be solicited. >> >> There are I believe, quite significant differences with respect to how matters of Internet Governance could/should be addressed/resolved within (IG based) CS (as there is of course, in the larger CS and non-CS world >> >> These differences apart from the cartoonish mis-characterizations pro-offered by certain irresponsible elements are serious and reflect different perspectives (and broad societally based interests) on how an overall balance towards a democratic, just and inclusive Internet can be achieved. >> >> Either these differences are reflected first within whatever approach to selection is entered into and then in the range of nominees themselves; or the selection process will be illegitimate, have done CS overall a major disservice, and any illusions of a common CS front will be impossible. And one can expect that the resulting parallel strategies for representation will be pursued with the utmost vigour including through whatever means of public visibility might be available. >> >> The usual process within CS of opting for “identity” based modes of “representivity” i.e. gender, region, age etc. is clearly insufficient in a context as fundamental and as normatively/substantively divided as the one that we are currently dealing with. >> >> I believe however, that there is within CS a broad underlying agreement on overall values with respect to IG and the future of the internet. I think it would be a serious mistake to not have the principled disagreements on how best to achieve those ultimate goals reflected within whatever representations CS makes in the various venues in the days going forward so that a united CS can move forward towards those goals. >> >> Best, >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller >> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 3:53 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Marilia Maciel >> Subject: RE: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps >> >> Thank you. Marilia's position as stated below reflects exactly my own. >> >> The point is not, as Jeanette mistakenly argues, that there is a "madness" about filling committee positions to the exclusion of substantive debate. No one can fairly accuse me, of all people, of failing to actively formulate positions on the substantive issues. That's what I spend most of my time doing. >> >> The problem is that we were told to provide names, we did a lot of work to do so, and then those names were disregarded. This will have long term consequences regarding other requests by 1net (and we still do not have a statement as to who is actually making decisions on behalf of 1net) for participation in the future. 1net really needs to think carefully about what kind of precedents it is setting and how much trust it is or is not building here. >> >> I have to say I am especially unimpressed with the statements from Mr. Sadowsky. When he says, "concentrate on substance, don't pay any attention to who is represented on committees," it has absolutely no credibility, because it comes from a person who is at least connected to, or more likely is actually one of the people making, decisions behind the scenes. George might do better to keep silent or to just recognize that a mess was made and apologize for it. If it truly doesn't matter who is on these committees, why did ICANN appoint some people to them and not others? And why not tell us who is making decisions for 1net? >> >> Let me make it clear: I attribute most of this problem to disorganization and bad procedure rather than ill intent. But when lame rationalizations are offered for the effects of the disorganization it contributes to ill will. >> >> --MM >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Dec 1 23:45:23 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 13:45:23 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Proposal on Best Bits governance In-Reply-To: <529C01C8.1010008@ciroap.org> References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org> <528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net> <00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org> <528C72F0.1090703@itforchange.net> <795A5EE4-EAA1-4858-9F9A-CE652E85BF12@ciroap.org> <528C7AC8.7000203@itforchange.net> <528F2A38.4040905@apc.org> <529C01C8.1010008@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Agree with the proposal. Would be helpful for me, perhaps others, to know what the role of the steering committee plays? Bestbits seems to be taking on a lot more than I understand it was originally established to do. No problem with that. But given this new role what's the task of the steering committee? Adam On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I for one can fully accept and endorse Anriette's helpful proposal. > Others? > > > On 22/11/13 17:56, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > Dear all > > [Please note that this proposal is not about the Brazil meeting or civil > society nomcoms.] > > In some of the recent threads people have called to question the > legitimacy of the Best Bits steering committee, and of transparency and > accountability in Best Bits. I agree it will be good to strengthen Best > Bits internal processes, but we should do this in a way that does not > undermine trust in people who have worked hard to bring Best Bits to > where it is, or in one another. We should also not undermine our > ability to work together at a time when civil society is having to rise > to some pretty daunting challenges. > > In particular, we should try not to discourage those individuals who > have been volunteering their time on Best Bits bits work - either on the > SC, or on drafting inputs. Without their effort we would be in a far > weaker position than we are now. We would not have had the benefit of > two face-to-face meetings, or of several substantial letters/other > inputs submitted in response to strategic opportunities for raising > civil society voices. > > I would therefore like to propose the following: > > 1) We ask the current Best Bits Steering Committee, a group of people > who started to volunteer their time in this capacity in July 2013, to > continue to serve until 31 July 2014. > > 2) We ask them to present us with a short overview report of the work > they did in 2013 by the end of this year. > > 3) We ask them to, by the end of the first quarter of 2014, to propose a > process for the renewal of the Best Bits Steering Committee. > > Best > > Anriette > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the > global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub > | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Sat Dec 14 01:36:44 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 08:36:44 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Save the Date: RightsCon Silicon Valley March 3rd-5th, 2014 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <75F7922F-063B-453D-86DB-7A0C0D8B39CF@ciroap.org> To follow up on Brett's message, just to let everyone know that we a placeholder "Best Bits" session has been submitted for RightsCon, though the original idea of using it to finalise inputs for the Brazil meeting won't work out - because the deadline for those inputs is slightly too soon. So, we need to find another theme for the meeting. Since many of the US groups at RightsCon will be new to the international Internet governance debates (except for maybe ICANN and WCIT), a couple of us considered that it might be worthwhile to structure a session around more closely integrating US based civil society into our community (which was one of my original aims for Best Bits). Anyway, who is interested in sharing ideas (either these or other ideas) and developing the session further? Deborah has offered to manage a workflow for the session, if we are all happy for her to do that. What do you all think? Also, separately to RightsCon, I should flag early that I have the opportunity to arrange a Best Bits pre-meeting in Sāo Paulo immediately prior to the Brazil meeting, which would be hosted by IDEC, the largest Brazilian consumer group. Of course at this stage, we don't know who will be attending the Brazil meeting, so plans are at an early stage. But if anyone is interested in hearing or discussing more about that, you can also get in touch (perhaps off-list for now, until plans and funding are firmer). On 6 Dec 2013, at 11:40 pm, Brett Solomon wrote: > Dear friends, > > As you may know, RightsCon Silicon Valley is taking place March 3-5 in San Francisco at Mission Bay Conference Center. This is an opportunity for different communities to come together - global activists, companies, thinkers, investors, engineers and government officials - to discuss the tensions and opportunities at the intersection of human rights and the internet. > > RightsCon Silicon Valley has a particular focus on technology companies and aims to create a space for multistakeholder dialogue on human rights best practices and learnings in the context of the private sector. The event also takes place 7 weeks before the Brazil meeting and as I mentioned could be used as a venue to discuss strategy and plans for April. > > The program is open to submissions, and we're looking to a range of networks, including the Bestbits community to help shape the agenda. Here is the link to propose a session. > > The deadline for submission is December 20th. If you have questions, check out the website at rightscon.org, or email Rian Wanstreet at rian at accessnow.org, or we can chat more on this list. > > For those of you who have participated in RightsCon in the past, we look forward to seeing you again. > > Enjoy your weekends! > > Brett > > Speakers to date include: Rebecca MacKinnon (Ranking Digital Rights); Alaa Abd El Fattah (one of Egypt's most respected activists and software engineers (currently detained)); Jim Cowie (CTO, Renesys); John Donahoe (President & CEO, eBay); Moez Chakchouk (Founder of Tunisia's IXP and 404Labs); Brad Burnham (Union Square Ventures); Colin Crowell (Head of Global Public Policy, Twitter); Michael Posner (NYU Professor of Business and Society); Eileen Donahoe (former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Human Rights Council); Jillian York (Director for International Freedom of Expression, EFF); ; Richard Stallman (Founder GNU Project and Free Software Foundation); David Gorodyansky (CEO & Founder, AnchorFree); Mitchell Baker (Chairperson, Mozilla Corporation) and many more. > > > Brett Solomon > Executive Director | Access > accessnow.org > +1 917 969 6077 | skype: brettsolomon | @accessnow > Key ID: 0x312B641A > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Sat Dec 14 04:23:41 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 11:23:41 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] HLLM update Message-ID: FYI below: of the two additional nominees civil society asked to be added to the High Level Panel formed by ICANN to give input into the Brazil meeting, only one (Anriette) was accepted. -----Original Message----- From: Fadi Chehade Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2013 5:44 AM To: Anriette Esterhuysen Cc: Rafik Dammak ; Nora Abusitta ; william.drake at uzh.ch ; ian.peter at ianpeter.com ; Professor Milton L. Mueller ; Robin Gross ; Nora Abusitta Subject: Re: You Will Have Specific Names for the Civil Society Representatives for High Level Panel by Week's End Dear Anriette, It is with great pleasure that I confirm that the Chairman of the panel, President Ilves, has welcomed without any reservation the addition of a civil society panelist. For reasons of diversity, he accepted your nomination -- with all due respect to Professor Mueller. Your nomination was shared during the panel's meeting today and received unanimous support. You will be shortly added to our mailing list and we will make sure that you are fully briefed by the panel's secretariat on today's proceedings. My personal thanks to you and the members of civil society for your patience as we secured the full support of our panelists. We look forward to see you at our next meeting in February. Sincerely, Fadi From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sat Dec 14 05:36:27 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 19:36:27 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] press release about meeting of the high level panel Message-ID: <723F73B1-F8BE-42F5-A373-2C7E0FFD3210@glocom.ac.jp> http://www.telegraphindia.com/pressrelease/prnw/en33449.html -- High-Level Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms Convenes in London PR Newswire LONDON, Dec. 13, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- The Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms -- a diverse group of global stakeholders from government, civil society, the private sector, the technical community and international organizations -- held their first meeting in London to discuss global Internet cooperation and governance mechanisms. The Panel expressed strong support for a multistakeholder approach to the future of Internet governance. The conversations held at the London meeting were facilitated by a team of Internet governance experts. The discussion will be taken online in the coming days at 1Net.org. "The world relies on the Internet for economic, social, and political progress. It is imperative to ensure emerging issues are properly addressed in a global context, without individual governments or intergovernmental organizations developing their own solutions," said Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves and chair of the Panel. "The success of the Internet is rooted in a distributed and bottom-up model, with openness and collaboration at its core," said Vint Cerf, vice-chair of the Panel. "The inaugural meeting of the Panel brought together a diverse set of perspectives on the future of the Internet, and through this diversity I'm confident we can chart a course to protect the core of the current ecosystem, while evolving its methods, accessibility, and universality to meet the opportunities and challenges of the future." In keeping with its mission, the first meeting of the Panel addressed desirable properties for global Internet cooperation, administration and governance. The Panel will conduct two additional meetings in the coming months. The next meeting, scheduled for late February 2014 in Rancho Mirage, California, will be hosted by The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands. Sunnylands is partnering with the Panel in its substantive work. Following this meeting, a high-level draft report will then be released for open consultation. A final meeting will be hosted by the World Economic Forum in May 2014 in Dubai. During this meeting, the Panel will consider community feedback and discussions at forums including the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance in Braziland the Freedom Online Coalition's conference in Tallinn, Estonia. A high-level report will be published at the conclusion of the May meeting, and is expected to cover the following areas: • A brief overview of the current Internet governance ecosystem • Opportunities and challenges facing the current ecosystem • Desirable ecosystem properties including: • Ecosystem legitimacy • Effective and inclusive multi-interest and consensus-based system • Ensuring global participation including from the developing world • Co-existence with other governance systems (national and multi-lateral) ensuring a stable system that is not prone to attack, mismanagement, and manipulation Panel members are working in their personal capacity. Members consist of: • Mohamed Al Ghanim, Founder and Director General of the UAE Telecommunications Regulatory Authority; former Vice-Chair, UAE Information and Communications Technology Fund; Chairman of WCIT-12 • Virgilio Fernandes Almeida, Member of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Chair of Internet Steering Committee; National Secretary for Information Technology Policies • Dorothy Attwood, Senior Vice President of Global Public Policy, Walt Disney Company • Mitchell Baker, Chair, Mozilla Foundation; Chair and former CEO, Mozilla Corporation • Francesco Caio, CEO of Avio; former CEO, Cable and Wireless and Vodafone Italia; Founder of Netscalibur; broadband advisor in UK and Italy; Government Commissioner for Digital Agenda • Vint Cerf, Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist for Google; former Chairman, ICANN; Co-Founder of the Internet Society • Fadi Chehade, CEO and President of ICANN; Founder of Rosetta Net; technology executive • Nitin Desai, Indian economist and diplomat; former UN Undersecretary General; convener of Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) • Byron Holland, President and CEO of the Canadian Internet Registration Authority • Toomas Hendrik Ilves, President of Estonia; former diplomat and journalist; former Minister of Foreign Affairs; former Member of the European Parliament • Ivo Ivanovski, Minister of Information Society and Administration, Macedonia; Commissioner to the UN Broadband Commission for Digital Development • Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe; former Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Norway • Omobola Johnson, Minister of Communication Technology of Nigeria • Olaf Kolkman, Director of NLnet Labs; "Evangineer" of the Open Internet; former Chair of the Internet Architecture Board • Frank La Rue, labor and human rights lawyer; UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression; Founder, Center for Legal Action for Human Rights (CALDH) • Robert M. McDowell, former U.S. Federal Communications Commissioner; Visiting Fellow, Hudson Institute's Center for Economics of the Internet • Andile Ngcaba, Chairman and Founder, Convergence Partners; Executive Chairman, Dimension Data Middle East and Africa; former South African Government Director General of Communications • Liu Qingfeng, CEO and President of iFLYTEK; Director of National Speech & Language Engineering Laboratory of China; Member of Interactive Technology Standards working group • Lynn St. Amour, President and CEO of the Internet Society; telecoms and IT executive • Jimmy Wales, Founder and Promoter of Wikipedia; Member of the Board of Trustees of Wikimedia Foundation • Won-Pyo Hong, President, Media Solution Center, Samsung Electronics London Panel Agenda December 13 09:00 -- 11:00 Backgrounder Expert presentations on Internet Cooperation and Governance to cover: -- History of Internet cooperation and overview of current ecosystem Speaker: Vint Cerf -- Nature and scope of global Internet governance Speaker: William Drake -- Current system opportunities and challenges: ( this includes legitimacy and mandate challenges, challenges for global participation and inclusion) Speaker: David Gross & Bertrand de la Chapelle 11:00 -- 11:15 Break 11:15 -- 12:00 Backgrounder Q&A Session 12:00 -- 13:00 Lunch 13:00 -- 14:30 Developing Desirable System Properties Panel is split into the following four proposed tracks, each moderated by an Internet Governance expert: -- Desirable properties for ecosystem legitimacy Moderator: David Gross -- Desirable properties for an effective and inclusive multi-interest & consensus-based system Moderator: Sally Wentworth -- Desirable properties to ensure global participation including from developing world Moderator: William Drake -- Desirable properties for co-existence with other governance systems (national and multi-lateral) ensuring a stable system that is not prone to attack, mismanagement, and manipulation. Moderator: Wolfgang Kleinwachter 14:30 -- 14:45 Break 14:45 -- 17:30 Joint Observations Panel members, moderated by experts, coalesce around a set of overall joint observations on the desirable system properties 17:30 -- 17:45 Break 17:45 -- 18:30 Wrap-up Panel members discuss next steps, timelines/dates, communication rules and modus operandi for panel About The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands The Annenberg Foundation Trust at Sunnylands, which operates The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands in Rancho Mirage, California, is an independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit operating entity. The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands hosts high-level retreats that address serious issues facing the nation and the world, including the recent official meeting between President Obama and President Xi of the People's Republic of China. In addition, Sunnylands offers programs through the Sunnylands Center & Gardens to educate the public about the history of Sunnylands, its architecture, art collections, cultural significance, and sustainable practices. About ICANN The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is an internationally organised, non-profit corporation that has responsibility for Internet Protocol (IP) address space allocation, protocol identifier assignment, generic (gTLD) and country code (ccTLD) Top-Level Domain name system management, and root server system management functions. As a private-public partnership, ICANN is dedicated to preserving the operational stability of the Internet; to promoting competition; to achieving broad representation of global Internet communities; and to developing policy appropriate to its mission through bottom-up, consensus-based processes. For more information please visit:http://www.icann.org/. About The World Economic Forum The World Economic Forum is an independent international organization committed to improving the state of the world by engaging leaders in partnerships to shape global, regional and industry agendas. Incorporated as a foundation in 1971 and headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, the World Economic Forum is impartial and not-for-profit; it is tied to no political, partisan or national interests (http://www.weforum.org/). Editor's Note: The Panel was previously referred to as the Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation. From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Sat Dec 14 05:43:23 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 05:43:23 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] press release about meeting of the high level panel In-Reply-To: <723F73B1-F8BE-42F5-A373-2C7E0FFD3210@glocom.ac.jp> References: <723F73B1-F8BE-42F5-A373-2C7E0FFD3210@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: any reports back from that meeting already? On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 5:36 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > http://www.telegraphindia.com/pressrelease/prnw/en33449.html > -- > > High-Level Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms > Convenes in London > > PR Newswire > > LONDON, Dec. 13, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- The Panel on Global Internet > Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms -- a diverse group of global > stakeholders from government, civil society, the private sector, the > technical community and international organizations -- held their first > meeting in London to discuss global Internet cooperation and governance > mechanisms. The Panel expressed strong support for a multistakeholder > approach to the future of Internet governance. The conversations held at > the London meeting were facilitated by a team of Internet governance > experts. The discussion will be taken online in the coming days at 1Net.org. > > "The world relies on the Internet for economic, social, and political > progress. It is imperative to ensure emerging issues are properly addressed > in a global context, without individual governments or intergovernmental > organizations developing their own solutions," said Estonian President > Toomas Hendrik Ilves and chair of the Panel. > > "The success of the Internet is rooted in a distributed and bottom-up > model, with openness and collaboration at its core," said Vint Cerf, > vice-chair of the Panel. "The inaugural meeting of the Panel brought > together a diverse set of perspectives on the future of the Internet, and > through this diversity I'm confident we can chart a course to protect the > core of the current ecosystem, while evolving its methods, accessibility, > and universality to meet the opportunities and challenges of the future." > > In keeping with its mission, the first meeting of the Panel addressed > desirable properties for global Internet cooperation, administration and > governance. The Panel will conduct two additional meetings in the coming > months. The next meeting, scheduled for late February 2014 in Rancho > Mirage, California, will be hosted by The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands. > Sunnylands is partnering with the Panel in its substantive work. Following > this meeting, a high-level draft report will then be released for open > consultation. A final meeting will be hosted by the World Economic Forum in > May 2014 in Dubai. During this meeting, the Panel will consider community > feedback and discussions at forums including the Global Multistakeholder > Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance in Braziland the Freedom > Online Coalition's conference in Tallinn, Estonia. A high-level report will > be published at the conclusion of the May meeting, and is expected to cover > the following areas: > > • A brief overview of the current Internet governance ecosystem > • Opportunities and challenges facing the current ecosystem > • Desirable ecosystem properties including: > • Ecosystem legitimacy > • Effective and inclusive multi-interest and > consensus-based system > • Ensuring global participation including from the > developing world > • Co-existence with other governance systems (national and > multi-lateral) ensuring a stable system that is not prone to attack, > mismanagement, and manipulation > Panel members are working in their personal capacity. Members consist of: > > • Mohamed Al Ghanim, Founder and Director General of the UAE > Telecommunications Regulatory Authority; former Vice-Chair, UAE Information > and Communications Technology Fund; Chairman of WCIT-12 > • Virgilio Fernandes Almeida, Member of the Brazilian Academy of > Sciences; Chair of Internet Steering Committee; National Secretary for > Information Technology Policies > • Dorothy Attwood, Senior Vice President of Global Public Policy, > Walt Disney Company > • Mitchell Baker, Chair, Mozilla Foundation; Chair and former CEO, > Mozilla Corporation > • Francesco Caio, CEO of Avio; former CEO, Cable and Wireless and > Vodafone Italia; Founder of Netscalibur; broadband advisor in UK and Italy; > Government Commissioner for Digital Agenda > • Vint Cerf, Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist for > Google; former Chairman, ICANN; Co-Founder of the Internet Society > • Fadi Chehade, CEO and President of ICANN; Founder of Rosetta > Net; technology executive > • Nitin Desai, Indian economist and diplomat; former UN > Undersecretary General; convener of Working Group on Internet Governance > (WGIG) > • Byron Holland, President and CEO of the Canadian Internet > Registration Authority > • Toomas Hendrik Ilves, President of Estonia; former diplomat and > journalist; former Minister of Foreign Affairs; former Member of the > European Parliament > • Ivo Ivanovski, Minister of Information Society and > Administration, Macedonia; Commissioner to the UN Broadband Commission for > Digital Development > • Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe; > former Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Norway > • Omobola Johnson, Minister of Communication Technology of Nigeria > • Olaf Kolkman, Director of NLnet Labs; "Evangineer" of the Open > Internet; former Chair of the Internet Architecture Board > • Frank La Rue, labor and human rights lawyer; UN Special > Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of > Opinion and Expression; Founder, Center for Legal Action for Human Rights > (CALDH) > • Robert M. McDowell, former U.S. Federal Communications > Commissioner; Visiting Fellow, Hudson Institute's Center for Economics of > the Internet > • Andile Ngcaba, Chairman and Founder, Convergence Partners; > Executive Chairman, Dimension Data Middle East and Africa; former South > African Government Director General of Communications > • Liu Qingfeng, CEO and President of iFLYTEK; Director of National > Speech & Language Engineering Laboratory of China; Member of Interactive > Technology Standards working group > • Lynn St. Amour, President and CEO of the Internet Society; > telecoms and IT executive > • Jimmy Wales, Founder and Promoter of Wikipedia; Member of the > Board of Trustees of Wikimedia Foundation > • Won-Pyo Hong, President, Media Solution Center, Samsung > Electronics > > > London Panel Agenda > > December 13 > > 09:00 -- 11:00 > > Backgrounder > > Expert presentations on Internet Cooperation and > Governance to cover: > > -- History of Internet cooperation and overview of > current ecosystem > > Speaker: Vint Cerf > > -- Nature and scope of global Internet governance > > Speaker: William Drake > > -- Current system opportunities and challenges: > ( this includes legitimacy and mandate challenges, > challenges for global participation and inclusion) > > Speaker: David Gross & Bertrand de la Chapelle > > 11:00 -- 11:15 > > Break > > 11:15 -- 12:00 > > Backgrounder Q&A Session > > 12:00 -- 13:00 > > Lunch > > 13:00 -- 14:30 > > Developing Desirable System Properties > > Panel is split into the following four proposed tracks, > each moderated by an Internet Governance expert: > > > -- Desirable properties for ecosystem legitimacy > > Moderator: David Gross > > -- Desirable properties for an effective and inclusive > multi-interest & consensus-based system > > Moderator: Sally Wentworth > > -- Desirable properties to ensure global participation > including from developing world > > Moderator: William Drake > > -- Desirable properties for co-existence with other > governance systems (national and multi-lateral) > ensuring a stable system that is not prone to attack, > mismanagement, and manipulation. > > Moderator: Wolfgang Kleinwachter > > 14:30 -- 14:45 > > Break > > 14:45 -- 17:30 > > Joint Observations > > Panel members, moderated by experts, coalesce > around a set of overall joint observations on the > desirable system properties > > 17:30 -- 17:45 > > Break > > 17:45 -- 18:30 > > Wrap-up > > > Panel members discuss next steps, timelines/dates, > communication rules and modus operandi for panel > > About The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands > The Annenberg Foundation Trust at Sunnylands, which operates The Annenberg > Retreat at Sunnylands in Rancho Mirage, California, is an independent > 501(c)(3) nonprofit operating entity. The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands > hosts high-level retreats that address serious issues facing the nation and > the world, including the recent official meeting between President Obama > and President Xi of the People's Republic of China. In addition, Sunnylands > offers programs through the Sunnylands Center & Gardens to educate the > public about the history of Sunnylands, its architecture, art collections, > cultural significance, and sustainable practices. > > About ICANN > The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is an > internationally organised, non-profit corporation that has responsibility > for Internet Protocol (IP) address space allocation, protocol identifier > assignment, generic (gTLD) and country code (ccTLD) Top-Level Domain name > system management, and root server system management functions. As a > private-public partnership, ICANN is dedicated to preserving the > operational stability of the Internet; to promoting competition; to > achieving broad representation of global Internet communities; and to > developing policy appropriate to its mission through bottom-up, > consensus-based processes. For more information please visit: > http://www.icann.org/. > > About The World Economic Forum > The World Economic Forum is an independent international organization > committed to improving the state of the world by engaging leaders in > partnerships to shape global, regional and industry agendas. > > Incorporated as a foundation in 1971 and headquartered in Geneva, > Switzerland, the World Economic Forum is impartial and not-for-profit; it > is tied to no political, partisan or national interests ( > http://www.weforum.org/). > > Editor's Note: The Panel was previously referred to as the Panel on the > Future of Global Internet Cooperation. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mctimconsulting at gmail.com Sat Dec 14 06:22:30 2013 From: mctimconsulting at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 06:22:30 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] HLLM update In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Jeremy, It was magical thinking on our part to think that 2 names would be accepted when the message was "send us a name". It was also unrealistic to think that that person would be added BEFORE the London meeting. I think that ICANN has done exactly what they said they would do in this case. We should be pleased with the outcome, considering that many other non-gov/non-IGO/non-biz folks are on the Panel. Regards, McTim On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 4:23 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > FYI below: of the two additional nominees civil society asked to be added to the High Level Panel formed by ICANN to give input into the Brazil meeting, only one (Anriette) was accepted. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Fadi Chehade > Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2013 5:44 AM > To: Anriette Esterhuysen > Cc: Rafik Dammak ; Nora Abusitta ; william.drake at uzh.ch ; ian.peter at ianpeter.com ; Professor Milton L. Mueller ; Robin Gross ; Nora Abusitta > Subject: Re: You Will Have Specific Names for the Civil Society Representatives for High Level Panel by Week's End > > Dear Anriette, > > It is with great pleasure that I confirm that the Chairman of the panel, President Ilves, has welcomed without any reservation the addition of a civil society panelist. For reasons of diversity, he accepted your nomination -- with all due respect to Professor Mueller. > > Your nomination was shared during the panel's meeting today and received unanimous support. > > You will be shortly added to our mailing list and we will make sure that you are fully briefed by the panel's secretariat on today's proceedings. > > My personal thanks to you and the members of civil society for your patience as we secured the full support of our panelists. > > We look forward to see you at our next meeting in February. > Sincerely, > Fadi > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From william.drake at uzh.ch Sat Dec 14 06:28:40 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 11:28:40 +0000 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] press release about meeting of the high level panel In-Reply-To: References: <723F73B1-F8BE-42F5-A373-2C7E0FFD3210@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <9CFBF54D-89FD-439A-B066-57F907ABBAA1@uzh.ch> Hi Carolina The press release pretty much covers what was discussed, who was there, and the next steps. I was happy we got agreement to open things up by having online discussions per theme, and that they have invited Anriette to join the group. In terms of ideas discussed, one that seems to have some traction is to do something to help foster the development of multistakeholder processes at the national level, inter alia in the hope that this will strengthen the diversity of engagement at the global level. It is currently expected that the final report will be brief, under ten pages, and will be revised in light of the feedback from Sao Paulo and elsewhere. The tweets are at #InternetPanel but there’s not so much given the Chatham rule. Cheers Bill On Dec 14, 2013, at 10:43 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > any reports back from that meeting already? > > > On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 5:36 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > http://www.telegraphindia.com/pressrelease/prnw/en33449.html > -- > > High-Level Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms Convenes in London > > PR Newswire > > LONDON, Dec. 13, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- The Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms -- a diverse group of global stakeholders from government, civil society, the private sector, the technical community and international organizations -- held their first meeting in London to discuss global Internet cooperation and governance mechanisms. The Panel expressed strong support for a multistakeholder approach to the future of Internet governance. The conversations held at the London meeting were facilitated by a team of Internet governance experts. The discussion will be taken online in the coming days at 1Net.org. > > "The world relies on the Internet for economic, social, and political progress. It is imperative to ensure emerging issues are properly addressed in a global context, without individual governments or intergovernmental organizations developing their own solutions," said Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves and chair of the Panel. > > "The success of the Internet is rooted in a distributed and bottom-up model, with openness and collaboration at its core," said Vint Cerf, vice-chair of the Panel. "The inaugural meeting of the Panel brought together a diverse set of perspectives on the future of the Internet, and through this diversity I'm confident we can chart a course to protect the core of the current ecosystem, while evolving its methods, accessibility, and universality to meet the opportunities and challenges of the future." > > In keeping with its mission, the first meeting of the Panel addressed desirable properties for global Internet cooperation, administration and governance. The Panel will conduct two additional meetings in the coming months. The next meeting, scheduled for late February 2014 in Rancho Mirage, California, will be hosted by The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands. Sunnylands is partnering with the Panel in its substantive work. Following this meeting, a high-level draft report will then be released for open consultation. A final meeting will be hosted by the World Economic Forum in May 2014 in Dubai. During this meeting, the Panel will consider community feedback and discussions at forums including the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance in Braziland the Freedom Online Coalition's conference in Tallinn, Estonia. A high-level report will be published at the conclusion of the May meeting, and is expected to cover the following areas: > > • A brief overview of the current Internet governance ecosystem > • Opportunities and challenges facing the current ecosystem > • Desirable ecosystem properties including: > • Ecosystem legitimacy > • Effective and inclusive multi-interest and consensus-based system > • Ensuring global participation including from the developing world > • Co-existence with other governance systems (national and multi-lateral) ensuring a stable system that is not prone to attack, mismanagement, and manipulation > Panel members are working in their personal capacity. Members consist of: > > • Mohamed Al Ghanim, Founder and Director General of the UAE Telecommunications Regulatory Authority; former Vice-Chair, UAE Information and Communications Technology Fund; Chairman of WCIT-12 > • Virgilio Fernandes Almeida, Member of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Chair of Internet Steering Committee; National Secretary for Information Technology Policies > • Dorothy Attwood, Senior Vice President of Global Public Policy, Walt Disney Company > • Mitchell Baker, Chair, Mozilla Foundation; Chair and former CEO, Mozilla Corporation > • Francesco Caio, CEO of Avio; former CEO, Cable and Wireless and Vodafone Italia; Founder of Netscalibur; broadband advisor in UK and Italy; Government Commissioner for Digital Agenda > • Vint Cerf, Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist for Google; former Chairman, ICANN; Co-Founder of the Internet Society > • Fadi Chehade, CEO and President of ICANN; Founder of Rosetta Net; technology executive > • Nitin Desai, Indian economist and diplomat; former UN Undersecretary General; convener of Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) > • Byron Holland, President and CEO of the Canadian Internet Registration Authority > • Toomas Hendrik Ilves, President of Estonia; former diplomat and journalist; former Minister of Foreign Affairs; former Member of the European Parliament > • Ivo Ivanovski, Minister of Information Society and Administration, Macedonia; Commissioner to the UN Broadband Commission for Digital Development > • Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe; former Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Norway > • Omobola Johnson, Minister of Communication Technology of Nigeria > • Olaf Kolkman, Director of NLnet Labs; "Evangineer" of the Open Internet; former Chair of the Internet Architecture Board > • Frank La Rue, labor and human rights lawyer; UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression; Founder, Center for Legal Action for Human Rights (CALDH) > • Robert M. McDowell, former U.S. Federal Communications Commissioner; Visiting Fellow, Hudson Institute's Center for Economics of the Internet > • Andile Ngcaba, Chairman and Founder, Convergence Partners; Executive Chairman, Dimension Data Middle East and Africa; former South African Government Director General of Communications > • Liu Qingfeng, CEO and President of iFLYTEK; Director of National Speech & Language Engineering Laboratory of China; Member of Interactive Technology Standards working group > • Lynn St. Amour, President and CEO of the Internet Society; telecoms and IT executive > • Jimmy Wales, Founder and Promoter of Wikipedia; Member of the Board of Trustees of Wikimedia Foundation > • Won-Pyo Hong, President, Media Solution Center, Samsung Electronics > > > London Panel Agenda > > December 13 > > 09:00 -- 11:00 > > Backgrounder > > Expert presentations on Internet Cooperation and > Governance to cover: > > -- History of Internet cooperation and overview of > current ecosystem > > Speaker: Vint Cerf > > -- Nature and scope of global Internet governance > > Speaker: William Drake > > -- Current system opportunities and challenges: > ( this includes legitimacy and mandate challenges, > challenges for global participation and inclusion) > > Speaker: David Gross & Bertrand de la Chapelle > > 11:00 -- 11:15 > > Break > > 11:15 -- 12:00 > > Backgrounder Q&A Session > > 12:00 -- 13:00 > > Lunch > > 13:00 -- 14:30 > > Developing Desirable System Properties > > Panel is split into the following four proposed tracks, > each moderated by an Internet Governance expert: > > > -- Desirable properties for ecosystem legitimacy > > Moderator: David Gross > > -- Desirable properties for an effective and inclusive > multi-interest & consensus-based system > > Moderator: Sally Wentworth > > -- Desirable properties to ensure global participation > including from developing world > > Moderator: William Drake > > -- Desirable properties for co-existence with other > governance systems (national and multi-lateral) > ensuring a stable system that is not prone to attack, > mismanagement, and manipulation. > > Moderator: Wolfgang Kleinwachter > > 14:30 -- 14:45 > > Break > > 14:45 -- 17:30 > > Joint Observations > > Panel members, moderated by experts, coalesce > around a set of overall joint observations on the > desirable system properties > > 17:30 -- 17:45 > > Break > > 17:45 -- 18:30 > > Wrap-up > > > Panel members discuss next steps, timelines/dates, > communication rules and modus operandi for panel > > About The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands > The Annenberg Foundation Trust at Sunnylands, which operates The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands in Rancho Mirage, California, is an independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit operating entity. The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands hosts high-level retreats that address serious issues facing the nation and the world, including the recent official meeting between President Obama and President Xi of the People's Republic of China. In addition, Sunnylands offers programs through the Sunnylands Center & Gardens to educate the public about the history of Sunnylands, its architecture, art collections, cultural significance, and sustainable practices. > > About ICANN > The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is an internationally organised, non-profit corporation that has responsibility for Internet Protocol (IP) address space allocation, protocol identifier assignment, generic (gTLD) and country code (ccTLD) Top-Level Domain name system management, and root server system management functions. As a private-public partnership, ICANN is dedicated to preserving the operational stability of the Internet; to promoting competition; to achieving broad representation of global Internet communities; and to developing policy appropriate to its mission through bottom-up, consensus-based processes. For more information please visit:http://www.icann.org/. > > About The World Economic Forum > The World Economic Forum is an independent international organization committed to improving the state of the world by engaging leaders in partnerships to shape global, regional and industry agendas. > > Incorporated as a foundation in 1971 and headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, the World Economic Forum is impartial and not-for-profit; it is tied to no political, partisan or national interests (http://www.weforum.org/). > > Editor's Note: The Panel was previously referred to as the Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > Carolina Rossini > Project Director, Latin America Resource Center > Open Technology Institute > New America Foundation > // > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Sat Dec 14 09:58:44 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 16:58:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] press release about meeting of the high level panel In-Reply-To: <9CFBF54D-89FD-439A-B066-57F907ABBAA1@uzh.ch> References: <723F73B1-F8BE-42F5-A373-2C7E0FFD3210@glocom.ac.jp> <9CFBF54D-89FD-439A-B066-57F907ABBAA1@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <937290A5-D04D-442F-8F58-7D90CD4198D5@gmail.com> Thank you Bill and glad that Anriette has joined as well. Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 14, 2013, at 1:28 PM, William Drake wrote: > > Hi Carolina > > The press release pretty much covers what was discussed, who was there, and the next steps. I was happy we got agreement to open things up by having online discussions per theme, and that they have invited Anriette to join the group. In terms of ideas discussed, one that seems to have some traction is to do something to help foster the development of multistakeholder processes at the national level, inter alia in the hope that this will strengthen the diversity of engagement at the global level. > > It is currently expected that the final report will be brief, under ten pages, and will be revised in light of the feedback from Sao Paulo and elsewhere. > > The tweets are at #InternetPanel but there’s not so much given the Chatham rule. > > Cheers > > Bill > >> On Dec 14, 2013, at 10:43 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >> >> any reports back from that meeting already? >> >> >>> On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 5:36 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >>> http://www.telegraphindia.com/pressrelease/prnw/en33449.html >>> -- >>> >>> High-Level Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms Convenes in London >>> >>> PR Newswire >>> >>> LONDON, Dec. 13, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- The Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms -- a diverse group of global stakeholders from government, civil society, the private sector, the technical community and international organizations -- held their first meeting in London to discuss global Internet cooperation and governance mechanisms. The Panel expressed strong support for a multistakeholder approach to the future of Internet governance. The conversations held at the London meeting were facilitated by a team of Internet governance experts. The discussion will be taken online in the coming days at 1Net.org. >>> >>> "The world relies on the Internet for economic, social, and political progress. It is imperative to ensure emerging issues are properly addressed in a global context, without individual governments or intergovernmental organizations developing their own solutions," said Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves and chair of the Panel. >>> >>> "The success of the Internet is rooted in a distributed and bottom-up model, with openness and collaboration at its core," said Vint Cerf, vice-chair of the Panel. "The inaugural meeting of the Panel brought together a diverse set of perspectives on the future of the Internet, and through this diversity I'm confident we can chart a course to protect the core of the current ecosystem, while evolving its methods, accessibility, and universality to meet the opportunities and challenges of the future." >>> >>> In keeping with its mission, the first meeting of the Panel addressed desirable properties for global Internet cooperation, administration and governance. The Panel will conduct two additional meetings in the coming months. The next meeting, scheduled for late February 2014 in Rancho Mirage, California, will be hosted by The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands. Sunnylands is partnering with the Panel in its substantive work. Following this meeting, a high-level draft report will then be released for open consultation. A final meeting will be hosted by the World Economic Forum in May 2014 in Dubai. During this meeting, the Panel will consider community feedback and discussions at forums including the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance in Braziland the Freedom Online Coalition's conference in Tallinn, Estonia. A high-level report will be published at the conclusion of the May meeting, and is expected to cover the following areas: >>> >>> • A brief overview of the current Internet governance ecosystem >>> • Opportunities and challenges facing the current ecosystem >>> • Desirable ecosystem properties including: >>> • Ecosystem legitimacy >>> • Effective and inclusive multi-interest and consensus-based system >>> • Ensuring global participation including from the developing world >>> • Co-existence with other governance systems (national and multi-lateral) ensuring a stable system that is not prone to attack, mismanagement, and manipulation >>> Panel members are working in their personal capacity. Members consist of: >>> >>> • Mohamed Al Ghanim, Founder and Director General of the UAE Telecommunications Regulatory Authority; former Vice-Chair, UAE Information and Communications Technology Fund; Chairman of WCIT-12 >>> • Virgilio Fernandes Almeida, Member of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Chair of Internet Steering Committee; National Secretary for Information Technology Policies >>> • Dorothy Attwood, Senior Vice President of Global Public Policy, Walt Disney Company >>> • Mitchell Baker, Chair, Mozilla Foundation; Chair and former CEO, Mozilla Corporation >>> • Francesco Caio, CEO of Avio; former CEO, Cable and Wireless and Vodafone Italia; Founder of Netscalibur; broadband advisor in UK and Italy; Government Commissioner for Digital Agenda >>> • Vint Cerf, Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist for Google; former Chairman, ICANN; Co-Founder of the Internet Society >>> • Fadi Chehade, CEO and President of ICANN; Founder of Rosetta Net; technology executive >>> • Nitin Desai, Indian economist and diplomat; former UN Undersecretary General; convener of Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) >>> • Byron Holland, President and CEO of the Canadian Internet Registration Authority >>> • Toomas Hendrik Ilves, President of Estonia; former diplomat and journalist; former Minister of Foreign Affairs; former Member of the European Parliament >>> • Ivo Ivanovski, Minister of Information Society and Administration, Macedonia; Commissioner to the UN Broadband Commission for Digital Development >>> • Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe; former Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Norway >>> • Omobola Johnson, Minister of Communication Technology of Nigeria >>> • Olaf Kolkman, Director of NLnet Labs; "Evangineer" of the Open Internet; former Chair of the Internet Architecture Board >>> • Frank La Rue, labor and human rights lawyer; UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression; Founder, Center for Legal Action for Human Rights (CALDH) >>> • Robert M. McDowell, former U.S. Federal Communications Commissioner; Visiting Fellow, Hudson Institute's Center for Economics of the Internet >>> • Andile Ngcaba, Chairman and Founder, Convergence Partners; Executive Chairman, Dimension Data Middle East and Africa; former South African Government Director General of Communications >>> • Liu Qingfeng, CEO and President of iFLYTEK; Director of National Speech & Language Engineering Laboratory of China; Member of Interactive Technology Standards working group >>> • Lynn St. Amour, President and CEO of the Internet Society; telecoms and IT executive >>> • Jimmy Wales, Founder and Promoter of Wikipedia; Member of the Board of Trustees of Wikimedia Foundation >>> • Won-Pyo Hong, President, Media Solution Center, Samsung Electronics >>> >>> >>> London Panel Agenda >>> >>> December 13 >>> >>> 09:00 -- 11:00 >>> >>> Backgrounder >>> >>> Expert presentations on Internet Cooperation and >>> Governance to cover: >>> >>> -- History of Internet cooperation and overview of >>> current ecosystem >>> >>> Speaker: Vint Cerf >>> >>> -- Nature and scope of global Internet governance >>> >>> Speaker: William Drake >>> >>> -- Current system opportunities and challenges: >>> ( this includes legitimacy and mandate challenges, >>> challenges for global participation and inclusion) >>> >>> Speaker: David Gross & Bertrand de la Chapelle >>> >>> 11:00 -- 11:15 >>> >>> Break >>> >>> 11:15 -- 12:00 >>> >>> Backgrounder Q&A Session >>> >>> 12:00 -- 13:00 >>> >>> Lunch >>> >>> 13:00 -- 14:30 >>> >>> Developing Desirable System Properties >>> >>> Panel is split into the following four proposed tracks, >>> each moderated by an Internet Governance expert: >>> >>> >>> -- Desirable properties for ecosystem legitimacy >>> >>> Moderator: David Gross >>> >>> -- Desirable properties for an effective and inclusive >>> multi-interest & consensus-based system >>> >>> Moderator: Sally Wentworth >>> >>> -- Desirable properties to ensure global participation >>> including from developing world >>> >>> Moderator: William Drake >>> >>> -- Desirable properties for co-existence with other >>> governance systems (national and multi-lateral) >>> ensuring a stable system that is not prone to attack, >>> mismanagement, and manipulation. >>> >>> Moderator: Wolfgang Kleinwachter >>> >>> 14:30 -- 14:45 >>> >>> Break >>> >>> 14:45 -- 17:30 >>> >>> Joint Observations >>> >>> Panel members, moderated by experts, coalesce >>> around a set of overall joint observations on the >>> desirable system properties >>> >>> 17:30 -- 17:45 >>> >>> Break >>> >>> 17:45 -- 18:30 >>> >>> Wrap-up >>> >>> >>> Panel members discuss next steps, timelines/dates, >>> communication rules and modus operandi for panel >>> >>> About The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands >>> The Annenberg Foundation Trust at Sunnylands, which operates The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands in Rancho Mirage, California, is an independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit operating entity. The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands hosts high-level retreats that address serious issues facing the nation and the world, including the recent official meeting between President Obama and President Xi of the People's Republic of China. In addition, Sunnylands offers programs through the Sunnylands Center & Gardens to educate the public about the history of Sunnylands, its architecture, art collections, cultural significance, and sustainable practices. >>> >>> About ICANN >>> The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is an internationally organised, non-profit corporation that has responsibility for Internet Protocol (IP) address space allocation, protocol identifier assignment, generic (gTLD) and country code (ccTLD) Top-Level Domain name system management, and root server system management functions. As a private-public partnership, ICANN is dedicated to preserving the operational stability of the Internet; to promoting competition; to achieving broad representation of global Internet communities; and to developing policy appropriate to its mission through bottom-up, consensus-based processes. For more information please visit:http://www.icann.org/. >>> >>> About The World Economic Forum >>> The World Economic Forum is an independent international organization committed to improving the state of the world by engaging leaders in partnerships to shape global, regional and industry agendas. >>> >>> Incorporated as a foundation in 1971 and headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, the World Economic Forum is impartial and not-for-profit; it is tied to no political, partisan or national interests (http://www.weforum.org/). >>> >>> Editor's Note: The Panel was previously referred to as the Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation. >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> -- >> Carolina Rossini >> Project Director, Latin America Resource Center >> Open Technology Institute >> New America Foundation >> // >> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> skype: carolrossini >> @carolinarossini >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew at gp-digital.org Sat Dec 14 12:51:45 2013 From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 17:51:45 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Save the Date: RightsCon Silicon Valley March 3rd-5th, 2014 In-Reply-To: <75F7922F-063B-453D-86DB-7A0C0D8B39CF@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Could we host a session focused on IG given that by then we should have put together some ideas of our own for Brazil? From: Jeremy Malcolm > Date: Saturday, 14 December 2013 06:36 To: "" > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Save the Date: RightsCon Silicon Valley March 3rd-5th, 2014 To follow up on Brett's message, just to let everyone know that we a placeholder "Best Bits" session has been submitted for RightsCon, though the original idea of using it to finalise inputs for the Brazil meeting won't work out - because the deadline for those inputs is slightly too soon. So, we need to find another theme for the meeting. Since many of the US groups at RightsCon will be new to the international Internet governance debates (except for maybe ICANN and WCIT), a couple of us considered that it might be worthwhile to structure a session around more closely integrating US based civil society into our community (which was one of my original aims for Best Bits). Anyway, who is interested in sharing ideas (either these or other ideas) and developing the session further? Deborah has offered to manage a workflow for the session, if we are all happy for her to do that. What do you all think? Also, separately to RightsCon, I should flag early that I have the opportunity to arrange a Best Bits pre-meeting in S?o Paulo immediately prior to the Brazil meeting, which would be hosted by IDEC, the largest Brazilian consumer group. Of course at this stage, we don't know who will be attending the Brazil meeting, so plans are at an early stage. But if anyone is interested in hearing or discussing more about that, you can also get in touch (perhaps off-list for now, until plans and funding are firmer). On 6 Dec 2013, at 11:40 pm, Brett Solomon > wrote: Dear friends, As you may know, RightsCon Silicon Valley is taking place March 3-5 in San Francisco at Mission Bay Conference Center. This is an opportunity for different communities to come together - global activists, companies, thinkers, investors, engineers and government officials - to discuss the tensions and opportunities at the intersection of human rights and the internet. RightsCon Silicon Valley has a particular focus on technology companies and aims to create a space for multistakeholder dialogue on human rights best practices and learnings in the context of the private sector. The event also takes place 7 weeks before the Brazil meeting and as I mentioned could be used as a venue to discuss strategy and plans for April. The program is open to submissions, and we're looking to a range of networks, including the Bestbits community to help shape the agenda. Here is the link to propose a session. The deadline for submission is December 20th. If you have questions, check out the website at rightscon.org, or email Rian Wanstreet at rian at accessnow.org, or we can chat more on this list. For those of you who have participated in RightsCon in the past, we look forward to seeing you again. Enjoy your weekends! Brett Speakers to date include: Rebecca MacKinnon (Ranking Digital Rights); Alaa Abd El Fattah (one of Egypt's most respected activists and software engineers (currently detained)); Jim Cowie (CTO, Renesys); John Donahoe (President & CEO, eBay); Moez Chakchouk (Founder of Tunisia's IXP and 404Labs); Brad Burnham (Union Square Ventures); Colin Crowell (Head of Global Public Policy, Twitter); Michael Posner (NYU Professor of Business and Society); Eileen Donahoe (former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Human Rights Council); Jillian York (Director for International Freedom of Expression, EFF); ; Richard Stallman (Founder GNU Project and Free Software Foundation); David Gorodyansky (CEO & Founder, AnchorFree); Mitchell Baker (Chairperson, Mozilla Corporation) and many more. Brett Solomon Executive Director | Access accessnow.org +1 917 969 6077 | skype: brettsolomon | @accessnow Key ID: 0x312B641A ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun Dec 15 19:43:44 2013 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 05:43:44 +0500 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] press release about meeting of the high level panel In-Reply-To: <937290A5-D04D-442F-8F58-7D90CD4198D5@gmail.com> References: <723F73B1-F8BE-42F5-A373-2C7E0FFD3210@glocom.ac.jp> <9CFBF54D-89FD-439A-B066-57F907ABBAA1@uzh.ch> <937290A5-D04D-442F-8F58-7D90CD4198D5@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B2D715E-B9DB-46C0-8B38-3B4E3DC32EB9@gmail.com> I had a small question from our colleagues that are participating in the process. Is the panel only going to move forward in its present opening structure or is it open to more stakeholder participation from developing countries'. Any chances of remote participation and input? Best Regards Fouad Bajwa Sent from my mobile device On Dec 14, 2013, at 7:58 PM, Carolina wrote: > Thank you Bill and glad that Anriette has joined as well. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Dec 14, 2013, at 1:28 PM, William Drake wrote: > >> Hi Carolina >> >> The press release pretty much covers what was discussed, who was there, and the next steps. I was happy we got agreement to open things up by having online discussions per theme, and that they have invited Anriette to join the group. In terms of ideas discussed, one that seems to have some traction is to do something to help foster the development of multistakeholder processes at the national level, inter alia in the hope that this will strengthen the diversity of engagement at the global level. >> >> It is currently expected that the final report will be brief, under ten pages, and will be revised in light of the feedback from Sao Paulo and elsewhere. >> >> The tweets are at #InternetPanel but there’s not so much given the Chatham rule. >> >> Cheers >> >> Bill >> >> On Dec 14, 2013, at 10:43 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >> >>> any reports back from that meeting already? >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 5:36 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >>> http://www.telegraphindia.com/pressrelease/prnw/en33449.html >>> -- >>> >>> High-Level Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms Convenes in London >>> >>> PR Newswire >>> >>> LONDON, Dec. 13, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- The Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms -- a diverse group of global stakeholders from government, civil society, the private sector, the technical community and international organizations -- held their first meeting in London to discuss global Internet cooperation and governance mechanisms. The Panel expressed strong support for a multistakeholder approach to the future of Internet governance. The conversations held at the London meeting were facilitated by a team of Internet governance experts. The discussion will be taken online in the coming days at 1Net.org. >>> >>> "The world relies on the Internet for economic, social, and political progress. It is imperative to ensure emerging issues are properly addressed in a global context, without individual governments or intergovernmental organizations developing their own solutions," said Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves and chair of the Panel. >>> >>> "The success of the Internet is rooted in a distributed and bottom-up model, with openness and collaboration at its core," said Vint Cerf, vice-chair of the Panel. "The inaugural meeting of the Panel brought together a diverse set of perspectives on the future of the Internet, and through this diversity I'm confident we can chart a course to protect the core of the current ecosystem, while evolving its methods, accessibility, and universality to meet the opportunities and challenges of the future." >>> >>> In keeping with its mission, the first meeting of the Panel addressed desirable properties for global Internet cooperation, administration and governance. The Panel will conduct two additional meetings in the coming months. The next meeting, scheduled for late February 2014 in Rancho Mirage, California, will be hosted by The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands. Sunnylands is partnering with the Panel in its substantive work. Following this meeting, a high-level draft report will then be released for open consultation. A final meeting will be hosted by the World Economic Forum in May 2014 in Dubai. During this meeting, the Panel will consider community feedback and discussions at forums including the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance in Braziland the Freedom Online Coalition's conference in Tallinn, Estonia. A high-level report will be published at the conclusion of the May meeting, and is expected to cover the following areas: >>> >>> • A brief overview of the current Internet governance ecosystem >>> • Opportunities and challenges facing the current ecosystem >>> • Desirable ecosystem properties including: >>> • Ecosystem legitimacy >>> • Effective and inclusive multi-interest and consensus-based system >>> • Ensuring global participation including from the developing world >>> • Co-existence with other governance systems (national and multi-lateral) ensuring a stable system that is not prone to attack, mismanagement, and manipulation >>> Panel members are working in their personal capacity. Members consist of: >>> >>> • Mohamed Al Ghanim, Founder and Director General of the UAE Telecommunications Regulatory Authority; former Vice-Chair, UAE Information and Communications Technology Fund; Chairman of WCIT-12 >>> • Virgilio Fernandes Almeida, Member of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Chair of Internet Steering Committee; National Secretary for Information Technology Policies >>> • Dorothy Attwood, Senior Vice President of Global Public Policy, Walt Disney Company >>> • Mitchell Baker, Chair, Mozilla Foundation; Chair and former CEO, Mozilla Corporation >>> • Francesco Caio, CEO of Avio; former CEO, Cable and Wireless and Vodafone Italia; Founder of Netscalibur; broadband advisor in UK and Italy; Government Commissioner for Digital Agenda >>> • Vint Cerf, Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist for Google; former Chairman, ICANN; Co-Founder of the Internet Society >>> • Fadi Chehade, CEO and President of ICANN; Founder of Rosetta Net; technology executive >>> • Nitin Desai, Indian economist and diplomat; former UN Undersecretary General; convener of Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) >>> • Byron Holland, President and CEO of the Canadian Internet Registration Authority >>> • Toomas Hendrik Ilves, President of Estonia; former diplomat and journalist; former Minister of Foreign Affairs; former Member of the European Parliament >>> • Ivo Ivanovski, Minister of Information Society and Administration, Macedonia; Commissioner to the UN Broadband Commission for Digital Development >>> • Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe; former Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Norway >>> • Omobola Johnson, Minister of Communication Technology of Nigeria >>> • Olaf Kolkman, Director of NLnet Labs; "Evangineer" of the Open Internet; former Chair of the Internet Architecture Board >>> • Frank La Rue, labor and human rights lawyer; UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression; Founder, Center for Legal Action for Human Rights (CALDH) >>> • Robert M. McDowell, former U.S. Federal Communications Commissioner; Visiting Fellow, Hudson Institute's Center for Economics of the Internet >>> • Andile Ngcaba, Chairman and Founder, Convergence Partners; Executive Chairman, Dimension Data Middle East and Africa; former South African Government Director General of Communications >>> • Liu Qingfeng, CEO and President of iFLYTEK; Director of National Speech & Language Engineering Laboratory of China; Member of Interactive Technology Standards working group >>> • Lynn St. Amour, President and CEO of the Internet Society; telecoms and IT executive >>> • Jimmy Wales, Founder and Promoter of Wikipedia; Member of the Board of Trustees of Wikimedia Foundation >>> • Won-Pyo Hong, President, Media Solution Center, Samsung Electronics >>> >>> >>> London Panel Agenda >>> >>> December 13 >>> >>> 09:00 -- 11:00 >>> >>> Backgrounder >>> >>> Expert presentations on Internet Cooperation and >>> Governance to cover: >>> >>> -- History of Internet cooperation and overview of >>> current ecosystem >>> >>> Speaker: Vint Cerf >>> >>> -- Nature and scope of global Internet governance >>> >>> Speaker: William Drake >>> >>> -- Current system opportunities and challenges: >>> ( this includes legitimacy and mandate challenges, >>> challenges for global participation and inclusion) >>> >>> Speaker: David Gross & Bertrand de la Chapelle >>> >>> 11:00 -- 11:15 >>> >>> Break >>> >>> 11:15 -- 12:00 >>> >>> Backgrounder Q&A Session >>> >>> 12:00 -- 13:00 >>> >>> Lunch >>> >>> 13:00 -- 14:30 >>> >>> Developing Desirable System Properties >>> >>> Panel is split into the following four proposed tracks, >>> each moderated by an Internet Governance expert: >>> >>> >>> -- Desirable properties for ecosystem legitimacy >>> >>> Moderator: David Gross >>> >>> -- Desirable properties for an effective and inclusive >>> multi-interest & consensus-based system >>> >>> Moderator: Sally Wentworth >>> >>> -- Desirable properties to ensure global participation >>> including from developing world >>> >>> Moderator: William Drake >>> >>> -- Desirable properties for co-existence with other >>> governance systems (national and multi-lateral) >>> ensuring a stable system that is not prone to attack, >>> mismanagement, and manipulation. >>> >>> Moderator: Wolfgang Kleinwachter >>> >>> 14:30 -- 14:45 >>> >>> Break >>> >>> 14:45 -- 17:30 >>> >>> Joint Observations >>> >>> Panel members, moderated by experts, coalesce >>> around a set of overall joint observations on the >>> desirable system properties >>> >>> 17:30 -- 17:45 >>> >>> Break >>> >>> 17:45 -- 18:30 >>> >>> Wrap-up >>> >>> >>> Panel members discuss next steps, timelines/dates, >>> communication rules and modus operandi for panel >>> >>> About The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands >>> The Annenberg Foundation Trust at Sunnylands, which operates The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands in Rancho Mirage, California, is an independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit operating entity. The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands hosts high-level retreats that address serious issues facing the nation and the world, including the recent official meeting between President Obama and President Xi of the People's Republic of China. In addition, Sunnylands offers programs through the Sunnylands Center & Gardens to educate the public about the history of Sunnylands, its architecture, art collections, cultural significance, and sustainable practices. >>> >>> About ICANN >>> The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is an internationally organised, non-profit corporation that has responsibility for Internet Protocol (IP) address space allocation, protocol identifier assignment, generic (gTLD) and country code (ccTLD) Top-Level Domain name system management, and root server system management functions. As a private-public partnership, ICANN is dedicated to preserving the operational stability of the Internet; to promoting competition; to achieving broad representation of global Internet communities; and to developing policy appropriate to its mission through bottom-up, consensus-based processes. For more information please visit:http://www.icann.org/. >>> >>> About The World Economic Forum >>> The World Economic Forum is an independent international organization committed to improving the state of the world by engaging leaders in partnerships to shape global, regional and industry agendas. >>> >>> Incorporated as a foundation in 1971 and headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, the World Economic Forum is impartial and not-for-profit; it is tied to no political, partisan or national interests (http://www.weforum.org/). >>> >>> Editor's Note: The Panel was previously referred to as the Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation. >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Carolina Rossini >>> Project Director, Latin America Resource Center >>> Open Technology Institute >>> New America Foundation >>> // >>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>> + 1 6176979389 >>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>> skype: carolrossini >>> @carolinarossini >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Guru at ITforChange.net Mon Dec 16 02:41:40 2013 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 13:11:40 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Lawmakers overseeing NSA receive millions from private intelligence contractors In-Reply-To: <52AEABAA.9070808@ITforChange.net> References: <52AEABAA.9070808@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <52AEAEB4.40502@ITforChange.net> excerpt “/Amid the NSA scandal, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence — the committees in charge of oversight — denied stricter reform attempts to the NSA programs and instead propelled legislation aimed at restoring their trust/,” John Schoffstall of the Capitol City Project remarked after seeing Shaw’s report. “/The committees are intended to keep waste, fraud and abuse in check given most of these programs are hidden from the general public/,” Schoffstall continued. Despite this, however, “*/Every single member on the committees received campaign contributions from the largest intelligence companies in the US performing services for the government/**,” *he said. end excerpt Conflict of interest is a serious problem especially in the IG space.... greater transparency, including of funding/ mandate etc. would help CS on both legitimacy and effectiveness aspects. regards, Guru Lawmakers overseeing NSA receive millions from private intelligence contractors Published time: December 13, 2013 22:31 Get short URL US President Obama said last week that reforming the NSA in the midst of a major surveillance scandal could restore confidence in the government. Newly revealed connections between Congress and the private sector, however, may not do the same. Officials from the executive and legislative branches have expressed an interest in reforming the NSA, especially in light of the ongoing and highly damaging leaks disclosed to the media by former contractor Edward Snowden. But a recent report has shed light on some ties between those in Washington who watch over the intelligence community and their financial bankers - the likes of which raise questions about just how serious lawmakers in the Senate and House of Representatives are about reigning in the NSA. A study by Donny Shaw at the nonpartisan research organizationMapLight was published this week, and in it he explored the connections between the major industry players that provide the intelligence community with tools and the lawmakers that look over the NSA and other agencies. Seventy percentof the intelligence budget is used to pay private contractors, Shaw acknowledged, and the corporations at the top of that list are among those that have received billions of dollars by the federal government in awards and contracts. At the same time, however, those very companies and the political action committees (PACs) they’ve aligned with have long been padding the pockets of influential members of Congress. According to research published this week by Shaw, PACs and individuals from the top 20 contractors with ties to the Pentagon have all contributed significantly to members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. “/In total, members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence have received $3.7 million from top intelligence services contractors since January 1, 2005/,” Shaw reported, suggesting that lawmakers in those offices may be a bit hesitant to scale back the nation’s intelligence operations and, in turn, cut funding to the very contractors that are helping their campaigns. With regards to contractors who have benefited heavily from government opportunities, L-3 Communications has been awarded more than $46 billion in federal funds for an array of jobs they’ve undertaken during the course of their relationship with Washington, according to the USAspending.gov website. But as of last month, L-3 has also handed over around $238,145 to the Senate and House intelligence committees. Even with more than a quarter of a million dollars going directly to the lawmakers in charge of monitoring the intelligence community that relies on L-3’s products and services, the communications firm is hardly the most generous. Lockheed Martin has made contributions to those intelligence committee members in one form or another to the tune of around $798,901, according to Shaw’s research, and Northrup Grumman, Honeywell International, and General Dynamics have each awarded those committee members at least $675k a piece. And how is that money divvied up? The Maplight research reveals that Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Maryland) - the chairman of the House committee who also represents the district containing the NSA headquarters - is the largest recipient of intelligence contractor money, reaping in around $363,600 since 2005. “/Amid the NSA scandal, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence — the committees in charge of oversight — denied stricter reform attempts to the NSA programs and instead propelled legislation aimed at restoring their trust/,” John Schoffstall of the Capitol City Project remarked after seeing Shaw’s report. “/The committees are intended to keep waste, fraud and abuse in check given most of these programs are hidden from the general public/,” Schoffstall continued. Despite this, however, “/Every single member on the committees received campaign contributions from the largest intelligence companies in the US performing services for the government/,” he said. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Dec 2 00:16:42 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 21:16:42 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] Proposal on Best Bits governance In-Reply-To: <529C01C8.1010008@ciroap.org> References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org> <528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net> <00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org> <528C72F0.1090703@itforchange.net> <795A5EE4-EAA1-4858-9F9A-CE652E85BF12@ciroap.org> <528C7AC8.7000203@itforchange.net> <528F2A38.4040905@apc.org> <529C01C8.1010008@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <070b01ceef1d$b53e1d80$1fba5880$@gmail.com> For the third time I am indicating that I do not accept this proposal and I would ask that my counter-proposal also be considered and/or reasons given for it not being “endorsed” by the “interim” Steering Committee. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 7:43 PM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Proposal on Best Bits governance I for one can fully accept and endorse Anriette's helpful proposal. Others? On 22/11/13 17:56, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: Dear all [Please note that this proposal is not about the Brazil meeting or civil society nomcoms.] In some of the recent threads people have called to question the legitimacy of the Best Bits steering committee, and of transparency and accountability in Best Bits. I agree it will be good to strengthen Best Bits internal processes, but we should do this in a way that does not undermine trust in people who have worked hard to bring Best Bits to where it is, or in one another. We should also not undermine our ability to work together at a time when civil society is having to rise to some pretty daunting challenges. In particular, we should try not to discourage those individuals who have been volunteering their time on Best Bits bits work - either on the SC, or on drafting inputs. Without their effort we would be in a far weaker position than we are now. We would not have had the benefit of two face-to-face meetings, or of several substantial letters/other inputs submitted in response to strategic opportunities for raising civil society voices. I would therefore like to propose the following: 1) We ask the current Best Bits Steering Committee, a group of people who started to volunteer their time in this capacity in July 2013, to continue to serve until 31 July 2014. 2) We ask them to present us with a short overview report of the work they did in 2013 by the end of this year. 3) We ask them to, by the end of the first quarter of 2014, to propose a process for the renewal of the Best Bits Steering Committee. Best Anriette -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kichango at gmail.com Mon Dec 16 14:07:56 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 19:07:56 +0000 Subject: Snapshots from ICANN HL Panel in London Re: [governance] [bestbits] press release about meeting of the high level panel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks, Vlada, for this detailed and very informative account of what transpired at the HLP meeting in London. Mawaki -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- *Mawaki Chango, PhD* Founder & Principal, DIGILEXIS http://www.digilexis.com m.chango at digilexis.com Mobile: +225 4448 7764 twitter.com/digilexis twitter.com/dig_mawaki Skype: digilexis On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Vladimir Radunovic wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > > > here are few lines on my impressions of what happened at the High Level > Panel meeting in London on Friday. I hope it will help us better understand > the intentions and potentials of this (dynamically evolving and > self-reshaping) initiative. > > > > I was there in status of an observer, representing Diplo who was invited > among others by ICANN to provide its expertise and assist the drafting of > report by the HL panel. The Panel event was under Chatham House rule, so I > will try to bring as many details as possible while still respecting this > rule. The views below are my personal, as I saw the discussions and the > process. Besides the impressions below, I (and several others) have been > extensively tweeting with #InternetPanel (read here) > so you can get a pretty good snapshot of key points in discussion through > that. Formal Press Release has been published and is available here– it brings more or less all the basic info on topics and participants of > the meeting as well as the future timeline. > > > > *HL Group and experts* > > > > Panel includes 21 members listed in the Press Release; additionally, a > final one (Anriette from APC) has been accepted during the meeting in > London to reflect loud civil society requests. Panel is dominated by tech > and corporate sector, with few yet high level representatives of > governments; only now there is a panel member from civil society > organisation. > > > > It was my impression that initially the entire HL Panel was composed based > on “names” rather than on representation of stakeholders; yet it appears > that it was acknowledged at the end that the absence of civil society > organisations can hurt the process. On the other hand, civil society > experts dominate the expert group who is supposed to assist with drafting > the final report – as the agenda in press release shows. As an observer > (replacing Jovan who was invited as expert but was not able to join in > London), I did not have chance to formally raise civil society concerns > expressed on this list and elsewhere, but other experts were involved in > formal discussion. I hope Anriette’s formal presence in future will extend > this direct opportunity. > > > > At London meeting there were most of Panel members, the experts, dozen of > observers assisting Panel members or as guests, and some ICANN staff – > total about 50 people, invited by ICANN. These are likely the people that > will gather also in the next phases of the work. I suppose there will be no > further changes in composition of the panel. I also got the impression the > following two meetings will not be opened for observers rather than those > invited directly or related to panel members, nor there will be greater > transparency during the meetings; instead, it seems public consultations > (primarily on 1Net) will be the public inputs into the work of the panel. > > > > *Task* > > > > The Panel has decided to be titled “Panel on global Internet cooperation > and governance mechanisms”. Their goal is to prepare a blueprint document – > a report – as described in press release. The focus of London discussions > was on mapping the ecosystem and needs, discussing the “desirable > properties” of future system, and agreeing on next steps. While there were > interesting discussions, my impression was that there were very few new > aspects on the table yet. It is my hope that the panel (and especially the > experts who do have extensive knowledge of already-discussed issues in and > various fora in previous years) will reflect to valuable outputs of > previous IGF and other meetings rather than reinventing the wheel. It was > confirmed that the summary of discussion points will be posted to 1Net.org > soon asking for community reflections. > > > > The final draft of the report should be ready during second HL meeting in > US end February; then it should be formally submitted as contribution to > Sao Paolo meeting and Freedom Online conference in Tallinn in April, and > offered for public consultations towards the next draft (not sure if only > through 1Net, but probably will not be limited to that). It is supposed the > draft report will find its place in the Sao Paolo meeting as well. The > outputs of this and public discussions will be fed into the final report to > be wrapped up during the third meeting in Dubai in early May. It should > then be fed into various processes incl. ICANN meeting in London in June, > IGF in September, etc. It is important to mention that the relevance and > legitimacy of IGF was mentioned several times in discussions, and I had a > feeling that the panel and experts are aware that this process should > contribute to (and possibly strengthen) the IGF rather than undermine it. > > > > *Other components* > > > > My impression was that there was distancing by ICANN and the HL panel from > the Sao Paolo meeting. Brazil meeting was mentioned only once at the end as > a place where the report may be discussed – and was mentioned as only one > such opportunity. There was no feeling that Sao Paolo conference is part of > this initiative. At the same time the news was spread that Brazilian > president Rousseff met French President Holland and that France might > support Sao Paolo meeting (I found no direct confirmation for this in news > yet however – pointers welcomed if anyone has). > > > > On the other hand 1Net was mentioned several times as the place in which > public contributions on the draft report should be provided. It was of > course only the reference to 1Net with regards to the HL Panel work, but it > is possible that 1Net was envisaged with a broader goal; there was no > further info however on how 1Net will proceed, nor on its Steering > Committees or further steps. > > > > *Timeline* > > > > The timeline of meetings was presented in the press release as well. Yet > let me combine it here with the updated info on other relevant 2014 events > mentioned and not mentioned in London: > > 22-25 January, Davos: Side-meeting of the HL Panel during WEF annual > meeting > > 27-28 February, US: 2nd HL meeting > > 31 March, Dubai (rather than Sharm): ITU WTDC > > 23-24 April, Sao Paolo: Brazil conference > > 28-29 April, Tallinn: Freedom Online Conference > > 3-4 May, Dubai: 3rd (final) HL meeting > > > > > > I hope this shed bit more light on what this whole new initiative will be > about. It is slightly clearer to me now, though I still have lots of > questions about 1Net. It is my belief that we should try to, whatever the > initial idea behind 1Net was (and also the HL Panel), explore its > potentials to strengthen the IGF and improve communications among > professional (and stakeholder) silos. > > > > Best! > > > > Vlada > > > > PS Sorry for a rather long email.. I decided to be detailed in this case, > and mention as much as possible. > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vladar at diplomacy.edu Mon Dec 16 12:36:33 2013 From: vladar at diplomacy.edu (Vladimir Radunovic) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:36:33 +0100 Subject: Snapshots from ICANN HL Panel in London Re: [governance] [bestbits] press release about meeting of the high level panel Message-ID: Dear colleagues, here are few lines on my impressions of what happened at the High Level Panel meeting in London on Friday. I hope it will help us better understand the intentions and potentials of this (dynamically evolving and self-reshaping) initiative. I was there in status of an observer, representing Diplo who was invited among others by ICANN to provide its expertise and assist the drafting of report by the HL panel. The Panel event was under Chatham House rule, so I will try to bring as many details as possible while still respecting this rule. The views below are my personal, as I saw the discussions and the process. Besides the impressions below, I (and several others) have been extensively tweeting with #InternetPanel (read here) so you can get a pretty good snapshot of key points in discussion through that. Formal Press Release has been published and is available here– it brings more or less all the basic info on topics and participants of the meeting as well as the future timeline. *HL Group and experts* Panel includes 21 members listed in the Press Release; additionally, a final one (Anriette from APC) has been accepted during the meeting in London to reflect loud civil society requests. Panel is dominated by tech and corporate sector, with few yet high level representatives of governments; only now there is a panel member from civil society organisation. It was my impression that initially the entire HL Panel was composed based on “names” rather than on representation of stakeholders; yet it appears that it was acknowledged at the end that the absence of civil society organisations can hurt the process. On the other hand, civil society experts dominate the expert group who is supposed to assist with drafting the final report – as the agenda in press release shows. As an observer (replacing Jovan who was invited as expert but was not able to join in London), I did not have chance to formally raise civil society concerns expressed on this list and elsewhere, but other experts were involved in formal discussion. I hope Anriette’s formal presence in future will extend this direct opportunity. At London meeting there were most of Panel members, the experts, dozen of observers assisting Panel members or as guests, and some ICANN staff – total about 50 people, invited by ICANN. These are likely the people that will gather also in the next phases of the work. I suppose there will be no further changes in composition of the panel. I also got the impression the following two meetings will not be opened for observers rather than those invited directly or related to panel members, nor there will be greater transparency during the meetings; instead, it seems public consultations (primarily on 1Net) will be the public inputs into the work of the panel. *Task* The Panel has decided to be titled “Panel on global Internet cooperation and governance mechanisms”. Their goal is to prepare a blueprint document – a report – as described in press release. The focus of London discussions was on mapping the ecosystem and needs, discussing the “desirable properties” of future system, and agreeing on next steps. While there were interesting discussions, my impression was that there were very few new aspects on the table yet. It is my hope that the panel (and especially the experts who do have extensive knowledge of already-discussed issues in and various fora in previous years) will reflect to valuable outputs of previous IGF and other meetings rather than reinventing the wheel. It was confirmed that the summary of discussion points will be posted to 1Net.org soon asking for community reflections. The final draft of the report should be ready during second HL meeting in US end February; then it should be formally submitted as contribution to Sao Paolo meeting and Freedom Online conference in Tallinn in April, and offered for public consultations towards the next draft (not sure if only through 1Net, but probably will not be limited to that). It is supposed the draft report will find its place in the Sao Paolo meeting as well. The outputs of this and public discussions will be fed into the final report to be wrapped up during the third meeting in Dubai in early May. It should then be fed into various processes incl. ICANN meeting in London in June, IGF in September, etc. It is important to mention that the relevance and legitimacy of IGF was mentioned several times in discussions, and I had a feeling that the panel and experts are aware that this process should contribute to (and possibly strengthen) the IGF rather than undermine it. *Other components* My impression was that there was distancing by ICANN and the HL panel from the Sao Paolo meeting. Brazil meeting was mentioned only once at the end as a place where the report may be discussed – and was mentioned as only one such opportunity. There was no feeling that Sao Paolo conference is part of this initiative. At the same time the news was spread that Brazilian president Rousseff met French President Holland and that France might support Sao Paolo meeting (I found no direct confirmation for this in news yet however – pointers welcomed if anyone has). On the other hand 1Net was mentioned several times as the place in which public contributions on the draft report should be provided. It was of course only the reference to 1Net with regards to the HL Panel work, but it is possible that 1Net was envisaged with a broader goal; there was no further info however on how 1Net will proceed, nor on its Steering Committees or further steps. *Timeline* The timeline of meetings was presented in the press release as well. Yet let me combine it here with the updated info on other relevant 2014 events mentioned and not mentioned in London: 22-25 January, Davos: Side-meeting of the HL Panel during WEF annual meeting 27-28 February, US: 2nd HL meeting 31 March, Dubai (rather than Sharm): ITU WTDC 23-24 April, Sao Paolo: Brazil conference 28-29 April, Tallinn: Freedom Online Conference 3-4 May, Dubai: 3rd (final) HL meeting I hope this shed bit more light on what this whole new initiative will be about. It is slightly clearer to me now, though I still have lots of questions about 1Net. It is my belief that we should try to, whatever the initial idea behind 1Net was (and also the HL Panel), explore its potentials to strengthen the IGF and improve communications among professional (and stakeholder) silos. Best! Vlada PS Sorry for a rather long email.. I decided to be detailed in this case, and mention as much as possible. On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 1:43 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > I had a small question from our colleagues that are participating in the > process. Is the panel only going to move forward in its present opening > structure or is it open to more stakeholder participation from developing > countries'. Any chances of remote participation and input? > > Best Regards > Fouad Bajwa > > Sent from my mobile device > > On Dec 14, 2013, at 7:58 PM, Carolina wrote: > > Thank you Bill and glad that Anriette has joined as well. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Dec 14, 2013, at 1:28 PM, William Drake wrote: > > Hi Carolina > > The press release pretty much covers what was discussed, who was there, > and the next steps. I was happy we got agreement to open things up by > having online discussions per theme, and that they have invited Anriette to > join the group. In terms of ideas discussed, one that seems to have some > traction is to do something to help foster the development of > multistakeholder processes at the national level, inter alia in the hope > that this will strengthen the diversity of engagement at the global level. > > It is currently expected that the final report will be brief, under ten > pages, and will be revised in light of the feedback from Sao Paulo and > elsewhere. > > The tweets are at #InternetPanel but there’s not so much given the Chatham > rule. > > Cheers > > Bill > > On Dec 14, 2013, at 10:43 AM, Carolina Rossini > wrote: > > any reports back from that meeting already? > > > On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 5:36 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> http://www.telegraphindia.com/pressrelease/prnw/en33449.html >> -- >> >> High-Level Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms >> Convenes in London >> >> PR Newswire >> >> LONDON, Dec. 13, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- The Panel on Global Internet >> Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms -- a diverse group of global >> stakeholders from government, civil society, the private sector, the >> technical community and international organizations -- held their first >> meeting in London to discuss global Internet cooperation and governance >> mechanisms. The Panel expressed strong support for a multistakeholder >> approach to the future of Internet governance. The conversations held at >> the London meeting were facilitated by a team of Internet governance >> experts. The discussion will be taken online in the coming days at >> 1Net.org. >> >> "The world relies on the Internet for economic, social, and political >> progress. It is imperative to ensure emerging issues are properly addressed >> in a global context, without individual governments or intergovernmental >> organizations developing their own solutions," said Estonian President >> Toomas Hendrik Ilves and chair of the Panel. >> >> "The success of the Internet is rooted in a distributed and bottom-up >> model, with openness and collaboration at its core," said Vint Cerf, >> vice-chair of the Panel. "The inaugural meeting of the Panel brought >> together a diverse set of perspectives on the future of the Internet, and >> through this diversity I'm confident we can chart a course to protect the >> core of the current ecosystem, while evolving its methods, accessibility, >> and universality to meet the opportunities and challenges of the future." >> >> In keeping with its mission, the first meeting of the Panel addressed >> desirable properties for global Internet cooperation, administration and >> governance. The Panel will conduct two additional meetings in the coming >> months. The next meeting, scheduled for late February 2014 in Rancho >> Mirage, California, will be hosted by The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands. >> Sunnylands is partnering with the Panel in its substantive work. Following >> this meeting, a high-level draft report will then be released for open >> consultation. A final meeting will be hosted by the World Economic Forum in >> May 2014 in Dubai. During this meeting, the Panel will consider community >> feedback and discussions at forums including the Global Multistakeholder >> Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance in Braziland the Freedom >> Online Coalition's conference in Tallinn, Estonia. A high-level report will >> be published at the conclusion of the May meeting, and is expected to cover >> the following areas: >> >> • A brief overview of the current Internet governance ecosystem >> • Opportunities and challenges facing the current ecosystem >> • Desirable ecosystem properties including: >> • Ecosystem legitimacy >> • Effective and inclusive multi-interest and >> consensus-based system >> • Ensuring global participation including from the >> developing world >> • Co-existence with other governance systems (national >> and multi-lateral) ensuring a stable system that is not prone to attack, >> mismanagement, and manipulation >> Panel members are working in their personal capacity. Members consist of: >> >> • Mohamed Al Ghanim, Founder and Director General of the UAE >> Telecommunications Regulatory Authority; former Vice-Chair, UAE Information >> and Communications Technology Fund; Chairman of WCIT-12 >> • Virgilio Fernandes Almeida, Member of the Brazilian Academy of >> Sciences; Chair of Internet Steering Committee; National Secretary for >> Information Technology Policies >> • Dorothy Attwood, Senior Vice President of Global Public Policy, >> Walt Disney Company >> • Mitchell Baker, Chair, Mozilla Foundation; Chair and former >> CEO, Mozilla Corporation >> • Francesco Caio, CEO of Avio; former CEO, Cable and Wireless and >> Vodafone Italia; Founder of Netscalibur; broadband advisor in UK and Italy; >> Government Commissioner for Digital Agenda >> • Vint Cerf, Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist for >> Google; former Chairman, ICANN; Co-Founder of the Internet Society >> • Fadi Chehade, CEO and President of ICANN; Founder of Rosetta >> Net; technology executive >> • Nitin Desai, Indian economist and diplomat; former UN >> Undersecretary General; convener of Working Group on Internet Governance >> (WGIG) >> • Byron Holland, President and CEO of the Canadian Internet >> Registration Authority >> • Toomas Hendrik Ilves, President of Estonia; former diplomat and >> journalist; former Minister of Foreign Affairs; former Member of the >> European Parliament >> • Ivo Ivanovski, Minister of Information Society and >> Administration, Macedonia; Commissioner to the UN Broadband Commission for >> Digital Development >> • Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe; >> former Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Norway >> • Omobola Johnson, Minister of Communication Technology of Nigeria >> • Olaf Kolkman, Director of NLnet Labs; "Evangineer" of the Open >> Internet; former Chair of the Internet Architecture Board >> • Frank La Rue, labor and human rights lawyer; UN Special >> Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of >> Opinion and Expression; Founder, Center for Legal Action for Human Rights >> (CALDH) >> • Robert M. McDowell, former U.S. Federal Communications >> Commissioner; Visiting Fellow, Hudson Institute's Center for Economics of >> the Internet >> • Andile Ngcaba, Chairman and Founder, Convergence Partners; >> Executive Chairman, Dimension Data Middle East and Africa; former South >> African Government Director General of Communications >> • Liu Qingfeng, CEO and President of iFLYTEK; Director of >> National Speech & Language Engineering Laboratory of China; Member of >> Interactive Technology Standards working group >> • Lynn St. Amour, President and CEO of the Internet Society; >> telecoms and IT executive >> • Jimmy Wales, Founder and Promoter of Wikipedia; Member of the >> Board of Trustees of Wikimedia Foundation >> • Won-Pyo Hong, President, Media Solution Center, Samsung >> Electronics >> >> >> London Panel Agenda >> >> December 13 >> >> 09:00 -- 11:00 >> >> Backgrounder >> >> Expert presentations on Internet Cooperation and >> Governance to cover: >> >> -- History of Internet cooperation and overview of >> current ecosystem >> >> Speaker: Vint Cerf >> >> -- Nature and scope of global Internet governance >> >> Speaker: William Drake >> >> -- Current system opportunities and challenges: >> ( this includes legitimacy and mandate challenges, >> challenges for global participation and inclusion) >> >> Speaker: David Gross & Bertrand de la Chapelle >> >> 11:00 -- 11:15 >> >> Break >> >> 11:15 -- 12:00 >> >> Backgrounder Q&A Session >> >> 12:00 -- 13:00 >> >> Lunch >> >> 13:00 -- 14:30 >> >> Developing Desirable System Properties >> >> Panel is split into the following four proposed tracks, >> each moderated by an Internet Governance expert: >> >> >> -- Desirable properties for ecosystem legitimacy >> >> Moderator: David Gross >> >> -- Desirable properties for an effective and inclusive >> multi-interest & consensus-based system >> >> Moderator: Sally Wentworth >> >> -- Desirable properties to ensure global participation >> including from developing world >> >> Moderator: William Drake >> >> -- Desirable properties for co-existence with other >> governance systems (national and multi-lateral) >> ensuring a stable system that is not prone to attack, >> mismanagement, and manipulation. >> >> Moderator: Wolfgang Kleinwachter >> >> 14:30 -- 14:45 >> >> Break >> >> 14:45 -- 17:30 >> >> Joint Observations >> >> Panel members, moderated by experts, coalesce >> around a set of overall joint observations on the >> desirable system properties >> >> 17:30 -- 17:45 >> >> Break >> >> 17:45 -- 18:30 >> >> Wrap-up >> >> >> Panel members discuss next steps, timelines/dates, >> communication rules and modus operandi for panel >> >> About The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands >> The Annenberg Foundation Trust at Sunnylands, which operates The >> Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands in Rancho Mirage, California, is an >> independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit operating entity. The Annenberg Retreat at >> Sunnylands hosts high-level retreats that address serious issues facing the >> nation and the world, including the recent official meeting between >> President Obama and President Xi of the People's Republic of China. In >> addition, Sunnylands offers programs through the Sunnylands Center & >> Gardens to educate the public about the history of Sunnylands, its >> architecture, art collections, cultural significance, and sustainable >> practices. >> >> About ICANN >> The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is an >> internationally organised, non-profit corporation that has responsibility >> for Internet Protocol (IP) address space allocation, protocol identifier >> assignment, generic (gTLD) and country code (ccTLD) Top-Level Domain name >> system management, and root server system management functions. As a >> private-public partnership, ICANN is dedicated to preserving the >> operational stability of the Internet; to promoting competition; to >> achieving broad representation of global Internet communities; and to >> developing policy appropriate to its mission through bottom-up, >> consensus-based processes. For more information please visit: >> http://www.icann.org/. >> >> About The World Economic Forum >> The World Economic Forum is an independent international organization >> committed to improving the state of the world by engaging leaders in >> partnerships to shape global, regional and industry agendas. >> >> Incorporated as a foundation in 1971 and headquartered in Geneva, >> Switzerland, the World Economic Forum is impartial and not-for-profit; it >> is tied to no political, partisan or national interests ( >> http://www.weforum.org/). >> >> Editor's Note: The Panel was previously referred to as the Panel on the >> Future of Global Internet Cooperation. >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* > Open Technology Institute > *New America Foundation* > // > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Dec 18 02:51:10 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 15:51:10 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Input into Brazil summit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52B153EE.2050505@ciroap.org> On 14/12/13 02:30, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > > On reflection and discussing with the team here at GPD we thought the > sensible next step was as follows. Taking the submissions we have > there are four steps we plan to take: > > 1. Analysing and summarising what people say about the case for > reform > > 2. Developing a set of principles for the system of IG > governance that would produce outcomes supportive of human rights and > social justice (e.g. transparency, participation, inclusion, human > rights promoting etc) > > 3. Mapping/critiquing proposals for reform against these IG > principles, grouping them if possible and setting out a risk/benefit > analysis of the various ideas > > 4. Putting together those combination of reform proposals that > best fit the principles and submitting them for collective discussion. > > I’d like to get your thoughts on this as a way forward. We plan to > undertake exercise at our end and send round our findings as soon as > we can. That will help define for us the areas of work that we’d be > interested in pursuing. > This sounds very good. Whilst fully agreeing that individuals should write and submit their own inputs, I'm also very hopeful that there will be enough collaboration on this that we can agree to post it to the BB platform for endorsement once finished. This can create a powerful counterpart to what the HLLM will be submitting, with its very problematic membership and murky process. My only suggestion in terms of the process of finalising this work is that you (also) seek feedback on it on the summit at lists.bestbits.net list, which we established for those who asked for a more private shared working space to discuss inputs into the summit. This doesn't of course prevent others from using the main list, or private email to you, depending on what they are comfortable with. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Dec 18 16:35:36 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 16:35:36 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] WHITE HOUSE review report of NSA is OUT Message-ID: Here's the full report, from the White House: http://www.whitehouse .gov/sites/default/files/docs/2013-12-12_rg_final_report.pdf Look at IV.D regarding non-US persons. Is this something Best Bits should answer to? Carol -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Dec 18 19:32:30 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 11:32:30 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] WHITE HOUSE review report of NSA is OUT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: and also this - the UN motion https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/12/one-small-step-privacy-one-giant-leap-against-surveillance From: Carolina Rossini Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 8:35 AM To: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [bestbits] WHITE HOUSE review report of NSA is OUT Here's the full report, from the White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2013-12-12_rg_final_report.pdf Look at IV.D regarding non-US persons. Is this something Best Bits should answer to? Carol -- Carolina Rossini Project Director, Latin America Resource Center Open Technology Institute New America Foundation // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Wed Dec 18 21:02:56 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 03:02:56 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] WHITE HOUSE review report of NSA is OUT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A happy day for privacy defenders. Lets analyse the NSA review group report with due cautious. best j On 19 Dec 2013 00:32, "Ian Peter" wrote: > and also this - the UN motion > > > https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/12/one-small-step-privacy-one-giant-leap-against-surveillance > > *From:* Carolina Rossini > *Sent:* Thursday, December 19, 2013 8:35 AM > *To:* mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* [bestbits] WHITE HOUSE review report of NSA is OUT > > Here's the full report, from the White House: http://www.whitehouse > .gov/sites/default/files/docs/2013-12-12_rg_final_report.pdf > > Look at IV.D regarding non-US persons. > > Is this something Best Bits should answer to? > > Carol > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* > Open Technology Institute > *New America Foundation* > // > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > > ------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amedinagomez at gmail.com Wed Dec 18 21:07:38 2013 From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=F3mez?=) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 21:07:38 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] WHITE HOUSE review report of NSA is OUT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 Joana comparto su punto de vista. Antonio 2013/12/18 Joana Varon > A happy day for privacy defenders. > > Lets analyse the NSA review group report with due cautious. > > best > > j > On 19 Dec 2013 00:32, "Ian Peter" wrote: > >> and also this - the UN motion >> >> >> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/12/one-small-step-privacy-one-giant-leap-against-surveillance >> >> *From:* Carolina Rossini >> *Sent:* Thursday, December 19, 2013 8:35 AM >> *To:* mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> *Subject:* [bestbits] WHITE HOUSE review report of NSA is OUT >> >> Here's the full report, from the White House: http://www.whitehouse >> .gov/sites/default/files/docs/2013-12-12_rg_final_report.pdf >> >> Look at IV.D regarding non-US persons. >> >> Is this something Best Bits should answer to? >> >> Carol >> >> -- >> *Carolina Rossini* >> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* >> Open Technology Institute >> *New America Foundation* >> // >> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> skype: carolrossini >> @carolinarossini >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Dec 18 22:45:18 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 10:45:18 +0700 Subject: [bestbits] RE: [I-coordination] on "identifying principles" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0ad301cefc6c$be830c50$3b8924f0$@gmail.com> Carolina and all, I am attaching a "Declaration of Principles" from the Community Informatics community "An Internet for the Common Good: Engagement, Empowerment, and Justice for All". An earlier version of this was accepted by consensus by the larger Community Informatics community (consisting of both the general email list and specialized lists for Canada , Southern Africa , Older Persons, and Indigenous peoples as well as the Editorial Board of the Journal of Community Informatics ). The current version was produced by a team that included a leading ICT practitioner from Mozambique, a Director of a grassroots Community Informatics initiative in India working with rural women, a practitioner working with marginalized youth in the barrios of Chicago, a leading researcher in the use of ICTs by Indigenous Peoples, a former chair of the Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility and two members of the technical community with interests in the community based use of ICTs. We expect a consensus agreement on this version within the next 48 hours along with endorsements. While there is some overlap with the principles that you have documented from other sources we would ask that those that have not elsewhere been identified be added to your listings and including matters of how addressing matters concerning the distribution of benefits of the use ICTs and the Internet. With best wishes, Mike From: i-coordination-bounces at nro.net [mailto:i-coordination-bounces at nro.net] On Behalf Of Carolina Rossini Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 1:28 AM To: Nick Ashton-Hart Cc: I-coordination at nro.net Subject: [I-coordination] on "identifying principles" here I attach some work that can serve as a background regarding the piece of debate around principles (see Bill and Nick below) we classified everything out there we could find from every stakeholder they are in different docs to make it easier to print C On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: To Bill's point in the first instance it would be useful to identify those principles that exist to date and their source and scope. Perhaps 1net could host a wiki environment or the like where those with knowledge of one or more could get a list together? On 17 Dec 2013, at 18:34, William Drake wrote: Hi George On Dec 17, 2013, at 6:24 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: Bill, You say: "Do we really have nothing more important to be doing here at this point than redefining the wheel as just a round thingy? I thought this list was supposed to be for coordination of multistakeholder dialogue on Sao Paulo and beyond, but it seems to alternate between being a troll paradise and the site of a lot of meandering debates on points that are generally being addressed more systematically elsewhere. Or am I alone in this perception?" I agree that we need to address points systematically. Can you provide a list of systematic points (dare we call them issues?) that it would, in your view, be useful to discuss? Well, why not start with the question of principles? The initiators of the SP meeting have been saying from the outset they'd like to have a sort of multistakeholder declaration of principles. Presumably it'd be helpful if 1net participants were to provide some input on this, and presumably we'd like it to be more than just nice fluffy words. Why not discuss the range of options to make this a useful exercise, and see where there's cross-stakeholder consensus and where there's not? It's something concrete that needs to be done, and they want input by 1 March. Cheers Bill _______________________________________________ -- Carolina Rossini Project Director, Latin America Resource Center Open Technology Institute New America Foundation // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 * carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Internet for the Common Good v 2 (4).doc Type: application/msword Size: 29696 bytes Desc: not available URL: From lorena at collaboratory.de Thu Dec 19 06:02:48 2013 From: lorena at collaboratory.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 12:02:48 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] WHITE HOUSE review report of NSA is OUT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello all, however I take the motion with a grain of salt. Since the exceptions of a rule are the part that confer a rule strength (or weakness) I see in the declaration far too many weaknesses: Emphasizing that unlawful or arbitrary surveillance and/or interception of communications, as well as unlawful or arbitrary collection of personal data, as highly intrusive acts, violate the rights to privacy and freedom of expression and may contradict the tenets of a democratic society, first diluting point: if there is no reform of the corresponding national security/intelligence laws (in all countries), espionage acts will still be legal, since those laws authorize the corresponding intelligence agency to break the laws of a foreign country (not of their own country) and the principles proposed in the motion have to be implemented by each nation state. Hence, any surveillance/intelligence operation performed by the own national intelligence agency on a foreign country will still be legal from the perspective of the spying nation state and not affected by this. Noting that while concerns about public security may justify the gathering and protection of certain sensitive information, second diluting point: gathering and protection of data due to "public security" issues are excluded: regulation on intelligence agencies falls under that category, so again, intelligence agencies are excluded. States must ensure full compliance with their obligations under international human rights law, third diluting point: there is no current international treaty or agreement on the limits and obligations of intelligence agencies and since this text fails to do that, it remains so. In my opinion we need an international treaty that stablishes specifically (!) limits to the work of intelligence agencies if we really want to address this issue. Regards, Lorena 2013/12/19 Ian Peter > and also this - the UN motion > > > https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/12/one-small-step-privacy-one-giant-leap-against-surveillance > > *From:* Carolina Rossini > *Sent:* Thursday, December 19, 2013 8:35 AM > *To:* mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* [bestbits] WHITE HOUSE review report of NSA is OUT > > Here's the full report, from the White House: http://www.whitehouse > .gov/sites/default/files/docs/2013-12-12_rg_final_report.pdf > > Look at IV.D regarding non-US persons. > > Is this something Best Bits should answer to? > > Carol > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* > Open Technology Institute > *New America Foundation* > // > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > > ------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. * Coordinator of the Global Internet Governance (GIG) Ohu Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. www.collaboratory.de * Newsletter * Facebook * Twitter * Youtube -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nnenna75 at gmail.com Thu Dec 19 12:45:05 2013 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 17:45:05 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee In-Reply-To: <6E8F927C-5A78-4AE3-BC6A-0A1D844E976C@afrinic.net> References: <6E8F927C-5A78-4AE3-BC6A-0A1D844E976C@afrinic.net> Message-ID: FYI ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Adiel Akplogan Date: Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 4:32 PM Subject: [discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee To: discuss at 1net.org Dear colleagues, At the end of the deadline for receiving names for the Coordination/Steering committee (many wrote to tell me that they prefer it to be a coordination committee instead of a steering one - Personally I don't mind as the most important for me is to have a multi-interest/stakeholder group that will help us in shaping the discussions and the campaign along with creating a sustainable bridge with every parties and interest group). The following names were submitted: ** from Business: 1. Aparna Sridhar, Telecom Policy Counsel, Google 2. David Fares, Senior Vice President, Government Relations, 21st Century Fox 3. Marilyn Cade, President, ICT Strategies mCade 4. Sarah Wynn-Williams, Manager, Global Public Policy, Facebook 5. Paul Mitchell, Senior Director, Technology Policy, Microsoft Corporation *** from Civil Society: 1. Joana Varon 2. Rafik Dammak 3. Anriette Esterhuysen 4. Vladimir Radunovik 5. Anja Kovacs The Technical community have requested additional time to complete their selection mechanism and I'm expecting to hear from Academic community anytime. In order to keep thing moving and start giving some structure to this initiative, I would like to suggest that we setup the coordination committee with the names we have while waiting for other to join. Hopefully very soon. As for the nominations related to Brazil meeting's committees, nothing has really progressed from the local committee side. We have names from Business constancy that will be forward to them. We will forward the other as I receive them. I have shared with you on this list all the information I have on that. Any further authoritative information regarding this and the way forward should be coming from CGI.BR. Thanks. - a. _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss at 1net.org http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 322 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Dec 2 00:35:31 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 14:35:31 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Proposal on Best Bits governance In-Reply-To: <070b01ceef1d$b53e1d80$1fba5880$@gmail.com> References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org> <528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net> <00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org> <528C72F0.1090703@itforchange.net> <795A5EE4-EAA1-4858-9F9A-CE652E85BF12@ciroap.org> <528C7AC8.7000203@itforchange.net> <528F2A38.4040905@apc.org> <529C01C8.1010008@ciroap.org> <070b01ceef1d$b53e1d80$1fba5880$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Could you resend your counter proposal. Adam On Dec 2, 2013, at 2:16 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > For the third time I am indicating that I do not accept this proposal and I would ask that my counter-proposal also be considered and/or reasons given for it not being “endorsed” by the “interim” Steering Committee. > > M > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm > Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 7:43 PM > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Proposal on Best Bits governance > > I for one can fully accept and endorse Anriette's helpful proposal. Others? > > On 22/11/13 17:56, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear all > > [Please note that this proposal is not about the Brazil meeting or civil > society nomcoms.] > > In some of the recent threads people have called to question the > legitimacy of the Best Bits steering committee, and of transparency and > accountability in Best Bits. I agree it will be good to strengthen Best > Bits internal processes, but we should do this in a way that does not > undermine trust in people who have worked hard to bring Best Bits to > where it is, or in one another. We should also not undermine our > ability to work together at a time when civil society is having to rise > to some pretty daunting challenges. > > In particular, we should try not to discourage those individuals who > have been volunteering their time on Best Bits bits work - either on the > SC, or on drafting inputs. Without their effort we would be in a far > weaker position than we are now. We would not have had the benefit of > two face-to-face meetings, or of several substantial letters/other > inputs submitted in response to strategic opportunities for raising > civil society voices. > > I would therefore like to propose the following: > > 1) We ask the current Best Bits Steering Committee, a group of people > who started to volunteer their time in this capacity in July 2013, to > continue to serve until 31 July 2014. > > 2) We ask them to present us with a short overview report of the work > they did in 2013 by the end of this year. > > 3) We ask them to, by the end of the first quarter of 2014, to propose a > process for the renewal of the Best Bits Steering Committee. > > Best > > Anriette > > > > > > > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From deborah at accessnow.org Thu Dec 19 13:39:33 2013 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 13:39:33 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] WHITE HOUSE review report of NSA is OUT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: There's also a section on internet governance and localization requirements (Chapter VII section B. 3) which might be of interest. On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 9:07 PM, Antonio Medina Gómez < amedinagomez at gmail.com> wrote: > +1 Joana comparto su punto de vista. > > Antonio > > > 2013/12/18 Joana Varon > >> A happy day for privacy defenders. >> >> Lets analyse the NSA review group report with due cautious. >> >> best >> >> j >> On 19 Dec 2013 00:32, "Ian Peter" wrote: >> >>> and also this - the UN motion >>> >>> >>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/12/one-small-step-privacy-one-giant-leap-against-surveillance >>> >>> *From:* Carolina Rossini >>> *Sent:* Thursday, December 19, 2013 8:35 AM >>> *To:* mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> *Subject:* [bestbits] WHITE HOUSE review report of NSA is OUT >>> >>> Here's the full report, from the White House: http://www.whitehouse >>> .gov/sites/default/files/docs/2013-12-12_rg_final_report.pdf >>> >>> Look at IV.D regarding non-US persons. >>> >>> Is this something Best Bits should answer to? >>> >>> Carol >>> >>> -- >>> *Carolina Rossini* >>> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* >>> Open Technology Institute >>> *New America Foundation* >>> // >>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>> + 1 6176979389 >>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>> skype: carolrossini >>> @carolinarossini >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | accessnow.org rightscon.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Dec 20 08:11:32 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 22:11:32 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee References: <52B43FBC.8090108@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: A request for civil society to provide names by the end of the year (11 days) for two committees. Carlos' email below, but quote: "2-3 names for the HL committee and 2 names for the exec committee as, soon as possible (before this year ends)" These committees are described in the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee's announcement of November 26 as: 1. High-Level Multistakeholder Committee: Responsible for conducting the political articulation and fostering the involvement of the international community. 2. Executive Multistakeholder Committee: Responsible for organizing the event, including the agenda discussion and execution, and for the treatment of the proposals from participants and different stakeholders; Adam Begin forwarded message: > From: "Carlos A. Afonso" > Date: December 20, 2013 10:01:48 PM GMT+09:00 > To: Ian Peter , Milton L Mueller > Cc: discuss at 1net.org > Subject: Re: [discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee > > Hi people, > > Writing as a member of the local organizing group (LOG): we are > extremely worried because time is an independent variable and we badly > need a clear definition from all stakeholders as soon as possible. > > To CS: please forget about the other stakeholders (they have their own > challenges and they will have to solve them). If CS is going to restart > the infighting to define representing names, now on who will sit at the > 1Net Steering Committee, instead of building upon the imperfect but > reasonable process we managed to do so far, you will be pushing LOG into > a corner as we have to define the committees ASAP. > > LOG must have the two main committees (high level and executive) > basically defined by the end of this year. My *personal suggestion* is: > CS accepts for the 1Net Steering Committee the nominating group which we > defined for the Icann HL meeting, as proposed now. We will of course be > able to keep an eye on them as we usually do. And let CS try and define > the 2-3 names for the HL committee and 2 names for the exec committee as > soon as possible (before this year ends). > > LOG agreed 1Net will be the conduit to send the names of all non-gov > sectors to it, since there is representation of all sectors in their > Steering Committee. > > BTW, in this (imperfect) way CS will be *far better* than the business > community in terms of all balances. And please recall that the meeting > is planned for about 1,000 participants, so plenty of space to come to > SP and participate. > > []s fraternos with eyes on the ticking clock... > > --c.a. > > On 12/20/2013 09:14 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> Well dear fellow multistakeholders, >> >> Here is the state of play as we enter the holiday period. >> >> Business community chooses the biggest and richest without thought for >> balance. >> >> Technical community needs more time to get the job done. >> >> Academic community works hard on deciding what an academic is. >> >> Civil society implodes. >> >> >> >> All sounds like business as usual to me (but maybe my cynicism will wear >> off by morning). >> >> >> I am not going to bore this list with a description of the civil society >> processes that came up with a very good representative set of names. If >> you want to know about the processes adopted, read the IGC or Best Bits >> archives (or email me). Having worked with the various civil society >> groups as an independent facilitator, I can tell you that the civil >> society reps involved knew their processes were imperfect, had little or >> no time to do anything about it, but ploughed ahead to come up with a >> very good and widely accepted result. >> >> Those chosen for civil society were selected for their capacity to >> represent all of civil society, not just their own organisations, and to >> work collegiately with other stakeholder groups. In a less talented >> field perhaps Klaus or Michael, both of whom were candidates, might have >> been chosen. >> >> Anyway >> >> All the best to you all and I look forward to some positive advances in >> the new year! >> >> Ian Peter >> >> _______________________________________________ >> discuss mailing list >> discuss at 1net.org >> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > discuss at 1net.org > http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From deborah at accessnow.org Fri Dec 20 13:37:07 2013 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 13:37:07 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Save the Date: RightsCon Silicon Valley March 3rd-5th, 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <75F7922F-063B-453D-86DB-7A0C0D8B39CF@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Yes, I think that's a great idea. Perhaps what makes the most sense is to use the session for those in the network who are planning to develop ideas and submissions for Brazil and have discussions on the concrete proposals with the wider community. We can also make available some space for a side meeting/strategy session if there is interest. For both options, we would make sure that remote participation is available. Interested in hearing others' ideas as well. Please feel free to contact me on or off list if you're interested in discussing this further. Kind regards, Deborah On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > Could we host a session focused on IG given that by then we should have > put together some ideas of our own for Brazil? > > From: Jeremy Malcolm > Date: Saturday, 14 December 2013 06:36 > To: "" > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Save the Date: RightsCon Silicon Valley March > 3rd-5th, 2014 > > To follow up on Brett's message, just to let everyone know that we > a placeholder "Best Bits" session has been submitted for RightsCon, though > the original idea of using it to finalise inputs for the Brazil meeting > won't work out - because the deadline for those inputs is slightly too > soon. So, we need to find another theme for the meeting. Since many of > the US groups at RightsCon will be new to the international Internet > governance debates (except for maybe ICANN and WCIT), a couple of us > considered that it might be worthwhile to structure a session around more > closely integrating US based civil society into our community (which was > one of my original aims for Best Bits). > > Anyway, who is interested in sharing ideas (either these or other ideas) > and developing the session further? Deborah has offered to manage a > workflow for the session, if we are all happy for her to do that. What do > you all think? > > Also, separately to RightsCon, I should flag early that I have the > opportunity to arrange a Best Bits pre-meeting in S?o Paulo immediately > prior to the Brazil meeting, which would be hosted by IDEC, the largest > Brazilian consumer group. Of course at this stage, we don't know who will > be attending the Brazil meeting, so plans are at an early stage. But if > anyone is interested in hearing or discussing more about that, you can also > get in touch (perhaps off-list for now, until plans and funding are firmer). > > On 6 Dec 2013, at 11:40 pm, Brett Solomon wrote: > > Dear friends, > > As you may know, RightsCon Silicon Valley is > taking place March 3-5 in San Francisco at Mission Bay Conference Center. > This is an opportunity for different communities to come together - global > activists, companies, thinkers, investors, engineers and government > officials - to discuss the tensions and opportunities at the intersection > of human rights and the internet. > > RightsCon Silicon Valley has a particular focus on technology companies > and aims to create a space for multistakeholder dialogue on human rights > best practices and learnings in the context of the private sector. The > event also takes place 7 weeks before the Brazil meeting and as I mentioned > could be used as a venue to discuss strategy and plans for April. > > The program is open to submissions, and we're looking to a range of > networks, including the Bestbits community to help shape the agenda. Here > is the link to propose a session. > > > The deadline for submission is December 20th. If you have questions, check > out the website at rightscon.org, or email Rian > Wanstreet at rian at accessnow.org, or we can chat more on this list. > > For those of you who have participated in RightsCon in the past, we look > forward to seeing you again. > > Enjoy your weekends! > > Brett > > *Speakers to date include: *Rebecca MacKinnon (Ranking Digital Rights); > Alaa Abd El Fattah (one of Egypt's most respected activists and software > engineers (currently detained)); Jim Cowie (CTO, Renesys); John Donahoe > (President & CEO, eBay); Moez Chakchouk (Founder of Tunisia's IXP and > 404Labs); Brad Burnham (Union Square Ventures); Colin Crowell (Head of > Global Public Policy, Twitter); Michael Posner (NYU Professor of Business > and Society); Eileen Donahoe (former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Human > Rights Council); Jillian York (Director for International Freedom of > Expression, EFF); ; Richard Stallman (Founder GNU Project and Free Software > Foundation); David Gorodyansky (CEO & Founder, AnchorFree); Mitchell Baker > (Chairperson, Mozilla Corporation) and many more. > > > Brett Solomon > Executive Director | Access > accessnow.org > +1 917 969 6077 | skype: brettsolomon | @accessnow > Key ID: 0x312B641A > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > -- > > > > *Dr Jeremy MalcolmSenior Policy OfficerConsumers International | the > global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub > |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | accessnow.org rightscon.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri Dec 20 14:06:10 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:06:10 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Call: 1net and Brazil meeting representatives from the Internet Technical Community References: Message-ID: <48717FEA-5ABF-4C8D-B3F9-9C83E09C031A@gmail.com> Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: > From: George Sadowsky > Date: December 20, 2013 at 1:03:02 PM EST > To: discuss at 1net.org > Subject: [discuss] Call: 1net and Brazil meeting representatives from the Internet Technical Community > > All, > > This message and its pointers contain the information for submitting nominations to the 1net Steering Committee and to the Brazil meeting committees from the Internet Technical Community. The information pointed to includes the process that is used by this community to evaluate the nominations and select the representatives. > > The Internet Society (ISOC) is coordinating the process leading to appointments to represent the Internet technical community in two of the “Brazil Planning Committees” and in the “1net Steering Committee”. > > The “Brazil Planning Committees” will contribute to the preparation of a "Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance" that will be held on 23 and 24 April 2014, in Sao Paulo, Brazil. > > The two major tasks of “1net Steering Committee” will be (1) to liaise with stakeholder communities and encourage participation and submission of productive ideas with respect to Internet governance issues; and (2) to steer, manage, and otherwise lead the activities of the 1net platform towards a productive understanding and possibly consensus with respect to these issues. > > Individuals interested in being suggested by the NomCom set up for this purpose are invited to read more about the process and the timeline here: > > http://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/Call1netBR-ForPublication.pdf > > The deadline for submitting expressions of interest is 10 January 2014. > > Any questions or requests for additional information can be sent to: information.itcg at gmail.com. > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > discuss at 1net.org > http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri Dec 20 14:12:30 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:12:30 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Save the Date: RightsCon Silicon Valley March 3rd-5th, 2014 In-Reply-To: <75F7922F-063B-453D-86DB-7A0C0D8B39CF@ciroap.org> References: <75F7922F-063B-453D-86DB-7A0C0D8B39CF@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Jeremy, Count me in for the preparatory event and to help organize it. With whom are you talking to at IDEC? Veridiana? I can also find free spaces to host our meeting in São Paulo. Carol Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 14, 2013, at 1:36 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > To follow up on Brett's message, just to let everyone know that we a placeholder "Best Bits" session has been submitted for RightsCon, though the original idea of using it to finalise inputs for the Brazil meeting won't work out - because the deadline for those inputs is slightly too soon. So, we need to find another theme for the meeting. Since many of the US groups at RightsCon will be new to the international Internet governance debates (except for maybe ICANN and WCIT), a couple of us considered that it might be worthwhile to structure a session around more closely integrating US based civil society into our community (which was one of my original aims for Best Bits). > > Anyway, who is interested in sharing ideas (either these or other ideas) and developing the session further? Deborah has offered to manage a workflow for the session, if we are all happy for her to do that. What do you all think? > > Also, separately to RightsCon, I should flag early that I have the opportunity to arrange a Best Bits pre-meeting in Sāo Paulo immediately prior to the Brazil meeting, which would be hosted by IDEC, the largest Brazilian consumer group. Of course at this stage, we don't know who will be attending the Brazil meeting, so plans are at an early stage. But if anyone is interested in hearing or discussing more about that, you can also get in touch (perhaps off-list for now, until plans and funding are firmer). > >> On 6 Dec 2013, at 11:40 pm, Brett Solomon wrote: >> >> Dear friends, >> >> As you may know, RightsCon Silicon Valley is taking place March 3-5 in San Francisco at Mission Bay Conference Center. This is an opportunity for different communities to come together - global activists, companies, thinkers, investors, engineers and government officials - to discuss the tensions and opportunities at the intersection of human rights and the internet. >> >> RightsCon Silicon Valley has a particular focus on technology companies and aims to create a space for multistakeholder dialogue on human rights best practices and learnings in the context of the private sector. The event also takes place 7 weeks before the Brazil meeting and as I mentioned could be used as a venue to discuss strategy and plans for April. >> >> The program is open to submissions, and we're looking to a range of networks, including the Bestbits community to help shape the agenda. Here is the link to propose a session. >> >> The deadline for submission is December 20th. If you have questions, check out the website at rightscon.org, or email Rian Wanstreet at rian at accessnow.org, or we can chat more on this list. >> >> For those of you who have participated in RightsCon in the past, we look forward to seeing you again. >> >> Enjoy your weekends! >> >> Brett >> >> Speakers to date include: Rebecca MacKinnon (Ranking Digital Rights); Alaa Abd El Fattah (one of Egypt's most respected activists and software engineers (currently detained)); Jim Cowie (CTO, Renesys); John Donahoe (President & CEO, eBay); Moez Chakchouk (Founder of Tunisia's IXP and 404Labs); Brad Burnham (Union Square Ventures); Colin Crowell (Head of Global Public Policy, Twitter); Michael Posner (NYU Professor of Business and Society); Eileen Donahoe (former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Human Rights Council); Jillian York (Director for International Freedom of Expression, EFF); ; Richard Stallman (Founder GNU Project and Free Software Foundation); David Gorodyansky (CEO & Founder, AnchorFree); Mitchell Baker (Chairperson, Mozilla Corporation) and many more. >> >> >> Brett Solomon >> Executive Director | Access >> accessnow.org >> +1 917 969 6077 | skype: brettsolomon | @accessnow >> Key ID: 0x312B641A >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Dec 20 14:20:58 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 06:20:58 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee In-Reply-To: References: <52B43FBC.8090108@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: am currently seeking some clarification on this. I note tech community have adopted a mid January deadline rather than December 31. -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 12:11 AM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Bits ; Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC Cc: Carlos A. Afonso Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee A request for civil society to provide names by the end of the year (11 days) for two committees. Carlos' email below, but quote: "2-3 names for the HL committee and 2 names for the exec committee as, soon as possible (before this year ends)" These committees are described in the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee's announcement of November 26 as: 1. High-Level Multistakeholder Committee: Responsible for conducting the political articulation and fostering the involvement of the international community. 2. Executive Multistakeholder Committee: Responsible for organizing the event, including the agenda discussion and execution, and for the treatment of the proposals from participants and different stakeholders; Adam Begin forwarded message: > From: "Carlos A. Afonso" > Date: December 20, 2013 10:01:48 PM GMT+09:00 > To: Ian Peter , Milton L Mueller > Cc: discuss at 1net.org > Subject: Re: [discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee > > Hi people, > > Writing as a member of the local organizing group (LOG): we are > extremely worried because time is an independent variable and we badly > need a clear definition from all stakeholders as soon as possible. > > To CS: please forget about the other stakeholders (they have their own > challenges and they will have to solve them). If CS is going to restart > the infighting to define representing names, now on who will sit at the > 1Net Steering Committee, instead of building upon the imperfect but > reasonable process we managed to do so far, you will be pushing LOG into > a corner as we have to define the committees ASAP. > > LOG must have the two main committees (high level and executive) > basically defined by the end of this year. My *personal suggestion* is: > CS accepts for the 1Net Steering Committee the nominating group which we > defined for the Icann HL meeting, as proposed now. We will of course be > able to keep an eye on them as we usually do. And let CS try and define > the 2-3 names for the HL committee and 2 names for the exec committee as > soon as possible (before this year ends). > > LOG agreed 1Net will be the conduit to send the names of all non-gov > sectors to it, since there is representation of all sectors in their > Steering Committee. > > BTW, in this (imperfect) way CS will be *far better* than the business > community in terms of all balances. And please recall that the meeting > is planned for about 1,000 participants, so plenty of space to come to > SP and participate. > > []s fraternos with eyes on the ticking clock... > > --c.a. > > On 12/20/2013 09:14 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> Well dear fellow multistakeholders, >> >> Here is the state of play as we enter the holiday period. >> >> Business community chooses the biggest and richest without thought for >> balance. >> >> Technical community needs more time to get the job done. >> >> Academic community works hard on deciding what an academic is. >> >> Civil society implodes. >> >> >> >> All sounds like business as usual to me (but maybe my cynicism will wear >> off by morning). >> >> >> I am not going to bore this list with a description of the civil society >> processes that came up with a very good representative set of names. If >> you want to know about the processes adopted, read the IGC or Best Bits >> archives (or email me). Having worked with the various civil society >> groups as an independent facilitator, I can tell you that the civil >> society reps involved knew their processes were imperfect, had little or >> no time to do anything about it, but ploughed ahead to come up with a >> very good and widely accepted result. >> >> Those chosen for civil society were selected for their capacity to >> represent all of civil society, not just their own organisations, and to >> work collegiately with other stakeholder groups. In a less talented >> field perhaps Klaus or Michael, both of whom were candidates, might have >> been chosen. >> >> Anyway >> >> All the best to you all and I look forward to some positive advances in >> the new year! >> >> Ian Peter >> >> _______________________________________________ >> discuss mailing list >> discuss at 1net.org >> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > discuss at 1net.org > http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From george.sadowsky at gmail.com Fri Dec 20 14:42:05 2013 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:42:05 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee In-Reply-To: References: <52B43FBC.8090108@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <740542C8-D14A-452E-8F01-828429775E96@gmail.com> Ian, You are correct. A series of issues delayed the Call for Nominations until now, and that was very unfortunate. The NomCom decided that given the onset of the holiday season, it would be unfair in a number of ways, especially to potential candidates, to accelerate the process to what we considered was a totally unrealistic set of deadlines We're quite aware, as Carlos noted, that time is an independent variable in this process, and we understand the tension between the two. I'm sure that both Carlos and we would have liked to have even more time, but there's only a limited amount of it. We both wish he world were more malleable to our desires, but that is not the reality of the situation. George (Chair, NomCom) On Dec 20, 2013, at 2:20 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > am currently seeking some clarification on this. I note tech community have adopted a mid January deadline rather than December 31. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake > Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 12:11 AM > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Bits ; Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC > Cc: Carlos A. Afonso > Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee > > A request for civil society to provide names by the end of the year (11 days) for two committees. Carlos' email below, but quote: > > "2-3 names for the HL committee and 2 names for the exec committee as, soon as possible (before this year ends)" > > These committees are described in the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee's announcement of November 26 as: > > 1. High-Level Multistakeholder Committee: Responsible for conducting the political articulation and fostering the involvement of the international community. > 2. Executive Multistakeholder Committee: Responsible for organizing the event, including the agenda discussion and execution, and for the treatment of the proposals from participants and different stakeholders; > > Adam > > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: "Carlos A. Afonso" >> Date: December 20, 2013 10:01:48 PM GMT+09:00 >> To: Ian Peter , Milton L Mueller >> Cc: discuss at 1net.org >> Subject: Re: [discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee >> >> Hi people, >> >> Writing as a member of the local organizing group (LOG): we are >> extremely worried because time is an independent variable and we badly >> need a clear definition from all stakeholders as soon as possible. >> >> To CS: please forget about the other stakeholders (they have their own >> challenges and they will have to solve them). If CS is going to restart >> the infighting to define representing names, now on who will sit at the >> 1Net Steering Committee, instead of building upon the imperfect but >> reasonable process we managed to do so far, you will be pushing LOG into >> a corner as we have to define the committees ASAP. >> >> LOG must have the two main committees (high level and executive) >> basically defined by the end of this year. My *personal suggestion* is: >> CS accepts for the 1Net Steering Committee the nominating group which we >> defined for the Icann HL meeting, as proposed now. We will of course be >> able to keep an eye on them as we usually do. And let CS try and define >> the 2-3 names for the HL committee and 2 names for the exec committee as >> soon as possible (before this year ends). >> >> LOG agreed 1Net will be the conduit to send the names of all non-gov >> sectors to it, since there is representation of all sectors in their >> Steering Committee. >> >> BTW, in this (imperfect) way CS will be *far better* than the business >> community in terms of all balances. And please recall that the meeting >> is planned for about 1,000 participants, so plenty of space to come to >> SP and participate. >> >> []s fraternos with eyes on the ticking clock... >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 12/20/2013 09:14 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>> Well dear fellow multistakeholders, >>> >>> Here is the state of play as we enter the holiday period. >>> >>> Business community chooses the biggest and richest without thought for >>> balance. >>> >>> Technical community needs more time to get the job done. >>> >>> Academic community works hard on deciding what an academic is. >>> >>> Civil society implodes. >>> >>> >>> >>> All sounds like business as usual to me (but maybe my cynicism will wear >>> off by morning). >>> >>> >>> I am not going to bore this list with a description of the civil society >>> processes that came up with a very good representative set of names. If >>> you want to know about the processes adopted, read the IGC or Best Bits >>> archives (or email me). Having worked with the various civil society >>> groups as an independent facilitator, I can tell you that the civil >>> society reps involved knew their processes were imperfect, had little or >>> no time to do anything about it, but ploughed ahead to come up with a >>> very good and widely accepted result. >>> >>> Those chosen for civil society were selected for their capacity to >>> represent all of civil society, not just their own organisations, and to >>> work collegiately with other stakeholder groups. In a less talented >>> field perhaps Klaus or Michael, both of whom were candidates, might have >>> been chosen. >>> >>> Anyway >>> >>> All the best to you all and I look forward to some positive advances in >>> the new year! >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> discuss mailing list >>> discuss at 1net.org >>> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> discuss mailing list >> discuss at 1net.org >> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From eberto2 at palermo.edu Fri Dec 20 13:37:03 2013 From: eberto2 at palermo.edu (Eduardo Bertoni) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 16:37:03 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fwd=3A_Nueva_investigaci=F3n_del_CELE_/?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_CELE=27s_new_research?= In-Reply-To: <1387563118.42206.YahooMailNeo@web125202.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <4FFEE49D.90705@palermo.edu> <52B35987.5060903@palermo.edu> <1387563118.42206.YahooMailNeo@web125202.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: *FYIe* ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: CELE Date: 2013/12/20 Subject: Nueva investigación del CELE / CELE's new research To: eduardo bertoni *Nuevo trabajo del CELE (English version follow) * *Libertad de expresión versus libertad de expresión: la protección del derecho de autor como una tensión interna * Este nuevo documento de la Iniciativa por la Libertad de Expresión en Internet (iLEI) del CELE encara una discusión teórica que no ha sido suficientemente abordada. En general, se habla de las tensiones entre los derechos de los autores y la libertad de expresión de los usuarios de Internet. Este documento sostiene, en cambio, que el *copyright* también es un desarrollo de la libertad de expresión. A partir de esta premisa, el artículo sostiene que las tensiones son, entonces, entre dos tipos de expresión –la de los titulares de los derechos y la de los ciudadanos que quieren acceder al bien en cuestión. La primera parte de este documento aborda los argumentos vinculados al derecho de propiedad y los argumentos económicos, y señala la dificultad de que éstos entren en diálogo con las nuevas visiones del derecho de autor. La segunda parte desarrolla la idea del derecho de autor en tanto forma de expresión y propone un ejercicio de ponderación interna entre reivindicaciones expresivas. Por último, se elaboran algunas recomendaciones en la materia. El documento se puede consultar aquí ACERCA DEL CELE El Centro de Estudios para la Libertad de Expresión y Acceso a la Información (CELE) fue creado en el año 2009 en el ámbito de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de Palermo con el objetivo de proveer de investigaciones y estudios rigurosos a sectores de la sociedad civil, periodistas, instituciones gubernamentales e instituciones académicas dedicados a la defensa y a la promoción de estos derechos, especialmente en América Latina. La creación del CELE responde a la necesidad de construir espacios de debate y estudio dedicados a reflexionar sobre la importancia, los contenidos y los límites de estos derechos en la región. Para esto, el centro se propone dialogar y trabajar en conjunto con otras unidades académicas del país y de Latinoamérica. El CELE tiene como objetivo principal que sus investigaciones se constituyan en herramientas útiles para periodistas, instituciones gubernamentales, sectores privados y de la sociedad civil dedicados a la defensa y promoción de estos derechos, especialmente en América Latina. Teniendo en cuenta este objetivo, además de los estudios que considere necesarios, el centro encarará investigaciones solicitadas por estos grupos. El director del CELE es Eduardo Bertoni, Profesor de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de Palermo y ex-Relator Especial para la Libertad de Expresión en la Organización de los Estados Americanos. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *CELE launches new document* *Freedom of Expression versus freedom of expression: copyright protection invokes internal tension * This new document, produced by CELE’s Freedom of Expression on the Internet Initiative (iLEI), takes on a theoretic discussion that has yet to be sufficiently discussed. In general, it discusses tensions between copyright and Internet users’ freedom of expression. This document argues that copyright is also a development yielding from the freedom of expression. On this premise, the article argues that the tension is actually between two types of expression: the expression of those who are protected by these rights, versus citizens who wish to gain access to the assets protected. The first part of the document elaborates on arguments related to property rights and economic arguments. It highlights the potential difficulty these encounter when attempting to join the dialogue where new visions for the copyright are being discussed. The second part of the document develops the idea of copyright as a form of expression and proposes an internal weighting exercise between pressing demands. Lastly, the document divulges some recommendations for matters regarding copyright. See the full document (in Spanish) *About CELE* The Center for Studies on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information (CELE) was founded in 2009 at the Palermo University Law School with the objective to provide rigorous research and studies to sectors of civil society, journalists, government institutions and the academic community that are dedicated to the promotion of those rights, primarily in Latin America. CELE was created in response to a need to construct spaces for debate and study dedicated to reflecting on the importance and the limits of freedom of expression and access to public information in the region. In order to accomplish this, the center proposes to create dialogue and collaborate with other academic entities in Argentina and in Latin America. CELE's principal objective is to produce reports that can be useful tools for those journalists, governmental institutions, and members of the private sector and civil society that are dedicated to the defense and promotion of these rights, especially in Latin America. In accordance with this objective, CELE will undertake research at the request of the aforementioned groups in addition to undertaking studies that CELE considers to be necessary. CELE's director is Eduardo Bertoni, a professor at Palermo University Lawschool and former Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression at the Organization of American States. *UNIVERSIDAD DE PALERMO *2013 *Facultad de Derecho* Mario Bravo 1050 | Tel: 5199-4500 | www.palermo.edu/derecho *CELE *Centro de Estudios en Libertad de Expresión y Acceso a la Información www.palermo.edu/cele Si no desea recibir más e-mails de esta dirección, por favor, responda con el asunto REMOVER. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Dec 20 21:55:42 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:55:42 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] [discuss] Call: 1net and Brazil meeting representatives from the Internet Technical Community In-Reply-To: <48717FEA-5ABF-4C8D-B3F9-9C83E09C031A@gmail.com> References: <48717FEA-5ABF-4C8D-B3F9-9C83E09C031A@gmail.com> Message-ID: Similarly the civil society IG coordination group that was used for the HLP and 1net nominations will be commencing a process for recommending appointees to the Brazil meeting committees. As the current liaison between Best Bits and that group, I am writing to update you of the proposed timetable which we are discussing for the nominations: Call for nominations – December 22 Close of nominations – January 6 Some more of the minutia about the coordinating group process and criteria have been been posted to the "summit" list. So, please stay tuned for a call for nominations for the two Brazil committees tomorrow. Also, this is just about the last opportunity if anyone wants to take my place on the coordinating committee, otherwise I will remain in place for now. On 21 Dec 2013, at 3:06 am, Carolina wrote: > > > Sent from my iPhone > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: George Sadowsky >> Date: December 20, 2013 at 1:03:02 PM EST >> To: discuss at 1net.org >> Subject: [discuss] Call: 1net and Brazil meeting representatives from the Internet Technical Community >> >> All, >> >> This message and its pointers contain the information for submitting nominations to the 1net Steering Committee and to the Brazil meeting committees from the Internet Technical Community. The information pointed to includes the process that is used by this community to evaluate the nominations and select the representatives. >> >> The Internet Society (ISOC) is coordinating the process leading to appointments to represent the Internet technical community in two of the “Brazil Planning Committees” and in the “1net Steering Committee”. >> >> The “Brazil Planning Committees” will contribute to the preparation of a "Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance" that will be held on 23 and 24 April 2014, in Sao Paulo, Brazil. >> >> The two major tasks of “1net Steering Committee” will be (1) to liaise with stakeholder communities and encourage participation and submission of productive ideas with respect to Internet governance issues; and (2) to steer, manage, and otherwise lead the activities of the 1net platform towards a productive understanding and possibly consensus with respect to these issues. >> >> Individuals interested in being suggested by the NomCom set up for this purpose are invited to read more about the process and the timeline here: >> >> http://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/Call1netBR-ForPublication.pdf >> >> The deadline for submitting expressions of interest is 10 January 2014. >> >> Any questions or requests for additional information can be sent to: information.itcg at gmail.com. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> discuss mailing list >> discuss at 1net.org >> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Dec 21 07:18:43 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 19:18:43 +0700 Subject: [bestbits] FW: [discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee In-Reply-To: <04d201cefe45$4e68c290$eb3a47b0$@gmail.com> References: <6E8F927C-5A78-4AE3-BC6A-0A1D844E976C@afrinic.net> <041501cefd11$d6eada70$84c08f50$@gmail.com> <52B4030D.1050306@gmail.com> <52B4C765.1010605@acm.org> <03af01cefdf0$2e77e1f0$8b67a5d0$@gmail.com> <04d201cefe45$4e68c290$eb3a47b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <051001cefe46$cd8d2bf0$68a783d0$@gmail.com> As this has implications for the larger IG CS community I think I should copy this to you folks as well. M From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 7:08 PM To: Adiel Akplogan Cc: 'Avri Doria'; discuss at 1net.org; 'John Curran' Subject: RE: [discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee As a matter of fact a number of IG CS people are already part of various aspects of the CI network, and we of course, are pleased at their presence and participation. However, that doesn't mean that the interests and concerns as now formalized in the consensus CI Declaration , are in any way being transmitted through them to the larger IG CS community although we would be delighted if they were. Following on from Milton's observation concerning the imbalance in the representation from the business community I would propose to Inet that there are two groupings within CS. One that articulates the interests and concerns of those with a primary vocation in the area of free expression, human rights and related matters, and a second which articulates the interests and concerns of those with a primary vocation in the area of "Internet Justice" as for example identified in the CI Declaration. That being the case a second "nominating committee" in the Internet Justice area would be created to nominate representation in the various forums emerging out of the Brazil conference and elsewhere. Off the top I would see including in this nominating committee those such as Ann-Kristin Hakansson of the Indigenous ICT Task Force, Ahmed (Smiley) Ismael of Siyafunda (the largest network of independent telecenters in Southern Africa), Martin Wolske of the Center for Digital Inclusion, University of Illinois who is using Community Informatics to work with inner city youth in Chicago, among others. I look forward to a positive response to this proposal at which time we would work diligently to constitute this NomCom and provide appropriate nominees for CS representation as well as Academic representation. The issue of whether we would seek to nominate representation for the technical positions from among technical actors active in the CI/Internet Justice community will require further discussion. -----Original Message----- From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net] Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 10:41 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: Avri Doria; discuss at 1net.org Subject: Re: [discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee On Dec 20, 2013, at 8:58 PM, michael gurstein < gurstein at gmail.com> wrote: > Well, I guess these things are in the eye of the beholder although I > agree about the individuals selected. > ... > When I came forward to suggest that these voices should be provided an > opportunity through the CI network (which as you know consists of some > 1500 researchers, practitioners, grassroots activists and others who > of course are directly serving a base of communities and individuals > in all parts of the world) to be included in these discussions I was > rebuffed--not "miffed"--rebuffed. > > We are, as anyone can observe entering into a crucial round of > meetings/discussions/even decision points concerning the future of the > Internet and thus, I believe ultimately the future shape and even > content of human society as a whole. These are not trivial matters. > > To not insist that the range of additional voices to whom community > informatics is pointing (unfortunately in the absence of other and > more powerful voices) is I believe to act irresponsibly and > unconscionably in relation to those people and to all of those whose > voices are not being given an opportunity to be heard in these forums. Given the importance of this matter, why don't you invite one of chosen CS individuals to participate in the CI network? It should not be that difficult for someone to bring issues up and seek insights from the CI community, and that is no different than what these folks will likely be doing when coalescing input from other communities. Thoughts? /John Disclaimer: My views alone.= -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Dec 2 00:46:35 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 21:46:35 -0800 Subject: FW: [bestbits] Proposal on Best Bits governance References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org> <528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net> <00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org> <528C72F0.1090703@itforchange.net> <795A5EE4-EAA1-4858-9F9A-CE652E85BF12@ciroap.org> <528C7AC8.7000203@itforchange.net> <528F2A38.4040905@apc.org> Message-ID: <073101ceef21$dd380b80$97a82280$@gmail.com> Note the date... M -----Original Message----- From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 11:54 AM To: 'anriette at apc.org'; 'bestbits at lists.bestbits.net' Subject: RE: [bestbits] Proposal on Best Bits governance Hi Anriette, (very quick note.. No aspersions cast or intended on any of the eminent colleagues involved with BB development and current leadership. However, your note is basically the same as the one my original post was responding to and my response to it is the same -- trust but verify... Also, the issue of the timing and urgency rings rather hollow since as you well know BB has been around now for about a year and a half which should be more than enough time to ensure an appropriately accountable and transparent governance structure. In response to your proposal I have a counterproposal which would be to immediately repurpose and reopen the "the steering committee" to be an open "working group". Have this working group report back to the BB list within a month with a proposal for a governance procedure/structure, have this proposal go to the list for approval through rough consensus and then proceed from there. And just to note, if your proposal and timing are agreed to, effectively all of the most significant decisions re: BB's position concerning the crucial upcoming meetings--Brazil and its follow-on, WSIS + 10, the MDG (and SDG?) summit with respect to MS procedures and policies going forward, public positioning of BB, and nominations to various MS groups -will all have been more or less finalized by the time a new and fully legitimized/representative Steering Committee will have been put into place. Of course, I have no doubt at all that this was not the underlying purpose of your proposal but it would quite obviously be the effect. M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 1:56 AM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [bestbits] Proposal on Best Bits governance Dear all [Please note that this proposal is not about the Brazil meeting or civil society nomcoms.] In some of the recent threads people have called to question the legitimacy of the Best Bits steering committee, and of transparency and accountability in Best Bits. I agree it will be good to strengthen Best Bits internal processes, but we should do this in a way that does not undermine trust in people who have worked hard to bring Best Bits to where it is, or in one another. We should also not undermine our ability to work together at a time when civil society is having to rise to some pretty daunting challenges. In particular, we should try not to discourage those individuals who have been volunteering their time on Best Bits bits work - either on the SC, or on drafting inputs. Without their effort we would be in a far weaker position than we are now. We would not have had the benefit of two face-to-face meetings, or of several substantial letters/other inputs submitted in response to strategic opportunities for raising civil society voices. I would therefore like to propose the following: 1) We ask the current Best Bits Steering Committee, a group of people who started to volunteer their time in this capacity in July 2013, to continue to serve until 31 July 2014. 2) We ask them to present us with a short overview report of the work they did in 2013 by the end of this year. 3) We ask them to, by the end of the first quarter of 2014, to propose a process for the renewal of the Best Bits Steering Committee. Best Anriette From ca at cafonso.ca Sat Dec 21 11:36:52 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 14:36:52 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 Message-ID: <52B5C3A4.3070708@cafonso.ca> Hi people, This is my quick summary of yesterday's meeting of the local organizing group (LOG) for the BR meeting. This summary is basically oriented to civil society but may be useful to all stakeholders. Covers basically the structure of the committees and includes some other useful info. I do hope it answers several of the many questions we are receiving. fraternal regards --c.a. ================================ 1. Co-chairs of the BR Meeting This is a no-brainer: the BR Meeting will be chaired by Virgilio Almeida (current chair of CGI.br, and member of Brazil's Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation), and Fadi Chehadé. 2. High Level Multistakeholder Committee The HLMC will be responsible for overseeing the political articulations and for encouraging the participation of the international community. It will be composed of government representatives of 12 countries (precise list still being established by the BR government) plus 12 non-govs, and two representatives of UN agencies to be chosen by the UNSG. The 12 non-govs include four of each non-gov stakeholder (civil society, academia/techies, private sector). All of the non-gov, non-UN stakeholders' names will be brought to the LOG by 1Net. So the HLC will be composed of 26 people. The HLMC will have four co-chairs, keeping the multistakeholder balance. One of the co-chairs will be Brazil's Minister of Communications Paulo Bernardo. So civil society needs to indicate to 1Net Steering Committee four high-level reps as soon as possible. 3. Executive Multistakeholder Committee The EMC will be responsible for organizing the event, including the discussion and implementation of the agenda, and the selection of the participants and the various stakeholders' proposals. The crucial part of the preparation process resides here, in close coordination with the Logistics Committee, so people selected for the EMC ought to make themselves readily available for this challenge. The LOG has already selected the eight Brazilian members of the EMC. There will be four co-chairs as well, and names already appointed are Demi Getschko (CEO of NIC.br) and Raúl Echeberría (to be confirmed, CEO of LACNIC). A representative of an international agency will be appointed as well (by the coordinating body of the UN agencies) to participate. Like the HLMC, non-gov, non-UN members of the EMC will be brought to the LOG by 1Net. For the EMC civil society needs to indicate to 1Net Steering Committee two names as soon as possible. 4. Logistics and Organizational Committee The LOC will be co-chaired by Hartmut Glaser, executive secretary of CGI.br with proven expertise in coordinating the organization of national and international events. Another co-chair will be indicated by 1Net. 5. Government Advisory Committee This is in the hands of the BR government who acts as a facilitator and coordinator. Two co-chairs will be indicated. This committee will be open to any government who wishes to act in an advisory capacity. 6. Funding NIC.br will cover about 50% of the meeting's overall costs. The balance will be share by international participants/sponsors. Contributions from ICANN and ISOC are expected. 7. Participation The meeting is to be held at Hotel Transamérica, in São Paulo, fairly close to NIC.br headquarters (see attached map). The basic distribution of participants is envisioned approximately as: 450 from govs 500-550 from non-gov, non-UN stakeholders 100 journalists 50 IGOs/UN reps Inviting participants, or receiving and approving participation requests, is one of the tasks of the EMC. 8. Expected outcomes as success indicators - Official launching of a review process of the global IG frameworks/models; - Development of a set of universally acceptable core of principles for global IG; - Tentative draft of a global IG model. My personal comment: these ambitious outcomes of course involve a lot of preparatory process work, especially by the Executive Committee. This is why we need to conclude the nominations asap in order to start the real work towards the meeting. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: cg-nic_transamerica.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 171930 bytes Desc: not available URL: From amedinagomez at gmail.com Sat Dec 21 13:12:35 2013 From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=F3mez?=) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 13:12:35 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: <52B5C3A4.3070708@cafonso.ca> References: <52B5C3A4.3070708@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Thanks Carlos. Best regards Antonio Medina Gómez 2013/12/21 Carlos A. Afonso > Hi people, > > This is my quick summary of yesterday's meeting of the local organizing > group (LOG) for the BR meeting. This summary is basically oriented to > civil society but may be useful to all stakeholders. Covers basically > the structure of the committees and includes some other useful info. > > I do hope it answers several of the many questions we are receiving. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > ================================ > > 1. Co-chairs of the BR Meeting > > This is a no-brainer: the BR Meeting will be chaired by Virgilio Almeida > (current chair of CGI.br, and member of Brazil's Ministry of Science, > Technology and Innovation), and Fadi Chehadé. > > 2. High Level Multistakeholder Committee > > The HLMC will be responsible for overseeing the political articulations > and for encouraging the participation of the international community. > > It will be composed of government representatives of 12 countries > (precise list still being established by the BR government) plus 12 > non-govs, and two representatives of UN agencies to be chosen by the > UNSG. The 12 non-govs include four of each non-gov stakeholder (civil > society, academia/techies, private sector). All of the non-gov, non-UN > stakeholders' names will be brought to the LOG by 1Net. So the HLC will > be composed of 26 people. > > The HLMC will have four co-chairs, keeping the multistakeholder balance. > One of the co-chairs will be Brazil's Minister of Communications Paulo > Bernardo. > > So civil society needs to indicate to 1Net Steering Committee four > high-level reps as soon as possible. > > 3. Executive Multistakeholder Committee > > The EMC will be responsible for organizing the event, including the > discussion and implementation of the agenda, and the selection of the > participants and the various stakeholders' proposals. The crucial part > of the preparation process resides here, in close coordination with the > Logistics Committee, so people selected for the EMC ought to make > themselves readily available for this challenge. > > The LOG has already selected the eight Brazilian members of the EMC. > There will be four co-chairs as well, and names already appointed are > Demi Getschko (CEO of NIC.br) and Raúl Echeberría (to be confirmed, CEO > of LACNIC). A representative of an international agency will be > appointed as well (by the coordinating body of the UN agencies) to > participate. > > Like the HLMC, non-gov, non-UN members of the EMC will be brought to the > LOG by 1Net. > > For the EMC civil society needs to indicate to 1Net Steering Committee > two names as soon as possible. > > 4. Logistics and Organizational Committee > > The LOC will be co-chaired by Hartmut Glaser, executive secretary of > CGI.br with proven expertise in coordinating the organization of > national and international events. Another co-chair will be indicated by > 1Net. > > 5. Government Advisory Committee > > This is in the hands of the BR government who acts as a facilitator and > coordinator. Two co-chairs will be indicated. This committee will be > open to any government who wishes to act in an advisory capacity. > > 6. Funding > > NIC.br will cover about 50% of the meeting's overall costs. The balance > will be share by international participants/sponsors. Contributions from > ICANN and ISOC are expected. > > 7. Participation > > The meeting is to be held at Hotel Transamérica, in São Paulo, fairly > close to NIC.br headquarters (see attached map). The basic distribution > of participants is envisioned approximately as: > > 450 from govs > 500-550 from non-gov, non-UN stakeholders > 100 journalists > 50 IGOs/UN reps > > Inviting participants, or receiving and approving participation > requests, is one of the tasks of the EMC. > > 8. Expected outcomes as success indicators > > - Official launching of a review process of the global IG > frameworks/models; > > - Development of a set of universally acceptable core of principles for > global IG; > > - Tentative draft of a global IG model. > > My personal comment: these ambitious outcomes of course involve a lot of > preparatory process work, especially by the Executive Committee. This is > why we need to conclude the nominations asap in order to start the real > work towards the meeting. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ca at cafonso.ca Sat Dec 21 18:38:21 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 21:38:21 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [discuss] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: <13C11C93-B403-4454-AC49-F943401C54EC@gmail.com> References: <52B5C3A4.3070708@cafonso.ca> <13C11C93-B403-4454-AC49-F943401C54EC@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52B6266D.2000606@cafonso.ca> [anticipated apologies for duplicate messages] Jorge, I am just trying to report, I do not have answers to every question -- several of them will be properly answered as the committees are in place and start their work. On 12/21/2013 05:17 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote: > > Thank Carlos for the detailed update > >> The HLMC will be responsible for overseeing the political >> articulations and for encouraging the participation of the >> international community. >> >> It will be composed of government representatives of 12 countries >> (precise list still being established by the BR government) > > 12 countries out of ~195 UN member states ? One of which I assume > that by default is Brazil. > > What criteria is being followed to select the countries ? > > Looks like the BR government wants to impose their agenda/policy on > every single committee. The original arrangement was eight countries. Sorry, but regarding the April meeting BR is not just a grand venue you rent to do your meeting, it also has a say of course. BR has a clear view that one of the outcomes should be a set of principles for IG worldwide. > >> 450 from govs 500-550 from non-gov, non-UN stakeholders 100 >> journalists 50 IGOs/UN reps > > Where these numbers come from ? The overall number is based on the venue and resources available. > >> 8. Expected outcomes as success indicators >> >> - Official launching of a review process of the global IG >> frameworks/models; > > Would you mind to elaborate what do you mean by "official" > >> - Development of a set of universally acceptable core of principles >> for global IG; > > Who will get the mandate to develop them and from who ? > >> - Tentative draft of a global IG model. > > Is there any existing model of reference ? And what do you mean by > "global" ? As I said to Norbert, I cannot elaborate as I am just reporting, but this is a tentative, initial collection of ideas to guide the meeting -- the actual agenda/themes/expected outcomes will be a result of the process led by the two committees, especially the executive comm. One goal will stand: developing the set of principles for IG worldwide. --c.a. From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Dec 22 00:31:50 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 13:31:50 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees Message-ID: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> This is a call for nominations to represent civil society on planning committees in preparations for the “Global Multistakeholder Meeting on Internet Governance”, to be held in Sao Paulo Brazilon April 23 and 24 2014. • Committee No. 1: Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC) This committee will set the high ­level political tone and objectives of the conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with stakeholders to encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of success. This committee will include 4 civil society representatives. • Committee No. 3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee (EC) This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, including: defining conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input received into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to address, managing conference proceedings and process, and directing all communications activities pre/­during/­post conference. This committee will include 2 civil society representatives The deadline for submitting expressions of interest is midnight UTC 7 January 2014. If you are interested, you are invited to send a brief biography and a statement of relevant background and experience to jeremy at ciroap.org or by replying to this thread. At the closing date for nominations, those submitted to various civil society networks will be compiled and assessed by the Civil Society Co ordination Group. Please indicate clearly at the beginning of your application whether it is for the High Level Committee (HLC) or Executive Committee (EC) or both. CRITERIA The following factors (among others) will be used to assess the suitability of candidates 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your individual civil society organisation(s) 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a multistakeholder setting 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to report back as the process progresses 4. Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these discussions 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range of civil society perspectives on these issues 6. Capacity to participate assertively and creatively Explanation of process The civil society coordinating group is a loose peak body that came together this year to facilitate joint civil society participation in several nominating processes. It currently comprises persons from the most active civil society coalitions or networks in the Internet governance space, which in no particular order are the Internet Governance Caucus, Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the Non Commercial Stakeholder Group of ICANN, and the Association for Progressive Communications. The current liaisons are Virginia Paque, Jeremy Malcolm, Robin Gross and Chat Garcia Ramilo, with Ian Peter as an independent facilitator. Its current composition is imperfect - the boundary between an organisation and network is grey, and so is the scope of "Internet governance". In particular, we are reaching out to other civil society networks to further broaden the inclusiveness of the group and have developed a draft set of criteria to assist in this process. Likewise, the process for gathering and reaching consensus is also a work in progress, but progressive improvements to the process have been put in place since the group's first nomination. These improvements include refinement of criteria for each member network to consider when putting forward names for consideration. Other suggested changes to the process, such as the use of a randomly-selected nominating committee, have not met with consensual support from within the group and so have not been adopted for this nomination. However, the coordinating group welcomes other suggestions for improvement of the joint process. -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Dec 23 04:18:13 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 20:18:13 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] Fw: civil society coordination group membership Message-ID: <7505F27A38D7439898FD22A79131BD8E@Toshiba> FYI below is a copy of a letter just sent to Michael Gurstein as regards his recent request to join this group. Ian Peter From: Ian Peter Sent: Monday, December 23, 2013 8:12 PM To: Michael Gurstein Subject: civil society coordination group membership Dear Michael, I am replying to your request to the civil society coordination group to make you a member of the group, representing Community Informatics. You have suggested that no reply from us affirming you as a member in a time frame of about 30 hours would be considered by you as a “no”, and that you would be informing others and taking various actions. You have also pointed out in correspondence that the “decision that you folks make will have quite serious ramifications both for yourselves, for civil society in internet governance, and perhaps even for internet governance itself” We also take this decision seriously. We do not think it is appropriate to make such a decision without due consideration, including considering a number of other organisations who would have equal and perhaps better cases to make as regards joining a co-ordination group which must be kept to a manageable size. Accordingly, and because any decisions we make here can have substantial ramifications, we have decided to delay any decisions on expansion of membership of the co ordination group until they can be considered properly. In the current circumstances of limited availability for many people, that will be after we have completed the Brazil committee nomination processes in mid January. With the holiday season and other commitments as well as the Brazil processes, we simply do not have time to do this now with the thoroughness it deserves. We understand the sincerity of your desire to have your groups viewpoints heard and considered, which prompted your actions. I can assure you that the members of the co-ordination group take their roles seriously, and are determined that their actions and the representatives appointed through this process will represent the diversity of viewpoints and perspectives held within civil society, and not just individual organisations. I will be copying this reply to the Best Bits and IGC lists so that others are also aware of this situation and our reasons for not making a decision at this stage. Sincerely, Ian Peter for Co-ordination Group - Virginia Paque (Diplo), Robin Gross (NCSG), Chat Ramilo (APC), Jeremy Malcolm (Best Bits) ; replacement member for IGC still being determined. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Dec 23 04:49:11 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 15:19:11 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> Ian. Even when the CS nominating committee was to consider nominees to 1net, I remember asking that an explicit criterion of selection be that the nominee brings in perspectives/ representation of groups typically under-represented in global IG processes, and demonstrate existing linkages and work in this regard . It seems that such a criterion was not included. I will once again appeal that it be included.... Or at least I be responded to why it is not to be included. This is a normal political criterion for representation. It is even more so for civil society which many think it basically to bring in interests and perspectives that are most excluded from existing power structures. Thanks, parminder On Sunday 22 December 2013 11:01 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > This is a call for nominations to represent civil society on planning > committees in preparations for the “Global Multistakeholder Meeting on > Internet Governance”, to be held in Sao Paulo Brazilon April 23 > and 24 2014. > > *• Committee No. 1: Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC)* > > This committee will set the high ­level political tone and objectives > of the > > conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with > stakeholders to > > encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of > success. > > This committee will include 4 civil society representatives. > > • *Committee No. 3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee (EC)* > > This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, > including: defining > > conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input > received into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to > address, managing conference proceedings and process, and directing > all communications activities pre/­during/­post conference. This > committee will include 2 civil society representatives > > The deadline for submitting expressions of interest is *midnight UTC* > 7 * January 2014 > *. > > If you are interested, you are invited to send a brief biography and a > statement of relevant background and experience to jeremy at ciroap.org > or by replying to this thread. At the > closing date for nominations, those submitted to various civil society > networks will be compiled and assessed by the Civil Society Co > ordination Group. > > Please indicate clearly at the beginning of your application whether > it is for the High Level Committee (HLC) or Executive Committee (EC) > or both. > > CRITERIA > > The following factors (among others) will be used to assess the > suitability of candidates > > 1.Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your individual > civil society organisation(s) > > 2.Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a > multistakeholder setting > > 3.Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to report back > as the process progresses > > 4.Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these > discussions > > 5.Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range of civil > society perspectives on these issues > > 6.Capacity to participate assertively and creatively > > *Explanation of process* > The civil society coordinating group is a loose peak body that came > together this year to facilitate joint civil society participation in > several nominating processes. It currently comprises persons from the > most active civil society coalitions or networks in the Internet > governance space, which in no particular order are the Internet > Governance Caucus, Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the Non Commercial > Stakeholder Group of ICANN, and the Association for Progressive > Communications. The current liaisons are Virginia Paque, Jeremy > Malcolm, Robin Gross and Chat Garcia Ramilo, with Ian Peter as an > independent facilitator. Its current composition is imperfect - the > boundary between an organisation and network is grey, and so is the > scope of "Internet governance". In particular, we are reaching out to > other civil society networks to further broaden the inclusiveness of > the group and have developed a draft set of criteria to assist in this > process. > Likewise, the process for gathering and reaching consensus is also a > work in progress, but progressive improvements to the process have > been put in place since the group's first nomination. These > improvements include refinement of criteria for each member network to > consider when putting forward names for consideration. Other > suggested changes to the process, such as the use of a > randomly-selected nominating committee, have not met with consensual > support from within the group and so have not been adopted for this > nomination. However, the coordinating group welcomes other > suggestions for improvement of the joint process. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek > host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org |awk -F! > '{print $3}' > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Dec 23 05:00:19 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 18:00:19 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52B809B3.4060500@ciroap.org> On 23/12/13 17:49, parminder wrote: > Ian. > > Even when the CS nominating committee was to consider nominees to > 1net, I remember asking that an explicit criterion of selection be > that the nominee brings in perspectives/ representation of groups > typically under-represented in global IG processes, and demonstrate > existing linkages and work in this regard . It seems that such a > criterion was not included. I will once again appeal that it be > included.... Or at least I be responded to why it is not to be > included. This is a normal political criterion for representation. It > is even more so for civil society which many think it basically to > bring in interests and perspectives that are most excluded from > existing power structures. I would support adding this criterion, and as I understand it, we can still do so while receiving nominations. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Dec 23 06:21:02 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 16:51:02 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Fw: civil society coordination group membership In-Reply-To: <7505F27A38D7439898FD22A79131BD8E@Toshiba> References: <7505F27A38D7439898FD22A79131BD8E@Toshiba> Message-ID: <52B81C9E.2000505@itforchange.net> While I have not followed discussions for more than two weeks now and may have missed important emails, I am not sure I understand the reason for not taking a decision now.... Any decision of this kind wouldnt take more than 3-4 days among a group or 4. So whatever be the decision, justice demands that it be taken and conveyed. That is the group's political responsibility. You may also tell us which the other other organisations with "equal and perhaps better cases' are there, whom you have to consider. You may have listed them somewhere and I missed the list. The group taking this decision is of course aware that the decision has a conflict of interest element - even if perhaps unavoidable - in that addition of new members affects the power/ role of the existing ones... This makes the need of making a decision even more urgent. Therefore a half hearted decision to just stick to the staus quo without good reason or justification about any information or circumstance that would make the decision easier or more just at a latter time than now, does not sound quite right to me... parminder On Monday 23 December 2013 02:48 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > FYI below is a copy of a letter just sent to Michael Gurstein as > regards his recent request to join this group. > Ian Peter > *From:* Ian Peter > *Sent:* Monday, December 23, 2013 8:12 PM > *To:* Michael Gurstein > *Subject:* civil society coordination group membership > > Dear Michael, > > I am replying to your request to the civil society coordination group > to make you a member of the group, representing Community Informatics. > You have suggested that no reply from us affirming you as a member in > a time frame of about 30 hours would be considered by you as a “no”, > and that you would be informing others and taking various actions. > > You have also pointed out in correspondence that the “decision that > you folks make will have quite serious ramifications both for > yourselves, for civil society in internet governance, and perhaps even > for internet governance itself” > > We also take this decision seriously. We do not think it is > appropriate to make such a decision without due consideration, > including considering a number of other organisations who would have > equal and perhaps better cases to make as regards joining a > co-ordination group which must be kept to a manageable size. > > Accordingly, and because any decisions we make here can have > substantial ramifications, we have decided to delay any decisions on > expansion of membership of the co ordination group until they can be > considered properly. In the current circumstances of limited > availability for many people, that will be after we have completed the > Brazil committee nomination processes in mid January. With the holiday > season and other commitments as well as the Brazil processes, we > simply do not have time to do this now with the thoroughness it deserves. > > We understand the sincerity of your desire to have your groups > viewpoints heard and considered, which prompted your actions. I can > assure you that the members of the co-ordination group take their > roles seriously, and are determined that their actions and the > representatives appointed through this process will represent the > diversity of viewpoints and perspectives held within civil society, > and not just individual organisations. > > I will be copying this reply to the Best Bits and IGC lists so that > others are also aware of this situation and our reasons for not making > a decision at this stage. > > Sincerely, > > Ian Peter > > for Co-ordination Group - Virginia Paque (Diplo), Robin Gross (NCSG), > Chat Ramilo (APC), Jeremy Malcolm (Best Bits) ; replacement member for > IGC still being determined. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Dec 23 07:22:13 2013 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 06:22:13 -0600 Subject: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: <52B809B3.4060500@ciroap.org> References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> <52B809B3.4060500@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Thanks all, I agree, and will support the addition of this criterion. gp Ginger (Virginia) Paque IG Programmes, DiploFoundation *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses * On 23 December 2013 04:00, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 23/12/13 17:49, parminder wrote: > > Ian. > > Even when the CS nominating committee was to consider nominees to 1net, I > remember asking that an explicit criterion of selection be that the nominee > brings in perspectives/ representation of groups typically > under-represented in global IG processes, and demonstrate existing linkages > and work in this regard . It seems that such a criterion was not included. > I will once again appeal that it be included.... Or at least I be responded > to why it is not to be included. This is a normal political criterion for > representation. It is even more so for civil society which many think it > basically to bring in interests and perspectives that are most excluded > from existing power structures. > > > I would support adding this criterion, and as I understand it, we can > still do so while receiving nominations. > > -- > > > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the > global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub > | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Mon Dec 23 09:15:31 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 09:15:31 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> <52B809B3.4060500@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <52B84583.3010500@acm.org> Hi, I think that this of course makes sense as a criteria, but i caution us against allowing a single view, a theoretically specific view, to stand-in for the diversity that is the Civil Society viewpoint. Many time I think the reference to 'under-represented' view is synonymous with 'the view I and a few friends have that no one else agrees with'. I.e. when picking representatives, we need to pick people who are also not so extreme in the singularity of their view that they cancel out the views of others who also minority viewpoints. Even people with minority views need to take a big-tent view if they are to represent the diversity of CS view adequately and need to be the sort of people who can be expected to work with their fellow CS representatives, and not at cross-purposes. avri On 23-Dec-13 07:22, Ginger Paque wrote: > Thanks all, I agree, and will support the addition of this criterion. gp > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > IG Programmes, DiploFoundation > > From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Dec 2 00:46:35 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 21:46:35 -0800 Subject: FW: [bestbits] Proposal on Best Bits governance References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org> <528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net> <00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org> <528C72F0.1090703@itforchange.net> <795A5EE4-EAA1-4858-9F9A-CE652E85BF12@ciroap.org> <528C7AC8.7000203@itforchange.net> <528F2A38.4040905@apc.org> Message-ID: <073201ceef21$ddd7a6e0$9986f4a0$@gmail.com> Please note the date. M -----Original Message----- From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 11:54 AM To: 'anriette at apc.org'; 'bestbits at lists.bestbits.net' Subject: RE: [bestbits] Proposal on Best Bits governance Hi Anriette, (very quick note.. No aspersions cast or intended on any of the eminent colleagues involved with BB development and current leadership. However, your note is basically the same as the one my original post was responding to and my response to it is the same -- trust but verify... Also, the issue of the timing and urgency rings rather hollow since as you well know BB has been around now for about a year and a half which should be more than enough time to ensure an appropriately accountable and transparent governance structure. In response to your proposal I have a counterproposal which would be to immediately repurpose and reopen the "the steering committee" to be an open "working group". Have this working group report back to the BB list within a month with a proposal for a governance procedure/structure, have this proposal go to the list for approval through rough consensus and then proceed from there. And just to note, if your proposal and timing are agreed to, effectively all of the most significant decisions re: BB's position concerning the crucial upcoming meetings--Brazil and its follow-on, WSIS + 10, the MDG (and SDG?) summit with respect to MS procedures and policies going forward, public positioning of BB, and nominations to various MS groups -will all have been more or less finalized by the time a new and fully legitimized/representative Steering Committee will have been put into place. Of course, I have no doubt at all that this was not the underlying purpose of your proposal but it would quite obviously be the effect. M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 1:56 AM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [bestbits] Proposal on Best Bits governance Dear all [Please note that this proposal is not about the Brazil meeting or civil society nomcoms.] In some of the recent threads people have called to question the legitimacy of the Best Bits steering committee, and of transparency and accountability in Best Bits. I agree it will be good to strengthen Best Bits internal processes, but we should do this in a way that does not undermine trust in people who have worked hard to bring Best Bits to where it is, or in one another. We should also not undermine our ability to work together at a time when civil society is having to rise to some pretty daunting challenges. In particular, we should try not to discourage those individuals who have been volunteering their time on Best Bits bits work - either on the SC, or on drafting inputs. Without their effort we would be in a far weaker position than we are now. We would not have had the benefit of two face-to-face meetings, or of several substantial letters/other inputs submitted in response to strategic opportunities for raising civil society voices. I would therefore like to propose the following: 1) We ask the current Best Bits Steering Committee, a group of people who started to volunteer their time in this capacity in July 2013, to continue to serve until 31 July 2014. 2) We ask them to present us with a short overview report of the work they did in 2013 by the end of this year. 3) We ask them to, by the end of the first quarter of 2014, to propose a process for the renewal of the Best Bits Steering Committee. Best Anriette From jeanette at wzb.eu Mon Dec 23 09:22:35 2013 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 15:22:35 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: <52B84583.3010500@acm.org> References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> <52B809B3.4060500@ciroap.org> <52B84583.3010500@acm.org> Message-ID: <52B8472B.1050307@wzb.eu> Hi Avri, I couldn't agree more. Plus, there are so many underrepresented views in this space that I wonder if this really makes a solid selection criteria. jeanette Am 23.12.13 15:15, schrieb Avri Doria: > > Hi, > > I think that this of course makes sense as a criteria, but i caution us > against allowing a single view, a theoretically specific view, to > stand-in for the diversity that is the Civil Society viewpoint. Many > time I think the reference to 'under-represented' view is synonymous > with 'the view I and a few friends have that no one else agrees with'. > > I.e. when picking representatives, we need to pick people who are also > not so extreme in the singularity of their view that they cancel out the > views of others who also minority viewpoints. Even people with minority > views need to take a big-tent view if they are to represent the > diversity of CS view adequately and need to be the sort of people who > can be expected to work with their fellow CS representatives, and not at > cross-purposes. > > avri > > On 23-Dec-13 07:22, Ginger Paque wrote: >> Thanks all, I agree, and will support the addition of this criterion. gp >> >> Ginger (Virginia) Paque >> IG Programmes, DiploFoundation >> >> From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Dec 23 09:27:29 2013 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 08:27:29 -0600 Subject: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: <52B84583.3010500@acm.org> References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> <52B809B3.4060500@ciroap.org> <52B84583.3010500@acm.org> Message-ID: I agree with your general perspective. For the Diplo call for nominations I included: 7. Includes perspectives/representation of groups typically under-represented in global IG processes gp Ginger (Virginia) Paque IG Programmes, DiploFoundation *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses * On 23 December 2013 08:15, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > I think that this of course makes sense as a criteria, but i caution us > against allowing a single view, a theoretically specific view, to stand-in > for the diversity that is the Civil Society viewpoint. Many time I think > the reference to 'under-represented' view is synonymous with 'the view I > and a few friends have that no one else agrees with'. > > I.e. when picking representatives, we need to pick people who are also not > so extreme in the singularity of their view that they cancel out the views > of others who also minority viewpoints. Even people with minority views > need to take a big-tent view if they are to represent the diversity of CS > view adequately and need to be the sort of people who can be expected to > work with their fellow CS representatives, and not at cross-purposes. > > avri > > > On 23-Dec-13 07:22, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> Thanks all, I agree, and will support the addition of this criterion. gp >> >> Ginger (Virginia) Paque >> IG Programmes, DiploFoundation >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Guru at ITforChange.net Mon Dec 23 09:54:20 2013 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 20:24:20 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: <52B8472B.1050307@wzb.eu> References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> <52B809B3.4060500@ciroap.org> <52B84583.3010500@acm.org> <52B8472B.1050307@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <52B84E9C.9030304@ITforChange.net> On 12/23/2013 07:52 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi Avri, I couldn't agree more. Plus, there are so many > underrepresented views in this space Jeanette, I strongly agree with you that there are so many under represented views in this space. (Basically that the current 'CS' mostly represents a very small section of interests.) > that I wonder if this really makes a solid selection criteria. > However I could not understand this logic - since there are many views under represented let us ignore them? That would only reinforce existing hegemonies (which are very strong in the IG space). On the contrary, I would think the basic legitimacy / unique aspect for CS participation is to ensure inclusion of marginalised / under represented groups. regards, Guru > jeanette > > > Am 23.12.13 15:15, schrieb Avri Doria: >> >> Hi, >> >> I think that this of course makes sense as a criteria, but i caution us >> against allowing a single view, a theoretically specific view, to >> stand-in for the diversity that is the Civil Society viewpoint. Many >> time I think the reference to 'under-represented' view is synonymous >> with 'the view I and a few friends have that no one else agrees with'. >> >> I.e. when picking representatives, we need to pick people who are also >> not so extreme in the singularity of their view that they cancel out the >> views of others who also minority viewpoints. Even people with minority >> views need to take a big-tent view if they are to represent the >> diversity of CS view adequately and need to be the sort of people who >> can be expected to work with their fellow CS representatives, and not at >> cross-purposes. >> >> avri >> >> On 23-Dec-13 07:22, Ginger Paque wrote: >>> Thanks all, I agree, and will support the addition of this >>> criterion. gp >>> >>> Ginger (Virginia) Paque >>> IG Programmes, DiploFoundation >>> >>> From Guru at ITforChange.net Mon Dec 23 10:38:12 2013 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 21:08:12 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: <52B84583.3010500@acm.org> References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> <52B809B3.4060500@ciroap.org> <52B84583.3010500@acm.org> Message-ID: <52B858E4.9090902@ITforChange.net> Hi Avri, On 12/23/2013 07:45 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > I think that this of course makes sense as a criteria, but i caution > us against allowing a single view, a theoretically specific view, to > stand-in for the diversity that is the Civil Society viewpoint. Many > time I think the reference to 'under-represented' view is synonymous > with 'the view I and a few friends have that no one else agrees with'. > > I.e. when picking representatives, we need to pick people who are also > not so extreme in the singularity of their view that they cancel out > the views of others who also minority viewpoints. Even people with > minority views need to take a big-tent view if they are to represent > the diversity of CS view adequately If we agree that there are under represented groups, then CS needs to help them participate. Can we agree on this as an important principle for CS? It seems obvious then, that as we include more views, we will have more and more diverse set of views. Can we then burden these groups with the need to 'represent diversity of CS views adequately'? Is it not fair for them to represent their views (since these are under represented). Would this burden not end up in shutting these voices out? One may feel that all groups need to be open to others views, but not insist that each group should adequately represent diversity of views. More importantly, if we agree that many views are indeed under represented, the so called current 'big tent views' may themselves be very narrow in their representativeness. Simply by excluding a large set of voices, we see harmony which is perhaps a mirage. Better we get out of this mirage and face reality. > and need to be the sort of people who can be expected to work with > their fellow CS representatives, and not at cross-purposes. Avri, this is a very dangerous argument for pushing the continued dominance of a narrow set of perspectives on IG. What one disagrees with can be characterised as being at 'cross purposes'. Give a dog a bad name and hang it! whereas the very strength and even legitimacy of CS lies in enabling diverse and even conflicting views to emerge and to be listened to. Every time I read about such arguments I fear that CS may be only ending up supporting 'dominant reasonable views' ('dominant reasonable views' = hegemony) I would like you to consider another real life analogy. In India for decades post independence, only around 30% of children (from relatively affluent families) went to public schools. In last two decades, thanks to very very strong public/Government/Community efforts, enrolment has increased to 98%. However now children from marginalised groups (previously excluded) attend and teachers feel that while the earlier classroom situation was very conducive and harmonious, now with the inclusion of these groups of children, the classroom environment has become vitiated and ugly. The fault is not of these children from marginalised groups or their 'minority views', rather the teachers biased views on 'harmony' is the problem. Inclusion is far more valuable a principle than so called 'harmony' which may only mask mutual back scratching amongst a small homogeneous group. regards, Guru > > avri > > On 23-Dec-13 07:22, Ginger Paque wrote: >> Thanks all, I agree, and will support the addition of this criterion. gp >> >> Ginger (Virginia) Paque >> IG Programmes, DiploFoundation >> >> From avri at acm.org Mon Dec 23 10:59:43 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 10:59:43 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: <52B858E4.9090902@ITforChange.net> References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> <52B809B3.4060500@ciroap.org> <52B84583.3010500@acm.org> <52B858E4.9090902@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <52B85DEF.9060807@acm.org> Hi, I guess I believe that everyone appointed to a task, to a committee, should do their best to make sure all views from CS are represented to the best of their ability and understanding. And of course they will be able to argue from their personal perspective as well and be able to better represent that perspective when that is the appropriate thing. My view of the successful CS representative is someone who can express both their own views and the views of others, and while giving transparent verbal emphasis to their own view I also expect then to be able to make sure that CS views that aren't represented already are acknowledged, understood and taken into account. But no, I do not beleive any representative can be singular in their representation and only repesent the view they came in with. I beleive that on becoming the chosen one of a group, the group becomes the entity they are accountable to and its diversity views its responsibility. But yes, the big-tent has to allow for all views to be discussed. avri On 23-Dec-13 10:38, Guru गुरु wrote: > Hi Avri, > > On 12/23/2013 07:45 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I think that this of course makes sense as a criteria, but i caution >> us against allowing a single view, a theoretically specific view, to >> stand-in for the diversity that is the Civil Society viewpoint. Many >> time I think the reference to 'under-represented' view is synonymous >> with 'the view I and a few friends have that no one else agrees with'. >> >> I.e. when picking representatives, we need to pick people who are also >> not so extreme in the singularity of their view that they cancel out >> the views of others who also minority viewpoints. Even people with >> minority views need to take a big-tent view if they are to represent >> the diversity of CS view adequately > > If we agree that there are under represented groups, then CS needs to > help them participate. Can we agree on this as an important principle > for CS? It seems obvious then, that as we include more views, we will > have more and more diverse set of views. > > Can we then burden these groups with the need to 'represent diversity of > CS views adequately'? Is it not fair for them to represent their views > (since these are under represented). Would this burden not end up in > shutting these voices out? One may feel that all groups need to be open > to others views, but not insist that each group should adequately > represent diversity of views. > > More importantly, if we agree that many views are indeed under > represented, the so called current 'big tent views' may themselves be > very narrow in their representativeness. Simply by excluding a large set > of voices, we see harmony which is perhaps a mirage. Better we get out > of this mirage and face reality. > >> and need to be the sort of people who can be expected to work with >> their fellow CS representatives, and not at cross-purposes. > > Avri, > this is a very dangerous argument for pushing the continued dominance of > a narrow set of perspectives on IG. What one disagrees with can be > characterised as being at 'cross purposes'. Give a dog a bad name and > hang it! whereas the very strength and even legitimacy of CS lies in > enabling diverse and even conflicting views to emerge and to be listened > to. Every time I read about such arguments I fear that CS may be only > ending up supporting 'dominant reasonable views' ('dominant reasonable > views' = hegemony) > > I would like you to consider another real life analogy. > In India for decades post independence, only around 30% of children > (from relatively affluent families) went to public schools. In last two > decades, thanks to very very strong public/Government/Community efforts, > enrolment has increased to 98%. However now children from marginalised > groups (previously excluded) attend and teachers feel that while the > earlier classroom situation was very conducive and harmonious, now with > the inclusion of these groups of children, the classroom environment has > become vitiated and ugly. > > The fault is not of these children from marginalised groups or their > 'minority views', rather the teachers biased views on 'harmony' is the > problem. Inclusion is far more valuable a principle than so called > 'harmony' which may only mask mutual back scratching amongst a small > homogeneous group. > > regards, > Guru > >> >> avri >> >> On 23-Dec-13 07:22, Ginger Paque wrote: >>> Thanks all, I agree, and will support the addition of this criterion. gp >>> >>> Ginger (Virginia) Paque >>> IG Programmes, DiploFoundation >>> >>> > From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Dec 23 13:43:33 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 05:43:33 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I have no problem with this inclusion, Parminder – and from responses here it seems others feel the same. From: parminder Sent: Monday, December 23, 2013 8:49 PM To: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees Ian. Even when the CS nominating committee was to consider nominees to 1net, I remember asking that an explicit criterion of selection be that the nominee brings in perspectives/ representation of groups typically under-represented in global IG processes, and demonstrate existing linkages and work in this regard . It seems that such a criterion was not included. I will once again appeal that it be included.... Or at least I be responded to why it is not to be included. This is a normal political criterion for representation. It is even more so for civil society which many think it basically to bring in interests and perspectives that are most excluded from existing power structures. Thanks, parminder On Sunday 22 December 2013 11:01 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: This is a call for nominations to represent civil society on planning committees in preparations for the “Global Multistakeholder Meeting on Internet Governance”, to be held in Sao Paulo Brazilon April 23 and 24 2014. • Committee No. 1: Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC) This committee will set the high ­level political tone and objectives of the conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with stakeholders to encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of success. This committee will include 4 civil society representatives. • Committee No. 3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee (EC) This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, including: defining conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input received into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to address, managing conference proceedings and process, and directing all communications activities pre/­during/­post conference. This committee will include 2 civil society representatives The deadline for submitting expressions of interest is midnight UTC 7 January 2014. If you are interested, you are invited to send a brief biography and a statement of relevant background and experience to jeremy at ciroap.org or by replying to this thread. At the closing date for nominations, those submitted to various civil society networks will be compiled and assessed by the Civil Society Co ordination Group. Please indicate clearly at the beginning of your application whether it is for the High Level Committee (HLC) or Executive Committee (EC) or both. CRITERIA The following factors (among others) will be used to assess the suitability of candidates 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your individual civil society organisation(s) 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a multistakeholder setting 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to report back as the process progresses 4. Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these discussions 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range of civil society perspectives on these issues 6. Capacity to participate assertively and creatively Explanation of process The civil society coordinating group is a loose peak body that came together this year to facilitate joint civil society participation in several nominating processes. It currently comprises persons from the most active civil society coalitions or networks in the Internet governance space, which in no particular order are the Internet Governance Caucus, Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the Non Commercial Stakeholder Group of ICANN, and the Association for Progressive Communications. The current liaisons are Virginia Paque, Jeremy Malcolm, Robin Gross and Chat Garcia Ramilo, with Ian Peter as an independent facilitator. Its current composition is imperfect - the boundary between an organisation and network is grey, and so is the scope of "Internet governance". In particular, we are reaching out to other civil society networks to further broaden the inclusiveness of the group and have developed a draft set of criteria to assist in this process. Likewise, the process for gathering and reaching consensus is also a work in progress, but progressive improvements to the process have been put in place since the group's first nomination. These improvements include refinement of criteria for each member network to consider when putting forward names for consideration. Other suggested changes to the process, such as the use of a randomly-selected nominating committee, have not met with consensual support from within the group and so have not been adopted for this nomination. However, the coordinating group welcomes other suggestions for improvement of the joint process. -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kichango at gmail.com Tue Dec 24 03:18:28 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 08:18:28 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: <52B85DEF.9060807@acm.org> References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> <52B809B3.4060500@ciroap.org> <52B84583.3010500@acm.org> <52B858E4.9090902@ITforChange.net> <52B85DEF.9060807@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi, My understanding of the way that criterion would operate is that not all members of a committee or slate of candidates will have to fulfill it. It is rather for an addition, or making sure at least one of the selected group is of that type. So the whole group will have to work together and come up with a balanced outcome. Now I hear your point regarding the kind of person you think wouldn't make a good representative. But whoever is making the selection of those candidates/representatives will make their decision on individual by individual basis. Nothing says they have to retain a candidate put forward for the unique reason that they are affiliated to an under-represented constituency or view. If there are other issues or flaws with their candidacy and the selecting committee feel they can publicly present those as justifiable reasons to rule them out, then they may perfectly do so and assume the responsibility for it (I might even understand why they would rule someone out if they present sound reasons for that.) I would hope, though, that you're not assuming that from all possible under-represented views/groups, there may only be people who do NOT have the "big tent" mindset and cannot work with people with different views from theirs. I think among the rest of the criteria presented earlier, there is at least one that makes also clear that the candidates need to be able to reach out to the broader CS or even to other groups, etc. That may also be taken into account while choosing one from an under-represented group. Last, I'm afraid the argument in your first para. below, as worded, could be interpreted as the equivalent of another argument (in another context) that consists of telling the poor, or acting as if to tell the poor: "Don't worry getting yourself out of poverty by trying to speak for yourself (for instance, by trying to expose the structural imbalances that maintain the conditions causing poverty,) just be content with us taking care of your needs as we understand them (by maintaining and feeding in the public aid apparatus so that you can get something to eat everyday while we enjoy self-gratification for doing good)." I'm just drawing your attention to the fact that it sounds close enough to be understood that way by a number of people; the adds in parentheses are there only to bring out fully what is possibly being understood by the other party (be it the poor himself or just someone holding the counter-argument.) Therefore I would suggest the proposed criterion to be added, keeping in mind it can be operated on as I have outlined above. Thanks, Mawaki -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- *Mawaki Chango, PhD* *Founder & Principal, DIGILEXIS Consulting* http://www.digilexis.com m.chango at digilexis.com twitter.com/digilexis twitter.com/dig_mawaki Skype: digilexis On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I guess I believe that everyone appointed to a task, to a committee, > should do their best to make sure all views from CS are represented to the > best of their ability and understanding. And of course they will be able > to argue from their personal perspective as well and be able to better > represent that perspective when that is the appropriate thing. My view of > the successful CS representative is someone who can express both their own > views and the views of others, and while giving transparent verbal emphasis > to their own view I also expect then to be able to make sure that CS views > that aren't represented already are acknowledged, understood and taken into > account. > > But no, I do not beleive any representative can be singular in their > representation and only repesent the view they came in with. I beleive > that on becoming the chosen one of a group, the group becomes the entity > they are accountable to and its diversity views its responsibility. > > But yes, the big-tent has to allow for all views to be discussed. > > avri > > > On 23-Dec-13 10:38, Guru गुरु wrote: > >> Hi Avri, >> >> On 12/23/2013 07:45 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I think that this of course makes sense as a criteria, but i caution >>> us against allowing a single view, a theoretically specific view, to >>> stand-in for the diversity that is the Civil Society viewpoint. Many >>> time I think the reference to 'under-represented' view is synonymous >>> with 'the view I and a few friends have that no one else agrees with'. >>> >>> I.e. when picking representatives, we need to pick people who are also >>> not so extreme in the singularity of their view that they cancel out >>> the views of others who also minority viewpoints. Even people with >>> minority views need to take a big-tent view if they are to represent >>> the diversity of CS view adequately >>> >> >> If we agree that there are under represented groups, then CS needs to >> help them participate. Can we agree on this as an important principle >> for CS? It seems obvious then, that as we include more views, we will >> have more and more diverse set of views. >> >> Can we then burden these groups with the need to 'represent diversity of >> CS views adequately'? Is it not fair for them to represent their views >> (since these are under represented). Would this burden not end up in >> shutting these voices out? One may feel that all groups need to be open >> to others views, but not insist that each group should adequately >> represent diversity of views. >> >> More importantly, if we agree that many views are indeed under >> represented, the so called current 'big tent views' may themselves be >> very narrow in their representativeness. Simply by excluding a large set >> of voices, we see harmony which is perhaps a mirage. Better we get out >> of this mirage and face reality. >> >> and need to be the sort of people who can be expected to work with >>> their fellow CS representatives, and not at cross-purposes. >>> >> >> Avri, >> this is a very dangerous argument for pushing the continued dominance of >> a narrow set of perspectives on IG. What one disagrees with can be >> characterised as being at 'cross purposes'. Give a dog a bad name and >> hang it! whereas the very strength and even legitimacy of CS lies in >> enabling diverse and even conflicting views to emerge and to be listened >> to. Every time I read about such arguments I fear that CS may be only >> ending up supporting 'dominant reasonable views' ('dominant reasonable >> views' = hegemony) >> >> I would like you to consider another real life analogy. >> In India for decades post independence, only around 30% of children >> (from relatively affluent families) went to public schools. In last two >> decades, thanks to very very strong public/Government/Community efforts, >> enrolment has increased to 98%. However now children from marginalised >> groups (previously excluded) attend and teachers feel that while the >> earlier classroom situation was very conducive and harmonious, now with >> the inclusion of these groups of children, the classroom environment has >> become vitiated and ugly. >> >> The fault is not of these children from marginalised groups or their >> 'minority views', rather the teachers biased views on 'harmony' is the >> problem. Inclusion is far more valuable a principle than so called >> 'harmony' which may only mask mutual back scratching amongst a small >> homogeneous group. >> >> regards, >> Guru >> >> >>> avri >>> >>> On 23-Dec-13 07:22, Ginger Paque wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks all, I agree, and will support the addition of this criterion. gp >>>> >>>> Ginger (Virginia) Paque >>>> IG Programmes, DiploFoundation >>>> >>>> >>>> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Tue Dec 24 07:24:11 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 07:24:11 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> <52B809B3.4060500@ciroap.org> <52B84583.3010500@acm.org> <52B858E4.9090902@ITforChange.net> <52B85DEF.9060807@acm.org> Message-ID: <52B97CEB.50806@acm.org> On 24-Dec-13 03:18, Mawaki Chango wrote: > "Don't worry getting yourself out of poverty by trying to speak for > yourself (for instance, by trying to expose the structural imbalances > that maintain the conditions causing poverty,) just be content with us > taking care of your needs as we understand them (by maintaining and > feeding in the public aid apparatus so that you can get something to eat > everyday while we enjoy self-gratification for doing good)." Well I suppose you can read anything, any way you wish, I contend that your reading is a prejudicial and specious misconstruction. I said nothing about people not arguing their case as vociferously as they might wish. And I said nothing about not applying for a representative role. What I said is that when one accepts a representative role, they go on to represent the whole group and not just the one particular set of beliefs and agendas they come in with. And what I think is wrong is getting a position as a CS representative and then doing everything you can to put forward your personal agenda at the cost of the rest of civil society's positions. Sure make sure your position gets heard and understood as well as is possible, just don't do it by by tearing down the work everyone else is trying to do as well. This means that you have to pick people who despite having a minority view can work with the majority as well. So sure put in the criterion of including minority viewpoints, but also put in the criterion of "plays well with others." avri From kichango at gmail.com Tue Dec 24 08:20:37 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 13:20:37 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: <52B97CEB.50806@acm.org> References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> <52B809B3.4060500@ciroap.org> <52B84583.3010500@acm.org> <52B858E4.9090902@ITforChange.net> <52B85DEF.9060807@acm.org> <52B97CEB.50806@acm.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > On 24-Dec-13 03:18, Mawaki Chango wrote: > >> "Don't worry getting yourself out of poverty by trying to speak for >> yourself (for instance, by trying to expose the structural imbalances >> that maintain the conditions causing poverty,) just be content with us >> taking care of your needs as we understand them (by maintaining and >> feeding in the public aid apparatus so that you can get something to eat >> everyday while we enjoy self-gratification for doing good)." >> > > > Well I suppose you can read anything, any way you wish, I contend that > your reading is a prejudicial and specious misconstruction. > > I said nothing about people not arguing their case as vociferously as they > might wish. And I said nothing about not applying for a representative > role. > > What I said is that when one accepts a representative role, they go on to > represent the whole group and not just the one particular set of beliefs > and agendas they come in with. > > And what I think is wrong is getting a position as a CS representative and > then doing everything you can to put forward your personal agenda at the > cost of the rest of civil society's positions. Sure make sure your > position gets heard and understood as well as is possible, just don't do it > by by tearing down the work everyone else is trying to do as well. This > means that you have to pick people who despite having a minority view can > work with the majority as well. > > So sure put in the criterion of including minority viewpoints, but also > put in the criterion of "plays well with others." Well, that was my point, and I believe your latter criterion/qualification is taken care in one way or the other by the first 3 out of 6 criteria already applicable. 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your individual civil society organisation(s) 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a multistakeholder setting 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to report back as the process progresses And your earlier opposition to the newly proposed criterion did not make your more balanced position stated above any clearer than my reading of your arguments was "prejudicial and specious." mawaki > > > avri > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Guru at ITforChange.net Tue Dec 24 08:56:50 2013 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 19:26:50 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: <52B97CEB.50806@acm.org> References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> <52B809B3.4060500@ciroap.org> <52B84583.3010500@acm.org> <52B858E4.9090902@ITforChange.net> <52B85DEF.9060807@acm.org> <52B97CEB.50806@acm.org> Message-ID: <52B992A2.5020206@ITforChange.net> On 12/24/2013 05:54 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > On 24-Dec-13 03:18, Mawaki Chango wrote: >> "Don't worry getting yourself out of poverty by trying to speak for >> yourself (for instance, by trying to expose the structural imbalances >> that maintain the conditions causing poverty,) just be content with us >> taking care of your needs as we understand them (by maintaining and >> feeding in the public aid apparatus so that you can get something to eat >> everyday while we enjoy self-gratification for doing good)." > > > Well I suppose you can read anything, any way you wish, I contend that > your reading is a prejudicial and specious misconstruction. > > I said nothing about people not arguing their case as vociferously as > they might wish. And I said nothing about not applying for a > representative role. > > What I said is that when one accepts a representative role, they go on > to represent the whole group and not just the one particular set of > beliefs and agendas they come in with. > > And what I think is wrong is getting a position as a CS representative > and then doing everything you can to put forward your personal agenda > at the cost of the rest of civil society's positions. Sure make sure > your position gets heard and understood as well as is possible, just > don't do it by by tearing down the work everyone else is trying to do > as well. This means that you have to pick people who despite having a > minority view can work with the majority as well. > > So sure put in the criterion of including minority viewpoints, but > also put in the criterion of "plays well with others." > > avri Avri, I had sent you a long mail, that this kind of argument is very dangerous - it enables the dominant hegemonic group to simply blank out dissent - 'Behave yourself or you are out' - this is basically the essence of what you are proposing. You are repeating your prejudicial and specious views. (Your views are surprising to me, I understand your primary political leaning to be anarchical - which would tend to support a minority over a dominant majority, rather than demand any kind of compliance) regards, Guru From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Dec 2 01:09:18 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 14:09:18 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Proposal on Best Bits governance In-Reply-To: <070b01ceef1d$b53e1d80$1fba5880$@gmail.com> References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org> <528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net> <00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org> <528C72F0.1090703@itforchange.net> <795A5EE4-EAA1-4858-9F9A-CE652E85BF12@ciroap.org> <528C7AC8.7000203@itforchange.net> <528F2A38.4040905@apc.org> <529C01C8.1010008@ciroap.org> <070b01ceef1d$b53e1d80$1fba5880$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <529C240E.7090704@ciroap.org> On 02/12/13 13:16, michael gurstein wrote: > > For the third time I am indicating that I do not accept this proposal > and I would ask that my counter-proposal also be considered and/or > reasons given for it not being “endorsed” by the “interim” Steering > Committee. > It's not for us to endorse it or otherwise, it's for all the participants. But I don't think that your proposal is realistic, that the priorities that it reflects are appropriate at this point in time, or that it is consistent withi the acceptance of the interim steering committee that was endorsed by those present at the meeting in Bali. But happy to hear what others think about it. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 263 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From wjdrake at gmail.com Tue Dec 24 09:28:33 2013 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 15:28:33 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: <52B84E9C.9030304@ITforChange.net> References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> <52B809B3.4060500@ciroap.org> <52B84583.3010500@acm.org> <52B8472B.1050307@wzb.eu> <52B84E9C.9030304@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: Hi On Dec 23, 2013, at 3:54 PM, Guru गुरु wrote: > On 12/23/2013 07:52 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> Hi Avri, I couldn't agree more. Plus, there are so many underrepresented views in this space > > Jeanette, > > I strongly agree with you that there are so many under represented views in this space. As do I > (Basically that the current 'CS' mostly represents a very small section of interests.) Particularly the most aggressive and persistent. Others give up and fall silent et voila, and down and down we spiral into acrimony and irrelevance, at least in some spaces. > > >> that I wonder if this really makes a solid selection criteria. >> > > However I could not understand this logic - since there are many views under represented let us ignore them? That would only reinforce existing hegemonies (which are very strong in the IG space). One logic could be that many people who believe their views to be consistent with advancing the interests of the underrepresented/marginalized would have opposing positions on how to do that. So how then does one select on this criteria, other than based on the views of the selectors, who’s the most aggressive and persistent, etc? Neither Jeanette, Avri or I are saying CS shouldn’t be concerned about ensuring representation of underrepresented/marginalized views/groups, but rather that this is a hard criteria to apply in a fair and neutral manner in a nomination process. Why not also say nominees must also favor freedom? In contrast, the ability to work well with other stakeholders, represent one’s SG professionally, and reflect the range of views in one’s SG are a bit more empirically assessable. Best, Bill > > On the contrary, I would think the basic legitimacy / unique aspect for CS participation is to ensure inclusion of marginalised / under represented groups. > > regards, > Guru > >> jeanette >> > >> >> Am 23.12.13 15:15, schrieb Avri Doria: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I think that this of course makes sense as a criteria, but i caution us >>> against allowing a single view, a theoretically specific view, to >>> stand-in for the diversity that is the Civil Society viewpoint. Many >>> time I think the reference to 'under-represented' view is synonymous >>> with 'the view I and a few friends have that no one else agrees with'. >>> >>> I.e. when picking representatives, we need to pick people who are also >>> not so extreme in the singularity of their view that they cancel out the >>> views of others who also minority viewpoints. Even people with minority >>> views need to take a big-tent view if they are to represent the >>> diversity of CS view adequately and need to be the sort of people who >>> can be expected to work with their fellow CS representatives, and not at >>> cross-purposes. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> On 23-Dec-13 07:22, Ginger Paque wrote: >>>> Thanks all, I agree, and will support the addition of this criterion. gp >>>> >>>> Ginger (Virginia) Paque >>>> IG Programmes, DiploFoundation >>>> >>>> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ******************************************************************* William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org ******************************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Tue Dec 24 10:42:43 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 10:42:43 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: <52B992A2.5020206@ITforChange.net> References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> <52B809B3.4060500@ciroap.org> <52B84583.3010500@acm.org> <52B858E4.9090902@ITforChange.net> <52B85DEF.9060807@acm.org> <52B97CEB.50806@acm.org> <52B992A2.5020206@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <52B9AB73.6000106@acm.org> Hi, A last reply from me on this particular subject as I believe it is getting unproductive at this point. I think we both made our points, and the steering group will take what they will from them On 24-Dec-13 08:56, Guru गुरु wrote: > > (Your views are surprising to me, I understand your primary political > leaning to be anarchical - which would tend to support a minority over a > dominant majority, rather than demand any kind of compliance) Since you decided to leverage the argument on my personal political philosophy, let me specifically define it (Elevator Pitch Version). Yes, I believe in a notion of Social Anarchy, by which I mean bottom up participatory social and political governance of all things. Among its modalities it includes the notion of ever greater cooperative aggregation of interests until one reaches a global level in a scalable manner. If anything, it is a hegemony of cooperation. Because if we can't cooperate, we wont get anywhere. Cheers. And to the Christmas celebrators among us, and the rest of us too, Peace on Earth and among the CS. avri From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Dec 24 13:20:16 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 13:20:16 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: APPLICATION - Call for nominations, planning committees for IG meeting in Brazil April 23 and 24 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, just to let you know I have submitted my name as a candidate through Diplo. I hope you also considerate it. Best and happy happy Xmas! Carol ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Carolina Rossini Date: Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 11:59 AM Subject: APPLICATION - Call for nominations, planning committees for IG meeting in Brazil April 23 and 24 To: igcbp-talk , Jeremy Malcolm < jeremy at ciroap.org>, Joana Varon , Laura Tresca < laura at article19.org>, "Carlos A. Afonso" Dear Ginger and Diplo friends, Here my statement of interest for* Committee No. 1: Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC)*: I’m a hard worker and enjoy environments where large tasks are being undertaken, even if within a short period of time. I have a track record of successful coalitions and I have built trust within the years by being transparent, a team player and supportive when needed. I am an experienced presenter and spokesperson, speaking regularly at international conferences, on a great diversity of topics. I also put conferences together, from small events, such as the EFF Digital Camps Rights in New Zealand, to a 300+ person Creative Commons iSummit.I have managing the international aspect of organizations I have worked for at least the past 7 years. I also have a track record of developing strategic plans, a necessary skill to have as a member of the *Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC), *which is responsible for setting the high ­level political tone and objectives of the Brazil conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with stakeholders to encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of success. I am fluent in English, Spanish, and Portuguese. I have lived in Spain, England, and the United States in addition to my roots in Sao Paulo and my years in Rio de Janeiro. Additionally, many of the projects, agreements and partnerships negotiations I led were with clients or partners from a diversity of regions and backgrounds. As a result, I am comfortable in settings from the negotiating table to the podium in many languages and many cultures, and can bring that to bear as a civil society representative. And here my bio: Currently, I am the Project Director for the Latin America Resource Center at the Internet Governance and Human Rights program at the New America Foundation’s OTI. My focus is to support civil society – through capacity building, expertise support, research, and more – to flourish and have impact, in a timely manner, on the most pressing internet governance and access to knowledge issues in Latin America and beyond. I believe in the power of civil society to protect and foster the public interest. I am also a fellow at SPARC/ARL devising strategy to foster open access and open science in Latin America. I work, for the past 13 years, in intellectual property and internet law and governance, with experience in international negotiations and Latin America advocacy and policy, with special emphasis in Brazil. I have experience in both traditional transactions in software, content, and internet business as well as more innovative commons-based approaches. I am a seasoned strategic planner and project manager with a strong track record in fundraising, hiring, management, capacity building and execution. I am fluent in English, Spanish, and Portuguese. I have been a member of the Brazilian Bar Association for more than 12 years and have passed the Multistate Professional Responsibility Ethics exam in the US. I am a board member of the Open Knowledge Foundation - Brazil, an mentor to the IDRC R4OER (Research for Open Educational Resources Network), a past board member the Brazilian Internet Institute , a past member of the IP Global Agenda Council for the World Economic Forum, a past fellow and author of Diplo Foundation ’s courses, and the founder of OER-Brazil, which works with policymakers to enact open access and open educational resource polices in Brazil and beyond and with educational institutions to develop open education strategies and projects. Before relocating to Washington DC, my third city in the USA, I was leaving in San Francisco, where I was the Director for International Intellectual Property at Electronic Frontier Foundation , I also worked for the Wikimedia Foundation , leading the Brazil Catalyst Project and shaping strategies to increase community engagement and foundation presence in Brazil. Previously I was a Fellow at the Berkman Center at Harvard University coordinating the Industrial Cooperation Project for Prof. Yochai Benkler . I am from Sao Paulo, Brazil, and love my country. That is why I cannot stop working and collaborating, and giving tons of pro-bono hours for Brazilian institutions developing amazing work on increasing access to ICTs, knowledge and education. I have a on-going collaboration with the Research Group for Public Policies for Access to Information (GPOPAI-USP) on open access, open data, tech transfer and open innovation strategies at the University of Sao Paulo, for example. I also provide advice for organizations and universities that want to expand open access initiatives, including clearing of rights and open licensing through Creative Commons (one of my passions). In Brazil, I was a lecturer in Law at FGV Law School, a project lead for CTS and part of Creative Commons Brazil , hosted by CTS. Before that, during my first six years out of law school I was an in-house transactional telecom and internet policy lawyer for Terra Networks, the ISP of Telefonica , where I led drafting and negotiations of contracts focused on e-commerce, internet ads, content licensing for Internet and Mobile, international backbones, data centers, among others. I was also part of their regulatory working group on telecom and internet, and lead a diversity of internal training initiatives. I have an LLM in Intellectual Property from Boston University (USA), an MBA from Instituto de Empresas (Spain) awarded by Telefonica and Carolina Foundation of Spain, a Masters’ Degree in International Negotiations from UNESCP-UNICAMP (Brazil) and a Bachelors degree in Law (JD) from University of Sao Paulo (Brazil). On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Thanks Carolina, I will be happy to submit your nomination to the group > for consideration. Please email me the bio and statement as you want them > presented. > > I hope others will follow your example! Obrigada. Ginger > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > IG Programmes, DiploFoundation > > *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet > governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance > specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy > and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read more > and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses > * > > > > On 22 December 2013 18:03, Carolina wrote: > >> I would like to put my name forward. >> My bio at carolinarossini.net and I will send my statement of interest >> soon. >> In any case, I do believe I can do a great job representing civil society >> for committee 1. I have track record of building successful coalitions and >> mediating stakeholder groups. I have occupied many senior positions and I >> am able to keep and foster dialogue among diversity of stakeholder, playing >> a negotiator and mediator role. >> I would be honored to represent civil society in this task. >> Best, >> Carolina Rossini >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Dec 22, 2013, at 6:53 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >> This is a call for nominations to represent civil society on planning >> committees in preparations for the “Global Multistakeholder Meeting on >> Internet Governance”, to be held in Sao Paulo Brazil on April 23 and 24 >> 2014. It is important that CS take an active role in planning for this >> meeting. We need informed, energetic people who will report back to us, and >> help us understand the process, as well as give substantial input to the >> planning process. >> >> >> >> *• Committee No. 1: Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC)* >> >> >> >> This committee will set the high ­level political tone and objectives of >> the >> >> conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with >> stakeholders to >> >> encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of >> success. >> >> >> >> This committee will include 4 civil society representatives. >> >> >> >> • *Committee No. 3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee (EC)* >> >> >> >> This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, >> including: defining >> >> conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input >> received into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to address, >> managing conference proceedings and process, and directing all >> communications activities pre/­during/­post conference. This committee will >> include 2 civil society representatives >> >> >> >> The deadline for submitting expressions of interest is *midnight UTC* 6* January >> 2014*. >> >> >> >> If you are interested, you are invited to send a brief biography and a >> statement of relevant background and experience to v >> irginiap at diplomacy.edu (Ginger) or by replying to this thread. At the >> closing date for nominations, those submitted to various civil society >> networks will be compiled and assessed by the Civil Society Co ordination >> Group. >> >> >> >> Please indicate clearly at the beginning of your application whether it >> is for the High Level Committee (HLC) or Executive Committee (EC) or both. >> >> >> >> >> >> CRITERIA >> >> >> >> The following factors (among others) will be used to assess the >> suitability of candidates >> >> >> >> 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your >> individual civil society organisation(s) >> >> 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a >> multistakeholder setting >> >> 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to report >> back as the process progresses >> >> 4. Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these >> discussions >> >> 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range of >> civil society perspectives on these issues >> >> 6. Capacity to participate assertively and creatively >> >> >> *Explanation of process* >> >> The civil society coordinating group is a loose peak body that came >> together this year to facilitate joint civil society participation in >> several nominating processes. It currently comprises persons from the most >> active civil society coalitions or networks in the Internet governance >> space, which in no particular order are the Internet Governance Caucus, >> Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the Non Commercial Stakeholder Group of ICANN, >> and the Association for Progressive Communications. The current liaisons >> are Virginia Paque (Ginger), Jeremy Malcolm, Robin Gross and Chat Garcia >> Ramilo, with Ian Peter as an independent facilitator. Its current >> composition is imperfect - the boundary between an organisation and network >> is grey, and so is the scope of "Internet governance". In particular, we >> are reaching out to other civil society networks to further broaden the >> inclusiveness of the group and have developed a draft set of criteria to >> assist in this process. >> >> Likewise, the process for gathering and reaching consensus is also a work >> in progress, but progressive improvements to the process have been put in >> place since the group's first nomination. These improvements include >> refinement of criteria for each member network to consider when putting >> forward names for consideration. Other suggested changes to the process, >> such as the use of a randomly-selected nominating committee, have not met >> with consensual support from within the group and so have not been adopted >> for this nomination. However, the coordinating group welcomes other >> suggestions for improvement of the joint process. >> >> Think about it! This is an important challenge and opportunity. >> If you have any questions, please here, or email me. >> Best wishes for the holidays, >> Ginger >> >> Ginger (Virginia) Paque >> IG Programmes, DiploFoundation >> >> *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet >> governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance >> specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy >> and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read more >> and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses >> * >> >> -- >> -- >> Please note that when replying to this message will send your reply to >> the whole group! >> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "IGCBP Talk" group. >> To post to this group, send email to igcbp-talk at googlegroups.com >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> igcbp-talk-unsubscribe at googlegroups.com >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/igcbp-talk?hl=en >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "IGCBP Talk" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to igcbp-talk+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> -- >> -- >> Please note that when replying to this message will send your reply to >> the whole group! >> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "IGCBP Talk" group. >> To post to this group, send email to igcbp-talk at googlegroups.com >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> igcbp-talk-unsubscribe at googlegroups.com >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/igcbp-talk?hl=en >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "IGCBP Talk" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to igcbp-talk+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > > -- > -- > Please note that when replying to this message will send your reply to the > whole group! > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "IGCBP Talk" group. > To post to this group, send email to igcbp-talk at googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > igcbp-talk-unsubscribe at googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/igcbp-talk?hl=en > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "IGCBP Talk" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to igcbp-talk+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Dec 24 17:35:34 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2013 05:35:34 +0700 Subject: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: <52B97CEB.50806@acm.org> References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> <52B809B3.4060500@ciroap.org> <52B84583.3010500@acm.org> <52B858E4.9090902@ITforChange.net> <52B85DEF.9060807@acm.org> <52B97CEB.50806@acm.org> Message-ID: <039301cf00f8$780e3480$682a9d80$@gmail.com> In England, where I spent some idle years pursuing an education they had a term--"clubbable"--what it meant was, whether you were suitable to be asked to "join the club"... Now among the overt criteria for being "clubbable" was of course, whether you were "nice" enough, whether you would fit in with the existing members, make them feel comfortable and all warm and cozy at and in your presence. Of course what that really meant was whether you were sufficiently "like us" for them to let you into the club... whether you were the right colour, or the right gender, had gone to the right schools, were of an appropriate religion, and of course, overall whether your "politics/value system" would be such as to support the "club's" status quo--their perq's and privileges, folkways and prejudices... Needless to say I was never "invited". But I have to ask here, are you folks really serious about this--having as a criteria for joining a "Coordinating Committee" of "Civil Society" whether someone adheres to kindergarten rules of playing "nice"... If that is so then surely any right minded person would treat this self-selected grouping and this process with the contempt and derision it deserves. M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:24 PM To: Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees [MG>] snipped... So sure put in the criterion of including minority viewpoints, but also put in the criterion of "plays well with others." avri From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Dec 24 21:05:56 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2013 09:05:56 +0700 Subject: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> <52B809B3.4060500@ciroap.org> <52B84583.3010500@acm.org> <52B8472B.1050307@wzb.eu> <52B84E9C.9030304@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <001c01cf0115$db941610$92bc4230$@gmail.com> Oh really, perhaps you could outline for us a useful methodology for empirically and objectively assessing these… M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2013 9:29 PM To: Guru गुरु Cc: Best Bits Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees [MG>] snipped… In contrast, the ability to work well with other stakeholders, represent one’s SG professionally, and reflect the range of views in one’s SG are a bit more empirically assessable. Best, Bill On the contrary, I would think the basic legitimacy / unique aspect for CS participation is to ensure inclusion of marginalised / under represented groups. regards, Guru jeanette Am 23.12.13 15:15, schrieb Avri Doria: Hi, I think that this of course makes sense as a criteria, but i caution us against allowing a single view, a theoretically specific view, to stand-in for the diversity that is the Civil Society viewpoint. Many time I think the reference to 'under-represented' view is synonymous with 'the view I and a few friends have that no one else agrees with'. I.e. when picking representatives, we need to pick people who are also not so extreme in the singularity of their view that they cancel out the views of others who also minority viewpoints. Even people with minority views need to take a big-tent view if they are to represent the diversity of CS view adequately and need to be the sort of people who can be expected to work with their fellow CS representatives, and not at cross-purposes. avri On 23-Dec-13 07:22, Ginger Paque wrote: Thanks all, I agree, and will support the addition of this criterion. gp Ginger (Virginia) Paque IG Programmes, DiploFoundation ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ******************************************************************* William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org ******************************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Dec 24 22:05:04 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2013 10:05:04 +0700 Subject: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> <52B809B3.4060500@ciroap.org> <52B84583.3010500@acm.org> <52B858E4.9090902@ITforChange.net> <52B85DEF.9060807@acm.org> <52B97CEB.50806@acm.org> Message-ID: <003001cf011e$2311a7c0$6934f740$@gmail.com> I must admit that I find the criteria being bandied about here re: selection for CS representation to be quite bizarre. (sorry I'm not exactly sure where this particular list came from but it has been bandied about by the various CS honchos in one form or another over the last few days. 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your individual civil society organisation(s) Hmmm. as I read this what it means is that whoever represents CS doesn't (can't) have an opinion. what sort of an opinion would/could represent "Civil Society as a whole".. So the process of selection is done to ensure the least common denominator/effective representative of any CS values or interests. I wonder whether the 5 representatives of the corporate sector are going to follow this form of self-regulation so as to ensure that they don't represent any corporate interests.. beyond the lowest common denominator of supporting the market economy. I think not. 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a multistakeholder setting Ah, yes the "play nice"/kindergarten criteria, qv. my response to Avri 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to report back as the process progresses Okay, but we've already eliminated most anyone with any serious involvements with active CS groups so the process of consulting and reporting back seems a wee bit,vacuous dare I say. we are expecting them to consult and report back but on.. what exactly . Since we are tossing around criteria how about a few more that might actually have a substantive impact on the effectiveness of CS in representing CS interests. 1. No participation in CS representation by individuals who have been part of government delegations for the last five years 2. No participation in CS except by those who actually have some experience in the areas in which they are pontificating/err pronouncing.. I.e. if they are talking about "development" we should expect that "our" representatives have actually gotten their boots dirty in actual development and not just high level maundering around the issues. 3. No participation from those who only represent themselves (NGO's or whatever of 1) and have no evident links to larger CS (or other) networks beyond the immediate cadre of their IG CS friends and allies. The criteria that you folks have been prattling on about, point to the fundamental flaw in IG CS which is that the way you are approaching it, the only thing apart from lunch which can be agreed upon and thus meet your criteria are process issues. No substance, no content, no real policy. just process. So CS becomes completely pre-occupied with discussing (its own) positioning and processes in the larger IG area. The real issues of policy/governance are never addressed because they don't (can't possibly) "represent civil society as a whole". Rather real policy/governance issues have owners and interests and represent the potential (and in many cases the reality) of real conflict-that's what "interests" are about. Policy is about specific groups within (civil) society with specific interests, needs and concerns and articulating and representing these in the context of our engagement-just like the corporate folks of course, who also have specific interest, needs and concerns and are, dare I say, rather less bashful about promoting them. FWIW, the Community Informatics Declaration was circulated to an e-list of top (US) telecom and ICT policy wonks (not by me) and in three days it has generated 50+ substantive contributions responding in one way or another to the CI text. Many critical, many supportive but all substantive and very high level and as a whole making a (potentially) very serious contribution to Internet Governance/Policy and justifying if anything could, the true value and significance (and ultimately contribution) that CS can make to these discussions. The discussion here, among our "CS" colleagues on this document. zip. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Mawaki Chango Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2013 8:21 PM To: Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Avri Doria wrote: On 24-Dec-13 03:18, Mawaki Chango wrote: "Don't worry getting yourself out of poverty by trying to speak for yourself (for instance, by trying to expose the structural imbalances that maintain the conditions causing poverty,) just be content with us taking care of your needs as we understand them (by maintaining and feeding in the public aid apparatus so that you can get something to eat everyday while we enjoy self-gratification for doing good)." Well I suppose you can read anything, any way you wish, I contend that your reading is a prejudicial and specious misconstruction. I said nothing about people not arguing their case as vociferously as they might wish. And I said nothing about not applying for a representative role. What I said is that when one accepts a representative role, they go on to represent the whole group and not just the one particular set of beliefs and agendas they come in with. And what I think is wrong is getting a position as a CS representative and then doing everything you can to put forward your personal agenda at the cost of the rest of civil society's positions. Sure make sure your position gets heard and understood as well as is possible, just don't do it by by tearing down the work everyone else is trying to do as well. This means that you have to pick people who despite having a minority view can work with the majority as well. So sure put in the criterion of including minority viewpoints, but also put in the criterion of "plays well with others." Well, that was my point, and I believe your latter criterion/qualification is taken care in one way or the other by the first 3 out of 6 criteria already applicable. 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your individual civil society organisation(s) 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a multistakeholder setting 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to report back as the process progresses And your earlier opposition to the newly proposed criterion did not make your more balanced position stated above any clearer than my reading of your arguments was "prejudicial and specious." mawaki avri ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Guru at ITforChange.net Tue Dec 24 23:19:25 2013 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2013 09:49:25 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: <52B9AB73.6000106@acm.org> References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> <52B809B3.4060500@ciroap.org> <52B84583.3010500@acm.org> <52B858E4.9090902@ITforChange.net> <52B85DEF.9060807@acm.org> <52B97CEB.50806@acm.org> <52B992A2.5020206@ITforChange.net> <52B9AB73.6000106@acm.org> Message-ID: <52BA5CCD.8080104@ITforChange.net> On 12/24/2013 09:12 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > A last reply from me on this particular subject as I believe it is > getting unproductive at this point. I think we both made our points, > and the steering group will take what they will from them > > On 24-Dec-13 08:56, Guru गुरु wrote: >> >> (Your views are surprising to me, I understand your primary political >> leaning to be anarchical - which would tend to support a minority over a >> dominant majority, rather than demand any kind of compliance) > > Since you decided to leverage the argument on my personal political > philosophy, let me specifically define it (Elevator Pitch Version). > > Yes, I believe in a notion of Social Anarchy, by which I mean bottom > up participatory social and political governance of all things. > Among its modalities it includes the notion of ever greater > cooperative aggregation of interests until one reaches a global level > in a scalable manner. If anything, it is a hegemony of cooperation. your dig on 'hegemony' masks a delicious irony - that hegemony is usually not experienced by the dominant group, which is able to persuade itself and others about the 'normality' of its ideology. > Because if we can't cooperate, we wont get anywhere. > > Cheers. > > And to the Christmas celebrators among us, and the rest of us too, > Peace on Earth and among the CS. > > avri From Guru at ITforChange.net Tue Dec 24 23:39:17 2013 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2013 10:09:17 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> <52B809B3.4060500@ciroap.org> <52B84583.3010500@acm.org> <52B8472B.1050307@wzb.eu> <52B84E9C.9030304@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <52BA6175.5090203@ITforChange.net> Bill On 12/24/2013 07:58 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > On Dec 23, 2013, at 3:54 PM, Guru गुरु > wrote: > snip > > One logic could be that many people who believe their views to be > consistent with advancing the interests of > the underrepresented/marginalized would have opposing positions on how > to do that. So how then does one select on this criteria, other than > based on the views of the selectors, who’s the most aggressive and > persistent, etc? > > Neither Jeanette, Avri or I are saying CS shouldn’t be concerned about > ensuring representation of underrepresented/marginalized views/groups, > but rather that this is a hard criteria to apply in a fair and neutral > manner in a nomination process. its problematic to believe some criteria though important, are difficult to apply and can be avoided - (be aware) this is ideology of 'club membership' (re gurstein's mail) in operation. snip > In contrast, the ability to work well with other stakeholders, what seems so easily fair to you, is perhaps just your ideology in operation It would be useful for you to reflect on how much this ideology played a role in your being selected for the High Level Panel process as an “expert” advisor, while Milton Muller (who is known to speak his mind without worrying about 'being nice') was actually one of the CS nominees to the High Level Panel. (this may seem below the belt, request you to reflect on it in a non-personal manner) regards Guru -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nnenna75 at gmail.com Wed Dec 25 00:53:26 2013 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2013 05:53:26 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Save the Date: RightsCon Silicon Valley March 3rd-5th, 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <75F7922F-063B-453D-86DB-7A0C0D8B39CF@ciroap.org> Message-ID: There will be Web We Want presence in most, if not all of the above. So count us in BTW, Merry Xmas N On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 7:12 PM, Carolina wrote: > Jeremy, > Count me in for the preparatory event and to help organize it. With whom > are you talking to at IDEC? Veridiana? > I can also find free spaces to host our meeting in São Paulo. > Carol > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Dec 14, 2013, at 1:36 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > To follow up on Brett's message, just to let everyone know that we > a placeholder "Best Bits" session has been submitted for RightsCon, though > the original idea of using it to finalise inputs for the Brazil meeting > won't work out - because the deadline for those inputs is slightly too > soon. So, we need to find another theme for the meeting. Since many of > the US groups at RightsCon will be new to the international Internet > governance debates (except for maybe ICANN and WCIT), a couple of us > considered that it might be worthwhile to structure a session around more > closely integrating US based civil society into our community (which was > one of my original aims for Best Bits). > > Anyway, who is interested in sharing ideas (either these or other ideas) > and developing the session further? Deborah has offered to manage a > workflow for the session, if we are all happy for her to do that. What do > you all think? > > Also, separately to RightsCon, I should flag early that I have the > opportunity to arrange a Best Bits pre-meeting in Sāo Paulo immediately > prior to the Brazil meeting, which would be hosted by IDEC, the largest > Brazilian consumer group. Of course at this stage, we don't know who will > be attending the Brazil meeting, so plans are at an early stage. But if > anyone is interested in hearing or discussing more about that, you can also > get in touch (perhaps off-list for now, until plans and funding are firmer). > > On 6 Dec 2013, at 11:40 pm, Brett Solomon wrote: > > Dear friends, > > As you may know, RightsCon Silicon Valley is > taking place March 3-5 in San Francisco at Mission Bay Conference Center. > This is an opportunity for different communities to come together - global > activists, companies, thinkers, investors, engineers and government > officials - to discuss the tensions and opportunities at the intersection > of human rights and the internet. > > RightsCon Silicon Valley has a particular focus on technology companies > and aims to create a space for multistakeholder dialogue on human rights > best practices and learnings in the context of the private sector. The > event also takes place 7 weeks before the Brazil meeting and as I mentioned > could be used as a venue to discuss strategy and plans for April. > > The program is open to submissions, and we're looking to a range of > networks, including the Bestbits community to help shape the agenda. Here > is the link to propose a session. > > > The deadline for submission is December 20th. If you have questions, check > out the website at rightscon.org, or email Rian > Wanstreet at rian at accessnow.org, or we can chat more on this list. > > For those of you who have participated in RightsCon in the past, we look > forward to seeing you again. > > Enjoy your weekends! > > Brett > > *Speakers to date include: *Rebecca MacKinnon (Ranking Digital Rights); > Alaa Abd El Fattah (one of Egypt's most respected activists and software > engineers (currently detained)); Jim Cowie (CTO, Renesys); John Donahoe > (President & CEO, eBay); Moez Chakchouk (Founder of Tunisia's IXP and > 404Labs); Brad Burnham (Union Square Ventures); Colin Crowell (Head of > Global Public Policy, Twitter); Michael Posner (NYU Professor of Business > and Society); Eileen Donahoe (former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Human > Rights Council); Jillian York (Director for International Freedom of > Expression, EFF); ; Richard Stallman (Founder GNU Project and Free Software > Foundation); David Gorodyansky (CEO & Founder, AnchorFree); Mitchell Baker > (Chairperson, Mozilla Corporation) and many more. > > > Brett Solomon > Executive Director | Access > accessnow.org > +1 917 969 6077 | skype: brettsolomon | @accessnow > Key ID: 0x312B641A > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > -- > > > > *Dr Jeremy MalcolmSenior Policy OfficerConsumers International | the > global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub > |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake at gmail.com Wed Dec 25 08:17:38 2013 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2013 14:17:38 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: <52BA6175.5090203@ITforChange.net> References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> <52B809B3.4060500@ciroap.org> <52B84583.3010500@acm.org> <52B8472B.1050307@wzb.eu> <52B84E9C.9030304@ITforChange.net> <52BA6175.5090203@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <778DDE17-ABAE-4280-AD4F-00CCEC99354C@gmail.com> On Dec 25, 2013, at 5:39 AM, Guru गुरु wrote: > Bill > > On 12/24/2013 07:58 PM, William Drake wrote: >> Hi >> >> On Dec 23, 2013, at 3:54 PM, Guru गुरु wrote: >> > snip >> >> One logic could be that many people who believe their views to be consistent with advancing the interests of the underrepresented/marginalized would have opposing positions on how to do that. So how then does one select on this criteria, other than based on the views of the selectors, who’s the most aggressive and persistent, etc? >> >> Neither Jeanette, Avri or I are saying CS shouldn’t be concerned about ensuring representation of underrepresented/marginalized views/groups, but rather that this is a hard criteria to apply in a fair and neutral manner in a nomination process. > > its problematic to believe some criteria though important, are difficult to apply and can be avoided - (be aware) this is ideology of 'club membership' (re gurstein's mail) in operation. What a surprise to to hear that your ideology thinks it knows all about my ideology and can explain my every utterance based on its preferred willful misconstruction thereof. > > snip >> In contrast, the ability to work well with other stakeholders, > > what seems so easily fair to you, is perhaps just your ideology in operation Or at least your ideology’s misconstruction of my ideology. My, what a productive conversation. > > It would be useful for you to reflect on how much this ideology played a role in your being selected for the High Level Panel process as an “expert” advisor, while Milton Muller (who is known to speak his mind without worrying about 'being nice') was actually one of the CS nominees to the High Level Panel. > > (this may seem below the belt, request you to reflect on it in a non-personal manner) No, it is entirely what I would expect of what you and what Parminder would call “your ilk”—a pathetic attempt at misrepresentation of readily knowable facts in order to score cheap political points. In any event, this enlightening exchange underscored the concerns Avri raised your criteria's likely abuse in the service of a narrow ideology and the value of considering representatives who are inclined to interact with others in a civil and professional manner. Cheers Bill > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ******************************************************************* William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org ******************************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Guru at ITforChange.net Mon Dec 2 01:22:36 2013 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 11:52:36 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Proposal on Best Bits governance In-Reply-To: <529C240E.7090704@ciroap.org> References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org> <528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net> <00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org> <528C72F0.1090703@itforchange.net> <795A5EE4-EAA1-4858-9F9A-CE652E85BF12@ciroap.org> <528C7AC8.7000203@itforchange.net> <528F2A38.4040905@apc.org> <529C01C8.1010008@ciroap.org> <070b01ceef1d$b53e1d80$1fba5880$@gmail.com> <529C240E.7090704@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <529C272C.2060701@ITforChange.net> Dear Jeremy Wrt your "I don't think ....... the priorities that it reflects are appropriate at this point in time" argument which you have mentioned more than once (that even if process transparency is required, now is not the time for it, given substantive imperatives), I had replied in an earlier mail that process credibility issues can seriously undermine any substantive contributions... will resend that mail now. regards, Guru On 12/02/2013 11:39 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 02/12/13 13:16, michael gurstein wrote: >> >> For the third time I am indicating that I do not accept this proposal >> and I would ask that my counter-proposal also be considered and/or >> reasons given for it not being “endorsed” by the “interim” Steering >> Committee. >> > > It's not for us to endorse it or otherwise, it's for all the > participants. But I don't think that your proposal is realistic, that > the priorities that it reflects are appropriate at this point in time, > or that it is consistent withi the acceptance of the interim steering > committee that was endorsed by those present at the meeting in Bali. > But happy to hear what others think about it. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge > hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeanette at wzb.eu Wed Dec 25 08:28:35 2013 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2013 14:28:35 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: <778DDE17-ABAE-4280-AD4F-00CCEC99354C@gmail.com> References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> <52B809B3.4060500@ciroap.org> <52B84583.3010500@acm.org> <52B8472B.1050307@wzb.eu> <52B84E9C.9030304@ITforChange.net> <52BA6175.5090203@ITforChange.net> <778DDE17-ABAE-4280-AD4F-00CCEC99354C@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52BADD83.90507@wzb.eu> Such debates about principles have never been helpful in this environment. Without reference to specific cases or concrete rules they appear hollow and create irritation. I wish we could agree to discuss the issues and positions we want to see represented on any of those committees and pick the people who are able to present them well. jeanette Am 25.12.13 14:17, schrieb William Drake: > > On Dec 25, 2013, at 5:39 AM, Guru गुरु > wrote: > >> Bill >> >> On 12/24/2013 07:58 PM, William Drake wrote: >>> Hi >>> >>> On Dec 23, 2013, at 3:54 PM, Guru गुरु >> > wrote: >>> >> snip >>> >>> One logic could be that many people who believe their views to be >>> consistent with advancing the interests of >>> the underrepresented/marginalized would have opposing positions on >>> how to do that. So how then does one select on this criteria, other >>> than based on the views of the selectors, who’s the most aggressive >>> and persistent, etc? >>> >>> Neither Jeanette, Avri or I are saying CS shouldn’t be concerned >>> about ensuring representation of underrepresented/marginalized >>> views/groups, but rather that this is a hard criteria to apply in a >>> fair and neutral manner in a nomination process. >> >> its problematic to believe some criteria though important, are >> difficult to apply and can be avoided - (be aware) this is ideology of >> 'club membership' (re gurstein's mail) in operation. > > What a surprise to to hear that your ideology thinks it knows all about > my ideology and can explain my every utterance based on its preferred > willful misconstruction thereof. >> >> snip >>> In contrast, the ability to work well with other stakeholders, >> >> what seems so easily fair to you, is perhaps just your ideology in >> operation > > Or at least your ideology’s misconstruction of my ideology. > > My, what a productive conversation. >> >> It would be useful for you to reflect on how much this ideology played >> a role in your being selected for the High Level Panel process as an >> “expert” advisor, while Milton Muller (who is known to speak his mind >> without worrying about 'being nice') was actually one of the CS >> nominees to the High Level Panel. >> >> (this may seem below the belt, request you to reflect on it in a >> non-personal manner) > > No, it is entirely what I would expect of what you and what Parminder > would call “your ilk”—a pathetic attempt at misrepresentation of readily > knowable facts in order to score cheap political points. > > In any event, this enlightening exchange underscored the concerns Avri > raised your criteria's likely abuse in the service of a narrow ideology > and the value of considering representatives who are inclined to > interact with others in a civil and professional manner. > > Cheers > > Bill >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ******************************************************************* > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), > wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), > www.williamdrake.org > ******************************************************************** > From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Dec 25 08:32:14 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2013 22:32:14 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: <003001cf011e$2311a7c0$6934f740$@gmail.com> References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> <52B809B3.4060500@ciroap.org> <52B84583.3010500@acm.org> <52B858E4.9090902@ITforChange.net> <52B85DEF.9060807@acm.org> <52B97CEB.50806@acm.org> <003001cf011e$2311a7c0$6934f740$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Michael, On Dec 25, 2013, at 12:05 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > I must admit that I find the criteria being bandied about here re: selection for CS representation to be quite bizarre… (sorry I’m not exactly sure where this particular list came from but it has been bandied about by the various CS honchos in one form or another over the last few days… > Snip > Since we are tossing around criteria how about a few more that might actually have a substantive impact on the effectiveness of CS in representing CS interests… > > 1. No participation in CS representation by individuals who have been part of government delegations for the last five years Excluding can be problematic unless very targeted. Civil society experts often join government delegations, whether ITU or regional organizations on ICT, development, human rights, trade, etc. I don't know what impact you hope to achieve, but suspect if adopted some of our best would excluded. Adam > 2. No participation in CS except by those who actually have some experience in the areas in which they are pontificating/err pronouncing.. I.e. if they are talking about “development” we should expect that “our” representatives have actually gotten their boots dirty in actual development and not just high level maundering around the issues… > 3. No participation from those who only represent themselves (NGO’s or whatever of 1) and have no evident links to larger CS (or other) networks beyond the immediate cadre of their IG CS friends and allies. > > The criteria that you folks have been prattling on about, point to the fundamental flaw in IG CS which is that the way you are approaching it, the only thing apart from lunch which can be agreed upon and thus meet your criteria are process issues. No substance, no content, no real policy… just process… > > So CS becomes completely pre-occupied with discussing (its own) positioning and processes in the larger IG area. The real issues of policy/governance are never addressed because they don’t (can’t possibly) “represent civil society as a whole”. Rather real policy/governance issues have owners and interests and represent the potential (and in many cases the reality) of real conflict—that’s what “interests” are about… Policy is about specific groups within (civil) society with specific interests, needs and concerns and articulating and representing these in the context of our engagement—just like the corporate folks of course, who also have specific interest, needs and concerns and are, dare I say, rather less bashful about promoting them. > > FWIW, the Community Informatics Declaration was circulated to an e-list of top (US) telecom and ICT policy wonks (not by me) and in three days it has generated 50+ substantive contributions responding in one way or another to the CI text. Many critical, many supportive but all substantive and very high level and as a whole making a (potentially) very serious contribution to Internet Governance/Policy and justifying if anything could, the true value and significance (and ultimately contribution) that CS can make to these discussions. The discussion here, among our “CS” colleagues on this document… zip… > > M > > From nb at bollow.ch Wed Dec 25 11:23:54 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2013 17:23:54 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: <52BADD83.90507@wzb.eu> References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> <52B809B3.4060500@ciroap.org> <52B84583.3010500@acm.org> <52B8472B.1050307@wzb.eu> <52B84E9C.9030304@ITforChange.net> <52BA6175.5090203@ITforChange.net> <778DDE17-ABAE-4280-AD4F-00CCEC99354C@gmail.com> <52BADD83.90507@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <20131225172354.115591ee@quill> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > I wish we could agree to discuss the issues and positions we want to > see represented on any of those committees and pick the people who > are able to present them well. Big +1. I strongly support this approach. Greetings, Norbert From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Dec 25 17:13:24 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 05:13:24 +0700 Subject: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: <52BADD83.90507@wzb.eu> References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> <52B809B3.4060500@ciroap.org> <52B84583.3010500@acm.org> <52B8472B.1050307@wzb.eu> <52B84E9C.9030304@ITforChange.net> <52BA6175.5090203@ITforChange.net> <778DDE17-ABAE-4280-AD4F-00CCEC99354C@gmail.com> <52BADD83.90507@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <012f01cf01be$8cedea50$a6c9bef0$@gmail.com> The problem Jeanette is that the "principles" that you and others seem to want to present/discuss are at such a high level of generality ("they need to represent all of CS") there really is almost nothing to discuss... (BTW, the discussion pro/con/deepening of analysis of the Community Informatics Declaration on the (very high level Telecom/ICT policy list--almost exclusively US and EU) has now reached 70 substantive items and counting (in two days, over Christmas!). M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2013 8:29 PM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees Such debates about principles have never been helpful in this environment. Without reference to specific cases or concrete rules they appear hollow and create irritation. I wish we could agree to discuss the issues and positions we want to see represented on any of those committees and pick the people who are able to present them well. jeanette Am 25.12.13 14:17, schrieb William Drake: > > On Dec 25, 2013, at 5:39 AM, Guru गुरु > wrote: > >> Bill >> >> On 12/24/2013 07:58 PM, William Drake wrote: >>> Hi >>> >>> On Dec 23, 2013, at 3:54 PM, Guru गुरु >> > wrote: >>> >> snip >>> >>> One logic could be that many people who believe their views to be >>> consistent with advancing the interests of the >>> underrepresented/marginalized would have opposing positions on how >>> to do that. So how then does one select on this criteria, other >>> than based on the views of the selectors, who’s the most aggressive >>> and persistent, etc? >>> >>> Neither Jeanette, Avri or I are saying CS shouldn’t be concerned >>> about ensuring representation of underrepresented/marginalized >>> views/groups, but rather that this is a hard criteria to apply in a >>> fair and neutral manner in a nomination process. >> >> its problematic to believe some criteria though important, are >> difficult to apply and can be avoided - (be aware) this is ideology >> of 'club membership' (re gurstein's mail) in operation. > > What a surprise to to hear that your ideology thinks it knows all > about my ideology and can explain my every utterance based on its > preferred willful misconstruction thereof. >> >> snip >>> In contrast, the ability to work well with other stakeholders, >> >> what seems so easily fair to you, is perhaps just your ideology in >> operation > > Or at least your ideology’s misconstruction of my ideology. > > My, what a productive conversation. >> >> It would be useful for you to reflect on how much this ideology >> played a role in your being selected for the High Level Panel process >> as an “expert” advisor, while Milton Muller (who is known to speak >> his mind without worrying about 'being nice') was actually one of the >> CS nominees to the High Level Panel. >> >> (this may seem below the belt, request you to reflect on it in a >> non-personal manner) > > No, it is entirely what I would expect of what you and what Parminder > would call “your ilk”—a pathetic attempt at misrepresentation of > readily knowable facts in order to score cheap political points. > > In any event, this enlightening exchange underscored the concerns Avri > raised your criteria's likely abuse in the service of a narrow > ideology and the value of considering representatives who are inclined > to interact with others in a civil and professional manner. > > Cheers > > Bill >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ******************************************************************* > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch > (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com > (lists), www.williamdrake.org > > ******************************************************************** > From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Dec 25 17:13:24 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 05:13:24 +0700 Subject: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> <52B809B3.4060500@ciroap.org> <52B84583.3010500@acm.org> <52B858E4.9090902@ITforChange.net> <52B85DEF.9060807@acm.org> <52B97CEB.50806@acm.org> <003001cf011e$2311a7c0$6934f740$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <013001cf01be$8e603f00$ab20bd00$@gmail.com> Adam: I don't know what impact you hope to achieve, but suspect if adopted some of our best would excluded. Ah, but isn't that precisely what the current criteria are meant to achieve... Adam: Civil society experts often join government delegations, whether ITU or regional organizations on ICT, development, human rights, trade, etc. And at least this one would help ensure that the quite tangible risk of covert action in support of the position of one government or another would be in part ameliorated or at least the perception of that possibility. Surely that would strengthen the position of CS overall although perhaps causing some mild perturbations in the current narrow ranks of those with an active CS IG involvement. I would have thought that we i.e. CS should be pursuing the broadest possible involvement of CS in IG activities given the overall significance of IG for the future of the Internet etc. and ensuring that we came into the IG space with overtly "clean hands" would I would think be a plus for many potential allies. M -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2013 8:32 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees Hi Michael, On Dec 25, 2013, at 12:05 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > I must admit that I find the criteria being bandied about here re: selection for CS representation to be quite bizarre. (sorry I'm not exactly sure where this particular list came from but it has been bandied about by the various CS honchos in one form or another over the last few days. > Snip > Since we are tossing around criteria how about a few more that might actually have a substantive impact on the effectiveness of CS in representing CS interests. > > 1. No participation in CS representation by individuals who have been part of government delegations for the last five years Excluding can be problematic unless very targeted. Civil society experts often join government delegations, whether ITU or regional organizations on ICT, development, human rights, trade, etc. I don't know what impact you hope to achieve, but suspect if adopted some of our best would excluded. Adam > 2. No participation in CS except by those who actually have some experience in the areas in which they are pontificating/err pronouncing.. I.e. if they are talking about "development" we should expect that "our" representatives have actually gotten their boots dirty in actual development and not just high level maundering around the issues. > 3. No participation from those who only represent themselves (NGO's or whatever of 1) and have no evident links to larger CS (or other) networks beyond the immediate cadre of their IG CS friends and allies. > > The criteria that you folks have been prattling on about, point to the fundamental flaw in IG CS which is that the way you are approaching it, the only thing apart from lunch which can be agreed upon and thus meet your criteria are process issues. No substance, no content, no real policy. just process. > > So CS becomes completely pre-occupied with discussing (its own) positioning and processes in the larger IG area. The real issues of policy/governance are never addressed because they don't (can't possibly) "represent civil society as a whole". Rather real policy/governance issues have owners and interests and represent the potential (and in many cases the reality) of real conflict-that's what "interests" are about. Policy is about specific groups within (civil) society with specific interests, needs and concerns and articulating and representing these in the context of our engagement-just like the corporate folks of course, who also have specific interest, needs and concerns and are, dare I say, rather less bashful about promoting them. > > FWIW, the Community Informatics Declaration was circulated to an e-list of top (US) telecom and ICT policy wonks (not by me) and in three days it has generated 50+ substantive contributions responding in one way or another to the CI text. Many critical, many supportive but all substantive and very high level and as a whole making a (potentially) very serious contribution to Internet Governance/Policy and justifying if anything could, the true value and significance (and ultimately contribution) that CS can make to these discussions. The discussion here, among our "CS" colleagues on this document. zip. > > M > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Dec 25 19:44:40 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 07:44:40 +0700 Subject: [bestbits] FW: [IP] Edward Snowden's Christmas Message 2013 In-Reply-To: References: <2A2803B2-C47C-46B9-B42F-433BC3F0B796@warpspeed.com> Message-ID: <018101cf01d3$abc7f7d0$0357e770$@gmail.com> --------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dewayne Hendricks Date: Wednesday, December 25, 2013 Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Edward Snowden's Christmas Message 2013 To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net Here's a link for the Snowden video that should stay up a while and doesn't require you to open up your browser for cookies: Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: Archives | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Wed Dec 25 20:41:11 2013 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2013 23:41:11 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] Save the Date: RightsCon Silicon Valley March 3rd-5th, 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <75F7922F-063B-453D-86DB-7A0C0D8B39CF@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Hello all, this will certainly be a great session. I will definitely connect remotely, if I am not in SF. I would just like to make a suggestion. I agree with Jeremy that the session could be a moment to discuss and plan CS participation in the meeting in Brazil. But I also feel that there is a valuable opportunity to foster more understanding among US-based CS and global CS, and to make the concerns of actors in the developing world regarding the IG regime better understood. For example, the way that several US non-gov campaigns get framed as "hands off the Internet" or against a supposed UN power grab always made me feel a bit uncomfortable. Although this ideas are easy to communicate to broader audience, I believe that, particularly during WCIT, they caused misunderstanding by mixing up the positions countries like Russia and Brazil, which have been historically different, and by demonizing the UN and non-multistakeholder spaces as a whole. Since WCIT is one of the major references to US organizations, as Jeremy mentioned, maybe the scope of the session could be a bit broader in order to discuss what were the problems and disfunctionalities in the regime that pushed many actors (CS, iStars) to support change, in other words, to mention the underlying reasons that led to Brazil. Problems have been pointed out before Snowden. When setting the background of the RightsCon session, it would be important to show that the meeting in Brazil may have been triggered by mass surveillance, but the issue goes beyond it and precedes it. Marília On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Deborah Brown wrote: > Yes, I think that's a great idea. Perhaps what makes the most sense is to > use the session for those in the network who are planning to develop ideas > and submissions for Brazil and have discussions on the concrete proposals > with the wider community. We can also make available some space for a side > meeting/strategy session if there is interest. For both options, we would > make sure that remote participation is available. Interested in hearing > others' ideas as well. Please feel free to contact me on or off list if > you're interested in discussing this further. > > Kind regards, > Deborah > > > On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Puddephatt > wrote: > >> Could we host a session focused on IG given that by then we should have >> put together some ideas of our own for Brazil? >> >> From: Jeremy Malcolm >> Date: Saturday, 14 December 2013 06:36 >> To: "" >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Save the Date: RightsCon Silicon Valley March >> 3rd-5th, 2014 >> >> To follow up on Brett's message, just to let everyone know that we >> a placeholder "Best Bits" session has been submitted for RightsCon, though >> the original idea of using it to finalise inputs for the Brazil meeting >> won't work out - because the deadline for those inputs is slightly too >> soon. So, we need to find another theme for the meeting. Since many of >> the US groups at RightsCon will be new to the international Internet >> governance debates (except for maybe ICANN and WCIT), a couple of us >> considered that it might be worthwhile to structure a session around more >> closely integrating US based civil society into our community (which was >> one of my original aims for Best Bits). >> >> Anyway, who is interested in sharing ideas (either these or other ideas) >> and developing the session further? Deborah has offered to manage a >> workflow for the session, if we are all happy for her to do that. What do >> you all think? >> >> Also, separately to RightsCon, I should flag early that I have the >> opportunity to arrange a Best Bits pre-meeting in S?o Paulo immediately >> prior to the Brazil meeting, which would be hosted by IDEC, the largest >> Brazilian consumer group. Of course at this stage, we don't know who will >> be attending the Brazil meeting, so plans are at an early stage. But if >> anyone is interested in hearing or discussing more about that, you can also >> get in touch (perhaps off-list for now, until plans and funding are firmer). >> >> On 6 Dec 2013, at 11:40 pm, Brett Solomon wrote: >> >> Dear friends, >> >> As you may know, RightsCon Silicon Valley is >> taking place March 3-5 in San Francisco at Mission Bay Conference Center. >> This is an opportunity for different communities to come together - global >> activists, companies, thinkers, investors, engineers and government >> officials - to discuss the tensions and opportunities at the intersection >> of human rights and the internet. >> >> RightsCon Silicon Valley has a particular focus on technology companies >> and aims to create a space for multistakeholder dialogue on human rights >> best practices and learnings in the context of the private sector. The >> event also takes place 7 weeks before the Brazil meeting and as I mentioned >> could be used as a venue to discuss strategy and plans for April. >> >> The program is open to submissions, and we're looking to a range of >> networks, including the Bestbits community to help shape the agenda. Here >> is the link to propose a session. >> >> >> The deadline for submission is December 20th. If you have questions, >> check out the website at rightscon.org, or email >> Rian Wanstreet at rian at accessnow.org, or we can chat more on this list. >> >> For those of you who have participated in RightsCon in the past, we look >> forward to seeing you again. >> >> Enjoy your weekends! >> >> Brett >> >> *Speakers to date include: *Rebecca MacKinnon (Ranking Digital Rights); >> Alaa Abd El Fattah (one of Egypt's most respected activists and software >> engineers (currently detained)); Jim Cowie (CTO, Renesys); John Donahoe >> (President & CEO, eBay); Moez Chakchouk (Founder of Tunisia's IXP and >> 404Labs); Brad Burnham (Union Square Ventures); Colin Crowell (Head of >> Global Public Policy, Twitter); Michael Posner (NYU Professor of Business >> and Society); Eileen Donahoe (former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Human >> Rights Council); Jillian York (Director for International Freedom of >> Expression, EFF); ; Richard Stallman (Founder GNU Project and Free Software >> Foundation); David Gorodyansky (CEO & Founder, AnchorFree); Mitchell Baker >> (Chairperson, Mozilla Corporation) and many more. >> >> >> Brett Solomon >> Executive Director | Access >> accessnow.org >> +1 917 969 6077 | skype: brettsolomon | @accessnow >> Key ID: 0x312B641A >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> *Dr Jeremy MalcolmSenior Policy OfficerConsumers International | the >> global campaigning voice for consumers* >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >> Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge >> hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. >> Don't print this email unless necessary. >> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly >> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For >> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > Deborah Brown > Senior Policy Analyst > Access | accessnow.org > rightscon.org > > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Dec 25 22:28:14 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 10:28:14 +0700 Subject: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: <778DDE17-ABAE-4280-AD4F-00CCEC99354C@gmail.com> References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> <52B809B3.4060500@ciroap.org> <52B84583.3010500@acm.org> <52B8472B.1050307@wzb.eu> <52B84E9C.9030304@ITforChange.net> <52BA6175.5090203@ITforChange.net> <778DDE17-ABAE-4280-AD4F-00CCEC99354C@gmail.com> Message-ID: <020d01cf01ea$86e2cfa0$94a86ee0$@gmail.com> Bill From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2013 8:18 PM To: Guru गुरु Cc: Best Bits Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees Snip… One logic could be that many people who believe their views to be consistent with advancing the interests of the underrepresented/marginalized would have opposing positions on how to do that. So how then does one select on this criteria, other than based on the views of the selectors, who’s the most aggressive and persistent, etc? [MG>] this of course could be said of any possible criteria… but one way of proceeding would be to examine whether those making the claim had any bonifides in the area… Neither Jeanette, Avri or I are saying CS shouldn’t be concerned about ensuring representation of underrepresented/marginalized views/groups, but rather that this is a hard criteria to apply in a fair and neutral manner in a nomination process. [MG>] as above… how on earth are you going to apply your “kindergarten” “niceness” criteria apart from getting together with your mates and passing around gossip, as an example… And of course, this is silliness… The CI network is not claiming to be exclusive in this area or any other area but it is claiming to have real expertise and experience and a real network behind it and is challenging any of the other “contestants” here to demonstrate anything similar… The real question is whether these voices should be heard and you and your mates’ are making the assertion that they should not, for a bunch of truly specious reasons/arguments… The issue isn’t select but be inclusive, transparent etc.etc. all the things that the WSIS Declaration called for and that is currently being denied. its problematic to believe some criteria though important, are difficult to apply and can be avoided - (be aware) this is ideology of 'club membership' (re gurstein's mail) in operation. [MG>] huh? BTW, since you folks could pull your criteria out of the air and have them suddenly and without discussion or consultation appear as defining criteria for CS participation what about my 3 criteria (or for that matter and of an endless stream of even more highly individual focused criteria meant to narrow the discussion and hand pick the participants… “All of those not born on odd numbered Tuesdays will by definition and fiat of the Central Committee no longer be recognized as Civil Society… M Cheers Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ******************************************************************* William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org ******************************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Thu Dec 26 03:33:49 2013 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 09:33:49 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: <020d01cf01ea$86e2cfa0$94a86ee0$@gmail.com> References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> <52B809B3.4060500@ciroap.org> <52B84583.3010500@acm.org> <52B8472B.1050307@wzb.eu> <52B84E9C.9030304@ITforChange.net> <52BA6175.5090203@ITforChange.net> <778DDE17-ABAE-4280-AD4F-00CCEC99354C@gmail.com> <020d01cf01ea$86e2cfa0$94a86ee0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <263EEA95-C3C6-4DA4-A4AB-37CF99437E6B@theglobaljournal.net> Cannot but agree with you Michael. On the one hand we have people (ISOC propagandista et al) who fight to counter any ambition to look for single definition, single focus, progress, inclusion, or convergence - to keep the 'statUS-quo' in place?- and we have these professional blablaters such as these nice guys at Club Med holiday-camps who make sure that full opinions, diversity of views, and other alternative thinking, never reach a point of clarity. I am afraid that this is exactly what has prevented the IGF fora at large to come up with Internet governance concrete progress. What have they achieved these nice-guys, apart from being gratified as member of ICANN board, conference keynote speaker abusing the mic, or being paid for as expert-of-the-day at ICANN HLP and so forth? We know that ICANN and I* fauna are now playing Brazil down. A one-shot conference, should they really care about it? Brazil has difficulty with getting other governments to participate their conference. Has Brazil been trap in the same self-proclaimed attitude as of the many members of the IG priesthood? The best I* bet would be that the Sao Paulo conference to turn into a domestic exercise to protect Brazilian digital space (no great wall anyway). In the meantime, they keep flooding us with fluffy criteria and other let's-lose-our-time blabla. I am rude, and I regret it. But it is even more a pity to see all that permanent non-sense. 2014 should be the year for a big change. For a fair debate and concrete results. And a full stop to that long lasting masquerade. JC Le 26 déc. 2013 à 04:28, michael gurstein a écrit : > Bill > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of William Drake > Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2013 8:18 PM > To: Guru गुरु > Cc: Best Bits > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees > > Snip… > > One logic could be that many people who believe their views to be consistent with advancing the interests of the underrepresented/marginalized would have opposing positions on how to do that. So how then does one select on this criteria, other than based on the views of the selectors, who’s the most aggressive and persistent, etc? > [MG>] this of course could be said of any possible criteria… but one way of proceeding would be to examine whether those making the claim had any bonifides in the area… > > > Neither Jeanette, Avri or I are saying CS shouldn’t be concerned about ensuring representation of underrepresented/marginalized views/groups, but rather that this is a hard criteria to apply in a fair and neutral manner in a nomination process. > [MG>] as above… how on earth are you going to apply your “kindergarten” “niceness” criteria apart from getting together with your mates and passing around gossip, as an example… And of course, this is silliness… The CI network is not claiming to be exclusive in this area or any other area but it is claiming to have real expertise and experience and a real network behind it and is challenging any of the other “contestants” here to demonstrate anything similar… The real question is whether these voices should be heard and you and your mates’ are making the assertion that they should not, for a bunch of truly specious reasons/arguments… The issue isn’t select but be inclusive, transparent etc.etc. all the things that the WSIS Declaration called for and that is currently being denied. > > its problematic to believe some criteria though important, are difficult to apply and can be avoided - (be aware) this is ideology of 'club membership' (re gurstein's mail) in operation. > [MG>] huh? > > BTW, since you folks could pull your criteria out of the air and have them suddenly and without discussion or consultation appear as defining criteria for CS participation what about my 3 criteria (or for that matter and of an endless stream of even more highly individual focused criteria meant to narrow the discussion and hand pick the participants… “All of those not born on odd numbered Tuesdays will by definition and fiat of the Central Committee no longer be recognized as Civil Society… > > M > > Cheers > > Bill > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ******************************************************************* > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), > www.williamdrake.org > ******************************************************************** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Dec 26 06:39:49 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 18:39:49 +0700 Subject: [bestbits] RE: civil society coordination group membership In-Reply-To: <06E220B8731542FEBAEC803711862F8A@Toshiba> References: <06E220B8731542FEBAEC803711862F8A@Toshiba> Message-ID: <015901cf022f$344f1470$9ced3d50$@gmail.com> Thanks for getting back Ian, and I wanted to consult with some CI colleagues before I replied. And of course, no one would expect these kinds of decisions to be made without “due consideration”. However, since I’ve been making this or similar requests in one form or another actively for at least the last month and more passively for the last ten years, the issue of additional time and “due consideration” seems to have other motivations as its background. I of course, look forward to the outcome of your processes when they have been completed; however, since we and others all know that time is of the essence here if an effective contribution is to be made to the Brazil event, the CI community will be launching a nominating process for those slots identified for CS representation, which we will of course, forward to and through the appropriate parties as they are identified. Once having done that we expect that these nominations will be given appropriate consideration as providing voice for grassroots Internet users (and non-users) including marginalized communities in Developed and Developing Countries, Indigenous peoples, older person, people with disabilities among others all as framed by the Community Informatics Declaration which of course, you and others are encouraged to endorse alongside individuals and organizations from a wide variety of communities globally. Mike From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: Monday, December 23, 2013 4:13 PM To: Michael Gurstein Subject: civil society coordination group membership Dear Michael, I am replying to your request to the civil society coordination group to make you a member of the group, representing Community Informatics. You have suggested that no reply from us affirming you as a member in a time frame of about 30 hours would be considered by you as a “no”, and that you would be informing others and taking various actions. You have also pointed out in correspondence that the “decision that you folks make will have quite serious ramifications both for yourselves, for civil society in internet governance, and perhaps even for internet governance itself” We also take this decision seriously. We do not think it is appropriate to make such a decision without due consideration, including considering a number of other organisations who would have equal and perhaps better cases to make as regards joining a co-ordination group which must be kept to a manageable size. Accordingly, and because any decisions we make here can have substantial ramifications, we have decided to delay any decisions on expansion of membership of the co ordination group until they can be considered properly. In the current circumstances of limited availability for many people, that will be after we have completed the Brazil committee nomination processes in mid January. With the holiday season and other commitments as well as the Brazil processes, we simply do not have time to do this now with the thoroughness it deserves. We understand the sincerity of your desire to have your groups viewpoints heard and considered, which prompted your actions. I can assure you that the members of the co-ordination group take their roles seriously, and are determined that their actions and the representatives appointed through this process will represent the diversity of viewpoints and perspectives held within civil society, and not just individual organisations. I will be copying this reply to the Best Bits and IGC lists so that others are also aware of this situation and our reasons for not making a decision at this stage. Sincerely, Ian Peter for Co-ordination Group - Virginia Paque (Diplo), Robin Gross (NCSG), Chat Ramilo (APC), Jeremy Malcolm (Best Bits) ; replacement member for IGC still being determined. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Guru at ITforChange.net Mon Dec 2 01:26:12 2013 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 11:56:12 +0530 Subject: Fwd: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT In-Reply-To: <528DE9DD.4040605@ITforChange.net> References: <528DE9DD.4040605@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <529C2804.7090308@ITforChange.net> Dear Jeremy, I am forwarding my earlier mail on your 'now is not the right time' argument. Guru -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 16:39:17 +0530 From: Guru गुरु To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net, Jeremy Malcolm On 11/21/2013 01:54 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 20 Nov 2013, at 10:59 pm, michael gurstein > wrote: > >> Unfortunately in the post-Snowden world “trust us” is not a >> sufficient answer—only transparency and accountability are. >> As long as the Steering Committee is self-appointed through murky >> procedures and as long as this self-appointed (Interim or no) >> Steering Committee chooses to act (and present itself to the world) >> as though it has a mandate to act on behalf of the BB grouping >> whatever that might be, there will necessarily and quite reasonably >> be a lack of trust and questions as to legitimacy. > > Actually the only such questions are coming from within; we are > undermining ourselves, and to my mind unnecessarily so. Jeremy, when questions regarding trust/credibility come from within, even more reason to address it. Do you want to wait till outsiders (who are perhaps relatively ignorant of the black box nature of the steering committee working) raise this issue and sink BB credibility completely? > Snowden did not tar civil society with the same brush as the NSA. We > have presented an interim procedure for democratising the steering > committee in Bali, which remains open for discussion and will be > implemented soon once finalised, but to rush its finalisation now at a > time when leadership is required would be pointless and would simply > remove us from some very important processes that are rolling along > with or without us. you are making an assumption that this is binary - either we engage with substantive issues or focus on process. Is is really possible to separate the two so easily... What if BB's valuable contributions are seen as tainted by 'murky' process later and hence not given their due? regards, Guru -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From Guru at ITforChange.net Thu Dec 26 10:00:09 2013 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 20:30:09 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: <778DDE17-ABAE-4280-AD4F-00CCEC99354C@gmail.com> References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> <52B809B3.4060500@ciroap.org> <52B84583.3010500@acm.org> <52B8472B.1050307@wzb.eu> <52B84E9C.9030304@ITforChange.net> <52BA6175.5090203@ITforChange.net> <778DDE17-ABAE-4280-AD4F-00CCEC99354C@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52BC4479.1080704@ITforChange.net> On 12/25/2013 06:47 PM, William Drake wrote: > > On Dec 25, 2013, at 5:39 AM, Guru गुरु > wrote: > snip >> It would be useful for you to reflect on how much this ideology >> played a role in your being selected for the High Level Panel process >> as an “expert” advisor, while Milton Muller (who is known to speak >> his mind without worrying about 'being nice') was actually one of the >> CS nominees to the High Level Panel. >> >> (this may seem below the belt, request you to reflect on it in a >> non-personal manner) > > No, it is entirely what I would expect of what you and what Parminder > would call “your ilk”—a pathetic attempt at misrepresentation of > readily knowable facts in order to score cheap political points. > The readily knowable / public facts are - in response to a request, IGC nominated two people and you did not figure in that list. What is the 'expertise' for which you were selected, which the people nominated could not have provided? Quite a few people on this list raised this uncomfortable issue. Abuse is no substitute for argument and your language suggests you have none. > In any event, this enlightening exchange underscored the concerns Avri > raised your criteria's likely abuse in the service of a narrow > ideology and the value of considering representatives who are inclined > to interact with others in a civil and professional manner. To use Avri's phrase of a 'tent view', we all agree the current tent itself under-represents many views. Instead of expanding that view, you are proposing using the 'narrow ideology' of club membership to further exclude those who ask uncomfortable questions. This can be a setback to CS and denies its important role of accountability seeking, which has become even more important in the post Snowden scenario. Guru. > > Cheers > > Bill >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ******************************************************************* > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), > wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), > www.williamdrake.org > ******************************************************************** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Thu Dec 26 11:32:07 2013 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 17:32:07 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: <52BC4479.1080704@ITforChange.net> References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> <52B809B3.4060500@ciroap.org> <52B84583.3010500@acm.org> <52B8472B.1050307@wzb.eu> <52B84E9C.9030304@ITforChange.net> <52BA6175.5090203@ITforChange.net> <778DDE17-ABAE-4280-AD4F-00CCEC99354C@gmail.com> <52BC4479.1080704@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <4931D112-D328-44F5-80E5-D7E668C81F25@theglobaljournal.net> Guru, I have been told that ICANN had offered to pay the experts attending the last HLP in London. Could Bill confirm this, and let us know if he accepted to be paid. In the context of a public debate, touching public policy related to IG, I would be interested to have more information on this. We might ask ICANN as well. Are the members of the HLP being paid as well? What's ICANN policy on this? It is always good to have such a nice host able to pay for your travel, accommodation and words. Another thing which sounds a bit odd to me concerns the number of available seats at the HLP. Chehadé mentioned that he would have no more room that 1 or 2. But from the report we received from London, they were quite a few people, neither participants or experts, attending. Of course, ICANN is master of the house but, again, just wondering about the way things are done. How much money is being spent on the HLP, in London? How much will cost the next Californian meeting of the HLP? Can someone tell us how much is paid a board member at ICANN? JC __________________________ Jean-Christophe Nothias Editor in Chief jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net @jc_nothias Le 26 déc. 2013 à 16:00, Guru गुरु a écrit : > On 12/25/2013 06:47 PM, William Drake wrote: >> >> On Dec 25, 2013, at 5:39 AM, Guru गुरु wrote: >> > snip >>> It would be useful for you to reflect on how much this ideology played a role in your being selected for the High Level Panel process as an “expert” advisor, while Milton Muller (who is known to speak his mind without worrying about 'being nice') was actually one of the CS nominees to the High Level Panel. >>> >>> (this may seem below the belt, request you to reflect on it in a non-personal manner) >> >> No, it is entirely what I would expect of what you and what Parminder would call “your ilk”—a pathetic attempt at misrepresentation of readily knowable facts in order to score cheap political points. >> > > The readily knowable / public facts are - in response to a request, IGC nominated two people and you did not figure in that list. What is the 'expertise' for which you were selected, which the people nominated could not have provided? Quite a few people on this list raised this uncomfortable issue. Abuse is no substitute for argument and your language suggests you have none. > >> In any event, this enlightening exchange underscored the concerns Avri raised your criteria's likely abuse in the service of a narrow ideology and the value of considering representatives who are inclined to interact with others in a civil and professional manner. > > To use Avri's phrase of a 'tent view', we all agree the current tent itself under-represents many views. Instead of expanding that view, you are proposing using the 'narrow ideology' of club membership to further exclude those who ask uncomfortable questions. > > This can be a setback to CS and denies its important role of accountability seeking, which has become even more important in the post Snowden scenario. > > Guru. > >> >> Cheers >> >> Bill >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> ******************************************************************* >> William J. Drake >> International Fellow & Lecturer >> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >> University of Zurich, Switzerland >> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, >> ICANN, www.ncuc.org >> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), >> www.williamdrake.org >> ******************************************************************** >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mctimconsulting at gmail.com Thu Dec 26 12:30:28 2013 From: mctimconsulting at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 12:30:28 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: <52BC4479.1080704@ITforChange.net> References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> <52B809B3.4060500@ciroap.org> <52B84583.3010500@acm.org> <52B8472B.1050307@wzb.eu> <52B84E9C.9030304@ITforChange.net> <52BA6175.5090203@ITforChange.net> <778DDE17-ABAE-4280-AD4F-00CCEC99354C@gmail.com> <52BC4479.1080704@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: Guru, I think you have the wrong end of the stick here, comments inline: On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Guru गुरु wrote: > > > The readily knowable / public facts are - in response to a request, IGC > nominated two people correct, but our expectation that 2 would be appointed was not based in reality. and you did not figure in that list. What is the > 'expertise' for which you were selected, which the people nominated could > not have provided? NOt that BD needs any defending, but I would say that several decades of working in the public interest on Internet and telecoms policy with specialisation on ICANN issues that many on the HLP are not conversant with seems to me to be reasonable 'expertise". Quite a few people on this list raised this uncomfortable > issue. Abuse is no substitute for argument and your language suggests you > have none. I don't see why there is any argument that he needs to raise. He was asked to play a role. That role was NOT to be on the HLP, but rather to teach those on the HLP some things so that they could be "up-to-speed". > > > In any event, this enlightening exchange underscored the concerns Avri > raised your criteria's likely abuse in the service of a narrow ideology and > the value of considering representatives who are inclined to interact with > others in a civil and professional manner. > > > To use Avri's phrase of a 'tent view', we all agree the current tent itself > under-represents many views. Instead of expanding that view, you are > proposing using the 'narrow ideology' of club membership to further exclude > those who ask uncomfortable questions. > > This can be a setback to CS and denies its important role of accountability > seeking, which has become even more important in the post Snowden scenario. I don't see why accountability is any more important now. rgds, McTim From mctimconsulting at gmail.com Thu Dec 26 12:39:05 2013 From: mctimconsulting at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 12:39:05 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: <4931D112-D328-44F5-80E5-D7E668C81F25@theglobaljournal.net> References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> <52B809B3.4060500@ciroap.org> <52B84583.3010500@acm.org> <52B8472B.1050307@wzb.eu> <52B84E9C.9030304@ITforChange.net> <52BA6175.5090203@ITforChange.net> <778DDE17-ABAE-4280-AD4F-00CCEC99354C@gmail.com> <52BC4479.1080704@ITforChange.net> <4931D112-D328-44F5-80E5-D7E668C81F25@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > Guru, > > I have been told that ICANN had offered to pay the experts attending the > last HLP in London. I would certainly hope so. When one is asked to contribute ones expertise, one usually likes to be compensated for one's time. Could Bill confirm this, and let us know if he accepted > to be paid. In the context of a public debate, touching public policy > related to IG, I would be interested to have more information on this. We > might ask ICANN as well. Are the members of the HLP being paid as well? > What's ICANN policy on this? It is always good to have such a nice host able > to pay for your travel, accommodation and words. It is to be expected really. > > Another thing which sounds a bit odd to me concerns the number of available > seats at the HLP. Chehadé mentioned that he would have no more room that 1 > or 2. But from the report we received from London, they were quite a few > people, neither participants or experts, attending. Attending, but not sitting on the Panel. One wouldn't expect that the Panel would meet in camera. Of course, ICANN is > master of the house but, again, just wondering about the way things are > done. > > How much money is being spent on the HLP, in London? How much will cost the > next Californian meeting of the HLP? Shedloads if you are talking in terms of my household budget, a pittance if you are talking in terms of the ICANN budget. I imagine it will all be available in the next annual report, but I wouldn't expect those numbers before then. > > Can someone tell us how much is paid a board member at ICANN? Google knows. Not all Board Members accept the 35k USD (I think that is the number). Until quite recently, only the Board Chair was offered a salary. Considering the time they put in, I think ICANN gets great value for their money! rgds, McTim From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Dec 26 13:09:08 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 23:39:08 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: <52B5C3A4.3070708@cafonso.ca> References: <52B5C3A4.3070708@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <52BC70C4.70808@itforchange.net> Dear Carlos. Thanks for this report.... Apparently, this meeting of the local organising group (LOG) has moved the pieces around quite a bit, and I now see the 'Brazil meeting' shaping up in a rather different manner than what it seemed to be to begin with.... Most of us saw it basically as a meeting with the Brazilians - initially the government and then the CGI.Br - as the convening 'neutral' trusted party, which would of course take along all stakeholders and so on.... But now for the first time I see the co-ownership of the meeting beginning to split almost equally between the Brazilians and the I* group. ICANN now co chairs the 'Brazil meeting' - which is the first time I hear such a thing, although I have not been following discussions in the last few weeks and may be wrong. One is not sure why this was found necessary. So, it is no longer a Brazil meeting, it is Brazil-ICANN meeting on the 'Future of ......', right?. .. (BTW what happens to the meme of equal footing! Why are some 'stakeholders' continually more equal and than the others). Even more surprising is the formal role vis a vis the representation of, or at least as the platform for, all non gov groups that is now clearly conferred on 1Net, an entity about which no one knows what it is, really - who controls it, what is it supposed to do and so on.... Civil society groups had on many occasions, including through formal representation, conveyed to the Brazilians that they are not looking forward to be represented through 1Net, or even have their communication routed through it, ..... Civil society formally made known the names of 4 liaison persons for routing communication to them.. So, while anointing 1Net as 'the' non gov platform for the 'Brazil meeting', simultaneously clear claims and requests from civil society were completely ignored. Was it put forward by anyone during the LOG meeting that such has been the civil society stand (against 1Net mediation) . And if it had indeed been put forward, what was the response of the LOG, and what justifications was provided for its decision. Civil society must be told all about it. It is not willing to be taken for granted, and play the B team to the powerful groups.... We have very high hopes from the Brazil meeting, and the best way to nurture them would be by treating civil society's decisions and requests with due respect, and so on... I simply do not yet know what 1Net is...As I have often said, I find it very useful as a cross-stakeholder groups discussion space... Some of us did not take much interest in nomination to 1Net's coordination committee because one really had no idea what it was to do.... We were told that the coordination committee would decide what 1Net would do. But now a lot seems to be decided for it already. Who is it pushing 1Net, who are such powerful players behind it that what looked like a mere discussion list gets suddenly conferred with such a powerful role. We never suspected before those nominations to its coordination committee that 1Net would become 'the' non gov stakeholders platform for the Brazil meeting, and would play such a central formal role in it.... This decision, especially the manner of taking it - is a major disappointment. It is in my opinion, a decision taken without good justification, and in disregard of common civil society positions communicated to the LOG. Hope to get more information on these issues... Best, parminder On Saturday 21 December 2013 10:06 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Hi people, > > This is my quick summary of yesterday's meeting of the local organizing > group (LOG) for the BR meeting. This summary is basically oriented to > civil society but may be useful to all stakeholders. Covers basically > the structure of the committees and includes some other useful info. > > I do hope it answers several of the many questions we are receiving. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > ================================ > > 1. Co-chairs of the BR Meeting > > This is a no-brainer: the BR Meeting will be chaired by Virgilio Almeida > (current chair of CGI.br, and member of Brazil's Ministry of Science, > Technology and Innovation), and Fadi Chehadé. > > 2. High Level Multistakeholder Committee > > The HLMC will be responsible for overseeing the political articulations > and for encouraging the participation of the international community. > > It will be composed of government representatives of 12 countries > (precise list still being established by the BR government) plus 12 > non-govs, and two representatives of UN agencies to be chosen by the > UNSG. The 12 non-govs include four of each non-gov stakeholder (civil > society, academia/techies, private sector). All of the non-gov, non-UN > stakeholders' names will be brought to the LOG by 1Net. So the HLC will > be composed of 26 people. > > The HLMC will have four co-chairs, keeping the multistakeholder balance. > One of the co-chairs will be Brazil's Minister of Communications Paulo > Bernardo. > > So civil society needs to indicate to 1Net Steering Committee four > high-level reps as soon as possible. > > 3. Executive Multistakeholder Committee > > The EMC will be responsible for organizing the event, including the > discussion and implementation of the agenda, and the selection of the > participants and the various stakeholders' proposals. The crucial part > of the preparation process resides here, in close coordination with the > Logistics Committee, so people selected for the EMC ought to make > themselves readily available for this challenge. > > The LOG has already selected the eight Brazilian members of the EMC. > There will be four co-chairs as well, and names already appointed are > Demi Getschko (CEO of NIC.br) and Raúl Echeberría (to be confirmed, CEO > of LACNIC). A representative of an international agency will be > appointed as well (by the coordinating body of the UN agencies) to > participate. > > Like the HLMC, non-gov, non-UN members of the EMC will be brought to the > LOG by 1Net. > > For the EMC civil society needs to indicate to 1Net Steering Committee > two names as soon as possible. > > 4. Logistics and Organizational Committee > > The LOC will be co-chaired by Hartmut Glaser, executive secretary of > CGI.br with proven expertise in coordinating the organization of > national and international events. Another co-chair will be indicated by > 1Net. > > 5. Government Advisory Committee > > This is in the hands of the BR government who acts as a facilitator and > coordinator. Two co-chairs will be indicated. This committee will be > open to any government who wishes to act in an advisory capacity. > > 6. Funding > > NIC.br will cover about 50% of the meeting's overall costs. The balance > will be share by international participants/sponsors. Contributions from > ICANN and ISOC are expected. > > 7. Participation > > The meeting is to be held at Hotel Transamérica, in São Paulo, fairly > close to NIC.br headquarters (see attached map). The basic distribution > of participants is envisioned approximately as: > > 450 from govs > 500-550 from non-gov, non-UN stakeholders > 100 journalists > 50 IGOs/UN reps > > Inviting participants, or receiving and approving participation > requests, is one of the tasks of the EMC. > > 8. Expected outcomes as success indicators > > - Official launching of a review process of the global IG frameworks/models; > > - Development of a set of universally acceptable core of principles for > global IG; > > - Tentative draft of a global IG model. > > My personal comment: these ambitious outcomes of course involve a lot of > preparatory process work, especially by the Executive Committee. This is > why we need to conclude the nominations asap in order to start the real > work towards the meeting. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Dec 26 13:23:04 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 23:53:04 +0530 Subject: Fwd: Re: [bestbits] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: <52BC70C4.70808@itforchange.net> References: <52BC70C4.70808@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52BC7408.8060902@itforchange.net> I would like to request the liaisons that we nominated to the Brazilian organisers to help us understand what is going on here... Did we not all agree that we do not want 1Net to mediate civil society representation or communication to the Brazilian organisers? Why and how did they decide to go completely against our request, in the matter of configuring our own manner of participation in the Brazil meeting? (BTW, I would no longer call it Brazil meeting, but Brazil-ICANN meeting, since it is jointly chaired now, and the responsibility of organising the meeting split rather equitably between them.) Did the Liaisons that we appointed protest this move or decision - I mean at least that part where it got decided that despite our clearly expressed wishes, we still are to be told that we need to go through 1Net? I am a bit surprised that 5 days after Carlos sent the notes of the organising group meeting which made such important decisions, there has been no discussion on the matter, especially on how civil society's requests have been spurned. Why are we so supinely ready to slip into a secondary role under the leadership of 1* group .... This is not only very disappointing, but also rather disturbing. parminder -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [bestbits] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 23:39:08 +0530 From: parminder To: Carlos A. Afonso CC: BestBits List , Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC , NCSG List , 1Net List , Chapter Delegates , Caucus de la Sociedad Civil LA&C Sobre la Sociedad de la Informacion , gt-brm at cgi.br Dear Carlos. Thanks for this report.... Apparently, this meeting of the local organising group (LOG) has moved the pieces around quite a bit, and I now see the 'Brazil meeting' shaping up in a rather different manner than what it seemed to be to begin with.... Most of us saw it basically as a meeting with the Brazilians - initially the government and then the CGI.Br - as the convening 'neutral' trusted party, which would of course take along all stakeholders and so on.... But now for the first time I see the co-ownership of the meeting beginning to split almost equally between the Brazilians and the I* group. ICANN now co chairs the 'Brazil meeting' - which is the first time I hear such a thing, although I have not been following discussions in the last few weeks and may be wrong. One is not sure why this was found necessary. So, it is no longer a Brazil meeting, it is Brazil-ICANN meeting on the 'Future of ......', right?. .. (BTW what happens to the meme of equal footing! Why are some 'stakeholders' continually more equal and than the others). Even more surprising is the formal role vis a vis the representation of, or at least as the platform for, all non gov groups that is now clearly conferred on 1Net, an entity about which no one knows what it is, really - who controls it, what is it supposed to do and so on.... Civil society groups had on many occasions, including through formal representation, conveyed to the Brazilians that they are not looking forward to be represented through 1Net, or even have their communication routed through it, ..... Civil society formally made known the names of 4 liaison persons for routing communication to them.. So, while anointing 1Net as 'the' non gov platform for the 'Brazil meeting', simultaneously clear claims and requests from civil society were completely ignored. Was it put forward by anyone during the LOG meeting that such has been the civil society stand (against 1Net mediation) . And if it had indeed been put forward, what was the response of the LOG, and what justifications was provided for its decision. Civil society must be told all about it. It is not willing to be taken for granted, and play the B team to the powerful groups.... We have very high hopes from the Brazil meeting, and the best way to nurture them would be by treating civil society's decisions and requests with due respect, and so on... I simply do not yet know what 1Net is...As I have often said, I find it very useful as a cross-stakeholder groups discussion space... Some of us did not take much interest in nomination to 1Net's coordination committee because one really had no idea what it was to do.... We were told that the coordination committee would decide what 1Net would do. But now a lot seems to be decided for it already. Who is it pushing 1Net, who are such powerful players behind it that what looked like a mere discussion list gets suddenly conferred with such a powerful role. We never suspected before those nominations to its coordination committee that 1Net would become 'the' non gov stakeholders platform for the Brazil meeting, and would play such a central formal role in it.... This decision, especially the manner of taking it - is a major disappointment. It is in my opinion, a decision taken without good justification, and in disregard of common civil society positions communicated to the LOG. Hope to get more information on these issues... Best, parminder On Saturday 21 December 2013 10:06 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Hi people, > > This is my quick summary of yesterday's meeting of the local organizing > group (LOG) for the BR meeting. This summary is basically oriented to > civil society but may be useful to all stakeholders. Covers basically > the structure of the committees and includes some other useful info. > > I do hope it answers several of the many questions we are receiving. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > ================================ > > 1. Co-chairs of the BR Meeting > > This is a no-brainer: the BR Meeting will be chaired by Virgilio Almeida > (current chair of CGI.br, and member of Brazil's Ministry of Science, > Technology and Innovation), and Fadi Chehadé. > > 2. High Level Multistakeholder Committee > > The HLMC will be responsible for overseeing the political articulations > and for encouraging the participation of the international community. > > It will be composed of government representatives of 12 countries > (precise list still being established by the BR government) plus 12 > non-govs, and two representatives of UN agencies to be chosen by the > UNSG. The 12 non-govs include four of each non-gov stakeholder (civil > society, academia/techies, private sector). All of the non-gov, non-UN > stakeholders' names will be brought to the LOG by 1Net. So the HLC will > be composed of 26 people. > > The HLMC will have four co-chairs, keeping the multistakeholder balance. > One of the co-chairs will be Brazil's Minister of Communications Paulo > Bernardo. > > So civil society needs to indicate to 1Net Steering Committee four > high-level reps as soon as possible. > > 3. Executive Multistakeholder Committee > > The EMC will be responsible for organizing the event, including the > discussion and implementation of the agenda, and the selection of the > participants and the various stakeholders' proposals. The crucial part > of the preparation process resides here, in close coordination with the > Logistics Committee, so people selected for the EMC ought to make > themselves readily available for this challenge. > > The LOG has already selected the eight Brazilian members of the EMC. > There will be four co-chairs as well, and names already appointed are > Demi Getschko (CEO of NIC.br) and Raúl Echeberría (to be confirmed, CEO > of LACNIC). A representative of an international agency will be > appointed as well (by the coordinating body of the UN agencies) to > participate. > > Like the HLMC, non-gov, non-UN members of the EMC will be brought to the > LOG by 1Net. > > For the EMC civil society needs to indicate to 1Net Steering Committee > two names as soon as possible. > > 4. Logistics and Organizational Committee > > The LOC will be co-chaired by Hartmut Glaser, executive secretary of > CGI.br with proven expertise in coordinating the organization of > national and international events. Another co-chair will be indicated by > 1Net. > > 5. Government Advisory Committee > > This is in the hands of the BR government who acts as a facilitator and > coordinator. Two co-chairs will be indicated. This committee will be > open to any government who wishes to act in an advisory capacity. > > 6. Funding > > NIC.br will cover about 50% of the meeting's overall costs. The balance > will be share by international participants/sponsors. Contributions from > ICANN and ISOC are expected. > > 7. Participation > > The meeting is to be held at Hotel Transamérica, in São Paulo, fairly > close to NIC.br headquarters (see attached map). The basic distribution > of participants is envisioned approximately as: > > 450 from govs > 500-550 from non-gov, non-UN stakeholders > 100 journalists > 50 IGOs/UN reps > > Inviting participants, or receiving and approving participation > requests, is one of the tasks of the EMC. > > 8. Expected outcomes as success indicators > > - Official launching of a review process of the global IG frameworks/models; > > - Development of a set of universally acceptable core of principles for > global IG; > > - Tentative draft of a global IG model. > > My personal comment: these ambitious outcomes of course involve a lot of > preparatory process work, especially by the Executive Committee. This is > why we need to conclude the nominations asap in order to start the real > work towards the meeting. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From dave at difference.com.au Fri Dec 27 00:49:29 2013 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 13:49:29 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: <003001cf011e$2311a7c0$6934f740$@gmail.com> References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> <52B809B3.4060500@ciroap.org> <52B84583.3010500@acm.org> <52B858E4.9090902@ITforChange.net> <52B85DEF.9060807@acm.org> <52B97CEB.50806@acm.org> <003001cf011e$2311a7c0$6934f740$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 25 Dec 2013, at 11:05 am, michael gurstein wrote: > I must admit that I find the criteria being bandied about here re: selection for CS representation to be quite bizarre… (sorry I’m not exactly sure where this particular list came from but it has been bandied about by the various CS honchos in one form or another over the last few days… > > 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your individual civil society organisation(s) > > Hmmm… as I read this what it means is that whoever represents CS doesn’t (can’t) have an opinion… what sort of an opinion would/could represent “Civil Society as a whole”.. So the process of selection is done to ensure the least common denominator/effective representative of any CS values or interests… I wonder whether the 5 representatives of the corporate sector are going to follow this form of self-regulation so as to ensure that they don’t represent any corporate interests.. beyond the lowest common denominator of supporting the market economy… I think not… Well, we are talking largely administrative, not policy, positions - and I think it is fairly obvious that there are some shared concerns within civil society, such as ensuring adequate representation for CS. > > 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a multistakeholder setting > > Ah, yes the “play nice”/kindergarten criteria, qv. my response to Avri Well, some of us prefer to think of it as work productively rather than 'play nice'. I appreciate that there are some of us who do not think working productively with other stakeholder groups is a priority, but I can't see why they would want to apply for a position coordinating with other stakeholder groups. Or why we would want to select them for that role. Perhaps you can suggest to us why we might want specifically to select representatives who are not able to work with other stakeholder groups? > 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to report back as the process progresses > > Okay, but we’ve already eliminated most anyone with any serious involvements with active CS groups so the process of consulting and reporting back seems a wee bit,vacuous dare I say… we are expecting them to consult and report back but on…. what exactly I would imagine some of those selected might take your characterisation of them as not having serious involvement with active CS groups as somewhat pejorative. Is there anyone in particular you think this applies to? > Since we are tossing around criteria how about a few more that might actually have a substantive impact on the effectiveness of CS in representing CS interests… > > 1. No participation in CS representation by individuals who have been part of government delegations for the last five years Individuals who participate in both CS and government is disproportionately likely to come from smaller nations, where there are a smaller number of people with Internet policy and governance skills, so those with experience are more often called on to fill government delegations etc. So this would have a practical effect of excluding those from smaller nations disproportionately, which seems a very bad idea to me. Not that it is restricted to smaller nations, of course. As Adam points out, larger nations often bring large delegations to the ITU etc, and civil society people are often included. I can see the principle here - but it doesn't seem likely to actually help our effectiveness. > 2. No participation in CS except by those who actually have some experience in the areas in which they are pontificating/err pronouncing.. I.e. if they are talking about “development” we should expect that “our” representatives have actually gotten their boots dirty in actual development and not just high level maundering around the issues… Are we then expected to only appoint representatives for broader policy forums to have experience of all policy areas they might possibly be involved in discussing? And this is expected to be a better alternative to simply asking them to consult with colleagues? > 3. No participation from those who only represent themselves (NGO’s or whatever of 1) and have no evident links to larger CS (or other) networks beyond the immediate cadre of their IG CS friends and allies. Which, of course, cuts out many of the most experienced advocates in our networks, if they don't happen to have an appropriate gig at the time. Again, I can see the reasoning, but I don't see how it would enhance our effectiveness. > The criteria that you folks have been prattling on about, point to the fundamental flaw in IG CS which is that the way you are approaching it, the only thing apart from lunch which can be agreed upon and thus meet your criteria are process issues. No substance, no content, no real policy… just process… We are mostly selecting criteria for process based positions, so yes. > So CS becomes completely pre-occupied with discussing (its own) positioning and processes in the larger IG area. You've been a fairly enthusiastic participant in discussions about how civil society representatives should be selected yourself. Cheers David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Dec 27 01:26:10 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 11:56:10 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: <409CC9E0-B303-4DE7-949F-692F477A2EB2@corp.arin.net> References: <52B5C3A4.3070708@cafonso.ca> <52B61230.9030602@cafonso.ca> <52B6F397.3070209@cafonso.ca> <52B722EC.7050601@cafonso.ca> <52BC7DC0.2010605@itforchange.net> <409CC9E0-B303-4DE7-949F-692F477A2EB2@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <52BD1D82.9000807@itforchange.net> John Thanks for your response and the information you have shared... I can of course agree with you that 1Net, not yet having any clear purpose or structure in place, should hardly be in a position to strongly seek anything... However, the plain and visible fact remains that 1Net has been given a very important/ central role in organisation of 'Brazil meeting', despite, 1. claims by Brazilians at and since Bali that it is they and they alone who are organising the meeting, as a neutral trusted broker and so on, while all others are 'equally' welcome.... 2. clear requests, madeformallyby civil society, that they have no intention to go through 1Net in terms of its involvement in the Brazil meeting... How does one get conferred such a role, against such adverse circumstances? No one for instance approached Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus to take up such a central role! I think it clearly follows that if 1Net is not 'seeking' anything, there are some extremely, repeat, extremely, powerful people seeking such a role for 1Net.... I leave people to make their own guesses who these powerful people might be.... But this fact certainly puts 1Net is a certain perspective, which at the very least seems to compromise its supposedly open, bottom up, 'movement' character - with which kind of declarations it was launched... Even before a structure - supposedly, bottom up, participative etc - is built for 1Net, some powerful people seem already convinced (rather, 'know') about its role, purpose, and, I dare extrapolate, even the directions that it will lead to, to be so confident to be be aggressively pushing it to have such a central role in organising the Brazil meeting.... I can see no other reason why (specific motivations) and how (the power of those so motivated) was, for instance, civil society denied its right to decide the manner of its participation in the Brazil meeting... If 1Net is to become the front of such non transparent motivations of some powerful players, it puts an unfortunate shadow on its genuine possibilities, al least some of which I could see and appreciate. parminder On Friday 27 December 2013 01:03 AM, John Curran wrote: > On Dec 26, 2013, at 2:04 PM, parminder > wrote: > >> ... >> The current meeting seems to have gone back on all those 'right >> decisions' and allowed ICANN and 1* the central role that it had >> always been seeking in the forthcoming meeting. >> >> This is my honest reading of what happened. But I may be over >> reacting. I am happy to be corrected by anyone.. > > Parminder - > > I appreciate you sharing your perspective of events, as it is helpful. > I do want to correct > one assertion made in the above - > > "... and allowed ICANN and 1* the central role that it had always > been seeking > in the forthcoming meeting. " > > Given that the I* were informed by Fadi about the Brazil meeting and > 1net's role well > after the Montevideo Statement, I do not know how either "1net" or the > I* leaders could > have been "seeking" anything... I will admit to probably as much > surprise as anyone > else on this list, but it is what it is. > > At this point, until there is a seated 1net coordinating committee, I > know of no mechanism > for "1net" to even respond to the meeting organizers about its role > (whatever that may be) > and any assertion that the I* leaders might have been seeking a role > in a meeting which > which wasn't even conceived of (let alone discussed) at the time of > our gathering in > Montevideo is invalid. > > Thanks, > /John > > Disclaimer: My views alone. (As one of the I* leaders via my role at > ARIN, I was part > of the discussions that led to the Montevideo > Statement and the idea of > a 1net initiative - that predates any discussion > or announcement of the > Brazil meeting) > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Dec 27 01:56:41 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 17:56:41 +1100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Re: [bestbits] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: <52BC7408.8060902@itforchange.net> References: <52BC70C4.70808@itforchange.net> <52BC7408.8060902@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I’ll also be interested in clarification on this Parminder, as I am sure will many others. But in the mean time I have seen nothing to suggest we do not continue to choose our own representatives, and as far as I can see so far, the suggested 1net role is simply to pass on our names. It appears that the Brazilian committee for whatever reason want us to notify our choices via 1net, and that could well be something to do with the Fadi/Dilma politics and unable to be changed by the local committee. I also see no reason not to inform Brazil direct and copy to 1net if that is the situation. But yes we need to know more about what is happening here if possible. Ian Peter From: parminder Sent: Friday, December 27, 2013 5:23 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [governance] Fwd: Re: [bestbits] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 I would like to request the liaisons that we nominated to the Brazilian organisers to help us understand what is going on here... Did we not all agree that we do not want 1Net to mediate civil society representation or communication to the Brazilian organisers? Why and how did they decide to go completely against our request, in the matter of configuring our own manner of participation in the Brazil meeting? (BTW, I would no longer call it Brazil meeting, but Brazil-ICANN meeting, since it is jointly chaired now, and the responsibility of organising the meeting split rather equitably between them.) Did the Liaisons that we appointed protest this move or decision - I mean at least that part where it got decided that despite our clearly expressed wishes, we still are to be told that we need to go through 1Net? I am a bit surprised that 5 days after Carlos sent the notes of the organising group meeting which made such important decisions, there has been no discussion on the matter, especially on how civil society's requests have been spurned. Why are we so supinely ready to slip into a secondary role under the leadership of 1* group .... This is not only very disappointing, but also rather disturbing. parminder -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [bestbits] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 23:39:08 +0530 From: parminder mailto:parminder at itforchange.net To: Carlos A. Afonso mailto:ca at cafonso.ca CC: BestBits List mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net, Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org, NCSG List mailto:ncsg-discuss at listserv.syr.edu, 1Net List mailto:discuss at 1net.org, Chapter Delegates mailto:Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org, Caucus de la Sociedad Civil LA&C Sobre la Sociedad de la Informacion mailto:alc-cmsi at gn.apc.org, gt-brm at cgi.br Dear Carlos. Thanks for this report.... Apparently, this meeting of the local organising group (LOG) has moved the pieces around quite a bit, and I now see the 'Brazil meeting' shaping up in a rather different manner than what it seemed to be to begin with.... Most of us saw it basically as a meeting with the Brazilians - initially the government and then the CGI.Br - as the convening 'neutral' trusted party, which would of course take along all stakeholders and so on.... But now for the first time I see the co-ownership of the meeting beginning to split almost equally between the Brazilians and the I* group. ICANN now co chairs the 'Brazil meeting' - which is the first time I hear such a thing, although I have not been following discussions in the last few weeks and may be wrong. One is not sure why this was found necessary. So, it is no longer a Brazil meeting, it is Brazil-ICANN meeting on the 'Future of ......', right?. .. (BTW what happens to the meme of equal footing! Why are some 'stakeholders' continually more equal and than the others). Even more surprising is the formal role vis a vis the representation of, or at least as the platform for, all non gov groups that is now clearly conferred on 1Net, an entity about which no one knows what it is, really - who controls it, what is it supposed to do and so on.... Civil society groups had on many occasions, including through formal representation, conveyed to the Brazilians that they are not looking forward to be represented through 1Net, or even have their communication routed through it, ..... Civil society formally made known the names of 4 liaison persons for routing communication to them.. So, while anointing 1Net as 'the' non gov platform for the 'Brazil meeting', simultaneously clear claims and requests from civil society were completely ignored. Was it put forward by anyone during the LOG meeting that such has been the civil society stand (against 1Net mediation) . And if it had indeed been put forward, what was the response of the LOG, and what justifications was provided for its decision. Civil society must be told all about it. It is not willing to be taken for granted, and play the B team to the powerful groups.... We have very high hopes from the Brazil meeting, and the best way to nurture them would be by treating civil society's decisions and requests with due respect, and so on... I simply do not yet know what 1Net is...As I have often said, I find it very useful as a cross-stakeholder groups discussion space... Some of us did not take much interest in nomination to 1Net's coordination committee because one really had no idea what it was to do.... We were told that the coordination committee would decide what 1Net would do. But now a lot seems to be decided for it already. Who is it pushing 1Net, who are such powerful players behind it that what looked like a mere discussion list gets suddenly conferred with such a powerful role. We never suspected before those nominations to its coordination committee that 1Net would become 'the' non gov stakeholders platform for the Brazil meeting, and would play such a central formal role in it.... This decision, especially the manner of taking it - is a major disappointment. It is in my opinion, a decision taken without good justification, and in disregard of common civil society positions communicated to the LOG. Hope to get more information on these issues... Best, parminder On Saturday 21 December 2013 10:06 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: Hi people, This is my quick summary of yesterday's meeting of the local organizing group (LOG) for the BR meeting. This summary is basically oriented to civil society but may be useful to all stakeholders. Covers basically the structure of the committees and includes some other useful info. I do hope it answers several of the many questions we are receiving. fraternal regards --c.a. ================================ 1. Co-chairs of the BR Meeting This is a no-brainer: the BR Meeting will be chaired by Virgilio Almeida (current chair of CGI.br, and member of Brazil's Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation), and Fadi Chehadé. 2. High Level Multistakeholder Committee The HLMC will be responsible for overseeing the political articulations and for encouraging the participation of the international community. It will be composed of government representatives of 12 countries (precise list still being established by the BR government) plus 12 non-govs, and two representatives of UN agencies to be chosen by the UNSG. The 12 non-govs include four of each non-gov stakeholder (civil society, academia/techies, private sector). All of the non-gov, non-UN stakeholders' names will be brought to the LOG by 1Net. So the HLC will be composed of 26 people. The HLMC will have four co-chairs, keeping the multistakeholder balance. One of the co-chairs will be Brazil's Minister of Communications Paulo Bernardo. So civil society needs to indicate to 1Net Steering Committee four high-level reps as soon as possible. 3. Executive Multistakeholder Committee The EMC will be responsible for organizing the event, including the discussion and implementation of the agenda, and the selection of the participants and the various stakeholders' proposals. The crucial part of the preparation process resides here, in close coordination with the Logistics Committee, so people selected for the EMC ought to make themselves readily available for this challenge. The LOG has already selected the eight Brazilian members of the EMC. There will be four co-chairs as well, and names already appointed are Demi Getschko (CEO of NIC.br) and Raúl Echeberría (to be confirmed, CEO of LACNIC). A representative of an international agency will be appointed as well (by the coordinating body of the UN agencies) to participate. Like the HLMC, non-gov, non-UN members of the EMC will be brought to the LOG by 1Net. For the EMC civil society needs to indicate to 1Net Steering Committee two names as soon as possible. 4. Logistics and Organizational Committee The LOC will be co-chaired by Hartmut Glaser, executive secretary of CGI.br with proven expertise in coordinating the organization of national and international events. Another co-chair will be indicated by 1Net. 5. Government Advisory Committee This is in the hands of the BR government who acts as a facilitator and coordinator. Two co-chairs will be indicated. This committee will be open to any government who wishes to act in an advisory capacity. 6. Funding NIC.br will cover about 50% of the meeting's overall costs. The balance will be share by international participants/sponsors. Contributions from ICANN and ISOC are expected. 7. Participation The meeting is to be held at Hotel Transamérica, in São Paulo, fairly close to NIC.br headquarters (see attached map). The basic distribution of participants is envisioned approximately as: 450 from govs 500-550 from non-gov, non-UN stakeholders 100 journalists 50 IGOs/UN reps Inviting participants, or receiving and approving participation requests, is one of the tasks of the EMC. 8. Expected outcomes as success indicators - Official launching of a review process of the global IG frameworks/models; - Development of a set of universally acceptable core of principles for global IG; - Tentative draft of a global IG model. My personal comment: these ambitious outcomes of course involve a lot of preparatory process work, especially by the Executive Committee. This is why we need to conclude the nominations asap in order to start the real work towards the meeting. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Dec 27 02:39:22 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 13:09:22 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Re: [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: <52BC7DC0.2010605@itforchange.net> References: <52BC7DC0.2010605@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52BD2EAA.3090408@itforchange.net> Ian/ All On your email about 1Net being simply a conduit, I forward an email as below that I wrote on the 1Net list which I see is not copied to IGC and BB.. IMHO civil society should quit pussy footing and learn to stand up and assert... Dont be afraid that we will lose this or that... civil society activism was not built on timidness, but on being bold and speaking out the truth, truth that is repressed and window dressed otherwise. That is civil society's primary role - not to sit in committees, which we will of course do for fulfilling our primary role as and when needed. We are openly being taken for granted here, and I have no doubt that in a big part we ourselves are responsible for this... No personal comments on anyone (least on you, Ian) but I think we need to begin giving clear-speak a higher rating than our civil society lists have been reduced to doing... Civil society has to react as strongly to a set of ICANN or 1* star players manipulating it as we would if a government was..... Not doing so bespeaks a political ideology, which not only I but a very very big number of people and groups across the world are extremely uncomfortable with. 'Niceness' cannot mask real politics, and I see some hilarious attempts on this list attempting to do so... At the very least, lets give each other the credit of being grown up political adults... parminder -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 00:34:32 +0530 From: parminder To: Carlos A. Afonso CC: discuss at 1net.org Dear Carlos, I take your below email with as much respect as I take everything coming from you... But the fact remains that I am completely unable to understand how a vague 'platform' that 1net is (if it is that) without anything at all certain about it, would be able to do a better job of receiving nominations from different stakeholders than a clearly constituted committee with clear membership ( and, I understand, secretarial support) as the local organising group..... (The rest of the email is general and not addressed to Carlos, since I have no intention to take potshots at the messenger) Everyone knows that a tremendous goodwill, with great hope and expectation, was conferred on this meeting from the world over - especially from quarters outside the charmed circles of IG kinds - 'specifically' because of the Brazilian leadership of this initiative, and the *unique circumstances under which such a leadership shaped up*... I know it may not be very fashionable to call a spade a spade in this space, but let me say that the set of decisions take at this meeting suggests considerable political accommodations that I am not sure were either right or necessary. At the very least, they appear to less than very transparently made. We all know what happened at Bali when 1Net was launched, and the aggressive stances of some protagonist, which was resisted by most right thinking people really interested in reform in global IG. And again earlier last month when there seemed to be unilateral announcements made by some people that 1Net would organise non gov participation in Brazil meeting's organisation. We got the distinct feeling that the last meeting of the local organising group - the meeting before this one - fully ignored this unilateral announcement and put forward the impression that 1Net had no special role and all stakeholders can organise themselves and communicate directly with the Brazilian organisers. The current meeting seems to have gone back on all those 'right decisions' and allowed ICANN and 1* the central role that it had always been seeking in the forthcoming meeting. This is my honest reading of what happened. But I may be over reacting. I am happy to be corrected by anyone.. parminder On Sunday 22 December 2013 11:05 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > It is not an extra step. It is a way to consolidate all the requests > from all non-gov stakeholders, as they (1Net) proposed to do it. It they > do not do what they are supposed to do, the local organizing group will > have to find (quickly) alternatives, which will be far more complicated. > > []s fraternos > > --c.a. > > On 12/22/2013 02:50 PM, Roland Perry wrote: >> In message<52B6F397.3070209 at cafonso.ca>, at 12:13:43 on Sun, 22 Dec >> 2013, Carlos A. Afonso writes >>> I did not say that, did I? I meant what I said. >> So if I understand you correctly, the one and only way to get nominated >> for the 'Brazil meeting' is to submit your name *via* the >> as-yet-not-convened 1net steering committee, who being "only a conduit" >> have no remit to filter or preselect the names at all? >> >> If that's the case, why introduce this extra step. >> >>> On 12/22/2013 11:49 AM, Roland Perry wrote: >>>> In message<52B61230.9030602 at cafonso.ca>, at 20:12:00 on Sat, 21 Dec >>>> 2013, Carlos A. Afonso writes >>>>> No, not at all. 1Net is the conduit only. >>>> Still confused. Do you mean "1Net is *one of* at least two independent >>>> conduits" - the other being direct nominations? >>>> >>>>> The StComm will receive the nominations from the stakeholders. >>>>> >>>>> Hope it works... >>>>> >>>>> frt rgds >>>>> >>>>> --c.a. >>>>> >>>>> On 12/21/2013 04:36 PM, Roland Perry wrote: >>>>>> In message<52B5C3A4.3070708 at cafonso.ca>, at 14:36:52 on Sat, 21 Dec >>>>>> 2013, Carlos A. Afonso writes >>>>>>> civil society needs to indicate to 1Net Steering Committee four >>>>>>> high-level reps as soon as possible. >>>>>> I apologise for getting confused by this, but are you saying that it's >>>>>> only the 1Net Steering Committee [which I don't think has convened >>>>>> yet] >>>>>> which can propose candidates such as these for the 'Brazil Meeting' >>>>>> organising committee? >>> _______________________________________________ >>> discuss mailing list >>> discuss at 1net.org >>> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > discuss at 1net.org > http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss at 1net.org http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From william.drake at uzh.ch Mon Dec 2 02:45:03 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 08:45:03 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Proposal on Best Bits governance In-Reply-To: <070b01ceef1d$b53e1d80$1fba5880$@gmail.com> References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org> <528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net> <00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org> <528C72F0.1090703@itforchange.net> <795A5EE4-EAA1-4858-9F9A-CE652E85BF12@ciroap.org> <528C7AC8.7000203@itforchange.net> <528F2A38.4040905@apc.org> <529C01C8.1010008@ciroap.org> <070b01ceef1d$b53e1d80$1fba5880$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3C99BF28-DB10-4CCA-B572-F42FE7B43060@uzh.ch> For the second time I endorse Anriette’s proposal but with Adam’s additional request for some clarifications, e.g. what this SC would be doing, on who’s behalf. In addition, to the extent that there’s a claim of interest representation, it’d be good to understand the relationship to the IGC, in which the same actors are gathered. Would for example BB be expecting a slot on the 1net coordination group alongside the IGC? Alternatively, if BB is saying that it doesn’t accept the 1net mechanism as an interface with the Brazilian conference planning process and will maintain its own independent relationship via the 4 liaisons, perhaps it shouldn’t be requesting one of the five slots, right? Friendly message, just wondering if this stuff’s been thought through off line but not stated yet. Thanks, Bill On Dec 2, 2013, at 6:16 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > For the third time I am indicating that I do not accept this proposal and I would ask that my counter-proposal also be considered and/or reasons given for it not being “endorsed” by the “interim” Steering Committee. > > M > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm > Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 7:43 PM > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Proposal on Best Bits governance > > I for one can fully accept and endorse Anriette's helpful proposal. Others? > > On 22/11/13 17:56, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear all > > [Please note that this proposal is not about the Brazil meeting or civil > society nomcoms.] > > In some of the recent threads people have called to question the > legitimacy of the Best Bits steering committee, and of transparency and > accountability in Best Bits. I agree it will be good to strengthen Best > Bits internal processes, but we should do this in a way that does not > undermine trust in people who have worked hard to bring Best Bits to > where it is, or in one another. We should also not undermine our > ability to work together at a time when civil society is having to rise > to some pretty daunting challenges. > > In particular, we should try not to discourage those individuals who > have been volunteering their time on Best Bits bits work - either on the > SC, or on drafting inputs. Without their effort we would be in a far > weaker position than we are now. We would not have had the benefit of > two face-to-face meetings, or of several substantial letters/other > inputs submitted in response to strategic opportunities for raising > civil society voices. > > I would therefore like to propose the following: > > 1) We ask the current Best Bits Steering Committee, a group of people > who started to volunteer their time in this capacity in July 2013, to > continue to serve until 31 July 2014. > > 2) We ask them to present us with a short overview report of the work > they did in 2013 by the end of this year. > > 3) We ask them to, by the end of the first quarter of 2014, to propose a > process for the renewal of the Best Bits Steering Committee. > > Best > > Anriette > > > > > > > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ********************************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake at gmail.com Fri Dec 27 03:43:13 2013 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 09:43:13 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: <52BC4479.1080704@ITforChange.net> References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> <52B809B3.4060500@ciroap.org> <52B84583.3010500@acm.org> <52B8472B.1050307@wzb.eu> <52B84E9C.9030304@ITforChange.net> <52BA6175.5090203@ITforChange.net> <778DDE17-ABAE-4280-AD4F-00CCEC99354C@gmail.com> <52BC4479.1080704@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: Good morning On Dec 26, 2013, at 4:00 PM, Guru गुरु wrote: > On 12/25/2013 06:47 PM, William Drake wrote: >> >> On Dec 25, 2013, at 5:39 AM, Guru गुरु wrote: >> > snip >>> It would be useful for you to reflect on how much this ideology played a role in your being selected for the High Level Panel process as an “expert” advisor, while Milton Muller (who is known to speak his mind without worrying about 'being nice') was actually one of the CS nominees to the High Level Panel. >>> >>> (this may seem below the belt, request you to reflect on it in a non-personal manner) >> >> No, it is entirely what I would expect of what you and what Parminder would call “your ilk”—a pathetic attempt at misrepresentation of readily knowable facts in order to score cheap political points. >> > > The readily knowable / public facts are - in response to a request, IGC nominated two people and you did not figure in that list. This has been explained in plain english repeatedly. There are different people playing different roles and nobody seems to be confused about the matter except a couple of people here who are looking hard for something to stir up for whatever private reasons. If you are truly unable to understand the press release that lays out who is involved in what capacity, read it again. If that’s not enough for you, write to Fadi or President Ilves, it’s their party, they selected the people. I’m neither your representative nor their spokesman and I won’t be responding to any more troll ploys about the panel. > What is the 'expertise' for which you were selected, which the people nominated could not have provided? Again, no connection, RTFM. > Quite a few people on this list raised this uncomfortable issue. It wasn’t clear that MM actually managed to confuse “quite a few people.” Just a couple clueless +1s etc. > Abuse is no substitute for argument and your language suggests you have none. I wasn’t making an argument and certainly wasn’t engaging in abuse, but thanks again for your lame and transparent efforts at redirection, misrepresentation, and constructing an other for you and your ilk to rally around and stone. Actually, all I was doing was agreeing with Avri and Jeanette that ability to conduct oneself in a professional manner and work with others is a good criteria for evaluating nominees, particularly since “CS” as it’s instantiated here has in the past managed to do the opposite, resulting in a good deal of self-margalization. Luckily there are others willing to cary on and try to move the ball forward. So do what you like, BB is on its way to following the caucus down the tube for the same reasons, and if that’s your preference, do it. > >> In any event, this enlightening exchange underscored the concerns Avri raised your criteria's likely abuse in the service of a narrow ideology and the value of considering representatives who are inclined to interact with others in a civil and professional manner. > > To use Avri's phrase of a 'tent view', we all agree the current tent itself under-represents many views. Instead of expanding that view, you are proposing using the 'narrow ideology' of club membership to further exclude those who ask uncomfortable questions. I propose no such thing. I propose being civil rather than behaving like a troll. > > This can be a setback to CS and denies its important role of accountability seeking, which has become even more important in the post Snowden scenario. Wait, you forgot to reach for some other hot buttons laying around . How about accountability is even more important at a time when a small group claims to be CS and the tribune of all the worlds’ disposed but then goes into meetings to fight form intergovernmental regulation and against multistakeholder participation. and for the positions of a government that wants to impose stringent 19th century regulations on the Internet, when it’s not busy outlawing homosexuality and other great stuff. Certainly this makes accountability and transparency an issue as much as a suggestion that people be able to conduct themselves professionally? Bye > > Guru. > >> >> Cheers >> >> Bill >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> ******************************************************************* >> William J. Drake >> International Fellow & Lecturer >> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >> University of Zurich, Switzerland >> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, >> ICANN, www.ncuc.org >> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), >> www.williamdrake.org >> ******************************************************************** >> > ******************************************************************* William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org ******************************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Dec 27 03:48:23 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 15:48:23 +0700 Subject: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> <52B809B3.4060500@ciroap.org> <52B84583.3010500@acm.org> <52B858E4.9090902@ITforChange.net> <52B85DEF.9060807@acm.org> <52B97CEB.50806@acm.org> <003001cf011e$2311a7c0$6934f740$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <068a01cf02e0$692f2160$3b8d6420$@gmail.com> Hi, From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] Sent: Friday, December 27, 2013 12:49 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees On 25 Dec 2013, at 11:05 am, michael gurstein wrote: I must admit that I find the criteria being bandied about here re: selection for CS representation to be quite bizarre. (sorry I'm not exactly sure where this particular list came from but it has been bandied about by the various CS honchos in one form or another over the last few days. 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your individual civil society organisation(s) Hmmm. as I read this what it means is that whoever represents CS doesn't (can't) have an opinion. what sort of an opinion would/could represent "Civil Society as a whole".. So the process of selection is done to ensure the least common denominator/effective representative of any CS values or interests. I wonder whether the 5 representatives of the corporate sector are going to follow this form of self-regulation so as to ensure that they don't represent any corporate interests.. beyond the lowest common denominator of supporting the market economy. I think not. Well, we are talking largely administrative, not policy, positions - and I think it is fairly obvious that there are some shared concerns within civil society, such as ensuring adequate representation for CS. [MG>] Of course there are areas of CS interest overall including representation but the question is representation for what. representation means putting forward positions/interests/values but this criteria clearly denies that, since positions necessarily come out of "individual civil society organizations" (where else could they possibly come from).. Rather this criteria is Seinfeld-ian. One can say anything one likes about anything at all as long as one says nothing about anything . And you are suggesting that there is no linkage/overlap/blurred boundaries between the admin and the policy. I guess that you haven't been following the MAG-IGF where there is a very clear and dare I say oppressive policy control on the activities/outcomes of the IGF through the errr.. "administrative" structures and appointments in the MAG. 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a multistakeholder setting Ah, yes the "play nice"/kindergarten criteria, qv. my response to Avri Well, some of us prefer to think of it as work productively rather than 'play nice'. I appreciate that there are some of us who do not think working productively with other stakeholder groups is a priority, but I can't see why they would want to apply for a position coordinating with other stakeholder groups. Or why we would want to select them for that role. Perhaps you can suggest to us why we might want specifically to select representatives who are not able to work with other stakeholder groups? [MG>] surely the issue is to represent "civil society" interests in their variety and complexity and doing so will necessarily involve upsetting (not playing nice) with other stakeholder groups who are similarly pursuing their interests - with such interests necessarily, at least on occasion, coming into conflict. And on what possible basis can this kind of matter be determined in advance. I know that the NSA's Total Information Dominance program is designed to predict aberrant behavior before it happens but fortunately for all of us, Civil Libertarians and others have been working to ensure that we don't at least for the moment, live in such a "Total Recall" world where people can be accused and convicted on the basis of what they might do. but perhaps the distinguished illumanti of the CS Central Committee have unique insight or privileged access to this kind of information. 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to report back as the process progresses Okay, but we've already eliminated most anyone with any serious involvements with active CS groups so the process of consulting and reporting back seems a wee bit,vacuous dare I say. we are expecting them to consult and report back but on.. what exactly I would imagine some of those selected might take your characterisation of them as not having serious involvement with active CS groups as somewhat pejorative. Is there anyone in particular you think this applies to? [MG>] well let's call this what it is, the "LinkedIn Criteria"-Since as per Criteria one and two anyone with any serious engagement with a CS organization that actually stands for something i.e. has some serious interests that it feels necessary to actively pursue is automatically eliminated, then what precisely will the remainder be communicating about. not issues of significant interest to groups within civil society (unless they have some sort of perverse passion for whether CS has a 3 minute or a 6 minute speaking slot at some meeting or other) rather the communication will be of the form that continuously burdens my inbox from LinkedIn. notices of meeting I have no interest in attending, notices of papers I have no time to read, idle chit chat on subjects of only the mildest passing concern-does the LinkedIn connection begin to ring a bell. Certainly nothing wrong with it, but in a real CS engaged environment this criteria would be of only very secondary significance because what it is pointing to would be completely taken for granted and highly highly noticeable if it were to be absent. Since we are tossing around criteria how about a few more that might actually have a substantive impact on the effectiveness of CS in representing CS interests. 1. No participation in CS representation by individuals who have been part of government delegations for the last five years Individuals who participate in both CS and government is disproportionately likely to come from smaller nations, where there are a smaller number of people with Internet policy and governance skills, so those with experience are more often called on to fill government delegations etc. So this would have a practical effect of excluding those from smaller nations disproportionately, which seems a very bad idea to me. Not that it is restricted to smaller nations, of course. As Adam points out, larger nations often bring large delegations to the ITU etc, and civil society people are often included. I can see the principle here - but it doesn't seem likely to actually help our effectiveness. [MG>] I'll be very interested in an empirical test of your hypothesis here. My strong guess based on experience is that it is the larger more "engaged" delegations/countries which have the largest coteries including CS folks because they have the budgets (to pay for travel etc.) and they have the specific interests in ensuring that they have sympathetic voices "on other side" i.e. in CS (noting that in most instances of significant policy matters globally CS is in fact "on the other side" because they are pursuing real issues on behalf of a real civil society and even if indirectly the well-being of all of us. the smaller countries don't have budgets for their own staff let alone CS folks. 2. No participation in CS except by those who actually have some experience in the areas in which they are pontificating/err pronouncing.. I.e. if they are talking about "development" we should expect that "our" representatives have actually gotten their boots dirty in actual development and not just high level maundering around the issues. Are we then expected to only appoint representatives for broader policy forums to have experience of all policy areas they might possibly be involved in discussing? And this is expected to be a better alternative to simply asking them to consult with colleagues? [MG>] shouldn't people be expected to know something of what they are talking? 3. No participation from those who only represent themselves (NGO's or whatever of 1) and have no evident links to larger CS (or other) networks beyond the immediate cadre of their IG CS friends and allies. Which, of course, cuts out many of the most experienced advocates in our networks, if they don't happen to have an appropriate gig at the time. Again, I can see the reasoning, but I don't see how it would enhance our effectiveness. [MG>] you somehow are making a linkage between "most experienced" and "advocates", again something worth an empirical examination.. It could just as easily be that folks who have been around a long time who don't have linkages into larger networks are simply acting in their own interests, whatever the depth of their "experience" and one way to control for that is to ensure a degree of accountability which comes from at least ensuring that there are manifest links to a network outside of the immediate circle of purportedly "experienced advocates". The criteria that you folks have been prattling on about, point to the fundamental flaw in IG CS which is that the way you are approaching it, the only thing apart from lunch which can be agreed upon and thus meet your criteria are process issues. No substance, no content, no real policy. just process. We are mostly selecting criteria for process based positions, so yes. [MG>] and that says it all. surely CS is about something more than process. something other than another Seinfeld sitcom. are there no real issues of CS concern in the area of Internet Governance. Well as I've been repeatedly pointing out the Community Informatics community thinks so and is looking for the opportunity to raise these issues in the appropriate policy venues. all of this humbuggery around criteria and mickey mouse ad hominem's is precisely designed to deny that opportunity. So CS becomes completely pre-occupied with discussing (its own) positioning and processes in the larger IG area. You've been a fairly enthusiastic participant in discussions about how civil society representatives should be selected yourself. [MG>] precisely to ensure that the farce that is currently being played wouldn't be allowed to happen, but there you go.. Best, M Cheers David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Dec 27 03:48:45 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 14:18:45 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: Fwd: Re: [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: <52BD2EAA.3090408@itforchange.net> References: <52BC7DC0.2010605@itforchange.net> <52BD2EAA.3090408@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52BD3EED.2050709@itforchange.net> Dear Carlos I understand that the local organising group will meet in a few hours from now... I will request you to let them know that civil society groups stand by their decision to communicate their nominees for various organising committees directly to the local organising group (LOG) ... All other kinds of communication from the civil society side will also continue to be done from civil society side directly to the LOG, and later, as appropriate to the relevant organising committees. We do not intend to mediate any such communication through 1Net or any such other group. I will add as a personal opinion that: Brazil/ CGI.Br has taken the political role of organising this important meeting; it cannot now shirk from the corresponding political responsibilities, by passing them on to others who have not been given the needed legitimacy. The world sees and approves Brazil as the host and organiser of this meeting, and it will be best if they are able to continue to do so. Any change of perception would have important bearing on the legitimacy and success of the meeting. I would also like to request LOG to give civil society Liaisons - the names being already communicated to them - equal status and involvement in your meetings and decisions as, apparently, is being given to some other non governmental groups. In this regard I also request the Liaisons to be in contact with the LOG, and also with us. Thanks and best regards Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake at gmail.com Fri Dec 27 04:23:35 2013 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 10:23:35 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: <52BD3EED.2050709@itforchange.net> References: <52BC7DC0.2010605@itforchange.net> <52BD2EAA.3090408@itforchange.net> <52BD3EED.2050709@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <855190B1-7012-4530-9147-D9D9418BB942@gmail.com> Hi Small corrections please On Dec 27, 2013, at 9:48 AM, parminder wrote: > Dear Carlos > > I understand that the local organising group will meet in a few hours from now... > > I will request you to let them know that civil society groups Should read “some civil society groups”. Probably necessary to give their names so the message is understood properly. > stand by their decision to communicate their nominees for various organising committees directly to the local organising group (LOG) ... All other kinds of communication from the civil society side from these members of the civil society ‘side’ > will also continue to be done from civil society side directly to the LOG, and later, as appropriate to the relevant organising committees. We These civil society groups These amendments add some precision and avoid some of the unnecessary confusion that’s arisen. Thanks Bill > do not intend to mediate any such communication through 1Net or any such other group. > > I will add as a personal opinion that: Brazil/ CGI.Br has taken the political role of organising this important meeting; it cannot now shirk from the corresponding political responsibilities, by passing them on to others who have not been given the needed legitimacy. The world sees and approves Brazil as the host and organiser of this meeting, and it will be best if they are able to continue to do so. Any change of perception would have important bearing on the legitimacy and success of the meeting. > > I would also like to request LOG to give civil society Liaisons - the names being already communicated to them - equal status and involvement in your meetings and decisions as, apparently, is being given to some other non governmental groups. > > In this regard I also request the Liaisons to be in contact with the LOG, and also with us. > > Thanks and best regards > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ******************************************************************* William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org ******************************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Dec 27 05:34:22 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 16:04:22 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: <855190B1-7012-4530-9147-D9D9418BB942@gmail.com> References: <52BC7DC0.2010605@itforchange.net> <52BD2EAA.3090408@itforchange.net> <52BD3EED.2050709@itforchange.net> <855190B1-7012-4530-9147-D9D9418BB942@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52BD57AE.6010504@itforchange.net> On Friday 27 December 2013 02:53 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > Small corrections please > > On Dec 27, 2013, at 9:48 AM, parminder > wrote: > >> Dear Carlos >> >> I understand that the local organising group will meet in a few hours >> from now... >> >> I will request you to let them know that civil society groups > > Should read “some civil society groups”. Probably necessary to give > their names so the message is understood properly. I understand that it is a decision of 4 CS organisations/ networks - IGC, BB, IRP and APC - which was sent in a written form to the Brazilians and I am only reiterating that decision... I understand that decision stand unless a counter decision is taken.. However, if you and or others want that decision to be reversed, please indicate so, and we can gather opinions. Otherwise please do not confuse people about what is an existing decision of key civil society groups... parminder > >> stand by their decision to communicate their nominees for various >> organising committees directly to the local organising group (LOG) >> ... All other kinds of communication from the civil society side > > from these members of the civil society ‘side’ > >> will also continue to be done from civil society side directly to the >> LOG, and later, as appropriate to the relevant organising committees. We > > These civil society groups > > These amendments add some precision and avoid some of the unnecessary > confusion that’s arisen. > > Thanks > > Bill > >> do not intend to mediate any such communication through 1Net or any >> such other group. >> >> I will add as a personal opinion that: Brazil/ CGI.Br has taken the >> political role of organising this important meeting; it cannot now >> shirk from the corresponding political responsibilities, by passing >> them on to others who have not been given the needed legitimacy. The >> world sees and approves Brazil as the host and organiser of this >> meeting, and it will be best if they are able to continue to do so. >> Any change of perception would have important bearing on the >> legitimacy and success of the meeting. >> >> I would also like to request LOG to give civil society Liaisons - the >> names being already communicated to them - equal status and >> involvement in your meetings and decisions as, apparently, is being >> given to some other non governmental groups. >> >> In this regard I also request the Liaisons to be in contact with the >> LOG, and also with us. >> >> Thanks and best regards >> >> Parminder >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ******************************************************************* > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), > wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), > www.williamdrake.org > ******************************************************************** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Fri Dec 27 06:02:09 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 11:02:09 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: <52BD1D82.9000807@itforchange.net> References: <52B5C3A4.3070708@cafonso.ca> <52B61230.9030602@cafonso.ca> <52B6F397.3070209@cafonso.ca> <52B722EC.7050601@cafonso.ca> <52BC7DC0.2010605@itforchange.net> <409CC9E0-B303-4DE7-949F-692F477A2EB2@corp.arin.net> <52BD1D82.9000807@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1326E79C-D281-4684-A8B1-9558093AC063@arin.net> On Dec 27, 2013, at 1:26 AM, parminder > wrote: John Thanks for your response and the information you have shared... I can of course agree with you that 1Net, not yet having any clear purpose or structure in place, should hardly be in a position to strongly seek anything... There is little doubt (at least in my mind) that a seated 1net coordinating committee can establish exactly what role 1net will take on with respect to making appointments to any international meeting committees. I think it clearly follows that if 1Net is not 'seeking' anything, there are some extremely, repeat, extremely, powerful people seeking such a role for 1Net.... I leave people to make their own guesses who these powerful people might be.... But this fact certainly puts 1Net is a certain perspective, which at the very least seems to compromise its supposedly open, bottom up, 'movement' character - with which kind of declarations it was launched... That would certainly be a valid concern if those initiating the 1net platform (the I* leaders) also seated themselves an interim 1net coordinating committee, then took actions (such as making appointments) in the name of "1net"... if anything, I see an extremely strong bias in the opposite direction to insure that 1net can set its own direction per the representatives coming from the various communities. Even before a structure - supposedly, bottom up, participative etc - is built for 1Net, some powerful people seem already convinced (rather, 'know') about its role, purpose, and, I dare extrapolate, even the directions that it will lead to, to be so confident to be be aggressively pushing it to have such a central role in organising the Brazil meeting.... I can see no other reason why (specific motivations) and how (the power of those so motivated) was, for instance, civil society denied its right to decide the manner of its participation in the Brazil meeting... I have no idea... I'd ask those organizing it, but there isn't anyway that "1net" can be doing such since 1net has done anything yet other than setup a website and call for representatives for its coordinating committee. If 1Net is to become the front of such non transparent motivations of some powerful players, it puts an unfortunate shadow on its genuine possibilities, al least some of which I could see and appreciate. Doesn't that argue all the more reason why it is important for a coordinating committee to be seated, as soon as possible? /John Disclaimer: My views alone. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake at gmail.com Fri Dec 27 06:05:46 2013 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 12:05:46 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: <52BD57AE.6010504@itforchange.net> References: <52BC7DC0.2010605@itforchange.net> <52BD2EAA.3090408@itforchange.net> <52BD3EED.2050709@itforchange.net> <855190B1-7012-4530-9147-D9D9418BB942@gmail.com> <52BD57AE.6010504@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <3CE0D58A-801F-4AEC-99B5-7AE33B3B3223@gmail.com> On Dec 27, 2013, at 11:34 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 27 December 2013 02:53 PM, William Drake wrote: >> Hi >> >> Small corrections please >> >> On Dec 27, 2013, at 9:48 AM, parminder wrote: >> >>> Dear Carlos >>> >>> I understand that the local organising group will meet in a few hours from now... >>> >>> I will request you to let them know that civil society groups >> >> Should read “some civil society groups”. Probably necessary to give their names so the message is understood properly. > > I understand that it is a decision of 4 CS organisations/ networks - IGC, BB, IRP and APC - which was sent in a written form to the Brazilians and I am only reiterating that decision... I understand that decision stand unless a counter decision is taken.. Well…As Nnenna and other have documented, IGC and BB are in fact the same people, and as BB is a voting platform with formal members it’s not clear how legitimately this position was adopted without a vote. IRP I thought was a multistakeholder coalition, is it not? I don’t recall what APC’s position was, would be good to have reconfirmation. Either way, not endorsing that approach is NCSG (almost 400 organization and individual members), Diplo (quite a lot), or various other CS networks and organizations engaged in IG. So you really are not in a position to issue grandiose totalizing proclamations on behalf of all global civil society. And FWIW, as both a founding IGC member and a BB attendee, I certainly I don’t recall an open and inclusive discussion in either setting about whether to stand aloof of the process the Brazilians are asking us to use (which I can’t believe we’re still debating). What I do remember is a few loud and aggressive voices demanding that this be the stance and nobody wanting to tangle. I also remember the very same people who denounced using 1net as the agreed aggregator of nominations and anything else then demanding to be appointed to its coordination committee, which is a pretty blatant bit of have your cake and eat it too incoherence. Anyway, it’s of course totally fine if there are groups that feel that on principle you will not interface with the Brazilian process in the manner the Brazilians have asked for. Then simply say who you are, and don’t pretend to speak for other parts of CS that don’t agree with you. > > However, if you and or others want that decision to be reversed, please indicate so, and we can gather opinions. I’m not asking you to change your view, I know you won’t. I’m asking you to please report accurately who supports your statement so that others of us don’t have to waste time issuing a public corrective. Such a process is not going to add luster to CS participation. > Otherwise please do not confuse people about what is an existing decision of key civil society groups… I’m not confusing people, you are. You are claiming, yet again, to be speaking for “civil society,” when you are not. It is a pretty major misrepresentation. BD > > parminder > >> >>> stand by their decision to communicate their nominees for various organising committees directly to the local organising group (LOG) ... All other kinds of communication from the civil society side >> >> from these members of the civil society ‘side’ >> >>> will also continue to be done from civil society side directly to the LOG, and later, as appropriate to the relevant organising committees. We >> >> These civil society groups >> >> These amendments add some precision and avoid some of the unnecessary confusion that’s arisen. >> >> Thanks >> >> Bill >> >>> do not intend to mediate any such communication through 1Net or any such other group. >>> >>> I will add as a personal opinion that: Brazil/ CGI.Br has taken the political role of organising this important meeting; it cannot now shirk from the corresponding political responsibilities, by passing them on to others who have not been given the needed legitimacy. The world sees and approves Brazil as the host and organiser of this meeting, and it will be best if they are able to continue to do so. Any change of perception would have important bearing on the legitimacy and success of the meeting. >>> >>> I would also like to request LOG to give civil society Liaisons - the names being already communicated to them - equal status and involvement in your meetings and decisions as, apparently, is being given to some other non governmental groups. >>> >>> In this regard I also request the Liaisons to be in contact with the LOG, and also with us. >>> >>> Thanks and best regards >>> >>> Parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> ******************************************************************* >> William J. Drake >> International Fellow & Lecturer >> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >> University of Zurich, Switzerland >> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, >> ICANN, www.ncuc.org >> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), >> www.williamdrake.org >> ******************************************************************** >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ******************************************************************* William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org ******************************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From samantha at linguasynaptica.com Fri Dec 27 06:10:50 2013 From: samantha at linguasynaptica.com (Samantha Dickinson) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 21:10:50 +1000 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Brazil, WSIS 10+ and ITU In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133232B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <52BC70C4.70808@itforchange.net> <52BC7408.8060902@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133232B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Hi Wolfgang Just a quick clarification. The text you refer to in relation to WSIS+10 in 2015 is from the original draft by the G77 and not the version that was eventually adopted. The report on 2nd Committee (http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/68/435) quotes the draft resolution first (pp. 3-12), followed by the final version of the resolution (pp.13-20). It was the second and final version that was adopted. The final version of the resolution delays a decision on the modalities of the WSIS review in 2015 until the end of March 2014 at the latest. Modalities will be put together based on "open intergovernmental consultations”. If it's of any use, I put together a quick overview of the main differences between the two versions here: http://linguasynaptica.com/unga-68-ict4d-resolution/ Regards Sam On 27 December 2013 20:38, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Hi everybody > > I would prefer on this list a discussion on substance and the concrete CS contribution to the two envisaged outcome documents for the meeting in Brazil: 1. a declaration of principles and 2. a road map/plan of action. It is not a secondary issue how CS channels its ideas into the process, and we should be represented in a proper way in all committees respecting the special responsibilities of the local organizers. However, substance comes first and if we want to have a seat on the table, we have to demonstrate that we make substantial contributions and come with new, fresh, fair and workable ideas how to enhance and improve the IG processes in 2014 an beyond in the intersts of individual users based on our commitmenet to human rights and development. > > And BTW, it would be equally important to start a discussion about CS representation in the WSIS 10+ process. If you read the UNGA resolution, CS should be shocked. The resolution says that WSIS 10+ (including a potential third summit in 2015 in Sotchi) will be prepared by an intergovernmental preparatory committeee. There is nothing in the UN resolution which recommends similar structures for the civil society (or private sector and technical community). This goes back to WSIS 2002!!!! It needed two PrepComs until we hade a CS structure in place which could communicate (unfortunately not on an equal level) with the intergovernmental committee. I remember the stormy days in Geneva when the Intergovernmental Committee had its meetings behind closed doors and we were invited only for five minutes to a special TOP. > > Here is the text from the UN resolution, adopted in December 2013 by the UN General Assembly (table by Fihi on behalf ot the Group of 77 and China) > " 20. Reaffirms the role of the General Assembly in the overall review of the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society, tobe held in 2015, as recognized in paragraph 111 of the Tunis Agenda; > > 21. Decides to hold, in 2015, the 10-year review summit on the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society, in accordance with paragraph 111 of the Tunis Agenda; > > 22. Also decides to launch a preparatory process for the review summit by January 2014, which shall take place through an open-ended intergovernmental preparatory committee and be consistent with and draw on the experience of the two phases of the World Summit on the Information Society process and which will define the agenda of the review summit, finalize the negotiated outcome document of the summit and decide on the modalities for the participation of other stakeholders in the summit; > > 23. Invites Governments to participate actively in the preparatory process of the overall review summit in 2015 and to be represented in the summit at the highest possible level; > > 24. Acknowledges the contributions of the International Telecommunication Union in the Geneva and Tunis Summits, and invites the Union to contribute similarly to the overall review summit and its preparatory process;" > > With other words, this list should start a discussion how CS will be included into the PrepComs for WSIS III, how it will self-organize in 2014/2015 for WSIS 10+. Should we have the same structure like between WSIS I and WSIS II with a CS Bureau, a CS Plenary, a CS Content & Themes group and a large number of CS WGs and Caucuses? This IGC was one of the groups, established during PrepCom2 in February 2003 (see attachment). Should we wait until the Intergovernmental Committee defines under which conditions CS is allowed to participate? Or should we ask for a multistakeholder (instead of intergovernmental) preparatory committee? Should we write a letter to Ban Kin Moon and to protest against this governmental exclusive approach to the WSIS 10+ process and say very clearly that we feel excluded and that all the other paragraphs in the resolution which refer to "multistakeholder" are just lip service as long as CS is not an equal partner in the preparatory process? > > And what about CS representation in the UNGIS? > > "16. Also recognizes the role of the United Nations Group on the Information Society as an inter-agency mechanism of the United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Coordination designed to coordinate United Nations implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society;" > > And finally, what this list will do to go prepared to the ITU Plenipot in Busan in Fall 2014? Do we want to play an active role in the WTDC and the ITU sponsored Ministerial WSIS 10+ meeting, orignally planned for Sharm el Sheikh in April 2014 and move now probably to Dubai and/or Bucharest? > > Best wishes for 2014 > > wolfgang > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Samantha Dickinson Internet governance consultant & writer Lingua Synaptica Web: http://linguasynaptica.com Twitter: @sgdickinson From wjdrake at gmail.com Fri Dec 27 06:23:26 2013 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 12:23:26 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Brazil, WSIS 10+ and ITU References: Message-ID: <52D401A0-82F4-4A31-B5B7-F7E4417F2E30@gmail.com> Hi Wolfgang Good to see you back in the flow. On Dec 27, 2013, at 11:38 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > Here is the text from the UN resolution, adopted in December 2013 by the UN General Assembly (table by Fihi on behalf ot the Group of 77 and China) Uh, no, I don’t think so. You are quoting A/C.2/68/L.40 of 7 November 2013, the G77 and China’s contribution. I believe this was superseded after negotiations by A/C.2/68/L.73 of 6 December 2013. The latter deletes mention of summit, but does call for an intergovernmental process to prepare the modalities for review. Best Bill > " 20. Reaffirms the role of the General Assembly in the overall review of the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society, tobe held in 2015, as recognized in paragraph 111 of the Tunis Agenda; > > 21.∫ on the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society, in accordance with paragraph 111 of the Tunis Agenda; > > 22. Also decides to launch a preparatory process for the review summit by January 2014, which shall take place through an open-ended intergovernmental preparatory committee and be consistent with and draw on the experience of the two phases of the World Summit on the Information Society process and which will define the agenda of the review summit, finalize the negotiated outcome document of the summit and decide on the modalities for the participation of other stakeholders in the summit; > > 23. Invites Governments to participate actively in the preparatory process of the overall review summit in 2015 and to be represented in the summit at the highest possible level; > > 24. Acknowledges the contributions of the International Telecommunication Union in the Geneva and Tunis Summits, and invites the Union to contribute similarly to the overall review summit and its preparatory process;" > > With other words, this list should start a discussion how CS will be included into the PrepComs for WSIS III, how it will self-organize in 2014/2015 for WSIS 10+. Should we have the same structure like between WSIS I and WSIS II with a CS Bureau, a CS Plenary, a CS Content & Themes group and a large number of CS WGs and Caucuses? This IGC was one of the groups, established during PrepCom2 in February 2003 (see attachment). Should we wait until the Intergovernmental Committee defines under which conditions CS is allowed to participate? Or should we ask for a multistakeholder (instead of intergovernmental) preparatory committee? Should we write a letter to Ban Kin Moon and to protest against this governmental exclusive approach to the WSIS 10+ process and say very clearly that we feel excluded and that all the other paragraphs in the resolution which refer to "multistakeholder" are just lip service as long as CS is not an equal partner in the preparatory process? > > And what about CS representation in the UNGIS? > > "16. Also recognizes the role of the United Nations Group on the Information Society as an inter-agency mechanism of the United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Coordination designed ******************************************************************* William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org ******************************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeanette at wzb.eu Fri Dec 27 08:27:15 2013 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 14:27:15 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Brazil, WSIS 10+ and ITU In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133232B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <52BC70C4.70808@itforchange.net> <52BC7408.8060902@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133232B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <52BD8033.1050705@wzb.eu> Am 27.12.13 11:38, schrieb "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang": > Hi everybody > > I would prefer on this list a discussion on substance and the > concrete CS contribution to the two envisaged outcome documents for > the meeting in Brazil: 1. a declaration of principles and 2. a road > map/plan of action. It is not a secondary issue how CS channels its > ideas into the process, and we should be represented in a proper way > in all committees respecting the special responsibilities of the > local organizers. However, substance comes first and if we want to > have a seat on the table, we have to demonstrate that we make > substantial contributions and come with new, fresh, fair and workable > ideas how to enhance and improve the IG processes in 2014 an beyond > in the intersts of individual users based on our commitmenet to human > rights and development. > > Since there seem to be several people who are tired of these big-ego cultivating exchanges on this list, we could actually try to work on the Andrew's compilation of contributions which he circulated on Dec 13. (subject line: input into Brazil summit). There has been no substantive response to this as far as I am aware of. The amount of text is a bit daunting and not easy to handle for a mailing list. One way to go about this would be to decide with which section we want to start and have someone drafting a shorter text out of all answers. My suggestion would be to start with questions 3: What is the case for reform of these arrangements and on what grounds (better protection of human rights and democracy, better representation from global south etc) and 4: What existing proposals for reform are you aware of and how do they meet the criteria for reform you set out in the previous question jeanette From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Dec 2 03:18:33 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 16:18:33 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Proposal on Best Bits governance In-Reply-To: <3C99BF28-DB10-4CCA-B572-F42FE7B43060@uzh.ch> References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org> <528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net> <00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org> <528C72F0.1090703@itforchange.net> <795A5EE4-EAA1-4858-9F9A-CE652E85BF12@ciroap.org> <528C7AC8.7000203@itforchange.net> <528F2A38.4040905@apc.org> <529C01C8.1010008@ciroap.org> <070b01ceef1d$b53e1d80$1fba5880$@gmail.com> <3C99BF28-DB10-4CCA-B572-F42FE7B43060@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <529C4259.7040403@ciroap.org> On 02/12/13 15:45, William Drake wrote: > For the second time I endorse Anriette’s proposal but with Adam’s > additional request for some clarifications, e.g. what this SC would be > doing, on who’s behalf. In addition, to the extent that there’s a > claim of interest representation, it’d be good to understand the > relationship to the IGC, in which the same actors are gathered. Would > for example BB be expecting a slot on the 1net coordination group > alongside the IGC? Alternatively, if BB is saying that it doesn’t > accept the 1net mechanism as an interface with the Brazilian > conference planning process and will maintain its own independent > relationship via the 4 liaisons, perhaps it shouldn’t be requesting > one of the five slots, right? > > Friendly message, just wondering if this stuff’s been thought through > off line but not stated yet. We are not really doing anything on anyone's behalf, just facilitating the participants' independent engagement in IG processes on a volunteer basis; so that's why the energy being diverted into this issue is so misplaced. Based on the procedures wiki that was launched ahead of the Bali meeting (http://bestbits.net/wiki/main/procedures/), there are proposals for the steering committee to be able to do various things, mostly quite trivial, which you can find by just searching for "steering" in that page. One of those proposals was that we would offer a service to compile expressions of interest received for nominations to other groups, and to post those back to the main list for approval by consensus. But even this was received with suspicion, so we stepped away from it, and meanwhile a new joint civil society group has come together to do essentially the same thing (since, one way or another, it needs doing). Nonetheless, this proposed procedure (and all the others) remain up for discussion. But it makes no sense to rush this and to divert our limited, volunteer energies into developing a perfect set of processes for Best Bits when there are more important substantive issues to be dealing with related to the Brazil meeting, enhanced cooperation process, and so on. At least, I, for one, don't have time to do both, and I know which I'd rather be working on. So that's why I favour Anriette's proposal, which is more realistic and achieveable, over Michael's which I feel displays a little unnecessarily paranoia about the interim steering committee's powers and motives. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 263 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Dec 27 06:38:19 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 12:38:19 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] AW: [governance] Brazil, WSIS 10+ and ITU References: <52BC70C4.70808@itforchange.net> <52BC7408.8060902@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133232B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133232D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Thx Bill for the clarification. Yes I quoted the draft from November 7, 2013 and was not aware about the last minute changes. However this does not change the challenge for the civil society. And even if there is not formal summit in 2015, the process is underway and the process as designed by the UN, is intergovernmental leadership with unclear involvement of non-governmental stakeholders, including civil society. Why such an "intergovernmental preparatory committee" is not designed according to the UNCSTD WGs? The options which I have heard as an alternative to an independent WSIS III Summit are a.- to do it together with the big MDG Summt in 2015 or to have a WSIS Summit in 2016. Best wishes wolfgang ________________________________ Von: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch] Gesendet: Fr 27.12.2013 12:15 An: Governance; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Cc: Parminder Singh; Best Bits Betreff: Re: [governance] Brazil, WSIS 10+ and ITU Hi Wolfgang Good to see you back in the flow. On Dec 27, 2013, at 11:38 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: Here is the text from the UN resolution, adopted in December 2013 by the UN General Assembly (table by Fihi on behalf ot the Group of 77 and China) Uh, no, I don't think so. You are quoting A/C.2/68/L.40 of 7 November 2013, the G77 and China's contribution. I believe this was superseded after negotiations by A/C.2/68/L.73 of 6 December 2013. The latter deletes mention of summit, but does call for an intergovernmental process to prepare the modalities for review. Best Bill " 20. Reaffirms the role of the General Assembly in the overall review of the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society, tobe held in 2015, as recognized in paragraph 111 of the Tunis Agenda; 21.? on the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society, in accordance with paragraph 111 of the Tunis Agenda; 22. Also decides to launch a preparatory process for the review summit by January 2014, which shall take place through an open-ended intergovernmental preparatory committee and be consistent with and draw on the experience of the two phases of the World Summit on the Information Society process and which will define the agenda of the review summit, finalize the negotiated outcome document of the summit and decide on the modalities for the participation of other stakeholders in the summit; 23. Invites Governments to participate actively in the preparatory process of the overall review summit in 2015 and to be represented in the summit at the highest possible level; 24. Acknowledges the contributions of the International Telecommunication Union in the Geneva and Tunis Summits, and invites the Union to contribute similarly to the overall review summit and its preparatory process;" With other words, this list should start a discussion how CS will be included into the PrepComs for WSIS III, how it will self-organize in 2014/2015 for WSIS 10+. Should we have the same structure like between WSIS I and WSIS II with a CS Bureau, a CS Plenary, a CS Content & Themes group and a large number of CS WGs and Caucuses? This IGC was one of the groups, established during PrepCom2 in February 2003 (see attachment). Should we wait until the Intergovernmental Committee defines under which conditions CS is allowed to participate? Or should we ask for a multistakeholder (instead of intergovernmental) preparatory committee? Should we write a letter to Ban Kin Moon and to protest against this governmental exclusive approach to the WSIS 10+ process and say very clearly that we feel excluded and that all the other paragraphs in the resolution which refer to "multistakeholder" are just lip service as long as CS is not an equal partner in the preparatory process? And what about CS representation in the UNGIS? "16. Also recognizes the role of the United Nations Group on the Information Society as an inter-agency mechanism of the United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Coordination designed to coordinate United Nations implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society;" And finally, what this list will do to go prepared to the ITU Plenipot in Busan in Fall 2014? Do we want to play an active role in the WTDC and the ITU sponsored Ministerial WSIS 10+ meeting, orignally planned for Sharm el Sheikh in April 2014 and move now probably to Dubai and/or Bucharest? Best wishes for 2014 wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ********************************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************************** From william.drake at uzh.ch Fri Dec 27 06:15:28 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 12:15:28 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Brazil, WSIS 10+ and ITU In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133232B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <52BC70C4.70808@itforchange.net> <52BC7408.8060902@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133232B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Hi Wolfgang Good to see you back in the flow. On Dec 27, 2013, at 11:38 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > Here is the text from the UN resolution, adopted in December 2013 by the UN General Assembly (table by Fihi on behalf ot the Group of 77 and China) Uh, no, I don’t think so. You are quoting A/C.2/68/L.40 of 7 November 2013, the G77 and China’s contribution. I believe this was superseded after negotiations by A/C.2/68/L.73 of 6 December 2013. The latter deletes mention of summit, but does call for an intergovernmental process to prepare the modalities for review. Best Bill > " 20. Reaffirms the role of the General Assembly in the overall review of the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society, tobe held in 2015, as recognized in paragraph 111 of the Tunis Agenda; > > 21.∫ on the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society, in accordance with paragraph 111 of the Tunis Agenda; > > 22. Also decides to launch a preparatory process for the review summit by January 2014, which shall take place through an open-ended intergovernmental preparatory committee and be consistent with and draw on the experience of the two phases of the World Summit on the Information Society process and which will define the agenda of the review summit, finalize the negotiated outcome document of the summit and decide on the modalities for the participation of other stakeholders in the summit; > > 23. Invites Governments to participate actively in the preparatory process of the overall review summit in 2015 and to be represented in the summit at the highest possible level; > > 24. Acknowledges the contributions of the International Telecommunication Union in the Geneva and Tunis Summits, and invites the Union to contribute similarly to the overall review summit and its preparatory process;" > > With other words, this list should start a discussion how CS will be included into the PrepComs for WSIS III, how it will self-organize in 2014/2015 for WSIS 10+. Should we have the same structure like between WSIS I and WSIS II with a CS Bureau, a CS Plenary, a CS Content & Themes group and a large number of CS WGs and Caucuses? This IGC was one of the groups, established during PrepCom2 in February 2003 (see attachment). Should we wait until the Intergovernmental Committee defines under which conditions CS is allowed to participate? Or should we ask for a multistakeholder (instead of intergovernmental) preparatory committee? Should we write a letter to Ban Kin Moon and to protest against this governmental exclusive approach to the WSIS 10+ process and say very clearly that we feel excluded and that all the other paragraphs in the resolution which refer to "multistakeholder" are just lip service as long as CS is not an equal partner in the preparatory process? > > And what about CS representation in the UNGIS? > > "16. Also recognizes the role of the United Nations Group on the Information Society as an inter-agency mechanism of the United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Coordination designed to coordinate United Nations implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society;" > > And finally, what this list will do to go prepared to the ITU Plenipot in Busan in Fall 2014? Do we want to play an active role in the WTDC and the ITU sponsored Ministerial WSIS 10+ meeting, orignally planned for Sharm el Sheikh in April 2014 and move now probably to Dubai and/or Bucharest? > > Best wishes for 2014 > > wolfgang > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ********************************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Dec 27 05:38:43 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 11:38:43 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Brazil, WSIS 10+ and ITU References: <52BC70C4.70808@itforchange.net> <52BC7408.8060902@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133232B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi everybody I would prefer on this list a discussion on substance and the concrete CS contribution to the two envisaged outcome documents for the meeting in Brazil: 1. a declaration of principles and 2. a road map/plan of action. It is not a secondary issue how CS channels its ideas into the process, and we should be represented in a proper way in all committees respecting the special responsibilities of the local organizers. However, substance comes first and if we want to have a seat on the table, we have to demonstrate that we make substantial contributions and come with new, fresh, fair and workable ideas how to enhance and improve the IG processes in 2014 an beyond in the intersts of individual users based on our commitmenet to human rights and development. And BTW, it would be equally important to start a discussion about CS representation in the WSIS 10+ process. If you read the UNGA resolution, CS should be shocked. The resolution says that WSIS 10+ (including a potential third summit in 2015 in Sotchi) will be prepared by an intergovernmental preparatory committeee. There is nothing in the UN resolution which recommends similar structures for the civil society (or private sector and technical community). This goes back to WSIS 2002!!!! It needed two PrepComs until we hade a CS structure in place which could communicate (unfortunately not on an equal level) with the intergovernmental committee. I remember the stormy days in Geneva when the Intergovernmental Committee had its meetings behind closed doors and we were invited only for five minutes to a special TOP. Here is the text from the UN resolution, adopted in December 2013 by the UN General Assembly (table by Fihi on behalf ot the Group of 77 and China) " 20. Reaffirms the role of the General Assembly in the overall review of the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society, tobe held in 2015, as recognized in paragraph 111 of the Tunis Agenda; 21. Decides to hold, in 2015, the 10-year review summit on the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society, in accordance with paragraph 111 of the Tunis Agenda; 22. Also decides to launch a preparatory process for the review summit by January 2014, which shall take place through an open-ended intergovernmental preparatory committee and be consistent with and draw on the experience of the two phases of the World Summit on the Information Society process and which will define the agenda of the review summit, finalize the negotiated outcome document of the summit and decide on the modalities for the participation of other stakeholders in the summit; 23. Invites Governments to participate actively in the preparatory process of the overall review summit in 2015 and to be represented in the summit at the highest possible level; 24. Acknowledges the contributions of the International Telecommunication Union in the Geneva and Tunis Summits, and invites the Union to contribute similarly to the overall review summit and its preparatory process;" With other words, this list should start a discussion how CS will be included into the PrepComs for WSIS III, how it will self-organize in 2014/2015 for WSIS 10+. Should we have the same structure like between WSIS I and WSIS II with a CS Bureau, a CS Plenary, a CS Content & Themes group and a large number of CS WGs and Caucuses? This IGC was one of the groups, established during PrepCom2 in February 2003 (see attachment). Should we wait until the Intergovernmental Committee defines under which conditions CS is allowed to participate? Or should we ask for a multistakeholder (instead of intergovernmental) preparatory committee? Should we write a letter to Ban Kin Moon and to protest against this governmental exclusive approach to the WSIS 10+ process and say very clearly that we feel excluded and that all the other paragraphs in the resolution which refer to "multistakeholder" are just lip service as long as CS is not an equal partner in the preparatory process? And what about CS representation in the UNGIS? "16. Also recognizes the role of the United Nations Group on the Information Society as an inter-agency mechanism of the United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Coordination designed to coordinate United Nations implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society;" And finally, what this list will do to go prepared to the ITU Plenipot in Busan in Fall 2014? Do we want to play an active role in the WTDC and the ITU sponsored Ministerial WSIS 10+ meeting, orignally planned for Sharm el Sheikh in April 2014 and move now probably to Dubai and/or Bucharest? Best wishes for 2014 wolfgang -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: flyer3 Rev..doc Type: application/msword Size: 31232 bytes Desc: flyer3 Rev..doc URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Dec 27 09:41:49 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 20:11:49 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: <3CE0D58A-801F-4AEC-99B5-7AE33B3B3223@gmail.com> References: <52BC7DC0.2010605@itforchange.net> <52BD2EAA.3090408@itforchange.net> <52BD3EED.2050709@itforchange.net> <855190B1-7012-4530-9147-D9D9418BB942@gmail.com> <52BD57AE.6010504@itforchange.net> <3CE0D58A-801F-4AEC-99B5-7AE33B3B3223@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52BD91AD.7090309@itforchange.net> Ok, Bill, There was a category confusion here. Since we were/ are interacting within the IGC and BB space I meant simply 'our CS groups' here had made that decision. I agree that it is factually incorrect to say that it is a civil society decision. Should only say it is IGC plus BB plus APC plus IRP decision. I stand corrected. (Since I was writing to Carlos I was also mindful that Carlos knew exactly which groups put forward this position and will communicate accordingly...) In any case, I request the leaderships of IGC, BB, APC and IRP colaition to let us know what there current position is on this issue, and what do they propose to do since it seems that things are going in the direction that they did not want them to go.. parminder On Friday 27 December 2013 04:35 PM, William Drake wrote: > > On Dec 27, 2013, at 11:34 AM, parminder > wrote: > >> >> On Friday 27 December 2013 02:53 PM, William Drake wrote: >>> Hi >>> >>> Small corrections please >>> >>> On Dec 27, 2013, at 9:48 AM, parminder >> > wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Carlos >>>> >>>> I understand that the local organising group will meet in a few >>>> hours from now... >>>> >>>> I will request you to let them know that civil society groups >>> >>> Should read “some civil society groups”. Probably necessary to give >>> their names so the message is understood properly. >> >> I understand that it is a decision of 4 CS organisations/ networks - >> IGC, BB, IRP and APC - which was sent in a written form to the >> Brazilians and I am only reiterating that decision... I understand >> that decision stand unless a counter decision is taken.. > > Well…As Nnenna and other have documented, IGC and BB are in fact the > same people, and as BB is a voting platform with formal members it’s > not clear how legitimately this position was adopted without a vote. > IRP I thought was a multistakeholder coalition, is it not? I don’t > recall what APC’s position was, would be good to have reconfirmation. > Either way, not endorsing that approach is NCSG (almost 400 > organization and individual members), Diplo (quite a lot), or various > other CS networks and organizations engaged in IG. So you really are > not in a position to issue grandiose totalizing proclamations on > behalf of all global civil society. And FWIW, as both a founding IGC > member and a BB attendee, I certainly I don’t recall an open and > inclusive discussion in either setting about whether to stand aloof of > the process the Brazilians are asking us to use (which I can’t believe > we’re still debating). What I do remember is a few loud and > aggressive voices demanding that this be the stance and nobody wanting > to tangle. I also remember the very same people who denounced using > 1net as the agreed aggregator of nominations and anything else then > demanding to be appointed to its coordination committee, which is a > pretty blatant bit of have your cake and eat it too incoherence. > > Anyway, it’s of course totally fine if there are groups that feel that > on principle you will not interface with the Brazilian process in the > manner the Brazilians have asked for. Then simply say who you are, > and don’t pretend to speak for other parts of CS that don’t agree with > you. >> >> However, if you and or others want that decision to be reversed, >> please indicate so, and we can gather opinions. > > I’m not asking you to change your view, I know you won’t. I’m asking > you to please report accurately who supports your statement so that > others of us don’t have to waste time issuing a public corrective. > Such a process is not going to add luster to CS participation. > >> Otherwise please do not confuse people about what is an existing >> decision of key civil society groups… > > I’m not confusing people, you are. You are claiming, yet again, to be > speaking for “civil society,” when you are not. It is a pretty major > misrepresentation. > > BD >> >> parminder >> >>> >>>> stand by their decision to communicate their nominees for various >>>> organising committees directly to the local organising group (LOG) >>>> ... All other kinds of communication from the civil society side >>> >>> from these members of the civil society ‘side’ >>> >>>> will also continue to be done from civil society side directly to >>>> the LOG, and later, as appropriate to the relevant organising >>>> committees. We >>> >>> These civil society groups >>> >>> These amendments add some precision and avoid some of the >>> unnecessary confusion that’s arisen. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Bill >>> >>>> do not intend to mediate any such communication through 1Net or any >>>> such other group. >>>> >>>> I will add as a personal opinion that: Brazil/ CGI.Br has taken the >>>> political role of organising this important meeting; it cannot now >>>> shirk from the corresponding political responsibilities, by passing >>>> them on to others who have not been given the needed legitimacy. >>>> The world sees and approves Brazil as the host and organiser of >>>> this meeting, and it will be best if they are able to continue to >>>> do so. Any change of perception would have important bearing on the >>>> legitimacy and success of the meeting. >>>> >>>> I would also like to request LOG to give civil society Liaisons - >>>> the names being already communicated to them - equal status and >>>> involvement in your meetings and decisions as, apparently, is being >>>> given to some other non governmental groups. >>>> >>>> In this regard I also request the Liaisons to be in contact with >>>> the LOG, and also with us. >>>> >>>> Thanks and best regards >>>> >>>> Parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> ******************************************************************* >>> William J. Drake >>> International Fellow & Lecturer >>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >>> University of Zurich, Switzerland >>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, >>> ICANN, www.ncuc.org >>> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), >>> wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), >>> www.williamdrake.org >>> ******************************************************************** >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ******************************************************************* > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), > wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), > www.williamdrake.org > ******************************************************************** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Dec 27 09:48:20 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 22:48:20 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: <52BD91AD.7090309@itforchange.net> References: <52BC7DC0.2010605@itforchange.net> <52BD2EAA.3090408@itforchange.net> <52BD3EED.2050709@itforchange.net> <855190B1-7012-4530-9147-D9D9418BB942@gmail.com> <52BD57AE.6010504@itforchange.net> <3CE0D58A-801F-4AEC-99B5-7AE33B3B3223@gmail.com> <52BD91AD.7090309@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On 27 Dec 2013, at 10:41 pm, parminder wrote: > In any case, I request the leaderships of IGC, BB, APC and IRP colaition to let us know what there current position is on this issue, and what do they propose to do since it seems that things are going in the direction that they did not want them to go.. Just speaking personally for now, while I remain skeptical about 1net, I am content with the position that Ian has described, that the coordinating group will be responsible for the nominations, and the 1net committee will just be a conduit. I don't see much "value add" there, but neither do I see grave harm. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From Andrew at gp-digital.org Fri Dec 27 10:01:13 2013 From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 15:01:13 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Brazil, WSIS 10+ and ITU In-Reply-To: <52BD8033.1050705@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Hi Jeanette I should have something to send out in the next few days if you can hang on - the results of some preliminary analysis I¹ve been taking it easy over Xmas here On 27/12/2013 13:27, "Jeanette Hofmann" wrote: > > >Am 27.12.13 11:38, schrieb "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang": >> Hi everybody >> >> I would prefer on this list a discussion on substance and the >> concrete CS contribution to the two envisaged outcome documents for >> the meeting in Brazil: 1. a declaration of principles and 2. a road >> map/plan of action. It is not a secondary issue how CS channels its >> ideas into the process, and we should be represented in a proper way >> in all committees respecting the special responsibilities of the >> local organizers. However, substance comes first and if we want to >> have a seat on the table, we have to demonstrate that we make >> substantial contributions and come with new, fresh, fair and workable >> ideas how to enhance and improve the IG processes in 2014 an beyond >> in the intersts of individual users based on our commitmenet to human >> rights and development. >> >> >Since there seem to be several people who are tired of these big-ego >cultivating exchanges on this list, we could actually try to work on the >Andrew's compilation of contributions which he circulated on Dec 13. >(subject line: input into Brazil summit). There has been no substantive >response to this as far as I am aware of. > >The amount of text is a bit daunting and not easy to handle for a >mailing list. One way to go about this would be to decide with which >section we want to start and have someone drafting a shorter text out of >all answers. My suggestion would be to start with questions 3: > >What is the case for reform of these arrangements and on what grounds >(better protection of human rights and democracy, better representation >from global south etc) >and 4: >What existing proposals for reform are you aware of and how do they meet >the criteria for reform you set out in the previous question > >jeanette From genekimmelman at gmail.com Fri Dec 27 10:10:06 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 10:10:06 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Brazil, WSIS 10+ and ITU In-Reply-To: References: <52BD8033.1050705@wzb.eu> Message-ID: And I think everyone should give the Brazilians a breather, and let them celebrate their holidays in peace!!! Happy New Year to all of you! On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > Hi Jeanette > > I should have something to send out in the next few days if you can hang > on - the results of some preliminary analysis > > I¹ve been taking it easy over Xmas here > > On 27/12/2013 13:27, "Jeanette Hofmann" wrote: > > > > > > >Am 27.12.13 11:38, schrieb "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang": > >> Hi everybody > >> > >> I would prefer on this list a discussion on substance and the > >> concrete CS contribution to the two envisaged outcome documents for > >> the meeting in Brazil: 1. a declaration of principles and 2. a road > >> map/plan of action. It is not a secondary issue how CS channels its > >> ideas into the process, and we should be represented in a proper way > >> in all committees respecting the special responsibilities of the > >> local organizers. However, substance comes first and if we want to > >> have a seat on the table, we have to demonstrate that we make > >> substantial contributions and come with new, fresh, fair and workable > >> ideas how to enhance and improve the IG processes in 2014 an beyond > >> in the intersts of individual users based on our commitmenet to human > >> rights and development. > >> > >> > >Since there seem to be several people who are tired of these big-ego > >cultivating exchanges on this list, we could actually try to work on the > >Andrew's compilation of contributions which he circulated on Dec 13. > >(subject line: input into Brazil summit). There has been no substantive > >response to this as far as I am aware of. > > > >The amount of text is a bit daunting and not easy to handle for a > >mailing list. One way to go about this would be to decide with which > >section we want to start and have someone drafting a shorter text out of > >all answers. My suggestion would be to start with questions 3: > > > >What is the case for reform of these arrangements and on what grounds > >(better protection of human rights and democracy, better representation > >from global south etc) > >and 4: > >What existing proposals for reform are you aware of and how do they meet > >the criteria for reform you set out in the previous question > > > >jeanette > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Dec 27 10:30:24 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 21:00:24 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: References: <52BC7DC0.2010605@itforchange.net> <52BD2EAA.3090408@itforchange.net> <52BD3EED.2050709@itforchange.net> <855190B1-7012-4530-9147-D9D9418BB942@gmail.com> <52BD57AE.6010504@itforchange.net> <3CE0D58A-801F-4AEC-99B5-7AE33B3B3223@gmail.com> <52BD91AD.7090309@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52BD9D10.6050706@itforchange.net> On Friday 27 December 2013 08:18 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 27 Dec 2013, at 10:41 pm, parminder > wrote: > >> In any case, I request the leaderships of IGC, BB, APC and IRP >> colaition to let us know what there current position is on this >> issue, and what do they propose to do since it seems that things are >> going in the direction that they did not want them to go.. > > Just speaking personally for now, while I remain skeptical about 1net, > I am content with the position that Ian has described, that the > coordinating group will be responsible for the nominations, and the > 1net committee will just be a conduit. I don't see much "value add" > there, but neither do I see grave harm. Jeremy You had termed something as a 'power grab' not long back :) If something is to be only a conduit, why would that role be sought by anyone, and conferred on anyone.... I am sure the Brazilians are perfectly good in running email ids for themselves.... Firstly, there could be issues about forwarding names for organizing committees... Bill elaborated just now how some groups cannot claim that they exhaust the category of 'civil society' .... If more names get forwarded than there are CS slots on different committees, who prunes the numbers down..... This is the crucial question.... Can you assure me that it wont be 1Net, who would be asked to just forward the perfect number and no more.... Secondly, this is an official entry of 1Net as (an extremely important) formal entity into the Brazil meeting process... Cant you see that! At present, it is about the committee members' nominations. Later it will be about receiving, drafting, organising, compiling substantive inputs..... And when one is caught in a bind about what exactly is to be considered a 'mainstream' input from one stakeholder group or the other, a similar choosing role will arise... Who will do it. Watch out for 1Net, soon to be declared as bottom up, properly constituted 'community process'. And well of course, it is by now clear to me that the main role that 1Net will play is to present a 'consensus' (or thereabout) community view on substantive matters - the proposed outcomes of the meeting - a set of Internet principles, and a road map for reform of global IG (or for not reforming it). (If you are a betting kind I am even ready to take bets :) ) Anyway, I really hope that civil society stops playing naive..... And to the extend some actors here are not playing naive but it is a considered pursuance of a political thinking and strategy, please be clear about it....So that others who have a different political thinking may be allowed to express themselves fairly and allowed to do what they want to do. That I would say is a core civil society value. Separating people into 'nice' and 'not so nice' categories wont do any more to cover up real deep politics in operation here... parminder > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge > hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Fri Dec 27 11:23:28 2013 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 11:23:28 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Brazil, WSIS 10+ and ITU In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133232D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <52BC70C4.70808@itforchange.net> <52BC7408.8060902@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133232B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133232D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Hi Wolfgang, all, I very much share the concerns you raised, however I wonder if strategically the intergovernmental consultations on the modalities for the overall WSIS review can be separated from the modalities themselves. [see OP22 below] In other words, couldn't CS and other stakeholders take advantage of the fact that the modalities for the review haven't been decided yet and push for a CSTD WG-like structure to be the the outcome of the consultations that will be taking place early next year? *22. Decides to finalize the modalities for the overall review by the General Assembly of the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society, in accordance with paragraph 111 of the Tunis Agenda, as early as possible, but no later than the end of March 2014, and invites the President of the Assembly to appoint two co-facilitators to convene open intergovernmental consultations for that purpose; * Perhaps it's optimistic to think an intergovernmental consultation could result in a more open prep-com process, but given that UNGA has created 2 MS WGs through CSTD in the last few years and that theis resolution reaffirms CSTD (through ECOSOC) as "the focal point in the system-wide follow-up" for WSIS (PP10), maybe it's worth a try? With regards to some of the other ITU meetings you mentioned in your earlier email, it was announced at the CSTD intersessional and WSIS+10 MPP meeting earlier this month that WTDC will be moved to Dubai. The high level ITU sponsored WSIS meeting is still somewhat up in the air because there wasn't enough progress made at the December meeting to hold the high level meeting in April. There will likely be a working meeting in Sharm al-Sheikh and the high level one will need to be rescheduled. At least that was my understanding of the situation. I think it would be great to discuss CS approaches to WSIS, WTDC, PP in the new year. Happy holidays! Deborah On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:38 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > Thx Bill for the clarification. > > Yes I quoted the draft from November 7, 2013 and was not aware about the > last minute changes. However this does not change the challenge for the > civil society. And even if there is not formal summit in 2015, the process > is underway and the process as designed by the UN, is intergovernmental > leadership with unclear involvement of non-governmental stakeholders, > including civil society. Why such an "intergovernmental preparatory > committee" is not designed according to the UNCSTD WGs? > > The options which I have heard as an alternative to an independent WSIS > III Summit are a.- to do it together with the big MDG Summt in 2015 or to > have a WSIS Summit in 2016. > > Best wishes > > wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch] > Gesendet: Fr 27.12.2013 12:15 > An: Governance; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang > Cc: Parminder Singh; Best Bits > Betreff: Re: [governance] Brazil, WSIS 10+ and ITU > > > Hi Wolfgang > > Good to see you back in the flow. > > On Dec 27, 2013, at 11:38 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang < > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > > > Here is the text from the UN resolution, adopted in December 2013 > by the UN General Assembly (table by Fihi on behalf ot the Group of 77 and > China) > > > > Uh, no, I don't think so. You are quoting A/C.2/68/L.40 of 7 November > 2013, the G77 and China's contribution. I believe this was superseded > after negotiations by A/C.2/68/L.73 of 6 December 2013. The latter deletes > mention of summit, but does call for an intergovernmental process to > prepare the modalities for review. > > Best > > Bill > > > " 20. Reaffirms the role of the General Assembly in the overall > review of the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the > Information Society, tobe held in 2015, as recognized in paragraph 111 of > the Tunis Agenda; > > 21.? on the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on > the Information Society, in accordance with paragraph 111 of the Tunis > Agenda; > > 22. Also decides to launch a preparatory process for the review > summit by January 2014, which shall take place through an open-ended > intergovernmental preparatory committee and be consistent with and draw on > the experience of the two phases of the World Summit on the Information > Society process and which will define the agenda of the review summit, > finalize the negotiated outcome document of the summit and decide on the > modalities for the participation of other stakeholders in the summit; > > 23. Invites Governments to participate actively in the preparatory > process of the overall review summit in 2015 and to be represented in the > summit at the highest possible level; > > 24. Acknowledges the contributions of the International > Telecommunication Union in the Geneva and Tunis Summits, and invites the > Union to contribute similarly to the overall review summit and its > preparatory process;" > > With other words, this list should start a discussion how CS will > be included into the PrepComs for WSIS III, how it will self-organize in > 2014/2015 for WSIS 10+. Should we have the same structure like between WSIS > I and WSIS II with a CS Bureau, a CS Plenary, a CS Content & Themes group > and a large number of CS WGs and Caucuses? This IGC was one of the groups, > established during PrepCom2 in February 2003 (see attachment). Should we > wait until the Intergovernmental Committee defines under which conditions > CS is allowed to participate? Or should we ask for a multistakeholder > (instead of intergovernmental) preparatory committee? Should we write a > letter to Ban Kin Moon and to protest against this governmental exclusive > approach to the WSIS 10+ process and say very clearly that we feel excluded > and that all the other paragraphs in the resolution which refer to > "multistakeholder" are just lip service as long as CS is not an equal > partner in the preparatory process? > > And what about CS representation in the UNGIS? > > "16. Also recognizes the role of the United Nations Group on the > Information Society as an inter-agency mechanism of the United Nations > System Chief Executives Board for Coordination designed to coordinate > United Nations implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the > Information Society;" > > And finally, what this list will do to go prepared to the ITU > Plenipot in Busan in Fall 2014? Do we want to play an active role in the > WTDC and the ITU sponsored Ministerial WSIS 10+ meeting, orignally planned > for Sharm el Sheikh in April 2014 and move now probably to Dubai and/or > Bucharest? > > Best wishes for 2014 > > wolfgang > > > Rev..doc>____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ********************************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************************** > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | accessnow.org rightscon.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brett at accessnow.org Fri Dec 27 22:00:13 2013 From: brett at accessnow.org (Brett Solomon) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 22:00:13 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Save the Date: RightsCon Silicon Valley March 3rd-5th, 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <75F7922F-063B-453D-86DB-7A0C0D8B39CF@ciroap.org> Message-ID: I'd be in favor of a session at RightsCon that can be used as a space to cross pollinate ideas and understandings on governance from a diverse set of civil society actors. Many of the US based orgs will be there, as well as CS from across the world, and unpacking perspectives and mapping out plans could be useful at this stage. I also think its an opportunity to grow our sector by bringing in new actors who are not familiar with the Brazil event or the reasons that have lead to it. Let's think more about how to make this productive, and we very much welcome your input in developing the session further Marilia. Brett Brett Solomon Executive Director | Access accessnow.org +1 917 969 6077 | skype: brettsolomon | @accessnow Key ID: 0x312B641A *RightsCon Silicon Valley, March 3-5, 2014. Register interest now !* On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Hello all, this will certainly be a great session. I will definitely > connect remotely, if I am not in SF. I would just like to make a > suggestion. I agree with Jeremy that the session could be a moment to > discuss and plan CS participation in the meeting in Brazil. But I also feel > that there is a valuable opportunity to foster more understanding among > US-based CS and global CS, and to make the concerns of actors in the > developing world regarding the IG regime better understood. > > For example, the way that several US non-gov campaigns get framed as > "hands off the Internet" or against a supposed UN power grab always made me > feel a bit uncomfortable. Although this ideas are easy to communicate to > broader audience, I believe that, particularly during WCIT, they caused > misunderstanding by mixing up the positions countries like Russia and > Brazil, which have been historically different, and by demonizing the UN > and non-multistakeholder spaces as a whole. Since WCIT is one of the major > references to US organizations, as Jeremy mentioned, maybe the scope of the > session could be a bit broader in order to discuss what were the problems > and disfunctionalities in the regime that pushed many actors (CS, iStars) > to support change, in other words, to mention the underlying reasons that > led to Brazil. Problems have been pointed out before Snowden. When setting > the background of the RightsCon session, it would be important to show that > the meeting in Brazil may have been triggered by mass surveillance, but the > issue goes beyond it and precedes it. > > Marília > > > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Deborah Brown wrote: > >> Yes, I think that's a great idea. Perhaps what makes the most sense is to >> use the session for those in the network who are planning to develop ideas >> and submissions for Brazil and have discussions on the concrete proposals >> with the wider community. We can also make available some space for a side >> meeting/strategy session if there is interest. For both options, we would >> make sure that remote participation is available. Interested in hearing >> others' ideas as well. Please feel free to contact me on or off list if >> you're interested in discussing this further. >> >> Kind regards, >> Deborah >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Puddephatt < >> Andrew at gp-digital.org> wrote: >> >>> Could we host a session focused on IG given that by then we should have >>> put together some ideas of our own for Brazil? >>> >>> From: Jeremy Malcolm >>> Date: Saturday, 14 December 2013 06:36 >>> To: "" >>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Save the Date: RightsCon Silicon Valley March >>> 3rd-5th, 2014 >>> >>> To follow up on Brett's message, just to let everyone know that we >>> a placeholder "Best Bits" session has been submitted for RightsCon, though >>> the original idea of using it to finalise inputs for the Brazil meeting >>> won't work out - because the deadline for those inputs is slightly too >>> soon. So, we need to find another theme for the meeting. Since many of >>> the US groups at RightsCon will be new to the international Internet >>> governance debates (except for maybe ICANN and WCIT), a couple of us >>> considered that it might be worthwhile to structure a session around more >>> closely integrating US based civil society into our community (which was >>> one of my original aims for Best Bits). >>> >>> Anyway, who is interested in sharing ideas (either these or other ideas) >>> and developing the session further? Deborah has offered to manage a >>> workflow for the session, if we are all happy for her to do that. What do >>> you all think? >>> >>> Also, separately to RightsCon, I should flag early that I have the >>> opportunity to arrange a Best Bits pre-meeting in S?o Paulo immediately >>> prior to the Brazil meeting, which would be hosted by IDEC, the largest >>> Brazilian consumer group. Of course at this stage, we don't know who will >>> be attending the Brazil meeting, so plans are at an early stage. But if >>> anyone is interested in hearing or discussing more about that, you can also >>> get in touch (perhaps off-list for now, until plans and funding are firmer). >>> >>> On 6 Dec 2013, at 11:40 pm, Brett Solomon wrote: >>> >>> Dear friends, >>> >>> As you may know, RightsCon Silicon Valley is >>> taking place March 3-5 in San Francisco at Mission Bay Conference Center. >>> This is an opportunity for different communities to come together - global >>> activists, companies, thinkers, investors, engineers and government >>> officials - to discuss the tensions and opportunities at the intersection >>> of human rights and the internet. >>> >>> RightsCon Silicon Valley has a particular focus on technology companies >>> and aims to create a space for multistakeholder dialogue on human rights >>> best practices and learnings in the context of the private sector. The >>> event also takes place 7 weeks before the Brazil meeting and as I mentioned >>> could be used as a venue to discuss strategy and plans for April. >>> >>> The program is open to submissions, and we're looking to a range of >>> networks, including the Bestbits community to help shape the agenda. Here >>> is the link to propose a session. >>> >>> >>> The deadline for submission is December 20th. If you have questions, >>> check out the website at rightscon.org, or >>> email Rian Wanstreet at rian at accessnow.org, or we can chat more on this >>> list. >>> >>> For those of you who have participated in RightsCon in the past, we look >>> forward to seeing you again. >>> >>> Enjoy your weekends! >>> >>> Brett >>> >>> *Speakers to date include: *Rebecca MacKinnon (Ranking Digital Rights); >>> Alaa Abd El Fattah (one of Egypt's most respected activists and software >>> engineers (currently detained)); Jim Cowie (CTO, Renesys); John Donahoe >>> (President & CEO, eBay); Moez Chakchouk (Founder of Tunisia's IXP and >>> 404Labs); Brad Burnham (Union Square Ventures); Colin Crowell (Head of >>> Global Public Policy, Twitter); Michael Posner (NYU Professor of Business >>> and Society); Eileen Donahoe (former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Human >>> Rights Council); Jillian York (Director for International Freedom of >>> Expression, EFF); ; Richard Stallman (Founder GNU Project and Free Software >>> Foundation); David Gorodyansky (CEO & Founder, AnchorFree); Mitchell Baker >>> (Chairperson, Mozilla Corporation) and many more. >>> >>> >>> Brett Solomon >>> Executive Director | Access >>> accessnow.org >>> +1 917 969 6077 | skype: brettsolomon | @accessnow >>> Key ID: 0x312B641A >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> >>> *Dr Jeremy MalcolmSenior Policy OfficerConsumers International | the >>> global campaigning voice for consumers* >>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >>> Malaysia >>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>> >>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge >>> hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >>> >>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>> >>> Read our email confidentiality notice. >>> Don't print this email unless necessary. >>> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly >>> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For >>> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Deborah Brown >> Senior Policy Analyst >> Access | accessnow.org >> rightscon.org >> >> @deblebrown >> PGP 0x5EB4727D >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > *Marília Maciel* > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Dec 2 03:23:43 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 13:53:43 +0530 Subject: Fwd: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT In-Reply-To: <529C2804.7090308@ITforChange.net> References: <528DE9DD.4040605@ITforChange.net> <529C2804.7090308@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <529C438F.4030606@itforchange.net> While I am more or less done with raising process issues about BestBits given that there is such an almost violent resistance from the 'responsibility holders', following up on Guru's email, I cannot stop myself from observing how perspectives can change when it is about 'us' - something which is most unfortunate for civil society to do... Many civil society persons, including you Jeremy, if I am not wrong, have been seriously objecting to how 1net has been organising itself, and also seeking to become 'the' non-gov front for the Brazil meeting... 1net's prime-movers or 'owners' can also as well say - as you do - that, well, there are so many urgent issues at hand (which is an indisputable fact), lets not get into unnecessary process issues, we can always do it later... that unknown, and never to come, later time... Civil society must always remain very vary of thinking of themselves as somehow so morally superior that they are exempt from normal accountability and transparency requirements.... All serious CS kinds I know and respect always think that civil society as the prime 'question asker' has to hold itself to much higher standards than what it seeks from others... parminder On Monday 02 December 2013 11:56 AM, Guru गुरु wrote: > Dear Jeremy, > I am forwarding my earlier mail on your 'now is not the right time' > argument. > Guru > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - > URGENT > Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 16:39:17 +0530 > From: Guru गुरु > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net, Jeremy Malcolm > > > > On 11/21/2013 01:54 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> On 20 Nov 2013, at 10:59 pm, michael gurstein > > wrote: >> >>> Unfortunately in the post-Snowden world “trust us” is not a >>> sufficient answer—only transparency and accountability are. >>> As long as the Steering Committee is self-appointed through murky >>> procedures and as long as this self-appointed (Interim or no) >>> Steering Committee chooses to act (and present itself to the world) >>> as though it has a mandate to act on behalf of the BB grouping >>> whatever that might be, there will necessarily and quite reasonably >>> be a lack of trust and questions as to legitimacy. >> >> Actually the only such questions are coming from within; we are >> undermining ourselves, and to my mind unnecessarily so. > > Jeremy, > > when questions regarding trust/credibility come from within, even more > reason to address it. Do you want to wait till outsiders (who are > perhaps relatively ignorant of the black box nature of the steering > committee working) raise this issue and sink BB credibility completely? > >> Snowden did not tar civil society with the same brush as the NSA. >> We have presented an interim procedure for democratising the >> steering committee in Bali, which remains open for discussion and >> will be implemented soon once finalised, but to rush its finalisation >> now at a time when leadership is required would be pointless and >> would simply remove us from some very important processes that are >> rolling along with or without us. > you are making an assumption that this is binary - either we engage > with substantive issues or focus on process. Is is really possible to > separate the two so easily... What if BB's valuable contributions are > seen as tainted by 'murky' process later and hence not given their due? > > regards, > Guru -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Dec 27 23:32:57 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 11:32:57 +0700 Subject: [bestbits] Save the Date: RightsCon Silicon Valley March 3rd-5th, 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <75F7922F-063B-453D-86DB-7A0C0D8B39CF@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <034701cf0385$e56db660$b0492320$@gmail.com> Hi Brett, Thanks for this, I think the Community Informatics community might be interested in contributing on and through (and of course to promote J) our Declaration. Let me/us know what might be useful. Mike From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Brett Solomon Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2013 10:00 AM To: Marilia Maciel Cc: Deborah Brown; Andrew Puddephatt; Jeremy Malcolm; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Subject: Re: [bestbits] Save the Date: RightsCon Silicon Valley March 3rd-5th, 2014 I'd be in favor of a session at RightsCon that can be used as a space to cross pollinate ideas and understandings on governance from a diverse set of civil society actors. Many of the US based orgs will be there, as well as CS from across the world, and unpacking perspectives and mapping out plans could be useful at this stage. I also think its an opportunity to grow our sector by bringing in new actors who are not familiar with the Brazil event or the reasons that have lead to it. Let's think more about how to make this productive, and we very much welcome your input in developing the session further Marilia. Brett Brett Solomon Executive Director | Access accessnow.org +1 917 969 6077 | skype: brettsolomon | @accessnow Key ID: 0x312B641A RightsCon Silicon Valley, March 3-5, 2014. Register interest now ! On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: Hello all, this will certainly be a great session. I will definitely connect remotely, if I am not in SF. I would just like to make a suggestion. I agree with Jeremy that the session could be a moment to discuss and plan CS participation in the meeting in Brazil. But I also feel that there is a valuable opportunity to foster more understanding among US-based CS and global CS, and to make the concerns of actors in the developing world regarding the IG regime better understood. For example, the way that several US non-gov campaigns get framed as "hands off the Internet" or against a supposed UN power grab always made me feel a bit uncomfortable. Although this ideas are easy to communicate to broader audience, I believe that, particularly during WCIT, they caused misunderstanding by mixing up the positions countries like Russia and Brazil, which have been historically different, and by demonizing the UN and non-multistakeholder spaces as a whole. Since WCIT is one of the major references to US organizations, as Jeremy mentioned, maybe the scope of the session could be a bit broader in order to discuss what were the problems and disfunctionalities in the regime that pushed many actors (CS, iStars) to support change, in other words, to mention the underlying reasons that led to Brazil. Problems have been pointed out before Snowden. When setting the background of the RightsCon session, it would be important to show that the meeting in Brazil may have been triggered by mass surveillance, but the issue goes beyond it and precedes it. Marília On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Deborah Brown wrote: Yes, I think that's a great idea. Perhaps what makes the most sense is to use the session for those in the network who are planning to develop ideas and submissions for Brazil and have discussions on the concrete proposals with the wider community. We can also make available some space for a side meeting/strategy session if there is interest. For both options, we would make sure that remote participation is available. Interested in hearing others' ideas as well. Please feel free to contact me on or off list if you're interested in discussing this further. Kind regards, Deborah On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: Could we host a session focused on IG given that by then we should have put together some ideas of our own for Brazil? From: Jeremy Malcolm Date: Saturday, 14 December 2013 06:36 To: " >" Subject: Re: [bestbits] Save the Date: RightsCon Silicon Valley March 3rd-5th, 2014 To follow up on Brett's message, just to let everyone know that we a placeholder "Best Bits" session has been submitted for RightsCon, though the original idea of using it to finalise inputs for the Brazil meeting won't work out - because the deadline for those inputs is slightly too soon. So, we need to find another theme for the meeting. Since many of the US groups at RightsCon will be new to the international Internet governance debates (except for maybe ICANN and WCIT), a couple of us considered that it might be worthwhile to structure a session around more closely integrating US based civil society into our community (which was one of my original aims for Best Bits). Anyway, who is interested in sharing ideas (either these or other ideas) and developing the session further? Deborah has offered to manage a workflow for the session, if we are all happy for her to do that. What do you all think? Also, separately to RightsCon, I should flag early that I have the opportunity to arrange a Best Bits pre-meeting in S?o Paulo immediately prior to the Brazil meeting, which would be hosted by IDEC, the largest Brazilian consumer group. Of course at this stage, we don't know who will be attending the Brazil meeting, so plans are at an early stage. But if anyone is interested in hearing or discussing more about that, you can also get in touch (perhaps off-list for now, until plans and funding are firmer). On 6 Dec 2013, at 11:40 pm, Brett Solomon wrote: Dear friends, As you may know, RightsCon Silicon Valley is taking place March 3-5 in San Francisco at Mission Bay Conference Center. This is an opportunity for different communities to come together - global activists, companies, thinkers, investors, engineers and government officials - to discuss the tensions and opportunities at the intersection of human rights and the internet. RightsCon Silicon Valley has a particular focus on technology companies and aims to create a space for multistakeholder dialogue on human rights best practices and learnings in the context of the private sector. The event also takes place 7 weeks before the Brazil meeting and as I mentioned could be used as a venue to discuss strategy and plans for April. The program is open to submissions, and we're looking to a range of networks, including the Bestbits community to help shape the agenda. Here is the link to propose a session . The deadline for submission is December 20th. If you have questions, check out the website at rightscon.org, or email Rian Wanstreet at rian at accessnow.org, or we can chat more on this list. For those of you who have participated in RightsCon in the past, we look forward to seeing you again. Enjoy your weekends! Brett Speakers to date include: Rebecca MacKinnon (Ranking Digital Rights); Alaa Abd El Fattah (one of Egypt's most respected activists and software engineers (currently detained)); Jim Cowie (CTO, Renesys); John Donahoe (President & CEO, eBay); Moez Chakchouk (Founder of Tunisia's IXP and 404Labs); Brad Burnham (Union Square Ventures); Colin Crowell (Head of Global Public Policy, Twitter); Michael Posner (NYU Professor of Business and Society); Eileen Donahoe (former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Human Rights Council); Jillian York (Director for International Freedom of Expression, EFF); ; Richard Stallman (Founder GNU Project and Free Software Foundation); David Gorodyansky (CEO & Founder, AnchorFree); Mitchell Baker (Chairperson, Mozilla Corporation) and many more. Brett Solomon Executive Director | Access accessnow.org +1 917 969 6077 | skype: brettsolomon | @accessnow Key ID: 0x312B641A ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | accessnow.org rightscon.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Marília Maciel Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Sat Dec 28 01:58:07 2013 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 04:58:07 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] Save the Date: RightsCon Silicon Valley March 3rd-5th, 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <75F7922F-063B-453D-86DB-7A0C0D8B39CF@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Completely agree Brett and I am looking forward to contributing to the session. Please keep me on the loop in future exchanges about it. Best! Marília On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 1:00 AM, Brett Solomon wrote: > I'd be in favor of a session at RightsCon that can be used as a space to > cross pollinate ideas and understandings on governance from a diverse set > of civil society actors. Many of the US based orgs will be there, as well > as CS from across the world, and unpacking perspectives and mapping out > plans could be useful at this stage. I also think its an opportunity to > grow our sector by bringing in new actors who are not familiar with the > Brazil event or the reasons that have lead to it. Let's think more about > how to make this productive, and we very much welcome your input in > developing the session further Marilia. Brett > > Brett Solomon > Executive Director | Access > accessnow.org > +1 917 969 6077 | skype: brettsolomon | @accessnow > Key ID: 0x312B641A > > > *RightsCon Silicon Valley, March 3-5, 2014. Register interest now > !* > > > > On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > >> Hello all, this will certainly be a great session. I will definitely >> connect remotely, if I am not in SF. I would just like to make a >> suggestion. I agree with Jeremy that the session could be a moment to >> discuss and plan CS participation in the meeting in Brazil. But I also feel >> that there is a valuable opportunity to foster more understanding among >> US-based CS and global CS, and to make the concerns of actors in the >> developing world regarding the IG regime better understood. >> >> For example, the way that several US non-gov campaigns get framed as >> "hands off the Internet" or against a supposed UN power grab always made me >> feel a bit uncomfortable. Although this ideas are easy to communicate to >> broader audience, I believe that, particularly during WCIT, they caused >> misunderstanding by mixing up the positions countries like Russia and >> Brazil, which have been historically different, and by demonizing the UN >> and non-multistakeholder spaces as a whole. Since WCIT is one of the major >> references to US organizations, as Jeremy mentioned, maybe the scope of the >> session could be a bit broader in order to discuss what were the problems >> and disfunctionalities in the regime that pushed many actors (CS, iStars) >> to support change, in other words, to mention the underlying reasons that >> led to Brazil. Problems have been pointed out before Snowden. When setting >> the background of the RightsCon session, it would be important to show that >> the meeting in Brazil may have been triggered by mass surveillance, but the >> issue goes beyond it and precedes it. >> >> Marília >> >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Deborah Brown wrote: >> >>> Yes, I think that's a great idea. Perhaps what makes the most sense is >>> to use the session for those in the network who are planning to develop >>> ideas and submissions for Brazil and have discussions on the concrete >>> proposals with the wider community. We can also make available some space >>> for a side meeting/strategy session if there is interest. For both options, >>> we would make sure that remote participation is available. Interested in >>> hearing others' ideas as well. Please feel free to contact me on or off >>> list if you're interested in discussing this further. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> Deborah >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Puddephatt < >>> Andrew at gp-digital.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Could we host a session focused on IG given that by then we should have >>>> put together some ideas of our own for Brazil? >>>> >>>> From: Jeremy Malcolm >>>> Date: Saturday, 14 December 2013 06:36 >>>> To: "" >>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Save the Date: RightsCon Silicon Valley March >>>> 3rd-5th, 2014 >>>> >>>> To follow up on Brett's message, just to let everyone know that we >>>> a placeholder "Best Bits" session has been submitted for RightsCon, though >>>> the original idea of using it to finalise inputs for the Brazil meeting >>>> won't work out - because the deadline for those inputs is slightly too >>>> soon. So, we need to find another theme for the meeting. Since many of >>>> the US groups at RightsCon will be new to the international Internet >>>> governance debates (except for maybe ICANN and WCIT), a couple of us >>>> considered that it might be worthwhile to structure a session around more >>>> closely integrating US based civil society into our community (which was >>>> one of my original aims for Best Bits). >>>> >>>> Anyway, who is interested in sharing ideas (either these or other >>>> ideas) and developing the session further? Deborah has offered to manage a >>>> workflow for the session, if we are all happy for her to do that. What do >>>> you all think? >>>> >>>> Also, separately to RightsCon, I should flag early that I have the >>>> opportunity to arrange a Best Bits pre-meeting in S?o Paulo immediately >>>> prior to the Brazil meeting, which would be hosted by IDEC, the largest >>>> Brazilian consumer group. Of course at this stage, we don't know who will >>>> be attending the Brazil meeting, so plans are at an early stage. But if >>>> anyone is interested in hearing or discussing more about that, you can also >>>> get in touch (perhaps off-list for now, until plans and funding are firmer). >>>> >>>> On 6 Dec 2013, at 11:40 pm, Brett Solomon wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear friends, >>>> >>>> As you may know, RightsCon Silicon Valley is >>>> taking place March 3-5 in San Francisco at Mission Bay Conference Center. >>>> This is an opportunity for different communities to come together - global >>>> activists, companies, thinkers, investors, engineers and government >>>> officials - to discuss the tensions and opportunities at the intersection >>>> of human rights and the internet. >>>> >>>> RightsCon Silicon Valley has a particular focus on technology companies >>>> and aims to create a space for multistakeholder dialogue on human rights >>>> best practices and learnings in the context of the private sector. The >>>> event also takes place 7 weeks before the Brazil meeting and as I mentioned >>>> could be used as a venue to discuss strategy and plans for April. >>>> >>>> The program is open to submissions, and we're looking to a range of >>>> networks, including the Bestbits community to help shape the agenda. Here >>>> is the link to propose a session. >>>> >>>> >>>> The deadline for submission is December 20th. If you have questions, >>>> check out the website at rightscon.org, or >>>> email Rian Wanstreet at rian at accessnow.org, or we can chat more on >>>> this list. >>>> >>>> For those of you who have participated in RightsCon in the past, we >>>> look forward to seeing you again. >>>> >>>> Enjoy your weekends! >>>> >>>> Brett >>>> >>>> *Speakers to date include: *Rebecca MacKinnon (Ranking Digital >>>> Rights); Alaa Abd El Fattah (one of Egypt's most respected activists and >>>> software engineers (currently detained)); Jim Cowie (CTO, Renesys); John >>>> Donahoe (President & CEO, eBay); Moez Chakchouk (Founder of Tunisia's IXP >>>> and 404Labs); Brad Burnham (Union Square Ventures); Colin Crowell (Head of >>>> Global Public Policy, Twitter); Michael Posner (NYU Professor of Business >>>> and Society); Eileen Donahoe (former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Human >>>> Rights Council); Jillian York (Director for International Freedom of >>>> Expression, EFF); ; Richard Stallman (Founder GNU Project and Free Software >>>> Foundation); David Gorodyansky (CEO & Founder, AnchorFree); Mitchell Baker >>>> (Chairperson, Mozilla Corporation) and many more. >>>> >>>> >>>> Brett Solomon >>>> Executive Director | Access >>>> accessnow.org >>>> +1 917 969 6077 | skype: brettsolomon | @accessnow >>>> Key ID: 0x312B641A >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Dr Jeremy MalcolmSenior Policy OfficerConsumers International | the >>>> global campaigning voice for consumers* >>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >>>> Malaysia >>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>>> >>>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge >>>> hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >>>> >>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>> >>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. >>>> Don't print this email unless necessary. >>>> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly >>>> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For >>>> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Deborah Brown >>> Senior Policy Analyst >>> Access | accessnow.org >>> rightscon.org >>> >>> @deblebrown >>> PGP 0x5EB4727D >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> *Marília Maciel* >> Pesquisadora Gestora >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >> >> Researcher and Coordinator >> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >> >> DiploFoundation associate >> www.diplomacy.edu >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Dec 28 02:50:08 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 14:50:08 +0700 Subject: [bestbits] [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: References: <52BC7DC0.2010605@itforchange.net> <52BD2EAA.3090408@itforchange.net> <52BD3EED.2050709@itforchange.net> <855190B1-7012-4530-9147-D9D9418BB942@gmail.com> <52BD57AE.6010504@itforchange.net> <3CE0D58A-801F-4AEC-99B5-7AE33B3B3223@gmail.com> <52BD91AD.7090309@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <03e701cf03a1$71b59fa0$5520dee0$@gmail.com> Hi Jeremy, I'm not quite sure who you are addressing with your message below, but if is meant to be CS in IG as a whole perhaps it would be better to phrase what you have written as "the coordinating group will be responsible for "its" nominations" since as already noted the CI community has launched its own nominating process and will be submitting nominations, to the appropriate authority as that becomes clear, in parallel to those of CC-CS. I would add that I agree with Parminder's point that CS should not be going through a third party for its nominations (this was generally, perhaps universally, agreed to in Bali). As well, it should be noted that at this point precisely the provenance of Inet is not clear. If Inet is a creature of ICANN then we, as CS overall should be concerned since ICANN is not CS and may, because of its activities and mandate have its own interests which it may be concerned to pursue in this context as with others. If Inet is rather more linked to I* then clearly we should not be passing our nominations through a body organically linked to one of the other stakeholder groups. Mike From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Friday, December 27, 2013 9:48 PM To: parminder Cc: William Drake; Governance; Carlos A. Afonso; Best Bits; Anriette Esterhuysen Subject: Re: [bestbits] [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 On 27 Dec 2013, at 10:41 pm, parminder wrote: In any case, I request the leaderships of IGC, BB, APC and IRP colaition to let us know what there current position is on this issue, and what do they propose to do since it seems that things are going in the direction that they did not want them to go.. Just speaking personally for now, while I remain skeptical about 1net, I am content with the position that Ian has described, that the coordinating group will be responsible for the nominations, and the 1net committee will just be a conduit. I don't see much "value add" there, but neither do I see grave harm. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake at gmail.com Sat Dec 28 04:28:52 2013 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 10:28:52 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: <52BD91AD.7090309@itforchange.net> References: <52BC7DC0.2010605@itforchange.net> <52BD2EAA.3090408@itforchange.net> <52BD3EED.2050709@itforchange.net> <855190B1-7012-4530-9147-D9D9418BB942@gmail.com> <52BD57AE.6010504@itforchange.net> <3CE0D58A-801F-4AEC-99B5-7AE33B3B3223@gmail.com> <52BD91AD.7090309@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Thanks Parminder, glad we are able to agree on this. But further to the question of being clear about who’s speaking, I guess I also don’t understand why you’re only asking for the views of the leaderships of these networks? Undoubtedly there are varying views among their memberships about whether CS should present its nominations to the conference committees in the same way as other stakeholders, as the LOG has asked us to do for simplicity’s sake. Surely you’re not suggesting that the leaders should just take whatever stances they want because their memberships have varying views (well, Best Bits doesn’t actually have members to represent, but whatever). While I’m not trying to initiate another long and needlessly divisive thread about representational modalities, I don’t think continuing down this road will be helpful to anyone. FWIW my view remains that if the networks involved refuse to work through the 1net mechanism to channel nominations to the Brazilians, they should not have taken positions on the 1net coordination committee, which to date has one identifiable function— channeling nominations to the Brazilians. If the view is that because its launch and initial expiation were not handled well 1net therefore has no legitimacy as a channel, then the networks shouldn’t lend it legitimacy and should resign from its coordination committee. I don’t share that view of 1net, but if someone else does they should behave according to their principles rather than trying to have it both ways. Best Bill On Dec 27, 2013, at 3:41 PM, parminder wrote: > > Ok, Bill, There was a category confusion here. Since we were/ are interacting within the IGC and BB space I meant simply 'our CS groups' here had made that decision. I agree that it is factually incorrect to say that it is a civil society decision. Should only say it is IGC plus BB plus APC plus IRP decision. I stand corrected. > > (Since I was writing to Carlos I was also mindful that Carlos knew exactly which groups put forward this position and will communicate accordingly...) > > In any case, I request the leaderships of IGC, BB, APC and IRP colaition to let us know what there current position is on this issue, and what do they propose to do since it seems that things are going in the direction that they did not want them to go.. > > parminder > > > > On Friday 27 December 2013 04:35 PM, William Drake wrote: >> >> On Dec 27, 2013, at 11:34 AM, parminder wrote: >> >>> >>> On Friday 27 December 2013 02:53 PM, William Drake wrote: >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> Small corrections please >>>> >>>> On Dec 27, 2013, at 9:48 AM, parminder wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Carlos >>>>> >>>>> I understand that the local organising group will meet in a few hours from now... >>>>> >>>>> I will request you to let them know that civil society groups >>>> >>>> Should read “some civil society groups”. Probably necessary to give their names so the message is understood properly. >>> >>> I understand that it is a decision of 4 CS organisations/ networks - IGC, BB, IRP and APC - which was sent in a written form to the Brazilians and I am only reiterating that decision... I understand that decision stand unless a counter decision is taken.. >> >> Well…As Nnenna and other have documented, IGC and BB are in fact the same people, and as BB is a voting platform with formal members it’s not clear how legitimately this position was adopted without a vote. IRP I thought was a multistakeholder coalition, is it not? I don’t recall what APC’s position was, would be good to have reconfirmation. Either way, not endorsing that approach is NCSG (almost 400 organization and individual members), Diplo (quite a lot), or various other CS networks and organizations engaged in IG. So you really are not in a position to issue grandiose totalizing proclamations on behalf of all global civil society. And FWIW, as both a founding IGC member and a BB attendee, I certainly I don’t recall an open and inclusive discussion in either setting about whether to stand aloof of the process the Brazilians are asking us to use (which I can’t believe we’re still debating). What I do remember is a few loud and aggressive voices demanding that this be the stance and nobody wanting to tangle. I also remember the very same people who denounced using 1net as the agreed aggregator of nominations and anything else then demanding to be appointed to its coordination committee, which is a pretty blatant bit of have your cake and eat it too incoherence. >> >> Anyway, it’s of course totally fine if there are groups that feel that on principle you will not interface with the Brazilian process in the manner the Brazilians have asked for. Then simply say who you are, and don’t pretend to speak for other parts of CS that don’t agree with you. >>> >>> However, if you and or others want that decision to be reversed, please indicate so, and we can gather opinions. >> >> I’m not asking you to change your view, I know you won’t. I’m asking you to please report accurately who supports your statement so that others of us don’t have to waste time issuing a public corrective. Such a process is not going to add luster to CS participation. >> >>> Otherwise please do not confuse people about what is an existing decision of key civil society groups… >> >> I’m not confusing people, you are. You are claiming, yet again, to be speaking for “civil society,” when you are not. It is a pretty major misrepresentation. >> >> BD >>> >>> parminder >>> >>>> >>>>> stand by their decision to communicate their nominees for various organising committees directly to the local organising group (LOG) ... All other kinds of communication from the civil society side >>>> >>>> from these members of the civil society ‘side’ >>>> >>>>> will also continue to be done from civil society side directly to the LOG, and later, as appropriate to the relevant organising committees. We >>>> >>>> These civil society groups >>>> >>>> These amendments add some precision and avoid some of the unnecessary confusion that’s arisen. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> Bill >>>> >>>>> do not intend to mediate any such communication through 1Net or any such other group. >>>>> >>>>> I will add as a personal opinion that: Brazil/ CGI.Br has taken the political role of organising this important meeting; it cannot now shirk from the corresponding political responsibilities, by passing them on to others who have not been given the needed legitimacy. The world sees and approves Brazil as the host and organiser of this meeting, and it will be best if they are able to continue to do so. Any change of perception would have important bearing on the legitimacy and success of the meeting. >>>>> >>>>> I would also like to request LOG to give civil society Liaisons - the names being already communicated to them - equal status and involvement in your meetings and decisions as, apparently, is being given to some other non governmental groups. >>>>> >>>>> In this regard I also request the Liaisons to be in contact with the LOG, and also with us. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks and best regards >>>>> >>>>> Parminder >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>>> >>>> ******************************************************************* >>>> William J. Drake >>>> International Fellow & Lecturer >>>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >>>> University of Zurich, Switzerland >>>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, >>>> ICANN, www.ncuc.org >>>> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), >>>> www.williamdrake.org >>>> ******************************************************************** >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ******************************************************************* >> William J. Drake >> International Fellow & Lecturer >> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >> University of Zurich, Switzerland >> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, >> ICANN, www.ncuc.org >> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), >> www.williamdrake.org >> ******************************************************************** >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Dec 28 04:58:07 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 15:28:07 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: References: <52BC7DC0.2010605@itforchange.net> <52BD2EAA.3090408@itforchange.net> <52BD3EED.2050709@itforchange.net> <855190B1-7012-4530-9147-D9D9418BB942@gmail.com> <52BD57AE.6010504@itforchange.net> <3CE0D58A-801F-4AEC-99B5-7AE33B3B3223@gmail.com> <52BD91AD.7090309@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52BEA0AF.5010804@itforchange.net> On Saturday 28 December 2013 02:58 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > Thanks Parminder, glad we are able to agree on this. > > But further to the question of being clear about who’s speaking, I > guess I also don’t understand why you’re only asking for the views of > the leaderships of these networks? Because they alone can either respond on the basis of already established views of the respective groups or initiate a process for establishing such views. > Undoubtedly there are varying views among their memberships about > whether CS should present its nominations to the conference committees > in the same way as other stakeholders, as the LOG has asked us to do > for simplicity’s sake. I dont see the alleged 'simplicity'. Simplicity consists in any nominating process writing directly to the email id of the local organising group which has been publicised. I see a clear layer of complexity being added by introducing 1Net into this process. And I read a huge political factor behind it. BTW, if it were just for 'simplicity's' sake it would also mean there was not much 'substantive' difference between one process and the other... In which case what do you have against CS directly corresponding with Brazilian organisers? > Surely you’re not suggesting that the leaders should just take > whatever stances they want because their memberships have varying > views (well, Best Bits doesn’t actually have members to represent, but > whatever). We agree. I have been telling BB guys this for a long time.. > While I’m not trying to initiate another long and needlessly divisive > thread about representational modalities, I don’t think continuing > down this road will be helpful to anyone. > > FWIW my view remains that if the networks involved refuse to work > through the 1net mechanism to channel nominations to the Brazilians, > they should not have taken positions on the 1net coordination > committee, which to date has one identifiable function— channeling > nominations to the Brazilians. You know, Bill. 1Net like one mystery novel of which no one is able to make out the plot... You say it has just one identifiable function that of channelling nominations. John Curran of the I* group, who was present at Montevedio when 1Net idea was born - recently said on the 1Net list that he doesnt know of any such function and 1Net is a discussion space (unless and until be becomes something else).... To be precise, let me quote John "At this point, until there is a seated 1net coordinating committee, I know of no mechanism for "1net" to even respond to the meeting organizers about its role (whatever that may be) ...." It is my opinion that majority of people here do not think what you say is 1Net's 'one identifiable function'. > If the view is that because its launch and initial expiation were not > handled well 1net therefore has no legitimacy as a channel, Whether 1Net should be or not the channel for CS role in Brazil meeting was extensively discussed among 'many' CS members in Bali, and also on IGC and BB lists... In fact I dont remember any opposition at all to the view that was adopted - that no, CS would like to engage directly with Brazilian on the Brazil meeting, and 4 mentioned CS groups - IGC, BB, IRP and APC signed on it. > then the networks shouldn’t lend it legitimacy and should resign from > its coordination committee. I don’t share that view of 1net, but if > someone else does they should behave according to their principles > rather than trying to have it both ways. I think those who are nominated/ slated to sit on the 1Net coordination committee from the CS side should answer this. They must certainly have some idea about what the purpose and function of 1Net is. I really hope they have some such idea.. And most of them were closely associated with developing the civil society position that I have been referring to. Parminder > > Best > > Bill > > > > > On Dec 27, 2013, at 3:41 PM, parminder > wrote: > >> >> Ok, Bill, There was a category confusion here. Since we were/ are >> interacting within the IGC and BB space I meant simply 'our CS >> groups' here had made that decision. I agree that it is factually >> incorrect to say that it is a civil society decision. Should only say >> it is IGC plus BB plus APC plus IRP decision. I stand corrected. >> >> (Since I was writing to Carlos I was also mindful that Carlos knew >> exactly which groups put forward this position and will communicate >> accordingly...) >> >> In any case, I request the leaderships of IGC, BB, APC and IRP >> colaition to let us know what there current position is on this >> issue, and what do they propose to do since it seems that things are >> going in the direction that they did not want them to go.. >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> On Friday 27 December 2013 04:35 PM, William Drake wrote: >>> >>> On Dec 27, 2013, at 11:34 AM, parminder >> > wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Friday 27 December 2013 02:53 PM, William Drake wrote: >>>>> Hi >>>>> >>>>> Small corrections please >>>>> >>>>> On Dec 27, 2013, at 9:48 AM, parminder >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear Carlos >>>>>> >>>>>> I understand that the local organising group will meet in a few >>>>>> hours from now... >>>>>> >>>>>> I will request you to let them know that civil society groups >>>>> >>>>> Should read “some civil society groups”. Probably necessary to >>>>> give their names so the message is understood properly. >>>> >>>> I understand that it is a decision of 4 CS organisations/ networks >>>> - IGC, BB, IRP and APC - which was sent in a written form to the >>>> Brazilians and I am only reiterating that decision... I understand >>>> that decision stand unless a counter decision is taken.. >>> >>> Well…As Nnenna and other have documented, IGC and BB are in fact the >>> same people, and as BB is a voting platform with formal members it’s >>> not clear how legitimately this position was adopted without a vote. >>> IRP I thought was a multistakeholder coalition, is it not? I don’t >>> recall what APC’s position was, would be good to have >>> reconfirmation. Either way, not endorsing that approach is NCSG >>> (almost 400 organization and individual members), Diplo (quite a >>> lot), or various other CS networks and organizations engaged in IG. >>> So you really are not in a position to issue grandiose totalizing >>> proclamations on behalf of all global civil society. And FWIW, as >>> both a founding IGC member and a BB attendee, I certainly I don’t >>> recall an open and inclusive discussion in either setting about >>> whether to stand aloof of the process the Brazilians are asking us >>> to use (which I can’t believe we’re still debating). What I do >>> remember is a few loud and aggressive voices demanding that this be >>> the stance and nobody wanting to tangle. I also remember the very >>> same people who denounced using 1net as the agreed aggregator of >>> nominations and anything else then demanding to be appointed to its >>> coordination committee, which is a pretty blatant bit of have your >>> cake and eat it too incoherence. >>> >>> Anyway, it’s of course totally fine if there are groups that feel >>> that on principle you will not interface with the Brazilian process >>> in the manner the Brazilians have asked for. Then simply say who >>> you are, and don’t pretend to speak for other parts of CS that don’t >>> agree with you. >>>> >>>> However, if you and or others want that decision to be reversed, >>>> please indicate so, and we can gather opinions. >>> >>> I’m not asking you to change your view, I know you won’t. I’m asking >>> you to please report accurately who supports your statement so that >>> others of us don’t have to waste time issuing a public corrective. >>> Such a process is not going to add luster to CS participation. >>> >>>> Otherwise please do not confuse people about what is an existing >>>> decision of key civil society groups… >>> >>> I’m not confusing people, you are. You are claiming, yet again, to >>> be speaking for “civil society,” when you are not. It is a pretty >>> major misrepresentation. >>> >>> BD >>>> >>>> parminder >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> stand by their decision to communicate their nominees for various >>>>>> organising committees directly to the local organising group >>>>>> (LOG) ... All other kinds of communication from the civil society >>>>>> side >>>>> >>>>> from these members of the civil society ‘side’ >>>>> >>>>>> will also continue to be done from civil society side directly to >>>>>> the LOG, and later, as appropriate to the relevant organising >>>>>> committees. We >>>>> >>>>> These civil society groups >>>>> >>>>> These amendments add some precision and avoid some of the >>>>> unnecessary confusion that’s arisen. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> >>>>> Bill >>>>> >>>>>> do not intend to mediate any such communication through 1Net or >>>>>> any such other group. >>>>>> >>>>>> I will add as a personal opinion that: Brazil/ CGI.Br has taken >>>>>> the political role of organising this important meeting; it >>>>>> cannot now shirk from the corresponding political >>>>>> responsibilities, by passing them on to others who have not been >>>>>> given the needed legitimacy. The world sees and approves Brazil >>>>>> as the host and organiser of this meeting, and it will be best if >>>>>> they are able to continue to do so. Any change of perception >>>>>> would have important bearing on the legitimacy and success of the >>>>>> meeting. >>>>>> >>>>>> I would also like to request LOG to give civil society Liaisons - >>>>>> the names being already communicated to them - equal status and >>>>>> involvement in your meetings and decisions as, apparently, is >>>>>> being given to some other non governmental groups. >>>>>> >>>>>> In this regard I also request the Liaisons to be in contact with >>>>>> the LOG, and also with us. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks and best regards >>>>>> >>>>>> Parminder >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ******************************************************************* >>>>> William J. Drake >>>>> International Fellow & Lecturer >>>>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >>>>> University of Zurich, Switzerland >>>>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, >>>>> ICANN, www.ncuc.org >>>>> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), >>>>> wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), >>>>> www.williamdrake.org >>>>> ******************************************************************** >>>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> ******************************************************************* >>> William J. Drake >>> International Fellow & Lecturer >>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >>> University of Zurich, Switzerland >>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, >>> ICANN, www.ncuc.org >>> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), >>> wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), >>> www.williamdrake.org >>> ******************************************************************** >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake at gmail.com Sat Dec 28 06:52:15 2013 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 12:52:15 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 Message-ID: <27BFEBD0-F63D-47E4-A397-44DFEA1E85AD@gmail.com> Hi P I knew our moment of agreement would be fleeting :-) Just to reply and then from there whatever whomever decides is fine by me. On Dec 28, 2013, at 10:58 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Saturday 28 December 2013 02:58 PM, William Drake wrote: >> Hi >> >> Thanks Parminder, glad we are able to agree on this. >> >> But further to the question of being clear about who’s speaking, I guess I also don’t understand why you’re only asking for the views of the leaderships of these networks? > > Because they alone can either respond on the basis of already established views of the respective groups or initiate a process for establishing such views. In Bali the initial presentation of 1net was problematic, you and few others were forcefully negative in response, and so the 30-odd people in the room rolled with it rather than arguing, which seemed advisable coming on the heels of the reportedly riotously confrontational IGC meeting that a bunch of people walked out of (which I alas had to miss). But there were certainly people there who didn’t agree then and probably don’t now, especially since the situation has become clearer over time. If again nobody wants to engage on the point fine, they missed last call at the bar, but it doesn’t seem right to simply assume that what a subset of folks thought two months ago commits everyone else now. > >> Undoubtedly there are varying views among their memberships about whether CS should present its nominations to the conference committees in the same way as other stakeholders, as the LOG has asked us to do for simplicity’s sake. > > I dont see the alleged 'simplicity'. Simplicity consists in any nominating process writing directly to the email id of the local organising group which has been publicised. I see a clear layer of complexity being added by introducing 1Net into this process. And I read a huge political factor behind it. > > BTW, if it were just for 'simplicity's' sake it would also mean there was not much 'substantive' difference between one process and the other... In which case what do you have against CS directly corresponding with Brazilian organisers? I don’t care what the networks involved decide as long as it is not characterized in a totalizing manner as the stance of CS generally. I’ve had people from other corners of the universe ask “why is CS refusing to participate in 1net” and have had to explain it is not, there are different groupings, blah blah blah…So I’m just asking for clarity on who’s speaking when statements are made. As to the LOG, I read their messages to date as to boiling down to a simplicity rationale, but if that’s the wrong word Carlos or Hartmut or whomever can explain what would be the right one. > >> Surely you’re not suggesting that the leaders should just take whatever stances they want because their memberships have varying views (well, Best Bits doesn’t actually have members to represent, but whatever). > > We agree. I have been telling BB guys this for a long time.. Twice in one day we agree? Break out the champagne! > >> While I’m not trying to initiate another long and needlessly divisive thread about representational modalities, I don’t think continuing down this road will be helpful to anyone. >> >> FWIW my view remains that if the networks involved refuse to work through the 1net mechanism to channel nominations to the Brazilians, they should not have taken positions on the 1net coordination committee, which to date has one identifiable function— channeling nominations to the Brazilians. > > You know, Bill. 1Net like one mystery novel of which no one is able to make out the plot... You say it has just one identifiable function that of channelling nominations. John Curran of the I* group, > who was present at Montevedio when 1Net idea was born - recently said on the 1Net list that he doesnt know of any such function and 1Net is a discussion space (unless and until be becomes something else).... To be precise, let me quote John > > "At this point, until there is a seated 1net coordinating committee, I know of no mechanism for "1net" to even respond to the meeting organizers about its role (whatever that may be) > …." John is obviously correct that until 1net has a seated CC, there’s no way for the CC to provide the LOG with names….? > > It is my opinion that majority of people here do not think what you say is 1Net's 'one identifiable function’. To my knowledge the only identifiable function the 1net CC has been asked to perform to date is to provide the LOG with names. Unlike you I am unable intuit the thinking of hundreds of people from the few bits of conversation about the CC’s function, so if people believe others have been agreed it’d be good to hear what these are. >> If the view is that because its launch and initial expiation were not handled well 1net therefore has no legitimacy as a channel, > > Whether 1Net should be or not the channel for CS role in Brazil meeting was extensively discussed among 'many' CS members in Bali, and also on IGC and BB lists... In fact I dont remember any opposition at all to the view that was adopted - that no, CS would like to engage directly with Brazilian on the Brazil meeting, and 4 mentioned CS groups - IGC, BB, IRP and APC signed on it. And if that’s still their position in light of events since Bali, great. But it’d be better to confirm than assume, no? > >> then the networks shouldn’t lend it legitimacy and should resign from its coordination committee. I don’t share that view of 1net, but if someone else does they should behave according to their principles rather than trying to have it both ways. > > I think those who are nominated/ slated to sit on the 1Net coordination committee from the CS side should answer this. They must certainly have some idea about what the purpose and function of 1Net is. I really hope they have some such idea.. And most of them were closely associated with developing the civil society position that I have been referring to. Sounds good. Cheers Bill > >> >> >> On Dec 27, 2013, at 3:41 PM, parminder wrote: >> >>> >>> Ok, Bill, There was a category confusion here. Since we were/ are interacting within the IGC and BB space I meant simply 'our CS groups' here had made that decision. I agree that it is factually incorrect to say that it is a civil society decision. Should only say it is IGC plus BB plus APC plus IRP decision. I stand corrected. >>> >>> (Since I was writing to Carlos I was also mindful that Carlos knew exactly which groups put forward this position and will communicate accordingly...) >>> >>> In any case, I request the leaderships of IGC, BB, APC and IRP colaition to let us know what there current position is on this issue, and what do they propose to do since it seems that things are going in the direction that they did not want them to go.. >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> On Friday 27 December 2013 04:35 PM, William Drake wrote: >>>> >>>> On Dec 27, 2013, at 11:34 AM, parminder wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Friday 27 December 2013 02:53 PM, William Drake wrote: >>>>>> Hi >>>>>> >>>>>> Small corrections please >>>>>> >>>>>> On Dec 27, 2013, at 9:48 AM, parminder wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Carlos >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I understand that the local organising group will meet in a few hours from now... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I will request you to let them know that civil society groups >>>>>> >>>>>> Should read “some civil society groups”. Probably necessary to give their names so the message is understood properly. >>>>> >>>>> I understand that it is a decision of 4 CS organisations/ networks - IGC, BB, IRP and APC - which was sent in a written form to the Brazilians and I am only reiterating that decision... I understand that decision stand unless a counter decision is taken.. >>>> >>>> Well…As Nnenna and other have documented, IGC and BB are in fact the same people, and as BB is a voting platform with formal members it’s not clear how legitimately this position was adopted without a vote. IRP I thought was a multistakeholder coalition, is it not? I don’t recall what APC’s position was, would be good to have reconfirmation. Either way, not endorsing that approach is NCSG (almost 400 organization and individual members), Diplo (quite a lot), or various other CS networks and organizations engaged in IG. So you really are not in a position to issue grandiose totalizing proclamations on behalf of all global civil society. And FWIW, as both a founding IGC member and a BB attendee, I certainly I don’t recall an open and inclusive discussion in either setting about whether to stand aloof of the process the Brazilians are asking us to use (which I can’t believe we’re still debating). What I do remember is a few loud and aggressive voices demanding that this be the stance and nobody wanting to tangle. I also remember the very same people who denounced using 1net as the agreed aggregator of nominations and anything else then demanding to be appointed to its coordination committee, which is a pretty blatant bit of have your cake and eat it too incoherence. >>>> >>>> Anyway, it’s of course totally fine if there are groups that feel that on principle you will not interface with the Brazilian process in the manner the Brazilians have asked for. Then simply say who you are, and don’t pretend to speak for other parts of CS that don’t agree with you. >>>>> >>>>> However, if you and or others want that decision to be reversed, please indicate so, and we can gather opinions. >>>> >>>> I’m not asking you to change your view, I know you won’t. I’m asking you to please report accurately who supports your statement so that others of us don’t have to waste time issuing a public corrective. Such a process is not going to add luster to CS participation. >>>> >>>>> Otherwise please do not confuse people about what is an existing decision of key civil society groups… >>>> >>>> I’m not confusing people, you are. You are claiming, yet again, to be speaking for “civil society,” when you are not. It is a pretty major misrepresentation. >>>> >>>> BD >>>>> >>>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From william.drake at uzh.ch Sat Dec 28 07:48:47 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 13:48:47 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Brazil, WSIS 10+ and ITU In-Reply-To: References: <52BC70C4.70808@itforchange.net> <52BC7408.8060902@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133232B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133232D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4A0C17AF-FCEF-467A-B01E-C815E066C17C@uzh.ch> Hi On Dec 27, 2013, at 5:23 PM, Deborah Brown wrote: > Hi Wolfgang, all, > > I very much share the concerns you raised, however I wonder if strategically the intergovernmental consultations on the modalities for the overall WSIS review can be separated from the modalities themselves. [see OP22 below] In other words, couldn't CS and other stakeholders take advantage of the fact that the modalities for the review haven't been decided yet and push for a CSTD WG-like structure to be the the outcome of the consultations that will be taking place early next year? > > 22. Decides to finalize the modalities for the overall review by the General Assembly of the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society, in accordance with paragraph 111 of the Tunis Agenda, as early as possible, but no later than the end of March 2014, and invites the President of the Assembly to appoint two co-facilitators to convene open intergovernmental consultations for that purpose; It’s beginning to look like 2003 all over again. Perhaps we should add to our fun projects by rebooting the CS Bureau, Content and Themes Group, and Plenary? It looks like the plenary list is still functioning and has received mail as late as February of this year...http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/plenary/ > > Perhaps it's optimistic to think an intergovernmental consultation could result in a more open prep-com process, but given that UNGA has created 2 MS WGs through CSTD in the last few years and that theis resolution reaffirms CSTD (through ECOSOC) as "the focal point in the system-wide follow-up" for WSIS (PP10), maybe it's worth a try? Yes a push would be needed, but then CS would have to be able to collaborate with other stakeholders, the suggestion of which is of course ideological, and a reflection of your false consciousness and co-optation by hegemonic power structures. Cheers Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From william.drake at uzh.ch Sat Dec 28 06:34:48 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 12:34:48 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: <52BEA0AF.5010804@itforchange.net> References: <52BC7DC0.2010605@itforchange.net> <52BD2EAA.3090408@itforchange.net> <52BD3EED.2050709@itforchange.net> <855190B1-7012-4530-9147-D9D9418BB942@gmail.com> <52BD57AE.6010504@itforchange.net> <3CE0D58A-801F-4AEC-99B5-7AE33B3B3223@gmail.com> <52BD91AD.7090309@itforchange.net> <52BEA0AF.5010804@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi P I knew our moment of agreement would be fleeting :-) Just to reply and then from there whatever whomever decides is fine by me. On Dec 28, 2013, at 10:58 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Saturday 28 December 2013 02:58 PM, William Drake wrote: >> Hi >> >> Thanks Parminder, glad we are able to agree on this. >> >> But further to the question of being clear about who’s speaking, I guess I also don’t understand why you’re only asking for the views of the leaderships of these networks? > > Because they alone can either respond on the basis of already established views of the respective groups or initiate a process for establishing such views. In Bali the initial presentation of 1net was problematic, you and few others were forcefully negative in response, and so the 30-odd people in the room rolled with it rather than arguing, which seemed advisable coming on the heels of the reportedly riotously confrontational IGC meeting that a bunch of people walked out of (which I alas had to miss). But there were certainly people there who didn’t agree then and probably don’t now, especially since the situation has become clearer over time. If again nobody wants to engage on the point fine, they missed last call at the bar, but it doesn’t seem right to simply assume that what a subset of folks thought two months ago commits everyone else now. > >> Undoubtedly there are varying views among their memberships about whether CS should present its nominations to the conference committees in the same way as other stakeholders, as the LOG has asked us to do for simplicity’s sake. > > I dont see the alleged 'simplicity'. Simplicity consists in any nominating process writing directly to the email id of the local organising group which has been publicised. I see a clear layer of complexity being added by introducing 1Net into this process. And I read a huge political factor behind it. > > BTW, if it were just for 'simplicity's' sake it would also mean there was not much 'substantive' difference between one process and the other... In which case what do you have against CS directly corresponding with Brazilian organisers? I don’t care what the networks involved decide as long as it is not characterized in a totalizing manner as the stance of CS generally. I’ve had people from other corners of the universe ask “why is CS refusing to participate in 1net” and have had to explain it is not, there are different groupings, blah blah blah…So I’m just asking for clarity on who’s speaking when statements are made. As to the LOG, I read their messages to date as to boiling down to a simplicity rationale, but if that’s the wrong word Carlos or Hartmut or whomever can explain what would be the right one. > >> Surely you’re not suggesting that the leaders should just take whatever stances they want because their memberships have varying views (well, Best Bits doesn’t actually have members to represent, but whatever). > > We agree. I have been telling BB guys this for a long time.. Twice in one day we agree? Break out the champagne! > >> While I’m not trying to initiate another long and needlessly divisive thread about representational modalities, I don’t think continuing down this road will be helpful to anyone. >> >> FWIW my view remains that if the networks involved refuse to work through the 1net mechanism to channel nominations to the Brazilians, they should not have taken positions on the 1net coordination committee, which to date has one identifiable function— channeling nominations to the Brazilians. > > You know, Bill. 1Net like one mystery novel of which no one is able to make out the plot... You say it has just one identifiable function that of channelling nominations. John Curran of the I* group, > who was present at Montevedio when 1Net idea was born - recently said on the 1Net list that he doesnt know of any such function and 1Net is a discussion space (unless and until be becomes something else).... To be precise, let me quote John > > "At this point, until there is a seated 1net coordinating committee, I know of no mechanism for "1net" to even respond to the meeting organizers about its role (whatever that may be) > …." John is obviously correct that until 1net has a seated CC, there’s no way for the CC to provide the LOG with names….? > > It is my opinion that majority of people here do not think what you say is 1Net's 'one identifiable function’. To my knowledge the only identifiable function the 1net CC has been asked to perform to date is to provide the LOG with names. Unlike you I am unable intuit the thinking of hundreds of people from the few bits of conversation about the CC’s function, so if people believe others have been agreed it’d be good to hear what these are. >> If the view is that because its launch and initial expiation were not handled well 1net therefore has no legitimacy as a channel, > > Whether 1Net should be or not the channel for CS role in Brazil meeting was extensively discussed among 'many' CS members in Bali, and also on IGC and BB lists... In fact I dont remember any opposition at all to the view that was adopted - that no, CS would like to engage directly with Brazilian on the Brazil meeting, and 4 mentioned CS groups - IGC, BB, IRP and APC signed on it. And if that’s still their position in light of events since Bali, great. But it’d be better to confirm than assume, no? > >> then the networks shouldn’t lend it legitimacy and should resign from its coordination committee. I don’t share that view of 1net, but if someone else does they should behave according to their principles rather than trying to have it both ways. > > I think those who are nominated/ slated to sit on the 1Net coordination committee from the CS side should answer this. They must certainly have some idea about what the purpose and function of 1Net is. I really hope they have some such idea.. And most of them were closely associated with developing the civil society position that I have been referring to. Sounds good. Cheers Bill > > > > > >> >> Best >> >> Bill >> >> >> >> >> On Dec 27, 2013, at 3:41 PM, parminder wrote: >> >>> >>> Ok, Bill, There was a category confusion here. Since we were/ are interacting within the IGC and BB space I meant simply 'our CS groups' here had made that decision. I agree that it is factually incorrect to say that it is a civil society decision. Should only say it is IGC plus BB plus APC plus IRP decision. I stand corrected. >>> >>> (Since I was writing to Carlos I was also mindful that Carlos knew exactly which groups put forward this position and will communicate accordingly...) >>> >>> In any case, I request the leaderships of IGC, BB, APC and IRP colaition to let us know what there current position is on this issue, and what do they propose to do since it seems that things are going in the direction that they did not want them to go.. >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> On Friday 27 December 2013 04:35 PM, William Drake wrote: >>>> >>>> On Dec 27, 2013, at 11:34 AM, parminder wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Friday 27 December 2013 02:53 PM, William Drake wrote: >>>>>> Hi >>>>>> >>>>>> Small corrections please >>>>>> >>>>>> On Dec 27, 2013, at 9:48 AM, parminder wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Carlos >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I understand that the local organising group will meet in a few hours from now... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I will request you to let them know that civil society groups >>>>>> >>>>>> Should read “some civil society groups”. Probably necessary to give their names so the message is understood properly. >>>>> >>>>> I understand that it is a decision of 4 CS organisations/ networks - IGC, BB, IRP and APC - which was sent in a written form to the Brazilians and I am only reiterating that decision... I understand that decision stand unless a counter decision is taken.. >>>> >>>> Well…As Nnenna and other have documented, IGC and BB are in fact the same people, and as BB is a voting platform with formal members it’s not clear how legitimately this position was adopted without a vote. IRP I thought was a multistakeholder coalition, is it not? I don’t recall what APC’s position was, would be good to have reconfirmation. Either way, not endorsing that approach is NCSG (almost 400 organization and individual members), Diplo (quite a lot), or various other CS networks and organizations engaged in IG. So you really are not in a position to issue grandiose totalizing proclamations on behalf of all global civil society. And FWIW, as both a founding IGC member and a BB attendee, I certainly I don’t recall an open and inclusive discussion in either setting about whether to stand aloof of the process the Brazilians are asking us to use (which I can’t believe we’re still debating). What I do remember is a few loud and aggressive voices demanding that this be the stance and nobody wanting to tangle. I also remember the very same people who denounced using 1net as the agreed aggregator of nominations and anything else then demanding to be appointed to its coordination committee, which is a pretty blatant bit of have your cake and eat it too incoherence. >>>> >>>> Anyway, it’s of course totally fine if there are groups that feel that on principle you will not interface with the Brazilian process in the manner the Brazilians have asked for. Then simply say who you are, and don’t pretend to speak for other parts of CS that don’t agree with you. >>>>> >>>>> However, if you and or others want that decision to be reversed, please indicate so, and we can gather opinions. >>>> >>>> I’m not asking you to change your view, I know you won’t. I’m asking you to please report accurately who supports your statement so that others of us don’t have to waste time issuing a public corrective. Such a process is not going to add luster to CS participation. >>>> >>>>> Otherwise please do not confuse people about what is an existing decision of key civil society groups… >>>> >>>> I’m not confusing people, you are. You are claiming, yet again, to be speaking for “civil society,” when you are not. It is a pretty major misrepresentation. >>>> >>>> BD >>>>> >>>>> parminder >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> stand by their decision to communicate their nominees for various organising committees directly to the local organising group (LOG) ... All other kinds of communication from the civil society side >>>>>> >>>>>> from these members of the civil society ‘side’ >>>>>> >>>>>>> will also continue to be done from civil society side directly to the LOG, and later, as appropriate to the relevant organising committees. We >>>>>> >>>>>> These civil society groups >>>>>> >>>>>> These amendments add some precision and avoid some of the unnecessary confusion that’s arisen. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> >>>>>> Bill >>>>>> >>>>>>> do not intend to mediate any such communication through 1Net or any such other group. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I will add as a personal opinion that: Brazil/ CGI.Br has taken the political role of organising this important meeting; it cannot now shirk from the corresponding political responsibilities, by passing them on to others who have not been given the needed legitimacy. The world sees and approves Brazil as the host and organiser of this meeting, and it will be best if they are able to continue to do so. Any change of perception would have important bearing on the legitimacy and success of the meeting. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would also like to request LOG to give civil society Liaisons - the names being already communicated to them - equal status and involvement in your meetings and decisions as, apparently, is being given to some other non governmental groups. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In this regard I also request the Liaisons to be in contact with the LOG, and also with us. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks and best regards >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Parminder >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ******************************************************************* >>>>>> William J. Drake >>>>>> International Fellow & Lecturer >>>>>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >>>>>> University of Zurich, Switzerland >>>>>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, >>>>>> ICANN, www.ncuc.org >>>>>> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), >>>>>> www.williamdrake.org >>>>>> ******************************************************************** >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> ******************************************************************* >>>> William J. Drake >>>> International Fellow & Lecturer >>>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >>>> University of Zurich, Switzerland >>>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, >>>> ICANN, www.ncuc.org >>>> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), >>>> www.williamdrake.org >>>> ******************************************************************** >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Dec 28 08:24:26 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 18:54:26 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Brazil, WSIS 10+ and ITU In-Reply-To: <4A0C17AF-FCEF-467A-B01E-C815E066C17C@uzh.ch> References: <52BC70C4.70808@itforchange.net> <52BC7408.8060902@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133232B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133232D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4A0C17AF-FCEF-467A-B01E-C815E066C17C@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <52BED10A.8030705@itforchange.net> On Saturday 28 December 2013 06:18 PM, William Drake wrote: SNIP > Yes a push would be needed, but then CS would have to be able to > collaborate with other stakeholders, the suggestion of which is of > course ideological, and a reflection of your false consciousness Well, depending on ones socio-economic location the consciousness may indeed be true :) > and co-optation by hegemonic power structures. Sitting cosily with big business reps (like the 5 recently proposed by BCCI for 1Net ) to oppose global public policy making can indeed be constructed as co-optation by hegemonic power structures. Surprising that having promoted development agenda in IG for years you fail to catch the basis of such very widespread, often even the dominant, perception in global civil society outside of the IG kinds. As for WSIS plus 10, I welcome WSIS plus 10 process on the lines WSIS was held. Almost everything good that has happened in global IG in the last 10 years can some way or the other be traced to the WSIS - that inter-governmental process with exemplary stakeholder participation. Best, parminder > > Cheers > > Bill > From pouzin at well.com Sat Dec 28 12:10:53 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 18:10:53 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: References: <52BC7DC0.2010605@itforchange.net> <52BD2EAA.3090408@itforchange.net> <52BD3EED.2050709@itforchange.net> <855190B1-7012-4530-9147-D9D9418BB942@gmail.com> <52BD57AE.6010504@itforchange.net> <3CE0D58A-801F-4AEC-99B5-7AE33B3B3223@gmail.com> <52BD91AD.7090309@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 10:28 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > Thanks Parminder, glad we are able to agree on this. > > [snip] > > > FWIW my view remains that if the networks involved refuse to work through > the 1net mechanism to channel nominations to the Brazilians, they should > not have taken positions on the 1net coordination committee, which to date > has one identifiable function— channeling nominations to the Brazilians. > If the view is that because its launch and initial expiation were not > handled well 1net therefore has no legitimacy as a channel, then the > networks shouldn’t lend it legitimacy and should resign from its > coordination committee. I don’t share that view of 1net, but if someone > else does they should behave according to their principles rather than > trying to have it both ways. > > *+ 2*Louis Best > > Bill > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From william.drake at uzh.ch Mon Dec 2 03:52:26 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 09:52:26 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT In-Reply-To: <529C438F.4030606@itforchange.net> References: <528DE9DD.4040605@ITforChange.net> <529C2804.7090308@ITforChange.net> <529C438F.4030606@itforchange.net> Message-ID: +1! On Dec 2, 2013, at 9:23 AM, parminder wrote: > Civil society must always remain very vary of thinking of themselves as somehow so morally superior that they are exempt from normal accountability and transparency requirements -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pouzin at well.com Sat Dec 28 12:11:56 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 18:11:56 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: <03e701cf03a1$71b59fa0$5520dee0$@gmail.com> References: <52BC7DC0.2010605@itforchange.net> <52BD2EAA.3090408@itforchange.net> <52BD3EED.2050709@itforchange.net> <855190B1-7012-4530-9147-D9D9418BB942@gmail.com> <52BD57AE.6010504@itforchange.net> <3CE0D58A-801F-4AEC-99B5-7AE33B3B3223@gmail.com> <52BD91AD.7090309@itforchange.net> <03e701cf03a1$71b59fa0$5520dee0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: *+ 2* Louis - - - On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 8:50 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Hi Jeremy, > > > > I’m not quite sure who you are addressing with your message below, but if > is meant to be CS in IG as a whole perhaps it would be better to phrase > what you have written as “the coordinating group will be responsible for > “its” nominations” since as already noted the CI community has launched > its own nominating process and will be submitting nominations, to the > appropriate authority as that becomes clear, in parallel to those of CC-CS. > I would add that I agree with Parminder’s point that CS should not be going > through a third party for its nominations (this was generally, perhaps > universally, agreed to in Bali). > > > > As well, it should be noted that at this point precisely the provenance of > Inet is not clear. If Inet is a creature of ICANN then we, as CS overall > should be concerned since ICANN is not CS and may, because of its > activities and mandate have its own interests which it may be concerned to > pursue in this context as with others. If Inet is rather more linked to I* > then clearly we should not be passing our nominations through a body > organically linked to one of the other stakeholder groups. > > > > Mike > > > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: > bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Jeremy Malcolm > *Sent:* Friday, December 27, 2013 9:48 PM > *To:* parminder > *Cc:* William Drake; Governance; Carlos A. Afonso; Best Bits; Anriette > Esterhuysen > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR > meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 > > > > On 27 Dec 2013, at 10:41 pm, parminder wrote: > > > > In any case, I request the leaderships of IGC, BB, APC and IRP colaition > to let us know what there current position is on this issue, and what do > they propose to do since it seems that things are going in the direction > that they did not want them to go.. > > > > Just speaking personally for now, while I remain skeptical about 1net, I > am content with the position that Ian has described, that the coordinating > group will be responsible for the nominations, and the 1net committee will > just be a conduit. I don't see much "value add" there, but neither do I > see grave harm. > > > > -- > > > > *Dr Jeremy MalcolmSenior Policy OfficerConsumers International | the > global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Dec 28 12:22:25 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 22:52:25 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: References: <52BC7DC0.2010605@itforchange.net> <52BD2EAA.3090408@itforchange.net> <52BD3EED.2050709@itforchange.net> <855190B1-7012-4530-9147-D9D9418BB942@gmail.com> <52BD57AE.6010504@itforchange.net> <3CE0D58A-801F-4AEC-99B5-7AE33B3B3223@gmail.com> <52BD91AD.7090309@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52BF08D1.2080404@itforchange.net> This is some interesting congruence of views that is emerging.. Can we hope that that 'responsibility holders' among us - various committees, their heads, cocordinators of networks, our appointed Liaisons, etc come out with their views and stand on this issue..... parminder On Saturday 28 December 2013 10:40 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 10:28 AM, William Drake > wrote: > > Hi > > Thanks Parminder, glad we are able to agree on this. > > [snip] > > > FWIW my view remains that if the networks involved refuse to work > through the 1net mechanism to channel nominations to the > Brazilians, they should not have taken positions on the 1net > coordination committee, which to date has one identifiable > function— channeling nominations to the Brazilians. If the view > is that because its launch and initial expiation were not handled > well 1net therefore has no legitimacy as a channel, then the > networks shouldn’t lend it legitimacy and should resign from its > coordination committee. I don’t share that view of 1net, but if > someone else does they should behave according to their principles > rather than trying to have it both ways. > > *+ 2 > *Louis > > Best > > Bill > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Dec 28 12:31:42 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 23:01:42 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: <52BF08D1.2080404@itforchange.net> References: <52BC7DC0.2010605@itforchange.net> <52BD2EAA.3090408@itforchange.net> <52BD3EED.2050709@itforchange.net> <855190B1-7012-4530-9147-D9D9418BB942@gmail.com> <52BD57AE.6010504@itforchange.net> <3CE0D58A-801F-4AEC-99B5-7AE33B3B3223@gmail.com> <52BD91AD.7090309@itforchange.net> <52BF08D1.2080404@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52BF0AFE.6070601@itforchange.net> On Saturday 28 December 2013 10:52 PM, parminder wrote: > This is some interesting congruence of views that is emerging.. > > Can we hope that that 'responsibility holders' among us - various > committees, their heads, cocordinators of networks, our appointed > Liaisons, etc come out with their views and stand on this issue..... and yes, of course those selected through various processes for 1Net committees .... > > parminder > > On Saturday 28 December 2013 10:40 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: >> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 10:28 AM, William Drake > > wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> Thanks Parminder, glad we are able to agree on this. >> >> [snip] >> >> >> FWIW my view remains that if the networks involved refuse to work >> through the 1net mechanism to channel nominations to the >> Brazilians, they should not have taken positions on the 1net >> coordination committee, which to date has one identifiable >> function— channeling nominations to the Brazilians. If the view >> is that because its launch and initial expiation were not handled >> well 1net therefore has no legitimacy as a channel, then the >> networks shouldn’t lend it legitimacy and should resign from its >> coordination committee. I don’t share that view of 1net, but if >> someone else does they should behave according to their >> principles rather than trying to have it both ways. >> >> *+ 2 >> *Louis >> >> Best >> >> Bill >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Dec 28 12:53:17 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 23:23:17 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: <52BF0AFE.6070601@itforchange.net> References: <52BC7DC0.2010605@itforchange.net> <52BD2EAA.3090408@itforchange.net> <52BD3EED.2050709@itforchange.net> <855190B1-7012-4530-9147-D9D9418BB942@gmail.com> <52BD57AE.6010504@itforchange.net> <3CE0D58A-801F-4AEC-99B5-7AE33B3B3223@gmail.com> <52BD91AD.7090309@itforchange.net> <52BF08D1.2080404@itforchange.net> <52BF0AFE.6070601@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52BF100D.7070006@itforchange.net> On the other hand, I also agree with Bill that this may be too important a matter to be decided just by the leadership of various CS groups. I propose that a vote be taken among membership of different groups here whether CS will like to deal directly with Brazilian hosts in the matter of participating in the Brazil meeting or go through the 1Net.. parminder On Saturday 28 December 2013 11:01 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Saturday 28 December 2013 10:52 PM, parminder wrote: >> This is some interesting congruence of views that is emerging.. >> >> Can we hope that that 'responsibility holders' among us - various >> committees, their heads, cocordinators of networks, our appointed >> Liaisons, etc come out with their views and stand on this issue..... > > and yes, of course those selected through various processes for 1Net > committees .... > >> >> parminder >> >> On Saturday 28 December 2013 10:40 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: >>> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 10:28 AM, William Drake >> > wrote: >>> >>> Hi >>> >>> Thanks Parminder, glad we are able to agree on this. >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>> >>> FWIW my view remains that if the networks involved refuse to >>> work through the 1net mechanism to channel nominations to the >>> Brazilians, they should not have taken positions on the 1net >>> coordination committee, which to date has one identifiable >>> function— channeling nominations to the Brazilians. If the >>> view is that because its launch and initial expiation were not >>> handled well 1net therefore has no legitimacy as a channel, then >>> the networks shouldn’t lend it legitimacy and should resign from >>> its coordination committee. I don’t share that view of 1net, >>> but if someone else does they should behave according to their >>> principles rather than trying to have it both ways. >>> >>> *+ 2 >>> *Louis >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Bill >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Dec 28 14:16:36 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2013 06:16:36 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: <52BF100D.7070006@itforchange.net> References: <52BC7DC0.2010605@itforchange.net> <52BD2EAA.3090408@itforchange.net> <52BD3EED.2050709@itforchange.net> <855190B1-7012-4530-9147-D9D9418BB942@gmail.com> <52BD57AE.6010504@itforchange.net> <3CE0D58A-801F-4AEC-99B5-7AE33B3B3223@gmail.com> <52BD91AD.7090309@itforchange.net> <52BF08D1.2080404@itforchange.net> <52BF0AFE.6070601@itforchange.net> <52BF100D.7070006@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I think it would be good to find out from our Brazilian representatives why this change happened before framing any reaction. There may be other dimensions we are unaware of. Ian From: parminder Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 4:53 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 On the other hand, I also agree with Bill that this may be too important a matter to be decided just by the leadership of various CS groups. I propose that a vote be taken among membership of different groups here whether CS will like to deal directly with Brazilian hosts in the matter of participating in the Brazil meeting or go through the 1Net.. parminder On Saturday 28 December 2013 11:01 PM, parminder wrote: On Saturday 28 December 2013 10:52 PM, parminder wrote: This is some interesting congruence of views that is emerging.. Can we hope that that 'responsibility holders' among us - various committees, their heads, cocordinators of networks, our appointed Liaisons, etc come out with their views and stand on this issue..... and yes, of course those selected through various processes for 1Net committees .... parminder On Saturday 28 December 2013 10:40 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 10:28 AM, William Drake wrote: Hi Thanks Parminder, glad we are able to agree on this. [snip] FWIW my view remains that if the networks involved refuse to work through the 1net mechanism to channel nominations to the Brazilians, they should not have taken positions on the 1net coordination committee, which to date has one identifiable function— channeling nominations to the Brazilians. If the view is that because its launch and initial expiation were not handled well 1net therefore has no legitimacy as a channel, then the networks shouldn’t lend it legitimacy and should resign from its coordination committee. I don’t share that view of 1net, but if someone else does they should behave according to their principles rather than trying to have it both ways. + 2 Louis Best Bill -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Dec 28 23:30:03 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2013 10:00:03 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: References: <52BC7DC0.2010605@itforchange.net> <52BD2EAA.3090408@itforchange.net> <52BD3EED.2050709@itforchange.net> <855190B1-7012-4530-9147-D9D9418BB942@gmail.com> <52BD57AE.6010504@itforchange.net> <3CE0D58A-801F-4AEC-99B5-7AE33B3B3223@gmail.com> <52BD91AD.7090309@itforchange.net> <52BF08D1.2080404@itforchange.net> <52BF0AFE.6070601@itforchange.net> <52BF100D.7070006@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52BFA54B.1090101@itforchange.net> On Sunday 29 December 2013 12:46 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > I think it would be good to find out from our Brazilian > representatives why this change happened before framing any reaction. > There may be other dimensions we are unaware of. > Ian Yes, I agree. But also, we should not be placated by any kind of superficial justification thrown our way ... We are supposed to representing 'the outsider' majority in these spaces, and need to stand up for our convictions... As is already evident, too many take IG civil society for granted, which is the reason this thing happened in the first place.. I really hope that sooner or later we will hear from our Brazilian Liaisons, among others. parminder > *From:* parminder > *Sent:* Sunday, December 29, 2013 4:53 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > ; > mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Re: [discuss] [governance] Report from the > BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 > On the other hand, I also agree with Bill that this may be too > important a matter to be decided just by the leadership of various CS > groups. > > I propose that a vote be taken among membership of different groups > here whether CS will like to deal directly with Brazilian hosts in the > matter of participating in the Brazil meeting or go through the 1Net.. > > parminder > > > On Saturday 28 December 2013 11:01 PM, parminder wrote: >> >> On Saturday 28 December 2013 10:52 PM, parminder wrote: >>> This is some interesting congruence of views that is emerging.. >>> >>> Can we hope that that 'responsibility holders' among us - various >>> committees, their heads, cocordinators of networks, our appointed >>> Liaisons, etc come out with their views and stand on this issue..... >> >> and yes, of course those selected through various processes for 1Net >> committees .... >> >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> On Saturday 28 December 2013 10:40 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: >>>> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 10:28 AM, William Drake >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi >>>> Thanks Parminder, glad we are able to agree on this. >>>> [snip] >>>> >>>> FWIW my view remains that if the networks involved refuse to >>>> work through the 1net mechanism to channel nominations to the >>>> Brazilians, they should not have taken positions on the 1net >>>> coordination committee, which to date has one identifiable >>>> function— channeling nominations to the Brazilians. If the >>>> view is that because its launch and initial expiation were not >>>> handled well 1net therefore has no legitimacy as a channel, >>>> then the networks shouldn’t lend it legitimacy and should >>>> resign from its coordination committee. I don’t share that >>>> view of 1net, but if someone else does they should behave >>>> according to their principles rather than trying to have it >>>> both ways. >>>> >>>> *+ 2 >>>> *Louis >>>> >>>> Best >>>> Bill >>>> >>> >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From william.drake at uzh.ch Sun Dec 29 05:55:57 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2013 11:55:57 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Brazil, WSIS 10+ and ITU In-Reply-To: <52BED10A.8030705@itforchange.net> References: <52BC70C4.70808@itforchange.net> <52BC7408.8060902@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133232B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133232D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4A0C17AF-FCEF-467A-B01E-C815E066C17C@uzh.ch> <52BED10A.8030705@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5E79A36C-9A81-4F87-8956-6A636F68930F@uzh.ch> Hi Parminder On Dec 28, 2013, at 2:24 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Saturday 28 December 2013 06:18 PM, William Drake wrote: > > SNIP > >> Yes a push would be needed, but then CS would have to be able to collaborate with other stakeholders, the suggestion of which is of course ideological, and a reflection of your false consciousness > > Well, depending on ones socio-economic location the consciousness may indeed be true :) > >> and co-optation by hegemonic power structures. > > Sitting cosily with big business reps (like the 5 recently proposed by BCCI for 1Net ) Uh, cosy is not me or “my ilk" sitting next to BCCI folks (nice people but different positions). Come to a GNSO Council meeting and watch actual MS negotiations over real decisions that impact the net and tell me how cosy everyone looks. Cosy is you (sans ilk) sitting next to the Indian and Saudi et al government dels in the WGEC, arguing for intergovernmentalism > multistakeholderism. Compared to us allegedly mindless compromised types, it’s like peas in a pod :-) > to oppose global public policy making I don’t. I oppose bad global public policy making undertaken in institutional environments that are designed to fail. > can indeed be constructed as co-optation by hegemonic power structures. Surprising that having promoted development agenda in IG for years you fail to catch the basis of such very widespread, often even the dominant, perception in global civil society outside of the IG kinds. 'Fail to catch' and 'do not agree' are two different things. I admit I lack your ability to intuit the dominant perceptions in global civil society outside of the IG kinds on matters that have never been discussed with them. But I can tell you from empirical lived experience that the CS actors of the IG kind that I collaborate with don’t appear to forgot their positions simply by working with stakeholders holding to other positions. That certainly didn’t happen to in the course of pushing IG4D onto the IGF main session agenda (although I recognize we have different takes on what policies and action would best advance development). > > As for WSIS plus 10, I welcome WSIS plus 10 process on the lines WSIS was held. So you want us to be locked out of rooms again, shouted down again, and ultimately grudgingly consigned to five minutes at the end of a session for joint statements again? If I may borrow your channeling tools, I don’t think that’s the dominant desire of global civil society. > Almost everything good that has happened in global IG in the last 10 years can some way or the other be traced to the WSIS - that inter-governmental process with exemplary stakeholder participation. You might consider going to some meetings that are not organized under UN auspices. Or do you believe that nothing good has ever happened in ICANN, IETF, etc? Cheers Bill > > Best, parminder > > >> >> Cheers >> >> Bill >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Dec 30 00:05:33 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 16:05:33 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] Input needed - criteria for CS Coordination Group Message-ID: <7BFB3F646F374FE5833D67CB95E8804F@Toshiba> Sorry to initiate a process discussion but I think it is important we move on on this particular issue. I’m starting this discussion to get wider input into how civil society people think it would be appropriate to expand the current co ordination group. To date, this debate has largely been about people thinking they should be included rather than any formal criteria to ensure that the group is representative while still staying at a reasonable size. The group came into existence out of a need for civil society groups to work together to nominate representatives for various forums; originally for 1net and Brazil events, but certainly with thoughts of IGF MAG as well in the future. Currently included (in no particular order) are the Association for Progressive Communications (APC), Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group of ICANN (NCSG), and (pending new coordinator elections) the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC). Remember, these are criteria for a co-ordination group concerned with internet governance matters. Optimal membership levels may be about 9, I think, but certainly well less than 20. So how do we choose? Criteria discussed so far include: 1. Is a coalition which is globally representative - all regions covered? 2. Is it non-commercial and public interest oriented (as opposed to business)? 3. Would it more properly fit under technical community, academic, business or government in its categorization? 4. Is a large part of this coalition's members already covered by one of the existing members? 5. The internal governance of the coalition is adequately transparent and accountable to its members. Other suggestions have been discussed from time to time and I invite others to make up for any omissions here. An additional criteria that might be useful would be a reference to having a substantial current involvement in and knowledge of internet governance debates. That however might not be acceptable to all – but for me, the criteria as they stand would be open to approaches from YWCA, Medicin sans Frontieres, Pirate Parties International, Red Cross, Amnesty International, CONGO, Creative Commons, International Commission of Jurists,etc. All good groups, and it would be great to see them involved here, but the question is whether the presence of all of them would be useful for a small working co-ordination group on matters specific to internet governance. This along with other suggestions should be discussed. Interested in any thoughts relevant to refining this into a workable set of criteria for expanding a small co-ordination group, the members of which will be different coalitions of civil society organisations who will want to maintain their independence while working together. One thought that has been raised is to look at rotation of members, or perhaps a combination of permanent and rotating members. So I am just opening this up for conversation to see what people think. Please this is a discussion about criteria, not about individual groups and their cases to be involved. Ian Peter -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nnenna75 at gmail.com Mon Dec 30 04:34:24 2013 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 09:34:24 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Input needed - criteria for CS Coordination Group In-Reply-To: <7BFB3F646F374FE5833D67CB95E8804F@Toshiba> References: <7BFB3F646F374FE5833D67CB95E8804F@Toshiba> Message-ID: Hi Ian Dunno how many of our folks are still doing mails this late in the year. My original understanding was that networks = organisations or platforms that are actually a gathering of other organisations.. are the ones to be repped in the group. My understanding was therefore, that there reps will help disseminate information in those networks and network members will take the calls further down. There is the Web We Want group, which has hit membership in the hundreds, of organisations in about 2 years. They are basically organisations that advocate for online freedoms, openness of the Internet and certain human rights. Does WWW qualify? Maybe yes, maybe no, but some WWW members can easily take any "call for nomination" and forward to the list. Does WWW necessarily need to be in the Coordinating group to do that? I think "No". I'm not sure about having "substantial current involvement" but I will definitely say having "broad-based and historic involvement" in an issue, where the perspectives of such an organization will provide knowledge in areas of IG that current group reps are not very knowledgeable about... will be welcome. Best regards Nnenna On 12/30/13, Ian Peter wrote: > Sorry to initiate a process discussion but I think it is important we move > on on this particular issue. > > > > I’m starting this discussion to get wider input into how civil society > people think it would be appropriate to expand the current co ordination > group. To date, this debate has largely been about people thinking they > should be included rather than any formal criteria to ensure that the group > is representative while still staying at a reasonable size. > > The group came into existence out of a need for civil society groups to work > together to nominate representatives for various forums; originally for 1net > and Brazil events, but certainly with thoughts of IGF MAG as well in the > future. Currently included (in no particular order) are the Association for > Progressive Communications (APC), Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the > Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group of ICANN (NCSG), and (pending new > coordinator elections) the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC). > > Remember, these are criteria for a co-ordination group concerned with > internet governance matters. Optimal membership levels may be about 9, I > think, but certainly well less than 20. > > > > So how do we choose? > > > > Criteria discussed so far include: > > > > 1. Is a coalition which is globally representative - all regions > covered? > > > > 2. Is it non-commercial and public interest oriented (as opposed to > business)? > > > 3. Would it more properly fit under technical community, academic, business > or government in its categorization? > > > > > 4. Is a large part of this coalition's members already covered by one of > the existing members? > > > > > 5. The internal governance of the coalition is adequately transparent and > accountable to its members. > > > > Other suggestions have been discussed from time to time and I invite others > to make up for any omissions here. > > > > An additional criteria that might be useful would be a reference to having a > substantial current involvement in and knowledge of internet governance > debates. That however might not be acceptable to all – but for me, the > criteria as they stand would be open to approaches from YWCA, Medicin sans > Frontieres, Pirate Parties International, Red Cross, Amnesty International, > CONGO, Creative Commons, International Commission of Jurists,etc. All good > groups, and it would be great to see them involved here, but the question is > whether the presence of all of them would be useful for a small working > co-ordination group on matters specific to internet governance. This along > with other suggestions should be discussed. > > > > > > Interested in any thoughts relevant to refining this into a workable set of > criteria for expanding a small co-ordination group, the members of which > will be different coalitions of civil society organisations who will want to > maintain their independence while working together. One thought that has > been raised is to look at rotation of members, or perhaps a combination of > permanent and rotating members. > > > > So I am just opening this up for conversation to see what people think. > Please this is a discussion about criteria, not about individual groups and > their cases to be involved. > > > > > > Ian Peter > > > > > From wjdrake at gmail.com Mon Dec 30 05:38:52 2013 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 11:38:52 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Input needed - criteria for CS Coordination Group In-Reply-To: <7BFB3F646F374FE5833D67CB95E8804F@Toshiba> References: <7BFB3F646F374FE5833D67CB95E8804F@Toshiba> Message-ID: <9BBE8525-517E-4068-9544-B7FE89CC2887@gmail.com> Hi Ian Thanks for this > On Dec 30, 2013, at 6:05 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Criteria discussed so far include: > > 1. Is a coalition which is globally representative - all regions covered? > 2. Is it non-commercial and public interest oriented (as opposed to business)? > 3. Would it more properly fit under technical community, academic, business or government in its categorization? > > 4. Is a large part of this coalition's members already covered by one of the existing members? > 5. The internal governance of the coalition is adequately transparent and accountable to its members. > > Other suggestions have been discussed from time to time and I invite others to make up for any omissions here. > An additional criteria that might be useful would be a reference to having a substantial current involvement in and knowledge of internet governance debates. That however might not be acceptable to all – but for me, the criteria as they stand would be open to approaches from YWCA, Medicin sans Frontieres, Pirate Parties International, Red Cross, Amnesty International, CONGO, Creative Commons, International Commission of Jurists,etc. All good groups, and it would be great to see them involved here, but the question is whether the presence of all of them would be useful for a small working co-ordination group on matters specific to internet governance. This along with other suggestions should be discussed. I’m hard pressed to understand on what grounds your last suggestion would be unacceptable; frankly, one could argue it should be the first criteria. Networks wanting to claim leadership roles in a network of networks focused on global IG should actually be involved in global IG. Such involvement should be empirically verifiable—there should be some way to ascertain, other than through the applicants’ insistent assertions, that participants have demonstrated their interest and expertise on xyz GIG issues and participated in xyz GIG processes, release xyz position statements, something….there’s ought be a digital paper trail. Absent this, you we might as well invite the Global Donkey Association to apply. Best Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mshears at cdt.org Mon Dec 2 05:10:51 2013 From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 10:10:51 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Proposal on Best Bits governance In-Reply-To: <529C01C8.1010008@ciroap.org> References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org> <528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net> <00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org> <528C72F0.1090703@itforchange.net> <795A5EE4-EAA1-4858-9F9A-CE652E85BF12@ciroap.org> <528C7AC8.7000203@itforchange.net> <528F2A38.4040905@apc.org> <529C01C8.1010008@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <529C5CAB.9010403@cdt.org> I also support it. On 02/12/2013 03:43, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I for one can fully accept and endorse Anriette's helpful proposal. > Others? > > On 22/11/13 17:56, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> Dear all >> >> [Please note that this proposal is not about the Brazil meeting or civil >> society nomcoms.] >> >> In some of the recent threads people have called to question the >> legitimacy of the Best Bits steering committee, and of transparency and >> accountability in Best Bits. I agree it will be good to strengthen Best >> Bits internal processes, but we should do this in a way that does not >> undermine trust in people who have worked hard to bring Best Bits to >> where it is, or in one another. We should also not undermine our >> ability to work together at a time when civil society is having to rise >> to some pretty daunting challenges. >> >> In particular, we should try not to discourage those individuals who >> have been volunteering their time on Best Bits bits work - either on the >> SC, or on drafting inputs. Without their effort we would be in a far >> weaker position than we are now. We would not have had the benefit of >> two face-to-face meetings, or of several substantial letters/other >> inputs submitted in response to strategic opportunities for raising >> civil society voices. >> >> I would therefore like to propose the following: >> >> 1) We ask the current Best Bits Steering Committee, a group of people >> who started to volunteer their time in this capacity in July 2013, to >> continue to serve until 31 July 2014. >> >> 2) We ask them to present us with a short overview report of the work >> they did in 2013 by the end of this year. >> >> 3) We ask them to, by the end of the first quarter of 2014, to propose a >> process for the renewal of the Best Bits Steering Committee. >> >> Best >> >> Anriette >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge > hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > -- Matthew Shears Director and Representative Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) mshears at cdt.org +44 (0) 771 247 2987 Skype: mshears -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Mon Dec 30 04:58:33 2013 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 14:58:33 +0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Input needed - criteria for CS Coordination Group In-Reply-To: References: <7BFB3F646F374FE5833D67CB95E8804F@Toshiba> Message-ID: Typo in the second last paragraph where it says "with risk that It really would turn into another IGF group within the IGC." IGF needs to be read as IGC as: 'with risk that It really would turn into another ""IGC"" group within the IGC.' On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Some of the challenges I see with a larger representation group is the > emergence of internal politics within such a group if it was beyond > the traditional remit. Similarly the voluntary and non-profit nature > of some groups is so diversified that they are either very large and > strong within the global context in the sense of their outreach and > membership or are small loosely connect online/offline community > groups working in the context of only their country, region or smaller > town/district/village. > > The balance cannot be achieved at all and there is an evident > possibility that the coordination group can be taken over by different > people from different non-profits but members of the same larger or > global civil society group so this is a double edged issue. > > Personally speaking I would only explore a model where we had one rep > from each continent and more based on its size and on a yearly > rotating basis so that any larger coordination group would never fall > pray to groupings though this is impossible. For example, we would > need atleast 3 reps for Asia, one from ME, one from SA and one from > AP, two from Australasia, 3 from Africa, 2 from EU/EE, 4 from Africa, > 2 from Latin America, 2 from North America and Canada etc. with risk > that It really would turn into another IGF group within the IGC. > > Consensus maybe achieved but then IGC would not be IGC anymore. The > relevant and prevalent problems at the moment are that there are never > seen hardliners and there are people that want to contribute but > fierceness and irrelevance of issues to the developing context provoke > us to keep silent and observant while continuing to ready to play our > role and share our contributions when the need arises. > > Saying this, it might actually turn into a bad idea. > > > On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: >> Hi Ian >> >> Dunno how many of our folks are still doing mails this late in the >> year. My original understanding was that networks = organisations or >> platforms that are actually a gathering of other organisations.. are >> the ones to be repped in the group. My understanding was therefore, >> that there reps will help disseminate information in those networks >> and network members will take the calls further down. >> >> There is the Web We Want group, which has hit membership in the >> hundreds, of organisations in about 2 years. They are basically >> organisations that advocate for online freedoms, openness of the >> Internet and certain human rights. Does WWW qualify? Maybe yes, >> maybe no, but some WWW members can easily take any "call for >> nomination" and forward to the list. Does WWW necessarily need to be >> in the Coordinating group to do that? I think "No". >> >> I'm not sure about having "substantial current involvement" but I will >> definitely say having "broad-based and historic involvement" in an >> issue, where the perspectives of such an organization will provide >> knowledge in areas of IG that current group reps are not very >> knowledgeable about... will be welcome. >> >> Best regards >> >> Nnenna >> >> On 12/30/13, Ian Peter wrote: >>> Sorry to initiate a process discussion but I think it is important we move >>> on on this particular issue. >>> >>> >>> >>> I’m starting this discussion to get wider input into how civil society >>> people think it would be appropriate to expand the current co ordination >>> group. To date, this debate has largely been about people thinking they >>> should be included rather than any formal criteria to ensure that the group >>> is representative while still staying at a reasonable size. >>> >>> The group came into existence out of a need for civil society groups to work >>> together to nominate representatives for various forums; originally for 1net >>> and Brazil events, but certainly with thoughts of IGF MAG as well in the >>> future. Currently included (in no particular order) are the Association for >>> Progressive Communications (APC), Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the >>> Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group of ICANN (NCSG), and (pending new >>> coordinator elections) the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC). >>> >>> Remember, these are criteria for a co-ordination group concerned with >>> internet governance matters. Optimal membership levels may be about 9, I >>> think, but certainly well less than 20. >>> >>> >>> >>> So how do we choose? >>> >>> >>> >>> Criteria discussed so far include: >>> >>> >>> >>> 1. Is a coalition which is globally representative - all regions >>> covered? >>> >>> >>> >>> 2. Is it non-commercial and public interest oriented (as opposed to >>> business)? >>> >>> >>> 3. Would it more properly fit under technical community, academic, business >>> or government in its categorization? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 4. Is a large part of this coalition's members already covered by one of >>> the existing members? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 5. The internal governance of the coalition is adequately transparent and >>> accountable to its members. >>> >>> >>> >>> Other suggestions have been discussed from time to time and I invite others >>> to make up for any omissions here. >>> >>> >>> >>> An additional criteria that might be useful would be a reference to having a >>> substantial current involvement in and knowledge of internet governance >>> debates. That however might not be acceptable to all – but for me, the >>> criteria as they stand would be open to approaches from YWCA, Medicin sans >>> Frontieres, Pirate Parties International, Red Cross, Amnesty International, >>> CONGO, Creative Commons, International Commission of Jurists,etc. All good >>> groups, and it would be great to see them involved here, but the question is >>> whether the presence of all of them would be useful for a small working >>> co-ordination group on matters specific to internet governance. This along >>> with other suggestions should be discussed. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Interested in any thoughts relevant to refining this into a workable set of >>> criteria for expanding a small co-ordination group, the members of which >>> will be different coalitions of civil society organisations who will want to >>> maintain their independence while working together. One thought that has >>> been raised is to look at rotation of members, or perhaps a combination of >>> permanent and rotating members. >>> >>> >>> >>> So I am just opening this up for conversation to see what people think. >>> Please this is a discussion about criteria, not about individual groups and >>> their cases to be involved. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor > My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ > Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Mon Dec 30 04:56:06 2013 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 14:56:06 +0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Input needed - criteria for CS Coordination Group In-Reply-To: References: <7BFB3F646F374FE5833D67CB95E8804F@Toshiba> Message-ID: Some of the challenges I see with a larger representation group is the emergence of internal politics within such a group if it was beyond the traditional remit. Similarly the voluntary and non-profit nature of some groups is so diversified that they are either very large and strong within the global context in the sense of their outreach and membership or are small loosely connect online/offline community groups working in the context of only their country, region or smaller town/district/village. The balance cannot be achieved at all and there is an evident possibility that the coordination group can be taken over by different people from different non-profits but members of the same larger or global civil society group so this is a double edged issue. Personally speaking I would only explore a model where we had one rep from each continent and more based on its size and on a yearly rotating basis so that any larger coordination group would never fall pray to groupings though this is impossible. For example, we would need atleast 3 reps for Asia, one from ME, one from SA and one from AP, two from Australasia, 3 from Africa, 2 from EU/EE, 4 from Africa, 2 from Latin America, 2 from North America and Canada etc. with risk that It really would turn into another IGF group within the IGC. Consensus maybe achieved but then IGC would not be IGC anymore. The relevant and prevalent problems at the moment are that there are never seen hardliners and there are people that want to contribute but fierceness and irrelevance of issues to the developing context provoke us to keep silent and observant while continuing to ready to play our role and share our contributions when the need arises. Saying this, it might actually turn into a bad idea. On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > Hi Ian > > Dunno how many of our folks are still doing mails this late in the > year. My original understanding was that networks = organisations or > platforms that are actually a gathering of other organisations.. are > the ones to be repped in the group. My understanding was therefore, > that there reps will help disseminate information in those networks > and network members will take the calls further down. > > There is the Web We Want group, which has hit membership in the > hundreds, of organisations in about 2 years. They are basically > organisations that advocate for online freedoms, openness of the > Internet and certain human rights. Does WWW qualify? Maybe yes, > maybe no, but some WWW members can easily take any "call for > nomination" and forward to the list. Does WWW necessarily need to be > in the Coordinating group to do that? I think "No". > > I'm not sure about having "substantial current involvement" but I will > definitely say having "broad-based and historic involvement" in an > issue, where the perspectives of such an organization will provide > knowledge in areas of IG that current group reps are not very > knowledgeable about... will be welcome. > > Best regards > > Nnenna > > On 12/30/13, Ian Peter wrote: >> Sorry to initiate a process discussion but I think it is important we move >> on on this particular issue. >> >> >> >> I’m starting this discussion to get wider input into how civil society >> people think it would be appropriate to expand the current co ordination >> group. To date, this debate has largely been about people thinking they >> should be included rather than any formal criteria to ensure that the group >> is representative while still staying at a reasonable size. >> >> The group came into existence out of a need for civil society groups to work >> together to nominate representatives for various forums; originally for 1net >> and Brazil events, but certainly with thoughts of IGF MAG as well in the >> future. Currently included (in no particular order) are the Association for >> Progressive Communications (APC), Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the >> Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group of ICANN (NCSG), and (pending new >> coordinator elections) the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC). >> >> Remember, these are criteria for a co-ordination group concerned with >> internet governance matters. Optimal membership levels may be about 9, I >> think, but certainly well less than 20. >> >> >> >> So how do we choose? >> >> >> >> Criteria discussed so far include: >> >> >> >> 1. Is a coalition which is globally representative - all regions >> covered? >> >> >> >> 2. Is it non-commercial and public interest oriented (as opposed to >> business)? >> >> >> 3. Would it more properly fit under technical community, academic, business >> or government in its categorization? >> >> >> >> >> 4. Is a large part of this coalition's members already covered by one of >> the existing members? >> >> >> >> >> 5. The internal governance of the coalition is adequately transparent and >> accountable to its members. >> >> >> >> Other suggestions have been discussed from time to time and I invite others >> to make up for any omissions here. >> >> >> >> An additional criteria that might be useful would be a reference to having a >> substantial current involvement in and knowledge of internet governance >> debates. That however might not be acceptable to all – but for me, the >> criteria as they stand would be open to approaches from YWCA, Medicin sans >> Frontieres, Pirate Parties International, Red Cross, Amnesty International, >> CONGO, Creative Commons, International Commission of Jurists,etc. All good >> groups, and it would be great to see them involved here, but the question is >> whether the presence of all of them would be useful for a small working >> co-ordination group on matters specific to internet governance. This along >> with other suggestions should be discussed. >> >> >> >> >> >> Interested in any thoughts relevant to refining this into a workable set of >> criteria for expanding a small co-ordination group, the members of which >> will be different coalitions of civil society organisations who will want to >> maintain their independence while working together. One thought that has >> been raised is to look at rotation of members, or perhaps a combination of >> permanent and rotating members. >> >> >> >> So I am just opening this up for conversation to see what people think. >> Please this is a discussion about criteria, not about individual groups and >> their cases to be involved. >> >> >> >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa From nb at bollow.ch Mon Dec 30 06:14:35 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 12:14:35 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Input needed - criteria for CS Coordination Group In-Reply-To: <7BFB3F646F374FE5833D67CB95E8804F@Toshiba> References: <7BFB3F646F374FE5833D67CB95E8804F@Toshiba> Message-ID: <20131230121435.0995dab5@quill> Ian Peter wrote: > Remember, these are criteria for a co-ordination group concerned with > internet governance matters. Optimal membership levels may be about > 9, I think, but certainly well less than 20. I would suggest that if there are more networks with a viable claim that they should be included than seats in a reasonably-sized committee, those networks should still be accepted as members of the coordination group, and the practical problem could be addressed e.g. by forming an “executive committee” with rotating membership. > So how do we choose? > > Criteria discussed so far include: > > 1. Is a coalition which is globally representative - all > regions covered? > > 2. Is it non-commercial and public interest oriented (as > opposed to business)? > > 3. Would it more properly fit under technical community, academic, > business or government in its categorization? > > 4. Is a large part of this coalition's members already covered by > one of the existing members? > > 5. The internal governance of the coalition is adequately transparent > and accountable to its members. All good criteria which I wholeheartedly support. With the caveat that just looking at who is subscribed to a discussion mailing list is *not* how “coverage” should be determined. > Other suggestions have been discussed from time to time and I invite > others to make up for any omissions here. > > An additional criteria that might be useful would be a reference to > having a substantial current involvement in and knowledge of internet > governance debates. I see some danger here - we need to ensure that whatever criteria we develop don't end up having the effect of creating a self-perpetuating cabal which increases rather than decreases the obstacles which civil society communities with Internet governance related interests face on the path of becoming formally and effectively involved in Internet governance discourses. > That however might not be acceptable to all – but > for me, the criteria as they stand would be open to approaches from > YWCA, Medicin sans Frontieres, Pirate Parties International, Red > Cross, Amnesty International, CONGO, Creative Commons, International > Commission of Jurists,etc. All good groups, and it would be great to > see them involved here, but the question is whether the presence of > all of them would be useful for a small working co-ordination group > on matters specific to internet governance. I agree that there is a need for some criterion that will help focus the coalition on member networks whose primary area of interest is within the scope of Internet governance, as per the Tunis Agenda working definition, broadly understood. Greetings, Norbert From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Dec 30 06:37:22 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 17:07:22 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Input needed - criteria for CS Coordination Group In-Reply-To: <7BFB3F646F374FE5833D67CB95E8804F@Toshiba> References: <7BFB3F646F374FE5833D67CB95E8804F@Toshiba> Message-ID: <52C15AF2.5070001@itforchange.net> BTW, Ian, I had asked you earlier, how many and which networks have applied to be inside the committee, so that we can judge the nature and extent of the problem you are trying to deal with.. I understand that should be public information. parminder On Monday 30 December 2013 10:35 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > Sorry to initiate a process discussion but I think it is important we > move on on this particular issue. > > I’m starting this discussion to get wider input into how civil society > people think it would be appropriate to expand the current co > ordination group. To date, this debate has largely been about people > thinking they should be included rather than any formal criteria to > ensure that the group is representative while still staying at a > reasonable size. > > The group came into existence out of a need for civil society groups > to work together to nominate representatives for various forums; > originally for 1net and Brazil events, but certainly with thoughts of > IGF MAG as well in the future. Currently included (in no particular > order) are the Association for Progressive Communications (APC), Diplo > Foundation, Best Bits, the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group of ICANN > (NCSG), and (pending new coordinator elections) the Civil Society > Internet Governance Caucus (IGC). > > Remember, these are criteria for a co-ordination group concerned with > internet governance matters. Optimal membership levels may be about 9, > I think, but certainly well less than 20. > > So how do we choose? > > Criteria discussed so far include: > > 1.Is a coalition which is globally representative - all regions covered? > > 2.Is it non-commercial and public interest oriented (as opposed to > business)? > > > 3. Would it more properly fit under technical community, academic, > business or government in its categorization? > > > 4. Is a large part of this coalition's members already covered by one > of the existing members? > > > 5. The internal governance of the coalition is adequately transparent > and accountable to its members. > > Other suggestions have been discussed from time to time and I invite > others to make up for any omissions here. > > An additional criteria that might be useful would be a reference to > having a substantial current involvement in and knowledge of internet > governance debates. That however might not be acceptable to all – but > for me, the criteria as they stand would be open to approaches from > YWCA, Medicin sans Frontieres, Pirate Parties International, Red > Cross, Amnesty International, CONGO, Creative Commons, International > Commission of Jurists,etc. All good groups, and it would be great to > see them involved here, but the question is whether the presence of > all of them would be useful for a small working co-ordination group on > matters specific to internet governance. This along with other > suggestions should be discussed. > > Interested in any thoughts relevant to refining this into a workable > set of criteria for expanding a small co-ordination group, the members > of which will be different coalitions of civil society organisations > who will want to maintain their independence while working together. > One thought that has been raised is to look at rotation of members, or > perhaps a combination of permanent and rotating members. > > > > So I am just opening this up for conversation to see what people > think. Please this is a discussion about criteria, not about > individual groups and their cases to be involved. > > Ian Peter > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Lea at gp-digital.org Mon Dec 30 10:17:08 2013 From: Lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 15:17:08 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Brazil, WSIS 10+ and ITU In-Reply-To: References: <52BC70C4.70808@itforchange.net> <52BC7408.8060902@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133232B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133232D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>, Message-ID: Hi all, In case of interest, and to follow up on Deborah's informative email about the ITU-led WSIS+10 MPP process, find here a short summary of the most recent MPP meeting held in Geneva: http://www.gp-digital.org/gpd-update/second-mpp-wsis10-meeting/ Best and happy holidays to everyone, Lea ________________________________________ From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Deborah Brown [deborah at accessnow.org] Sent: 27 December 2013 16:23 To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Cc: William Drake; Parminder Singh; Best Bits Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Brazil, WSIS 10+ and ITU Hi Wolfgang, all, I very much share the concerns you raised, however I wonder if strategically the intergovernmental consultations on the modalities for the overall WSIS review can be separated from the modalities themselves. [see OP22 below] In other words, couldn't CS and other stakeholders take advantage of the fact that the modalities for the review haven't been decided yet and push for a CSTD WG-like structure to be the the outcome of the consultations that will be taking place early next year? 22. Decides to finalize the modalities for the overall review by the General Assembly of the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society, in accordance with paragraph 111 of the Tunis Agenda, as early as possible, but no later than the end of March 2014, and invites the President of the Assembly to appoint two co-facilitators to convene open intergovernmental consultations for that purpose; Perhaps it's optimistic to think an intergovernmental consultation could result in a more open prep-com process, but given that UNGA has created 2 MS WGs through CSTD in the last few years and that theis resolution reaffirms CSTD (through ECOSOC) as "the focal point in the system-wide follow-up" for WSIS (PP10), maybe it's worth a try? With regards to some of the other ITU meetings you mentioned in your earlier email, it was announced at the CSTD intersessional and WSIS+10 MPP meeting earlier this month that WTDC will be moved to Dubai. The high level ITU sponsored WSIS meeting is still somewhat up in the air because there wasn't enough progress made at the December meeting to hold the high level meeting in April. There will likely be a working meeting in Sharm al-Sheikh and the high level one will need to be rescheduled. At least that was my understanding of the situation. I think it would be great to discuss CS approaches to WSIS, WTDC, PP in the new year. Happy holidays! Deborah On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:38 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > wrote: Thx Bill for the clarification. Yes I quoted the draft from November 7, 2013 and was not aware about the last minute changes. However this does not change the challenge for the civil society. And even if there is not formal summit in 2015, the process is underway and the process as designed by the UN, is intergovernmental leadership with unclear involvement of non-governmental stakeholders, including civil society. Why such an "intergovernmental preparatory committee" is not designed according to the UNCSTD WGs? The options which I have heard as an alternative to an independent WSIS III Summit are a.- to do it together with the big MDG Summt in 2015 or to have a WSIS Summit in 2016. Best wishes wolfgang ________________________________ Von: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch] Gesendet: Fr 27.12.2013 12:15 An: Governance; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Cc: Parminder Singh; Best Bits Betreff: Re: [governance] Brazil, WSIS 10+ and ITU Hi Wolfgang Good to see you back in the flow. On Dec 27, 2013, at 11:38 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang > wrote: Here is the text from the UN resolution, adopted in December 2013 by the UN General Assembly (table by Fihi on behalf ot the Group of 77 and China) Uh, no, I don't think so. You are quoting A/C.2/68/L.40 of 7 November 2013, the G77 and China's contribution. I believe this was superseded after negotiations by A/C.2/68/L.73 of 6 December 2013. The latter deletes mention of summit, but does call for an intergovernmental process to prepare the modalities for review. Best Bill " 20. Reaffirms the role of the General Assembly in the overall review of the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society, tobe held in 2015, as recognized in paragraph 111 of the Tunis Agenda; 21.? on the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society, in accordance with paragraph 111 of the Tunis Agenda; 22. Also decides to launch a preparatory process for the review summit by January 2014, which shall take place through an open-ended intergovernmental preparatory committee and be consistent with and draw on the experience of the two phases of the World Summit on the Information Society process and which will define the agenda of the review summit, finalize the negotiated outcome document of the summit and decide on the modalities for the participation of other stakeholders in the summit; 23. Invites Governments to participate actively in the preparatory process of the overall review summit in 2015 and to be represented in the summit at the highest possible level; 24. Acknowledges the contributions of the International Telecommunication Union in the Geneva and Tunis Summits, and invites the Union to contribute similarly to the overall review summit and its preparatory process;" With other words, this list should start a discussion how CS will be included into the PrepComs for WSIS III, how it will self-organize in 2014/2015 for WSIS 10+. Should we have the same structure like between WSIS I and WSIS II with a CS Bureau, a CS Plenary, a CS Content & Themes group and a large number of CS WGs and Caucuses? This IGC was one of the groups, established during PrepCom2 in February 2003 (see attachment). Should we wait until the Intergovernmental Committee defines under which conditions CS is allowed to participate? Or should we ask for a multistakeholder (instead of intergovernmental) preparatory committee? Should we write a letter to Ban Kin Moon and to protest against this governmental exclusive approach to the WSIS 10+ process and say very clearly that we feel excluded and that all the other paragraphs in the resolution which refer to "multistakeholder" are just lip service as long as CS is not an equal partner in the preparatory process? And what about CS representation in the UNGIS? "16. Also recognizes the role of the United Nations Group on the Information Society as an inter-agency mechanism of the United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Coordination designed to coordinate United Nations implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society;" And finally, what this list will do to go prepared to the ITU Plenipot in Busan in Fall 2014? Do we want to play an active role in the WTDC and the ITU sponsored Ministerial WSIS 10+ meeting, orignally planned for Sharm el Sheikh in April 2014 and move now probably to Dubai and/or Bucharest? Best wishes for 2014 wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ********************************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | accessnow.org rightscon.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Dec 30 14:45:11 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2013 06:45:11 +1100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Input needed - criteria for CS Coordination Group In-Reply-To: <52C15AF2.5070001@itforchange.net> References: <7BFB3F646F374FE5833D67CB95E8804F@Toshiba> <52C15AF2.5070001@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <76EF0364C15143AAA7DFC061874A8863@Toshiba> Thanks everyone for comments so far and some helpful suggestions. Parminder, the initial suggestions and approaches included IRP Coalition Privacy International Community Informatics ISOC (suggested, not an approach) Civicus (suggested, not an approach) Giganet (suggested, not an approach) I might have missed some, but I hope that helps. It is quite likely individual members of the group have been approached and I am unaware of it. But really what we are looking at is the potential for a substantial number of additional approaches, particularly if we start to expand, and a fair way to treat both current and future approaches. We can certainly think of a lot more organisations (present here and not present) who could approach us in time with valid claims, so planning ahead and getting some sensible ground rules and approaches in place is prompting out thoughts. Ian From: parminder Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 10:37 PM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Input needed - criteria for CS Coordination Group BTW, Ian, I had asked you earlier, how many and which networks have applied to be inside the committee, so that we can judge the nature and extent of the problem you are trying to deal with.. I understand that should be public information. parminder On Monday 30 December 2013 10:35 AM, Ian Peter wrote: Sorry to initiate a process discussion but I think it is important we move on on this particular issue. I’m starting this discussion to get wider input into how civil society people think it would be appropriate to expand the current co ordination group. To date, this debate has largely been about people thinking they should be included rather than any formal criteria to ensure that the group is representative while still staying at a reasonable size. The group came into existence out of a need for civil society groups to work together to nominate representatives for various forums; originally for 1net and Brazil events, but certainly with thoughts of IGF MAG as well in the future. Currently included (in no particular order) are the Association for Progressive Communications (APC), Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group of ICANN (NCSG), and (pending new coordinator elections) the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC). Remember, these are criteria for a co-ordination group concerned with internet governance matters. Optimal membership levels may be about 9, I think, but certainly well less than 20. So how do we choose? Criteria discussed so far include: 1. Is a coalition which is globally representative - all regions covered? 2. Is it non-commercial and public interest oriented (as opposed to business)? 3. Would it more properly fit under technical community, academic, business or government in its categorization? 4. Is a large part of this coalition's members already covered by one of the existing members? 5. The internal governance of the coalition is adequately transparent and accountable to its members. Other suggestions have been discussed from time to time and I invite others to make up for any omissions here. An additional criteria that might be useful would be a reference to having a substantial current involvement in and knowledge of internet governance debates. That however might not be acceptable to all – but for me, the criteria as they stand would be open to approaches from YWCA, Medicin sans Frontieres, Pirate Parties International, Red Cross, Amnesty International, CONGO, Creative Commons, International Commission of Jurists,etc. All good groups, and it would be great to see them involved here, but the question is whether the presence of all of them would be useful for a small working co-ordination group on matters specific to internet governance. This along with other suggestions should be discussed. Interested in any thoughts relevant to refining this into a workable set of criteria for expanding a small co-ordination group, the members of which will be different coalitions of civil society organisations who will want to maintain their independence while working together. One thought that has been raised is to look at rotation of members, or perhaps a combination of permanent and rotating members. So I am just opening this up for conversation to see what people think. Please this is a discussion about criteria, not about individual groups and their cases to be involved. Ian Peter -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew at gp-digital.org Mon Dec 2 05:13:31 2013 From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 10:13:31 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of interest In-Reply-To: <529977B1.2040209@itforchange.net> References: <52997723.60707@itforchange.net> <529977B1.2040209@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Not sure I understand – I’m not suggesting we take any particular approach to internationalising ICANN, just start by looking at all the proposals on the table. Maybe I expressed myself badly. All I’m trying to do is start the work off in a constructive fashion. I think you/anyone else should feel free to frame things anyway you want. I’ll collect the responses to the survey I sent round and hopefully that will suggest the different areas of interest we have and who might want to work with whom. But that’s only my suggestion. “Let a hundred flowers bloom.” Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: 30 November 2013 05:29 To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of interest On Saturday 30 November 2013 10:56 AM, parminder wrote: On Tuesday 26 November 2013 11:23 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: Following up on my e-mail re inputs to Brazil conference. To remind everyone: Although the details are not clear, it looks like there are three broad areas within which it would be useful for CS groups (and others) to make pro-active submissions to the Brazil meeting. These are: AREA 1 - Recommendations on process issues for the conference (remote participation, stakeholder representation and selection) AREA 2 - Substantive input into their work to develop universal Internet principles (likely to cover the areas sketched out by President Rousseff in her speech to the UNGA). AREA 3 - Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder Internet governance including: 1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by Internet Governance Project and/or others). Andrew, Why should a proposal that advocates continued existence of ICANN as an UN organisation sorry, US organisation under US law be posited as a prime example of an 'internationalisation model' , especially when we are here as a global group... Cant we do with a more neutral framing? Dont know if anyone is coordinating this line/ sub-area, but I am happy to do so.. 2. Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group). Had requested that this be called as 'Internet related public policy issues' which is a proper description and also the WGIG and Tunis agenda terms.. parminder We have produced a chart mapping those who have expressed an interest in each of the areas below. There could feasibly be a number of different civil society submissions on each of these areas. Given the short timeframes, and the fact that there does not seem to be consensus among all of us on a number of these issues, I think the best way forward is for anyone who wants to lead on a particular submission to let the list know, gather together people who also want to work on that submission, develop something as a smaller group and then share it back with the platform. Obviously, ideally submissions would be able to gather broad agreement among BB participants, but consensus may be too high a bar at this stage. For my part, I am interested in two specific inputs: A submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (elements of which are likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF) A submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression, privacy etc. Note that I’m concerned that privacy protections, if badly expressed, could restrict freedom of expression unduly so I’ll be looking to assert ICCPR standards on free expression. Not everyone will agree with that take on things and I assume there are many other issues to focus on so at this stage I’d like to know who would want to work with me on these two specific topics. I would encourage others to set out their own area of interest and seek collaborators. As we will probably need to submit our views to Brazil and/or other organisers by March 1, 2014 I’d suggest we should aim to produce documents for endorsement/support by other groups on the BB platform by mid-February Stream 1 Stream 2 Stream 3 Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote participation, stakeholder representation and selection) Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil and/or other existing principles documents). Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder Internet governance including: 1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by Internet Governance Project and/or others). 2. Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group). Andrew Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression, privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free expression. Submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF) Matthew x Nnenna x Claudio x - contribute, not lead Valeria/ APC x - contribute x - contribute Marianne/ IRP x Jeanette x - listen and comment M. Gurstein x x Marilia/ Joana 3.1/3.2 Pranesh x x Parminder x x x Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew at gp-digital.org Mon Dec 2 05:16:34 2013 From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 10:16:34 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of interest In-Reply-To: References: <5295CC6A.60608@cdt.org> <52980A0A.1090501@apc.org> Message-ID: I’ll put you on the list Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: 29 November 2013 03:51 To: Joy Liddicoat Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of interest hi, I would like to join for stream 2 and 3 Best, Rafik 2013/11/29 joy > Thanks for this Andrew and Jeremy - I would like to contribute to streams 2 and 3 Joy On 29/11/2013 6:49 a.m., Avri Doria wrote: Hi, Please put me down for thread 2. Thanks Avri Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: Hi Andrew, nice initiative. Please put me in for Stream 3. Best Bertrand On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: Latest expressions of interest Just to remind everyone – I’m not putting anything together for Stream 1, my only interest is in stream 3 and one aspect of stream 2 – free expression and privacy *Stream 1* *Stream 2* *Stream 3* *Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote participation, stakeholder representation and selection)* *Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil and/or other existing principles documents).* ! *Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder Internet governance including: 1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by Internet Governance Project and/or others). 2. Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).* Andrew Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression, privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free expression. Submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF) Matthew x x Nnenna x Claudio x - contribute, not lead Valeria/ APC x - contribute x - contribute Marianne/ IRP x Jeanette x - listen and comment Anriette APC x x x Anja x x Joana x x x M. Gurstein x x Marilia/ Joana 3.1/3.2 Pranesh x x Carolina x x x Misha x Parminder x x x *Andrew Puddephatt* | *GLOBAL PARTNERS* DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt *gp-digital.org * *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Andrew Puddephatt *Sent:* 27 November 2013 11:26 *To:* matthew shears; (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net) *Subject:* RE: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of interest Great – I’ve sent round a survey monkey to start us off *Andrew Puddephatt* | *GLOBAL PARTNERS* DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt *gp-digital.org * *! From:* matthew shears [mailto:mshears at cdt.org ] *Sent:* 27 November 2013 10:42 *To:* Andrew Puddephatt; ( bestbits at lists.bestbits.net) *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of interest Hi Andrew - I am also interested in item 3. On 26/11/2013 17:53, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: Following up on my e-mail re inputs to Brazil conference. To remind everyone: Although the details are not clear, it looks like there are three broad areas within which it would be useful for CS groups (and others) to make pro-active submissions to the Brazil meeting. These are: AREA 1 - Recommendations on process issues for the conference (remote participation, stakeholder representation and selection) AREA 2 - Substantive input into their work to develop universal Internet principles (likely t! o cover the areas sketched out by President Rousseff in her speech to the UNGA). AREA 3 - Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder Internet governance including: 1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by Internet Governance Project and/or others). 2. Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group). We have produced a chart mapping those who have expressed an interest in each of the areas below. There could feasibly be a number of different civil society submissions on each of these areas. Given the short timeframes, and the fact that there does not seem to be consensus among all of us on a number of these issues, I think the best way forward is for anyone who wants to lead on a particular submission to let the list know, gather together people who also want ! to work on that submission, develop something as a smaller group and then share it back with the platform. Obviously, ideally submissions would be able to gather broad agreement among BB participants, but consensus may be too high a bar at this stage. For my part, I am interested in two specific inputs: A submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (elements of which are likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF) A submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression, privacy etc. Note that I’m concerned that privacy protections, if badly expressed, could restrict freedom of expression unduly so I’ll be looking to assert ICCPR standards on free expression. Not everyone will agree with that take on things and I assume there are many other issues to focus on so a! t this stage I’d like to know who would want to work with me on these two specific topics. I would encourage others to set out their own area of interest and seek collaborators. As we will probably need to submit our views to Brazil and/or other organisers by March 1, 2014 I’d suggest we should aim to produce documents for endorsement/support by other groups on the BB platform by mid-February *Stream 1* *Stream 2* *Stream 3* *Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote participation, stakeholder representation and selection)* *Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil and/or other existing principles documents).* *Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder Internet governance including: 1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by Internet Governance Project and/or others). 2. Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).* Andrew Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression, privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free expression. Submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF) Matthew x Nnenna x Claudio x - contribute, not lead Valeria/ APC x - contribute x - contribute Marianne/ IRP x Jeanette x - listen! and comment M. Gurstein x x Marilia/ Joana 3.1/3.2 Pranesh x x Parminder x x x Avri Doria ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From genekimmelman at gmail.com Mon Dec 2 07:13:00 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 07:13:00 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Proposal on Best Bits governance Message-ID: +1 -------- Original message -------- From: Jeremy Malcolm Date: 12/01/2013 10:43 PM (GMT-05:00) To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Proposal on Best Bits governance I for one can fully accept and endorse Anriette's helpful proposal.  Others? On 22/11/13 17:56, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: Dear all [Please note that this proposal is not about the Brazil meeting or civil society nomcoms.] In some of the recent threads people have called to question the legitimacy of the Best Bits steering committee, and of transparency and accountability in Best Bits. I agree it will be good to strengthen Best Bits internal processes, but we should do this in a way that does not undermine trust in people who have worked hard to bring Best Bits to where it is, or in one another. We should also not undermine our ability to work together at a time when civil society is having to rise to some pretty daunting challenges. In particular, we should try not to discourage those individuals who have been volunteering their time on Best Bits bits work - either on the SC, or on drafting inputs. Without their effort we would be in a far weaker position than we are now. We would not have had the benefit of two face-to-face meetings, or of several substantial letters/other inputs submitted in response to strategic opportunities for raising civil society voices. I would therefore like to propose the following: 1) We ask the current Best Bits Steering Committee, a group of people who started to volunteer their time in this capacity in July 2013, to continue to serve until 31 July 2014. 2) We ask them to present us with a short overview report of the work they did in 2013 by the end of this year. 3) We ask them to, by the end of the first quarter of 2014, to propose a process for the renewal of the Best Bits Steering Committee. Best Anriette -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shahzad at bytesforall.pk Mon Dec 2 08:04:41 2013 From: shahzad at bytesforall.pk (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 18:04:41 +0500 Subject: [bestbits] Proposal on Best Bits governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 Šas for all practical purposes the decisions have to be with consensus among the group. Keep up the great work everyone, Best wishes and regards Shahzad From: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" Reply-To: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" Date: Monday, December 2, 2013 at 5:13 PM To: , Subject: Re: [bestbits] Proposal on Best Bits governance +1 -------- Original message -------- From: Jeremy Malcolm Date: 12/01/2013 10:43 PM (GMT-05:00) To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Proposal on Best Bits governance I for one can fully accept and endorse Anriette's helpful proposal. Others? On 22/11/13 17:56, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > Dear all > > [Please note that this proposal is not about the Brazil meeting or civil > society nomcoms.] > > In some of the recent threads people have called to question the > legitimacy of the Best Bits steering committee, and of transparency and > accountability in Best Bits. I agree it will be good to strengthen Best > Bits internal processes, but we should do this in a way that does not > undermine trust in people who have worked hard to bring Best Bits to > where it is, or in one another. We should also not undermine our > ability to work together at a time when civil society is having to rise > to some pretty daunting challenges. > > In particular, we should try not to discourage those individuals who > have been volunteering their time on Best Bits bits work - either on the > SC, or on drafting inputs. Without their effort we would be in a far > weaker position than we are now. We would not have had the benefit of > two face-to-face meetings, or of several substantial letters/other > inputs submitted in response to strategic opportunities for raising > civil society voices. > > I would therefore like to propose the following: > > 1) We ask the current Best Bits Steering Committee, a group of people > who started to volunteer their time in this capacity in July 2013, to > continue to serve until 31 July 2014. > > 2) We ask them to present us with a short overview report of the work > they did in 2013 by the end of this year. > > 3) We ask them to, by the end of the first quarter of 2014, to propose a > process for the renewal of the Best Bits Steering Committee. > > Best > > Anriette > > > > > > -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shahzad at bytesforall.pk Mon Dec 2 08:10:09 2013 From: shahzad at bytesforall.pk (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 18:10:09 +0500 Subject: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of interest In-Reply-To: References: <5295CC6A.60608@cdt.org> <52980A0A.1090501@apc.org> Message-ID: Dear Andrew/colleagues, So am I right to understand that there are more than one CSO interfaces with the Brazil meeting planning? Šin a teaching session few days ago, was a bit surprised to know that how much importance and attention this meeting is getting among academia and students in advance degrees especially in the US :) Best wishes and regards Shahzad From: Andrew Puddephatt Date: Monday, December 2, 2013 at 3:16 PM To: Rafik Dammak , Joy Liddicoat Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" Subject: RE: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of interest I¹ll put you on the list Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56­64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: 29 November 2013 03:51 To: Joy Liddicoat Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of interest hi, I would like to join for stream 2 and 3 Best, Rafik 2013/11/29 joy Thanks for this Andrew and Jeremy - I would like to contribute to streams 2 and 3 Joy On 29/11/2013 6:49 a.m., Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Please put me down for thread 2. > > Thanks > > Avri > > Bertrand de La Chapelle > wrote: > Hi Andrew, nice initiative. Please put me in for Stream 3. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Andrew Puddephatt > wrote: > >> Latest expressions of interest >> >> >> >> Just to remind everyone ­ I¹m not putting anything together for Stream 1, >> my only interest is in stream 3 and one aspect of stream 2 ­ free >> expression and privacy >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *Stream 1* >> >> *Stream 2* >> >> *Stream 3* >> >> >> >> *Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote >> participation, stakeholder representation and selection)* >> >> *Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil >> and/or other existing principles documents).* >> ! >> >> *Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder >> Internet governance including: 1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on >> existing work done by Internet Governance Project and/or others). 2. Orphan >> issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the >> recommendations of the Correspondence Group).* >> >> Andrew >> >> >> >> Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression, >> privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free expression. >> >> Submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed >> structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to include >> ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF) >> >> Matthew >> >> >> >> x >> >> x >> >> Nnenna >> >> x >> >> >> >> >> >> Claudio >> >> >> >> x - contribute, not lead >> >> >> >> Valeria/ APC >> >> >> x - contribute >> >> x - contribute >> >> Marianne/ IRP >> >> >> >> x >> >> >> >> Jeanette >> >> >> >> >> >> x - listen and comment >> >> Anriette APC >> >> x >> >> x >> >> x >> >> Anja >> >> x >> >> >> >> x >> >> Joana >> >> x >> >> x >> >> x >> >> M. Gurstein >> >> >> >> x >> >> x >> >> Marilia/ Joana >> >> >> >> >> >> 3.1/3.2 >> >> Pranesh >> >> >> >> x >> >> x >> >> Carolina >> >> x >> >> x >> >> x >> >> Misha >> >> >> >> x >> >> >> >> Parminder >> >> x >> >> x >> >> x >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *Andrew Puddephatt* | *GLOBAL PARTNERS* DIGITAL >> >> Executive Director >> >> Development House, 56­64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT >> >> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: >> andrewpuddephatt >> *gp-digital.org * >> >> >> >> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: >> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Andrew Puddephatt >> *Sent:* 27 November 2013 11:26 >> *To:* matthew shears; >> (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net) >> *Subject:* RE: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of >> interest >> >> >> >> Great ­ I¹ve sent round a survey monkey to start us off >> >> >> >> *Andrew Puddephatt* | *GLOBAL PARTNERS* DIGITAL >> >> Executive Director >> >> Development House, 56­64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT >> >> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 >> 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt >> *gp-digital.org * >> >> >> >> *! >> From:* >> matthew shears [mailto:mshears at cdt.org >> ] >> *Sent:* 27 November 2013 10:42 >> *To:* Andrew Puddephatt; ( >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net) >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of >> interest >> >> >> >> Hi Andrew - I am also interested in item 3. >> >> On 26/11/2013 17:53, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: >> >> Following up on my e-mail re inputs to Brazil conference. >> >> >> >> To remind everyone: Although the details are not clear, it looks like >> there are three broad areas within which it would be useful for CS groups >> (and others) to make pro-active submissions to the Brazil meeting. These >> are: >> >> AREA 1 - Recommendations on process issues for the conference (remote >> participation, stakeholder representation and selection) >> >> AREA 2 - Substantive input into their work to develop universal Internet >> principles (likely t! >> o cover >> the areas sketched out by President Rousseff in >> her speech to the UNGA). >> >> AREA 3 - Substantive input on an institutional framework for >> multistakeholder Internet governance including: >> >> 1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by >> Internet Governance Project and/or others). >> >> 2. Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC >> and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group). >> >> We have produced a chart mapping those who have expressed an interest in >> each of the areas below. There could feasibly be a number of different >> civil society submissions on each of these areas. >> >> Given the short timeframes, and the fact that there does not seem to be >> consensus among all of us on a number of these issues, I think the best way >> forward is for anyone who wants to lead on a particular submission to let >> the list know, gather together people who also want ! >> to work >> on that >> submission, develop something as a smaller group and then share it back >> with the platform. Obviously, ideally submissions would be able to gather >> broad agreement among BB participants, but consensus may be too high a bar >> at this stage. >> >> For my part, I am interested in two specific inputs: >> >> A submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed >> structure and multi-stakeholder participation (elements of which are likely >> to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF) >> >> A submission on the first high level principle dealing with free >> expression, privacy etc. Note that I¹m concerned that privacy protections, >> if badly expressed, could restrict freedom of expression unduly so I¹ll be >> looking to assert ICCPR standards on free expression. >> >> Not everyone will agree with that take on things and I assume there are >> many other issues to focus on so a! >> t this >> stage I¹d like to know who would >> want to work with me on these two specific topics. >> >> I would encourage others to set out their own area of interest and seek >> collaborators. As we will probably need to submit our views to Brazil >> and/or other organisers by March 1, 2014 I¹d suggest we should aim to >> produce documents for endorsement/support by other groups on the BB >> platform by mid-February >> >> >> >> >> >> *Stream 1* >> >> *Stream 2* >> >> *Stream 3* >> >> >> >> *Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote >> participation, stakeholder representation and selection)* >> >> *Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil >> and/or other existing principles documents).* >> >> *Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder >> Internet governance including: 1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on >> existing work done by >> Internet Governance Project and/or others). 2. Orphan >> issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the >> recommendations of the Correspondence Group).* >> >> Andrew >> >> >> >> Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression, >> privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free expression. >> >> Submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed >> structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to include >> ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF) >> >> Matthew >> >> >> >> x >> >> >> >> Nnenna >> >> x >> >> >> >> >> >> Claudio >> >> >> >> x - contribute, not lead >> >> >> >> Valeria/ APC >> >> >> >> x - contribute >> >> x - contribute >> >> Marianne/ IRP >> >> >> >> x >> >> >> >> Jeanette >> >> >> >> >> >> x - listen! >> and >> comment >> >> M. Gurstein >> >> >> >> x >> >> x >> >> Marilia/ Joana >> >> >> >> >> >> 3.1/3.2 >> >> Pranesh >> >> >> >> x >> >> x >> >> Parminder >> >> x >> >> x >> >> x > > > > > > > > > > > Avri Doria ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From genekimmelman at gmail.com Mon Dec 2 08:12:23 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 08:12:23 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT Message-ID: <80qhriioi8f9mxqclg5wq3y8.1385989943728@email.android.com> Internal accountability to a group with shared goals may differ from societal/global policy goals that the group will agree to if all others with power agree as well.  Best not to confuse these.  We should be accountable but not create internal processes that make it impossible to coordinate policy actions.  -------- Original message -------- From: William Drake Date: 12/02/2013 3:52 AM (GMT-05:00) To: Parminder Singh Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Best Bits" Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT +1!  On Dec 2, 2013, at 9:23 AM, parminder wrote: Civil society must always remain very vary of thinking of themselves as somehow so morally superior that they are exempt from normal accountability and transparency requirements -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From william.drake at uzh.ch Mon Dec 2 08:15:54 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 14:15:54 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT In-Reply-To: <80qhriioi8f9mxqclg5wq3y8.1385989943728@email.android.com> References: <80qhriioi8f9mxqclg5wq3y8.1385989943728@email.android.com> Message-ID: <42D6D59F-EEE3-41AF-B7DD-1B2277F23E01@uzh.ch> Sure. I just enjoy irony. BD On Dec 2, 2013, at 2:12 PM, genekimmelman at gmail.com wrote: > Internal accountability to a group with shared goals may differ from societal/global policy goals that the group will agree to if all others with power agree as well. Best not to confuse these. We should be accountable but not create internal processes that make it impossible to coordinate policy actions. > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: William Drake > Date: 12/02/2013 3:52 AM (GMT-05:00) > To: Parminder Singh > Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Best Bits" > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT > > > +1! > > On Dec 2, 2013, at 9:23 AM, parminder wrote: > >> Civil society must always remain very vary of thinking of themselves as somehow so morally superior that they are exempt from normal accountability and transparency requirements > > > __ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Dec 2 08:17:57 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 18:47:57 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Proposal on Best Bits governance In-Reply-To: <529C4259.7040403@ciroap.org> References: <5AA7FD8C-146E-4100-8FA9-D8457AADA052@ciroap.org> <528C47DF.9070805@itforchange.net> <00D6D4F1-7EC7-4703-AB3D-BBBB02A21540@ciroap.org> <528C72F0.1090703@itforchange.net> <795A5EE4-EAA1-4858-9F9A-CE652E85BF12@ciroap.org> <528C7AC8.7000203@itforchange.net> <528F2A38.4040905@apc.org> <529C01C8.1010008@ciroap.org> <070b01ceef1d$b53e1d80$1fba5880$@gmail.com> <3C99BF28-DB10-4CCA-B572-F42FE7B43060@uzh.ch> <529C4259.7040403@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <529C8885.90205@itforchange.net> On Monday 02 December 2013 01:48 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > We are not really doing anything on anyone's behalf, just facilitating > the participants' independent engagement in IG processes on a > volunteer basis; Jeremy, you know this is not true and just a facile front, the 'platform' meme, which I said at Bali could become a way of doing things without responsibility... and I increasingly see my prediction come true - important things being done with responsibility denied, in this manner, as you say, 'we are not doing anything on anyone's behalf'. How can you say this. You of course are doing things on BB's behalf. The letter about 4 liaisons to Brazil meeting was signed on behalf of BB network, you are in the joint civil society coordination/ nominating committee on the behalf of BB network, you take decisions on what statement to host on the BB platform and which not on the behalf of BB network, you accept and implement some suggestions on this list and ignore others, exercising authority I understand on behalf of BB, you meet outside actors who recognise you as BB reps, I understand even funds are being sought on BB's behalf.... and there seem to be so many other things slated to be done in the name of BB network.. All this is normally very fine for a network to do , and to do it effectively, of course some kind of structure has to be evolved... But it does not help to keep saying we really do nothing, as a standard response to questions about propriety of processes, etc... > so that's why the energy being diverted into this issue is so > misplaced. Based on the procedures wiki that was launched ahead of > the Bali meeting (http://bestbits.net/wiki/main/procedures/), there > are proposals for the steering committee to be able to do various > things, mostly quite trivial, which you can find by just searching for > "steering" in that page. > > One of those proposals was that we would offer a service to compile > expressions of interest received for nominations to other groups, and > to post those back to the main list for approval by consensus. For seeking a consensus there has to be some bare minimum description of a process of consensus. ... I have seen a kind of consensus declared when one or two people speak in favour, with more than that number having spoken again the process itself being totally ignored. > But even this was received with suspicion, so we stepped away from it, > and meanwhile a new joint civil society group has come together to do > essentially the same thing (since, one way or another, it needs doing). > > Nonetheless, this proposed procedure (and all the others) remain up > for discussion. Really! Does it remain up for discussion? I though it wasnt. I find a very hostile stance of concerned responsibility owners to any process discussion here. This is no way to conduct a process discussion. For instance, twice recently when I tried a discussion on process I was told by you things like - this is my last email on this issue, please take this discussion offline with you or the steering committee, which is a strange thing to say since I was in fact discussing the role for steering committee. As I suggested already, I am done with raising process issues here, unless I see some real willingness among those given the responsibility to conduct this group to have an honest and open process related discussion. I would not even have written this email but could not digest two clear misrepresentations in your email - that 'you do nothing on BB's behalf' and 'that a discussion on process is always open'. Wishing you the very best! parminder > But it makes no sense to rush this and to divert our limited, > volunteer energies into developing a perfect set of processes for Best > Bits when there are more important substantive issues to be dealing > with related to the Brazil meeting, enhanced cooperation process, and > so on. At least, I, for one, don't have time to do both, and I know > which I'd rather be working on. > > So that's why I favour Anriette's proposal, which is more realistic > and achieveable, over Michael's which I feel displays a little > unnecessarily paranoia about the interim steering committee's powers > and motives. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge > hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Dec 2 08:22:51 2013 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 22:22:51 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT In-Reply-To: <80qhriioi8f9mxqclg5wq3y8.1385989943728@email.android.com> References: <80qhriioi8f9mxqclg5wq3y8.1385989943728@email.android.com> Message-ID: every response with such reluctance and such kind of arguments raise more questions than giving answers or appeasing those with concerns. as reminder BestBits initiative started in august 2012 when people were talking about WCIT and prepared first meeting IGF Baku, we will be in 2014 in few weeks and we are still with temporary settings. Rafik 2013/12/2 genekimmelman at gmail.com > Internal accountability to a group with shared goals may differ from > societal/global policy goals that the group will agree to if all others > with power agree as well. Best not to confuse these. We should be > accountable but not create internal processes that make it impossible to > coordinate policy actions. > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: William Drake > Date: 12/02/2013 3:52 AM (GMT-05:00) > To: Parminder Singh > Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Best Bits" > > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - > URGENT > > > +1! > > On Dec 2, 2013, at 9:23 AM, parminder wrote: > > Civil society must always remain very vary of thinking of themselves as > somehow so morally superior that they are exempt from normal accountability > and transparency requirements > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From genekimmelman at gmail.com Mon Dec 2 08:46:09 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 08:46:09 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT Message-ID: To be more specific,  maybe those with lingering concerns need to decide whether they want to participate on the best bits platform or not. You decide.  If you think you can make it work better,  please offer ideas like Anriette, Michael and others have done. I believe we decided in Bali on an approach and I endorse Anriette's path toward formalizing this. And I suggest we wrap up this conversation for now and move on to substance.  Otherwise we delegitimze the broad support people worked towards over two days in Bali and make it more difficult to prepare for Brazil.  -------- Original message -------- From: Rafik Dammak Date: 12/02/2013 8:22 AM (GMT-05:00) To: genekimmelman at gmail.com Cc: William Drake ,Parminder ,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT every response with such reluctance and  such kind of arguments raise more questions than giving answers or appeasing those with concerns. as reminder BestBits initiative started in august 2012 when people were talking about WCIT and prepared first meeting IGF Baku, we will be in 2014 in few weeks and we are still with temporary settings. Rafik 2013/12/2 genekimmelman at gmail.com Internal accountability to a group with shared goals may differ from societal/global policy goals that the group will agree to if all others with power agree as well.  Best not to confuse these.  We should be accountable but not create internal processes that make it impossible to coordinate policy actions.  -------- Original message -------- From: William Drake Date: 12/02/2013 3:52 AM (GMT-05:00) To: Parminder Singh Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Best Bits" Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT +1!  On Dec 2, 2013, at 9:23 AM, parminder wrote: Civil society must always remain very vary of thinking of themselves as somehow so morally superior that they are exempt from normal accountability and transparency requirements ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wongc at hrw.org Mon Dec 2 08:55:24 2013 From: wongc at hrw.org (Cynthia Wong) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 13:55:24 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of interest In-Reply-To: References: <5295CC6A.60608@cdt.org> <52980A0A.1090501@apc.org> Message-ID: Thanks to Andrew for helping frame the various streams. I’d like to contribute to stream 2, if useful. All best, Cynthia // Cynthia M. Wong Senior Researcher on the Internet Business & Human Rights Division Human Rights Watch From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Andrew Puddephatt Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 5:17 AM To: Rafik Dammak; Joy Liddicoat Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: RE: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of interest I’ll put you on the list Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: 29 November 2013 03:51 To: Joy Liddicoat Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of interest hi, I would like to join for stream 2 and 3 Best, Rafik 2013/11/29 joy > Thanks for this Andrew and Jeremy - I would like to contribute to streams 2 and 3 Joy On 29/11/2013 6:49 a.m., Avri Doria wrote: Hi, Please put me down for thread 2. Thanks Avri Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: Hi Andrew, nice initiative. Please put me in for Stream 3. Best Bertrand On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: Latest expressions of interest Just to remind everyone – I’m not putting anything together for Stream 1, my only interest is in stream 3 and one aspect of stream 2 – free expression and privacy *Stream 1* *Stream 2* *Stream 3* *Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote participation, stakeholder representation and selection)* *Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil and/or other existing principles documents).* ! *Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder Internet governance including: 1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by Internet Governance Project and/or others). 2. Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).* Andrew Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression, privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free expression. Submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF) Matthew x x Nnenna x Claudio x - contribute, not lead Valeria/ APC x - contribute x - contribute Marianne/ IRP x Jeanette x - listen and comment Anriette APC x x x Anja x x Joana x x x M. Gurstein x x Marilia/ Joana 3.1/3.2 Pranesh x x Carolina x x x Misha x Parminder x x x *Andrew Puddephatt* | *GLOBAL PARTNERS* DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt *gp-digital.org * *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Andrew Puddephatt *Sent:* 27 November 2013 11:26 *To:* matthew shears; (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net) *Subject:* RE: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of interest Great – I’ve sent round a survey monkey to start us off *Andrew Puddephatt* | *GLOBAL PARTNERS* DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt *gp-digital.org * *! From:* matthew shears [mailto:mshears at cdt.org ] *Sent:* 27 November 2013 10:42 *To:* Andrew Puddephatt; ( bestbits at lists.bestbits.net) *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of interest Hi Andrew - I am also interested in item 3. On 26/11/2013 17:53, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: Following up on my e-mail re inputs to Brazil conference. To remind everyone: Although the details are not clear, it looks like there are three broad areas within which it would be useful for CS groups (and others) to make pro-active submissions to the Brazil meeting. These are: AREA 1 - Recommendations on process issues for the conference (remote participation, stakeholder representation and selection) AREA 2 - Substantive input into their work to develop universal Internet principles (likely t! o cover the areas sketched out by President Rousseff in her speech to the UNGA). AREA 3 - Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder Internet governance including: 1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by Internet Governance Project and/or others). 2. Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group). We have produced a chart mapping those who have expressed an interest in each of the areas below. There could feasibly be a number of different civil society submissions on each of these areas. Given the short timeframes, and the fact that there does not seem to be consensus among all of us on a number of these issues, I think the best way forward is for anyone who wants to lead on a particular submission to let the list know, gather together people who also want ! to work on that submission, develop something as a smaller group and then share it back with the platform. Obviously, ideally submissions would be able to gather broad agreement among BB participants, but consensus may be too high a bar at this stage. For my part, I am interested in two specific inputs: A submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (elements of which are likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF) A submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression, privacy etc. Note that I’m concerned that privacy protections, if badly expressed, could restrict freedom of expression unduly so I’ll be looking to assert ICCPR standards on free expression. Not everyone will agree with that take on things and I assume there are many other issues to focus on so a! t this stage I’d like to know who would want to work with me on these two specific topics. I would encourage others to set out their own area of interest and seek collaborators. As we will probably need to submit our views to Brazil and/or other organisers by March 1, 2014 I’d suggest we should aim to produce documents for endorsement/support by other groups on the BB platform by mid-February *Stream 1* *Stream 2* *Stream 3* *Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote participation, stakeholder representation and selection)* *Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil and/or other existing principles documents).* *Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder Internet governance including: 1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by Internet Governance Project and/or others). 2. Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).* Andrew Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression, privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free expression. Submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF) Matthew x Nnenna x Claudio x - contribute, not lead Valeria/ APC x - contribute x - contribute Marianne/ IRP x Jeanette x - listen! and comment M. Gurstein x x Marilia/ Joana 3.1/3.2 Pranesh x x Parminder x x x Avri Doria ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Mon Dec 2 08:55:50 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 08:55:50 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, I am generally fine with a group doing a good job in an unstructured environment continuing for an additional year. So sure why not, as long as a major part of their task includes insuring we don't get back here again next year. Btw who its on this steering committee we are endorsing the continuation of ? Apologies if I missed it. Or if it is posted another obvious place I can't find. (I did check the website quickly) Avri Doria "genekimmelman at gmail.com" wrote: >To be more specific,  maybe those with lingering concerns need to >decide whether they want to participate on the best bits platform or >not. You decide.  If you think you can make it work better,  please >offer ideas like Anriette, Michael and others have done. I believe we >decided in Bali on an approach and I endorse Anriette's path toward >formalizing this. And I suggest we wrap up this conversation for now >and move on to substance.  Otherwise we delegitimze the broad support >people worked towards over two days in Bali and make it more difficult >to prepare for Brazil.  > >-------- Original message -------- >From: Rafik Dammak >Date: 12/02/2013 8:22 AM (GMT-05:00) >To: genekimmelman at gmail.com >Cc: William Drake ,Parminder >,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - >URGENT > >every response with such reluctance and  such kind of arguments raise >more questions than giving answers or appeasing those with concerns. >as reminder BestBits initiative started in august 2012 when people were >talking about WCIT and prepared first meeting IGF Baku, we will be in >2014 in few weeks and we are still with temporary settings. > >Rafik > >2013/12/2 genekimmelman at gmail.com >Internal accountability to a group with shared goals may differ from >societal/global policy goals that the group will agree to if all others >with power agree as well.  Best not to confuse these.  We should be >accountable but not create internal processes that make it impossible >to coordinate policy actions.  > > > >-------- Original message -------- >From: William Drake >Date: 12/02/2013 3:52 AM (GMT-05:00) >To: Parminder Singh >Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Best Bits" > >Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - >URGENT > > >+1!  > >On Dec 2, 2013, at 9:23 AM, parminder >wrote: > >Civil society must always remain very vary of thinking of themselves as >somehow so morally superior that they are exempt from normal >accountability and transparency requirements > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Dec 2 08:58:02 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 21:58:02 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <70C0E2CA-1B52-45AC-9CD6-039373D2D440@ciroap.org> On 2 Dec 2013, at 9:46 pm, genekimmelman at gmail.com wrote: > To be more specific, maybe those with lingering concerns need to decide whether they want to participate on the best bits platform or not. You decide. If you think you can make it work better, please offer ideas like Anriette, Michael and others have done. I believe we decided in Bali on an approach and I endorse Anriette's path toward formalizing this. And I suggest we wrap up this conversation for now and move on to substance. Otherwise we delegitimze the broad support people worked towards over two days in Bali and make it more difficult to prepare for Brazil. Or, those for whom it is a priority for us to work on internal processes could take that task on themselves, by developing a proposed set of procedures that they would be happy with. In fact, please do - that could actually be really helpful and be a more useful division of labour. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Dec 2 09:08:41 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 06:08:41 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <095d01ceef68$017e3a50$047aaef0$@gmail.com> Gene, I wasn’t able to make the relevant portions of the BB meeting in Bali and I may have missed it but are there transcripts or minutes of what you are referring to below i.e. we decided in Bali on an approach and I endorse Anriette's path toward formalizing this. Tks, M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of genekimmelman at gmail.com Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 5:46 AM To: rafik.dammak at gmail.com Cc: william.drake at uzh.ch; parminder at itforchange.net; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT To be more specific, maybe those with lingering concerns need to decide whether they want to participate on the best bits platform or not. You decide. If you think you can make it work better, please offer ideas like Anriette, Michael and others have done. I believe we decided in Bali on an approach and I endorse Anriette's path toward formalizing this. And I suggest we wrap up this conversation for now and move on to substance. Otherwise we delegitimze the broad support people worked towards over two days in Bali and make it more difficult to prepare for Brazil. -------- Original message -------- From: Rafik Dammak Date: 12/02/2013 8:22 AM (GMT-05:00) To: genekimmelman at gmail.com Cc: William Drake ,Parminder ,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT every response with such reluctance and such kind of arguments raise more questions than giving answers or appeasing those with concerns. as reminder BestBits initiative started in august 2012 when people were talking about WCIT and prepared first meeting IGF Baku, we will be in 2014 in few weeks and we are still with temporary settings. Rafik 2013/12/2 genekimmelman at gmail.com Internal accountability to a group with shared goals may differ from societal/global policy goals that the group will agree to if all others with power agree as well. Best not to confuse these. We should be accountable but not create internal processes that make it impossible to coordinate policy actions. -------- Original message -------- From: William Drake Date: 12/02/2013 3:52 AM (GMT-05:00) To: Parminder Singh Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Best Bits" Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT +1! On Dec 2, 2013, at 9:23 AM, parminder wrote: Civil society must always remain very vary of thinking of themselves as somehow so morally superior that they are exempt from normal accountability and transparency requirements ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From genekimmelman at gmail.com Mon Dec 2 09:12:35 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 09:12:35 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT In-Reply-To: <095d01ceef68$017e3a50$047aaef0$@gmail.com> References: <095d01ceef68$017e3a50$047aaef0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Maybe Jeremy can answer: I know we were streaming much of the meeting, which hopefull captured this (second day of meeting, particularly the afternoon), and we may have had note-takers who captured this; if not, I'll cound on others to verify that I haven't lost my recall skills......yet! On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 9:08 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Gene, > > > > I wasn’t able to make the relevant portions of the BB meeting in Bali and > I may have missed it but are there transcripts or minutes of what you are > referring to below i.e. we decided in Bali on an approach and I endorse > Anriette's path toward formalizing this. > > > > Tks, > > > > M > > > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: > bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of * > genekimmelman at gmail.com > *Sent:* Monday, December 02, 2013 5:46 AM > *To:* rafik.dammak at gmail.com > *Cc:* william.drake at uzh.ch; parminder at itforchange.net; > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - > URGENT > > > > To be more specific, maybe those with lingering concerns need to decide > whether they want to participate on the best bits platform or not. You > decide. If you think you can make it work better, please offer ideas like > Anriette, Michael and others have done. I believe we decided in Bali on an > approach and I endorse Anriette's path toward formalizing this. And I > suggest we wrap up this conversation for now and move on to substance. > Otherwise we delegitimze the broad support people worked towards over two > days in Bali and make it more difficult to prepare for Brazil. > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Rafik Dammak > Date: 12/02/2013 8:22 AM (GMT-05:00) > To: genekimmelman at gmail.com > Cc: William Drake ,Parminder < > parminder at itforchange.net>,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - > URGENT > > every response with such reluctance and such kind of arguments raise more > questions than giving answers or appeasing those with concerns. > > as reminder BestBits initiative started in august 2012 when people were > talking about WCIT and prepared first meeting IGF Baku, we will be in 2014 > in few weeks and we are still with temporary settings. > > > > Rafik > > > > 2013/12/2 genekimmelman at gmail.com > > Internal accountability to a group with shared goals may differ from > societal/global policy goals that the group will agree to if all others > with power agree as well. Best not to confuse these. We should be > accountable but not create internal processes that make it impossible to > coordinate policy actions. > > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: William Drake > Date: 12/02/2013 3:52 AM (GMT-05:00) > To: Parminder Singh > Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Best Bits" > > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - > URGENT > > +1! > > > > On Dec 2, 2013, at 9:23 AM, parminder wrote: > > > > Civil society must always remain very vary of thinking of themselves as > somehow so morally superior that they are exempt from normal accountability > and transparency requirements > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Mon Dec 2 09:22:54 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 19:52:54 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT In-Reply-To: References: <095d01ceef68$017e3a50$047aaef0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Mike and all, Notes from the BB meeting can be found here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/bestbits2013 With regard to the last session of the meeting, on the future of Best Bits, we had agreed in the session that there would be structured discussions on various things that remained difficult and unanswered on the mailing list (eg, the tension between being a platform and something more organised, and how to deal with this tension). Organising these discussions got pushed a bit because November was such an extremely busy month, but the idea is still to do so. I would be happy to make sure this gets on the rails by early next week. Best, Anja On 2 December 2013 19:42, Gene Kimmelman wrote: > Maybe Jeremy can answer: I know we were streaming much of the meeting, > which hopefull captured this (second day of meeting, particularly the > afternoon), and we may have had note-takers who captured this; if not, I'll > cound on others to verify that I haven't lost my recall skills......yet! > > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 9:08 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > >> Gene, >> >> >> >> I wasn’t able to make the relevant portions of the BB meeting in Bali and >> I may have missed it but are there transcripts or minutes of what you are >> referring to below i.e. we decided in Bali on an approach and I endorse >> Anriette's path toward formalizing this. >> >> >> >> Tks, >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: >> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of * >> genekimmelman at gmail.com >> *Sent:* Monday, December 02, 2013 5:46 AM >> *To:* rafik.dammak at gmail.com >> *Cc:* william.drake at uzh.ch; parminder at itforchange.net; >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - >> URGENT >> >> >> >> To be more specific, maybe those with lingering concerns need to decide >> whether they want to participate on the best bits platform or not. You >> decide. If you think you can make it work better, please offer ideas like >> Anriette, Michael and others have done. I believe we decided in Bali on an >> approach and I endorse Anriette's path toward formalizing this. And I >> suggest we wrap up this conversation for now and move on to substance. >> Otherwise we delegitimze the broad support people worked towards over two >> days in Bali and make it more difficult to prepare for Brazil. >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Rafik Dammak >> Date: 12/02/2013 8:22 AM (GMT-05:00) >> To: genekimmelman at gmail.com >> Cc: William Drake ,Parminder < >> parminder at itforchange.net>,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - >> URGENT >> >> every response with such reluctance and such kind of arguments raise >> more questions than giving answers or appeasing those with concerns. >> >> as reminder BestBits initiative started in august 2012 when people were >> talking about WCIT and prepared first meeting IGF Baku, we will be in 2014 >> in few weeks and we are still with temporary settings. >> >> >> >> Rafik >> >> >> >> 2013/12/2 genekimmelman at gmail.com >> >> Internal accountability to a group with shared goals may differ from >> societal/global policy goals that the group will agree to if all others >> with power agree as well. Best not to confuse these. We should be >> accountable but not create internal processes that make it impossible to >> coordinate policy actions. >> >> >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: William Drake >> Date: 12/02/2013 3:52 AM (GMT-05:00) >> To: Parminder Singh >> Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Best Bits" >> >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - >> URGENT >> >> +1! >> >> >> >> On Dec 2, 2013, at 9:23 AM, parminder wrote: >> >> >> >> Civil society must always remain very vary of thinking of themselves as >> somehow so morally superior that they are exempt from normal accountability >> and transparency requirements >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Dec 2 09:24:09 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 22:24:09 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT In-Reply-To: References: <095d01ceef68$017e3a50$047aaef0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3BD37EF2-6990-45A7-9006-4EA996EB7C02@ciroap.org> On 2 Dec 2013, at 10:12 pm, Gene Kimmelman wrote: > Maybe Jeremy can answer: I know we were streaming much of the meeting, which hopefull captured this (second day of meeting, particularly the afternoon), and we may have had note-takers who captured this; if not, I'll cound on others to verify that I haven't lost my recall skills......yet! The rough session notes are towards the bottom (from line 525) of http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/bestbits2013. To be fair, we were racing to finish so we didn't spend as long on the internal Best Bits discussions as planned, and so the notes are quite short. It does relevantly say "General view is not to over-institutionalise BB". And in reply to Avri (I realise it can be hard to locate quickly), the interim steering committee is myself, Andrew Puddephatt, Deborah Brown, Anja Kovacs, Joana Varon Ferraz, Marianne Franklin, Nnenna Nwakanma and Valeria Betancourt. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Dec 2 09:50:38 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 22:50:38 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [I-coordination] [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment In-Reply-To: References: <249293DBA79E4116A89ACA705A26AD87@Toshiba> <14B804AD-FA81-4159-BDB9-B232DCF1B9FA@gmail.com> <06fe01cee86c$8ce59050$a6b0b0f0$@gmail.com> <5BDB0B33-2010-4E2C-9750-04CB82B5C6E2@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257073F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <529591D1.7060409@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <9C57CF9E-B332-4F73-8831-F70F258CF9BD@ciroap.org> -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > On 2 Dec 2013, at 10:48 pm, Alexandrine Pirlot de Corbion wrote: > > Hello, > > I am contacting you from Privacy International (PI) based in London. Here is a quick introduction of Pl for those who are not familiar with our work. > PI is committed to fighting for the right to privacy across the world. Working with 19 partners worldwide, we are doing research and advocacy activities on promoting the right to privacy and doing an analysis on the legal, institutional framework upholding the rights to privacy and the protection of personal data advocating for strong national, regional, and international laws that protect privacy. Additionally, we investigate the secret world of government surveillance and expose the companies enabling it. We litigate to ensure that surveillance is consistent with the rule of law. We conduct research to catalyse policy change. We raise awareness about technologies and laws that place privacy at risk, to ensure that the public is informed and engaged. > > I was present in Bali at the IGF and have been following the discussions within this forum and others on Brazil and internet governance in general since. First of all, we are glad to being following the intense and productive discussions happening through this mailing list which we sincerely hope will contribute towards ensuring the multi-stakeholder nature of the process as well as the event as promised by Brazil but also those who are leading the discussions for its organisation. > > As the broad scope of the Brazil meeting, the development of internet governance as an issue, and the on-going international debate since the Snowden revelations have shown (i.e. recently passed UNGA on right to privacy to be voted in early December), the issue has expanded to have to consider the right to privacy and the protection of personal data, and the use of surveillance technologies or if I may say so, the abuse of communication mediums and technologies for surveillance purposes. > > Hence I was wondering what opportunities and space there will be for organisations like PI (i.e. not part of Best Bits and other internet governance focused groups as such) to be involved in the decision making process of the civil society reps for the committees but in general in the discussion leading up to and beyond this meeting. > > We look forward to hearing people’s thoughts and welcome suggestions. > > Best, > > Alexandrine > > > Alexandrine Pirlot de Corbion > > Advocacy Officer > Privacy International > 62 Britton Street > London, EC1M 5UY > United Kingdom > > E: alex at privacy.org > W: www.privacyinternational.org > T: + 44 (0) 203 422 4321 > Skype: alexpdec.pi > > Privacy International is a registered charity (No. 1147471). > >> On 27 Nov 2013, at 06:31, parminder wrote: >> >> >>> On Tuesday 26 November 2013 03:11 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> George >>> Normally I would be very much in favor of shifting attention to issues and substantive proposals. But in the present context, that constitutes a diversion from the real problem at hand. >>> >>> The preparations for the Brazil conference have pushed representational issues to the fore. Specifically, we have an entity called 1net that has been given the authority to appoint half of the members of the steering committees for the conference, >> >> I dont think such an authority was ever give to 1net.... Though there seems to have been a strong attempt to claim it - so strong that many people thought they already had it . parminder >> >>> and which has also promised that a fixed number of slots on these steering committees will be given to specific stakeholder groups. >>> >>> Because these steering committees will control the agenda of the conference, and hence will be in de facto control of our discussion of substantive issues at the Sao Paulo conference, it behooves even those of us exclusively interested in substan >> >> >> >> >>> tive issues to pay attention to the composition of those committees. >>> >>> In particular, the coordinating committee of 1net itself needs to be settled. Get that done, and yes, we can start to focus on substantive issues. >>> >>> --MM >>> >>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky >>> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 12:38 PM >>> To: Deirdre Williams >>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; gurstein michael; Peter Ian; bestbits; Akplogan Adiel A.; Swinehart Theresa; internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org; i-coordination at nro.net; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment >>> >>> Deirdre, and all, >>> >>> Thank you, Deirdre. I take your point that we should consider shifting the focus to issue-based discussions and away from stakeholder membership-based discussions. That is a very good way to phrase it. (Note that accepting such a shift does not imply that it should replace all other stakeholder membership activities.) >>> >>> Where should we have these issue-based discussions? There have been a number of good and provocative responses to what I wrote below, and I really don't know where to post them and my reactions to them. How can we get these conversations started in a productive and inclusive manner? >>> >>> We now have four relevant lists that I know of, and here may well be more: >>> >>> - the IGC list, >>> - the BestBits list, >>> - the ISOC policy list, and >>> - the new 1Net coordination list. >>> >>> Many of us subscribe to some or all of these list, and therefore see the same posting more than once. I subscribe to all four of the above. >>> >>> With some trepidation, I'm going to post this message on all of the above lists, with the hope that we can converge on an acceptable solution. [I have trimmed some early postings below that led to this point in the discussion.] I myself would favor the 1net list, simply because it is new and meant to be all-inclusive specifically for this purpose, whereas other lists may be (I think) somewhat restrictive and more focused and used for other purposes also. >>> >>> If you respond to this, please consider trimming the response significantly, since the content below will have been posted to all of the four lists. >>> >>> IMO the question to be answered is: on which list, or using which vehicle, can we collect broad involvement in issue-based threads that have to do with aspects of Internet governance? If we can converge on an answer, then we'll eliminate some redundancy and we'll have a more inclusive and more positive discussion of issues. If the redundancy is felt to be useful, then we can keep it; it's agreement on the focal point that's important here. >>> >>> Comments? Suggestions? Criticisms? >>> >>> George >>> >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >>> On Nov 25, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >>> >>> >>> I began this message 12 days ago in response to a thread started by Michael Gurstein >>> Let's Get Real Folks--Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society >>> >>> I gave up. Now I am encouraged to try again by this new thread >>> Re: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment >>> >>> begun by George Sadowsky. >>> >>> Is there any way to shift the focus from the people to the issues? >>> In the final analysis everyone belongs to civil society. That point was made by a representative of a local telecommunications company at a recent workshop on IXPs held in Saint Lucia. As he said, his children also query the speed of the Internet at home when they have to do their homework. The only people excluded from civil society are incarcerated prisoners, and that also is a statement that can be questioned. If I understand him correctly George Sadowsky is making the same point. Civil society is us - all of us. >>> >>> Instead of trying to disentangle the stakeholders from one another could we try to reach agreement on the aspects of the issues? If no one is wearing any particular hat then it should be possible to obtain a clearer picture of the issues that need to be discussed, and the multiple aspects of those issues. >>> >>> Surely at least a part of the "multistakeholder" configuration of WSIS was to provide a means of identifying and harnessing the different types of expertise available, to tackle the different aspects of the challenges created by the Internet and its proliferation. In hindsight the intention must have been partially collaboration and cooperation. Sadly the focus shifted to a third "c" - competition - so that instead of team-powered problem solving we ended up with separation and power struggles. And now on top of that comes betrayal and the death of trust. And the "little people" the "grassroots" become even further excluded from discussion of the interests that affect them, washed out in a wave of personalities and accusations. >>> >>> We do not need to let this breakdown continue. We CAN work together, we've done it before. Trust can be rebuilt. It is a hard slow process, but each of us retains threads of trust which we consider still to be viable. Otherwise we would not be communicating at all. Weave these threads together and we can build something stronger than what existed before, because we will be depending on one another instead of on abstract external factors. And together we will be able to disaggregate the issues into their component aspects and negotiate a point of balance among the differing needs of government, technicians, business and society. >>> >>> Deirdre >>> >>> >>> On 24 November 2013 12:59, George Sadowsky wrote: >>> >>> All, >>> >>> Please note that the opinions that follow are my own personal opinions and are independent of any of the organizations with which I am affiliated. >>> >>> <> >>> >>> >>> So with that understanding, I'd like to throw out some thoughts to see if any of them resonate with any of you. >>> >>> First, I believe that the introduction of the idea of multi-stakeholder approaches has had a significant negative effect between the Internet technical community and the community that has coalesced to represent classical civil society concerns. As I recall in the 1990s, these communities were considerably intermingled; the promise of the Internet encouraged us not only to help it evolve in beneficial ways but also to explore how to exploit it for social and economic benefits. >>> >>> The solidification of different stakeholder groups resulting from the WSIS process, caused informal differences to formalize. Issues of representation, power, time at the microphone, visibility on (sometimes competing) lists and victory in arguments on those lists grew, while informal discussion gradually declined. Polarization of opinion grew as willingness to respect others' opinions and to agree civilly to disagree suffered. >>> >>> Second, I believe that the specific role of the Internet technical community as a stakeholder group for the purposes of participating in the MAG and in the IGF is not properly understood. At this point in its evolution, the Internet is a very complex system at most levels. In order to understand fully the implications of policies that have to do with Internet administration, operation and governance, one has have a good technical understand of what the effect of those policies will be at a detailed level. The primary role of representatives of the Internet technical community, in a MAG and IGF setting, is to study and understand such effects and to inform those deliberating about them. That function may well extend toward consideration of broader thematic areas and suggestions of what needs to be discussed for continued Internet health, either short or long term, or both. >>> >>> In the grand scheme of things, this is a moderately narrow focus, but it is extremely important. >>> >>> Third, I believe that one result of formalized multi-stakeholderism appears to have been to separate groups of people rather than separating groups of ideas. A couple of examples illustrate the point. To the extent that the Internet technical community does its work in guiding the MAG well to enhance Internet evolution, I believe that involved representatives of civil society benefit and should encourage their participation. Conversely, representatives of the Internet technical community are people, and many are very likely to have beliefs that are quite consistent with the positions espoused by those same civil society representatives. The multi-stakeholder approach, however, seems to create a silo effect that minimizes or even denies the overlap of commonality of interest regarding issues by separating people into different silos. So instead of recognizing positive overlap of beliefs, the approach encourages a focus on inter-stakeholder group separation. >>> >>> Fourth, I'd like to propose a reconceptualization of the term "civil society." In the multi-stakeholder instantiation that is now employed by the UN/MAG/IGF axis , it refers to groups if individuals, some representing organizations of various sizes that agree to various extents regarding the importance of individual rights of various kinds. These groups represent civil society goals and are therefore grouped as "civil society" to populate that stakeholder group. And although the goals of that group are generally quite positive, their actions are often based upon pushing back against other stakeholder groups, most notably government but also others. Perhaps that reflects the reality of the tension between groups, but that tension is not moderated, as it might sometimes be, by people bridging groups instead of being siloed. >>> >>> An alternate way to define civil society is to start with all people in the world and remove government involvement, the private sector involvement, and perhaps other large institutional influences. To borrow a phrase from Apple, what is left is "the rest of us," and it contains fractions, generally large fractions of most of us as individuals. >>> >>> Most individuals have interests in more than one sector or stakeholder group. We have interactions with government and may work for it. Alternatively we may work for a private or other public sector organization. Almost all of us are increasingly users of the internet. Using this approach, perhaps an aggregate of 5 billion of us constitute "civil society," as opposed to the people who are now labeled as being in the civil society stakeholder group. If we are all civil society in large parts of our lives, then we all have some claim to represent our views as we live. Thus, a representative of Internet technology on the MAG is likely to, and has a right to opine on issues in the larger space, just as self-defined representatives of civil society positions have a right to do. This illustrates again how the various stakeholder groups, or silos, are really quite intertwined, making the siloed and often competitive relationships between them at a formal level quite unrepresentative of the underlying reality, >>> >>> I conclude that the multi-stakeholder approach that is accepted to be an approach to bring us together, has not insignificant negative externalities that serve to keep us apart. We need to assess the multi-stakeholder approach with that in mind If it is retained as an organizing principle, we need to recognize and understand those negative effects so that we can minimize them and can exploit the positive aspects of that approach. >>> >>> This is a much longer note than I ordinarily write, but it has helped me to understand some of the roots of the often unnecessarily antagonistic relationship between proponents of issues important to civil society and technical community experts guiding the evolution of the Internet. Thank you for taking the time to read it. I realize that what I have written, and any discussion of it, is considerably more nuanced than what I have presented above. However, I have tried to present the core of some ideas that I think may be useful. The more nuanced discussion can and will come later. >>> >>> Your comments are welcome. >>> >>> George >>> >>> >>> >>> <> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> I-coordination mailing list >>> I-coordination at nro.net >>> https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination >> >> _______________________________________________ >> I-coordination mailing list >> I-coordination at nro.net >> https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lorena at collaboratory.de Mon Dec 2 10:03:50 2013 From: lorena at collaboratory.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 16:03:50 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of interest In-Reply-To: References: <5295CC6A.60608@cdt.org> <52980A0A.1090501@apc.org> Message-ID: Please put me in stream 2 2013/11/29 Rafik Dammak > hi, > > I would like to join for stream 2 and 3 > > Best, > > Rafik > > > 2013/11/29 joy > >> Thanks for this Andrew and Jeremy - I would like to contribute to >> streams 2 and 3 >> Joy >> >> On 29/11/2013 6:49 a.m., Avri Doria wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Please put me down for thread 2. >> >> Thanks >> >> Avri >> >> Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >>> >>> Hi Andrew, nice initiative. Please put me in for Stream 3. >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Bertrand >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Latest expressions of interest >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Just to remind everyone - I'm not putting anything together for Stream 1, >>>> my only interest is in stream 3 and one aspect of stream 2 - free >>>> expression and privacy >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Stream 1* >>>> >>>> *Stream 2* >>>> >>>> *Stream 3* >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote >>>> participation, stakeholder representation and selection)* >>>> >>>> *Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil >>>> and/or other existing principles documents).* >>>> ! >>>> >>>> *Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder >>>> Internet governance including: 1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on >>>> existing work done by Internet Governance Project and/or others). 2. Orphan >>>> issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the >>>> recommendations of the Correspondence Group).* >>>> >>>> Andrew >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression, >>>> privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free expression. >>>> >>>> Submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed >>>> structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to include >>>> ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF) >>>> >>>> Matthew >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> x >>>> >>>> x >>>> >>>> Nnenna >>>> >>>> x >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Claudio >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> x - contribute, not lead >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Valeria/ APC >>>> >>>> >>>> x - contribute >>>> >>>> x - contribute >>>> >>>> Marianne/ IRP >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> x >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Jeanette >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> x - listen and comment >>>> >>>> Anriette APC >>>> >>>> x >>>> >>>> x >>>> >>>> x >>>> >>>> Anja >>>> >>>> x >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> x >>>> >>>> Joana >>>> >>>> x >>>> >>>> x >>>> >>>> x >>>> >>>> M. Gurstein >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> x >>>> >>>> x >>>> >>>> Marilia/ Joana >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 3.1/3.2 >>>> >>>> Pranesh >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> x >>>> >>>> x >>>> >>>> Carolina >>>> >>>> x >>>> >>>> x >>>> >>>> x >>>> >>>> Misha >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> x >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Parminder >>>> >>>> x >>>> >>>> x >>>> >>>> x >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Andrew Puddephatt* | *GLOBAL PARTNERS* DIGITAL >>>> >>>> Executive Director >>>> >>>> Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT >>>> >>>> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: >>>> andrewpuddephatt >>>> *gp-digital.org * >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Andrew Puddephatt >>>> *Sent:* 27 November 2013 11:26 >>>> *To:* matthew shears; (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net) >>>> *Subject:* RE: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of >>>> interest >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Great - I've sent round a survey monkey to start us off >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Andrew Puddephatt* | *GLOBAL PARTNERS* DIGITAL >>>> >>>> Executive Director >>>> >>>> Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT >>>> >>>> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt >>>> *gp-digital.org * >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *! >>>> From:* >>>> matthew shears [mailto:mshears at cdt.org ] >>>> *Sent:* 27 November 2013 10:42 >>>> *To:* Andrew Puddephatt; (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net) >>>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of >>>> interest >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Andrew - I am also interested in item 3. >>>> >>>> On 26/11/2013 17:53, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: >>>> >>>> Following up on my e-mail re inputs to Brazil conference. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> To remind everyone: Although the details are not clear, it looks like >>>> there are three broad areas within which it would be useful for CS groups >>>> (and others) to make pro-active submissions to the Brazil meeting. These >>>> are: >>>> >>>> AREA 1 - Recommendations on process issues for the conference (remote >>>> participation, stakeholder representation and selection) >>>> >>>> AREA 2 - Substantive input into their work to develop universal Internet >>>> principles (likely t! >>>> o cover >>>> the areas sketched out by President Rousseff in >>>> her speech to the UNGA). >>>> >>>> AREA 3 - Substantive input on an institutional framework for >>>> multistakeholder Internet governance including: >>>> >>>> 1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by >>>> Internet Governance Project and/or others). >>>> >>>> 2. Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC >>>> and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group). >>>> >>>> We have produced a chart mapping those who have expressed an interest in >>>> each of the areas below. There could feasibly be a number of different >>>> civil society submissions on each of these areas. >>>> >>>> Given the short timeframes, and the fact that there does not seem to be >>>> consensus among all of us on a number of these issues, I think the best way >>>> forward is for anyone who wants to lead on a particular submission to let >>>> the list know, gather together people who also want ! >>>> to work >>>> on that >>>> submission, develop something as a smaller group and then share it back >>>> with the platform. Obviously, ideally submissions would be able to gather >>>> broad agreement among BB participants, but consensus may be too high a bar >>>> at this stage. >>>> >>>> For my part, I am interested in two specific inputs: >>>> >>>> A submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed >>>> structure and multi-stakeholder participation (elements of which are likely >>>> to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF) >>>> >>>> A submission on the first high level principle dealing with free >>>> expression, privacy etc. Note that I'm concerned that privacy protections, >>>> if badly expressed, could restrict freedom of expression unduly so I'll be >>>> looking to assert ICCPR standards on free expression. >>>> >>>> Not everyone will agree with that take on things and I assume there are >>>> many other issues to focus on so a! >>>> t this >>>> stage I'd like to know who would >>>> want to work with me on these two specific topics. >>>> >>>> I would encourage others to set out their own area of interest and seek >>>> collaborators. As we will probably need to submit our views to Brazil >>>> and/or other organisers by March 1, 2014 I'd suggest we should aim to >>>> produce documents for endorsement/support by other groups on the BB >>>> platform by mid-February >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Stream 1* >>>> >>>> *Stream 2* >>>> >>>> *Stream 3* >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote >>>> participation, stakeholder representation and selection)* >>>> >>>> *Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil >>>> and/or other existing principles documents).* >>>> >>>> *Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder >>>> Internet governance including: 1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on >>>> existing work done by >>>> Internet Governance Project and/or others). 2. Orphan >>>> issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the >>>> recommendations of the Correspondence Group).* >>>> >>>> Andrew >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression, >>>> privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free expression. >>>> >>>> Submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed >>>> structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to include >>>> ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF) >>>> >>>> Matthew >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> x >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Nnenna >>>> >>>> x >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Claudio >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> x - contribute, not lead >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Valeria/ APC >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> x - contribute >>>> >>>> x - contribute >>>> >>>> Marianne/ IRP >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> x >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Jeanette >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> x - listen! >>>> and >>>> comment >>>> >>>> M. Gurstein >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> x >>>> >>>> x >>>> >>>> Marilia/ Joana >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 3.1/3.2 >>>> >>>> Pranesh >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> x >>>> >>>> x >>>> >>>> Parminder >>>> >>>> x >>>> >>>> x >>>> >>>> x >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> Avri Doria >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. * Coordinator of the Global Internet Governance (GIG) Ohu Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. www.collaboratory.de * Newsletter * Facebook * Twitter * Youtube -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Dec 2 10:04:30 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 23:04:30 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [I-coordination] [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment In-Reply-To: References: <249293DBA79E4116A89ACA705A26AD87@Toshiba> <14B804AD-FA81-4159-BDB9-B232DCF1B9FA@gmail.com> <06fe01cee86c$8ce59050$a6b0b0f0$@gmail.com> <5BDB0B33-2010-4E2C-9750-04CB82B5C6E2@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257073F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <529591D1.7060409@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Sorry for the blank reply just now (replying from my phone and my finger slipped). Two options are to participate through one of the existing civil society networks that is engaged (though as you say they are a bit Internet-specific), or through 1net that is hoping to become a similar but cross-stakeholder (if not really multi-stakeholder) dialogue. The second option is that there is a broader civil society steering group in formation that is intended to bring in otherwise unrepresented CSOs who have a stake in Internet issues but aren't deeply involved in Internet governance discussions. Its role and processes are still being worked out but at least include facilitating nominations of civil society participants to the Brazil and related processes. It would be good for PI to be linked in with that somehow, if not with Best Bits, IGC or 1net. On 2 Dec 2013, at 10:48 pm, Alexandrine Pirlot de Corbion wrote: > > Hello, > > I am contacting you from Privacy International (PI) based in London. Here is a quick introduction of Pl for those who are not familiar with our work. > PI is committed to fighting for the right to privacy across the world. Working with 19 partners worldwide, we are doing research and advocacy activities on promoting the right to privacy and doing an analysis on the legal, institutional framework upholding the rights to privacy and the protection of personal data advocating for strong national, regional, and international laws that protect privacy. Additionally, we investigate the secret world of government surveillance and expose the companies enabling it. We litigate to ensure that surveillance is consistent with the rule of law. We conduct research to catalyse policy change. We raise awareness about technologies and laws that place privacy at risk, to ensure that the public is informed and engaged. > > I was present in Bali at the IGF and have been following the discussions within this forum and others on Brazil and internet governance in general since. First of all, we are glad to being following the intense and productive discussions happening through this mailing list which we sincerely hope will contribute towards ensuring the multi-stakeholder nature of the process as well as the event as promised by Brazil but also those who are leading the discussions for its organisation. > > As the broad scope of the Brazil meeting, the development of internet governance as an issue, and the on-going international debate since the Snowden revelations have shown (i.e. recently passed UNGA on right to privacy to be voted in early December), the issue has expanded to have to consider the right to privacy and the protection of personal data, and the use of surveillance technologies or if I may say so, the abuse of communication mediums and technologies for surveillance purposes. > > Hence I was wondering what opportunities and space there will be for organisations like PI (i.e. not part of Best Bits and other internet governance focused groups as such) to be involved in the decision making process of the civil society reps for the committees but in general in the discussion leading up to and beyond this meeting. > > We look forward to hearing people’s thoughts and welcome suggestions. > > Best, > > Alexandrine > > > Alexandrine Pirlot de Corbion > > Advocacy Officer > Privacy International > 62 Britton Street > London, EC1M 5UY > United Kingdom > > E: alex at privacy.org > W: www.privacyinternational.org > T: + 44 (0) 203 422 4321 > Skype: alexpdec.pi > > Privacy International is a registered charity (No. 1147471). > >> On 27 Nov 2013, at 06:31, parminder wrote: >> >> >>> On Tuesday 26 November 2013 03:11 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> George >>> Normally I would be very much in favor of shifting attention to issues and substantive proposals. But in the present context, that constitutes a diversion from the real problem at hand. >>> >>> The preparations for the Brazil conference have pushed representational issues to the fore. Specifically, we have an entity called 1net that has been given the authority to appoint half of the members of the steering committees for the conference, >> >> I dont think such an authority was ever give to 1net.... Though there seems to have been a strong attempt to claim it - so strong that many people thought they already had it . parminder >> >>> and which has also promised that a fixed number of slots on these steering committees will be given to specific stakeholder groups. >>> >>> Because these steering committees will control the agenda of the conference, and hence will be in de facto control of our discussion of substantive issues at the Sao Paulo conference, it behooves even those of us exclusively interested in substan >> >> >> >> >>> tive issues to pay attention to the composition of those committees. >>> >>> In particular, the coordinating committee of 1net itself needs to be settled. Get that done, and yes, we can start to focus on substantive issues. >>> >>> --MM >>> >>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky >>> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 12:38 PM >>> To: Deirdre Williams >>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; gurstein michael; Peter Ian; bestbits; Akplogan Adiel A.; Swinehart Theresa; internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org; i-coordination at nro.net; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment >>> >>> Deirdre, and all, >>> >>> Thank you, Deirdre. I take your point that we should consider shifting the focus to issue-based discussions and away from stakeholder membership-based discussions. That is a very good way to phrase it. (Note that accepting such a shift does not imply that it should replace all other stakeholder membership activities.) >>> >>> Where should we have these issue-based discussions? There have been a number of good and provocative responses to what I wrote below, and I really don't know where to post them and my reactions to them. How can we get these conversations started in a productive and inclusive manner? >>> >>> We now have four relevant lists that I know of, and here may well be more: >>> >>> - the IGC list, >>> - the BestBits list, >>> - the ISOC policy list, and >>> - the new 1Net coordination list. >>> >>> Many of us subscribe to some or all of these list, and therefore see the same posting more than once. I subscribe to all four of the above. >>> >>> With some trepidation, I'm going to post this message on all of the above lists, with the hope that we can converge on an acceptable solution. [I have trimmed some early postings below that led to this point in the discussion.] I myself would favor the 1net list, simply because it is new and meant to be all-inclusive specifically for this purpose, whereas other lists may be (I think) somewhat restrictive and more focused and used for other purposes also. >>> >>> If you respond to this, please consider trimming the response significantly, since the content below will have been posted to all of the four lists. >>> >>> IMO the question to be answered is: on which list, or using which vehicle, can we collect broad involvement in issue-based threads that have to do with aspects of Internet governance? If we can converge on an answer, then we'll eliminate some redundancy and we'll have a more inclusive and more positive discussion of issues. If the redundancy is felt to be useful, then we can keep it; it's agreement on the focal point that's important here. >>> >>> Comments? Suggestions? Criticisms? >>> >>> George >>> >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >>> On Nov 25, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >>> >>> >>> I began this message 12 days ago in response to a thread started by Michael Gurstein >>> Let's Get Real Folks--Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society >>> >>> I gave up. Now I am encouraged to try again by this new thread >>> Re: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment >>> >>> begun by George Sadowsky. >>> >>> Is there any way to shift the focus from the people to the issues? >>> In the final analysis everyone belongs to civil society. That point was made by a representative of a local telecommunications company at a recent workshop on IXPs held in Saint Lucia. As he said, his children also query the speed of the Internet at home when they have to do their homework. The only people excluded from civil society are incarcerated prisoners, and that also is a statement that can be questioned. If I understand him correctly George Sadowsky is making the same point. Civil society is us - all of us. >>> >>> Instead of trying to disentangle the stakeholders from one another could we try to reach agreement on the aspects of the issues? If no one is wearing any particular hat then it should be possible to obtain a clearer picture of the issues that need to be discussed, and the multiple aspects of those issues. >>> >>> Surely at least a part of the "multistakeholder" configuration of WSIS was to provide a means of identifying and harnessing the different types of expertise available, to tackle the different aspects of the challenges created by the Internet and its proliferation. In hindsight the intention must have been partially collaboration and cooperation. Sadly the focus shifted to a third "c" - competition - so that instead of team-powered problem solving we ended up with separation and power struggles. And now on top of that comes betrayal and the death of trust. And the "little people" the "grassroots" become even further excluded from discussion of the interests that affect them, washed out in a wave of personalities and accusations. >>> >>> We do not need to let this breakdown continue. We CAN work together, we've done it before. Trust can be rebuilt. It is a hard slow process, but each of us retains threads of trust which we consider still to be viable. Otherwise we would not be communicating at all. Weave these threads together and we can build something stronger than what existed before, because we will be depending on one another instead of on abstract external factors. And together we will be able to disaggregate the issues into their component aspects and negotiate a point of balance among the differing needs of government, technicians, business and society. >>> >>> Deirdre >>> >>> >>> On 24 November 2013 12:59, George Sadowsky wrote: >>> >>> All, >>> >>> Please note that the opinions that follow are my own personal opinions and are independent of any of the organizations with which I am affiliated. >>> >>> <> >>> >>> >>> So with that understanding, I'd like to throw out some thoughts to see if any of them resonate with any of you. >>> >>> First, I believe that the introduction of the idea of multi-stakeholder approaches has had a significant negative effect between the Internet technical community and the community that has coalesced to represent classical civil society concerns. As I recall in the 1990s, these communities were considerably intermingled; the promise of the Internet encouraged us not only to help it evolve in beneficial ways but also to explore how to exploit it for social and economic benefits. >>> >>> The solidification of different stakeholder groups resulting from the WSIS process, caused informal differences to formalize. Issues of representation, power, time at the microphone, visibility on (sometimes competing) lists and victory in arguments on those lists grew, while informal discussion gradually declined. Polarization of opinion grew as willingness to respect others' opinions and to agree civilly to disagree suffered. >>> >>> Second, I believe that the specific role of the Internet technical community as a stakeholder group for the purposes of participating in the MAG and in the IGF is not properly understood. At this point in its evolution, the Internet is a very complex system at most levels. In order to understand fully the implications of policies that have to do with Internet administration, operation and governance, one has have a good technical understand of what the effect of those policies will be at a detailed level. The primary role of representatives of the Internet technical community, in a MAG and IGF setting, is to study and understand such effects and to inform those deliberating about them. That function may well extend toward consideration of broader thematic areas and suggestions of what needs to be discussed for continued Internet health, either short or long term, or both. >>> >>> In the grand scheme of things, this is a moderately narrow focus, but it is extremely important. >>> >>> Third, I believe that one result of formalized multi-stakeholderism appears to have been to separate groups of people rather than separating groups of ideas. A couple of examples illustrate the point. To the extent that the Internet technical community does its work in guiding the MAG well to enhance Internet evolution, I believe that involved representatives of civil society benefit and should encourage their participation. Conversely, representatives of the Internet technical community are people, and many are very likely to have beliefs that are quite consistent with the positions espoused by those same civil society representatives. The multi-stakeholder approach, however, seems to create a silo effect that minimizes or even denies the overlap of commonality of interest regarding issues by separating people into different silos. So instead of recognizing positive overlap of beliefs, the approach encourages a focus on inter-stakeholder group separation. >>> >>> Fourth, I'd like to propose a reconceptualization of the term "civil society." In the multi-stakeholder instantiation that is now employed by the UN/MAG/IGF axis , it refers to groups if individuals, some representing organizations of various sizes that agree to various extents regarding the importance of individual rights of various kinds. These groups represent civil society goals and are therefore grouped as "civil society" to populate that stakeholder group. And although the goals of that group are generally quite positive, their actions are often based upon pushing back against other stakeholder groups, most notably government but also others. Perhaps that reflects the reality of the tension between groups, but that tension is not moderated, as it might sometimes be, by people bridging groups instead of being siloed. >>> >>> An alternate way to define civil society is to start with all people in the world and remove government involvement, the private sector involvement, and perhaps other large institutional influences. To borrow a phrase from Apple, what is left is "the rest of us," and it contains fractions, generally large fractions of most of us as individuals. >>> >>> Most individuals have interests in more than one sector or stakeholder group. We have interactions with government and may work for it. Alternatively we may work for a private or other public sector organization. Almost all of us are increasingly users of the internet. Using this approach, perhaps an aggregate of 5 billion of us constitute "civil society," as opposed to the people who are now labeled as being in the civil society stakeholder group. If we are all civil society in large parts of our lives, then we all have some claim to represent our views as we live. Thus, a representative of Internet technology on the MAG is likely to, and has a right to opine on issues in the larger space, just as self-defined representatives of civil society positions have a right to do. This illustrates again how the various stakeholder groups, or silos, are really quite intertwined, making the siloed and often competitive relationships between them at a formal level quite unrepresentative of the underlying reality, >>> >>> I conclude that the multi-stakeholder approach that is accepted to be an approach to bring us together, has not insignificant negative externalities that serve to keep us apart. We need to assess the multi-stakeholder approach with that in mind If it is retained as an organizing principle, we need to recognize and understand those negative effects so that we can minimize them and can exploit the positive aspects of that approach. >>> >>> This is a much longer note than I ordinarily write, but it has helped me to understand some of the roots of the often unnecessarily antagonistic relationship between proponents of issues important to civil society and technical community experts guiding the evolution of the Internet. Thank you for taking the time to read it. I realize that what I have written, and any discussion of it, is considerably more nuanced than what I have presented above. However, I have tried to present the core of some ideas that I think may be useful. The more nuanced discussion can and will come later. >>> >>> Your comments are welcome. >>> >>> George >>> >>> >>> >>> <> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> I-coordination mailing list >>> I-coordination at nro.net >>> https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination >> >> _______________________________________________ >> I-coordination mailing list >> I-coordination at nro.net >> https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Dec 2 10:28:15 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 07:28:15 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0a4401ceef73$1ff01bb0$5fd05310$@gmail.com> Can I quote from the BB “procedures” (BTW, I probably missed it but when were these proposed and ratified?) · A proposal’s status is not determined by counting votes. Polling is not a substitute for discussion , nor is a poll’s numerical outcome tantamount to consensus. · If consensus for broad community support has not developed after a reasonable time period, the proposal is considered failed. If consensus is neutral or unclear on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal has likewise failed. And I’m still waiting for some reasonable response to my counter-proposal… The various “harumphs” and immediate changes of the subject aren’t really very convincing… And of course, the details don’t matter—what does matter is that some basis of legitimacy be established through agreed upon rules and actions/decisions undertaken as governed by those rules—interim this, pie in the sky kicking the ball ahead 6 or 8 months, fuzzifying precisely who/what/how/when/where the steering/coordinating committee also doesn’t help at all… (so where exactly did this “interim” steering committee come from and how was it chosen and by whom? I think it is extremely important that CS get its act together for Brazil but if the intention is to have a common front then there needs to be openness and transparency all round. If the intention is to attempt to present a common front but without accepting the constraints/requirements that go along with that then there will, as we are currently seeing, be some major difficulties. As of now the Community Informatics network as aligned around an “Internet Justice” platform is sufficiently “formalized” that I can speak on its behalf as a global network of community/grassroots and community/grassroots oriented practitioners, researchers, and activists and make representations including to Inet and the Brazilian authorities on its behalf. I would be more than pleased if we are able to lend our weight to a common BB led initiative towards Brazil but only if I/we are comfortable with how that proceeds and if we have a means for ensuring that our concerns are being addressed. Mike M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of genekimmelman at gmail.com Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 5:46 AM To: rafik.dammak at gmail.com Cc: william.drake at uzh.ch; parminder at itforchange.net; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT To be more specific, maybe those with lingering concerns need to decide whether they want to participate on the best bits platform or not. You decide. If you think you can make it work better, please offer ideas like Anriette, Michael and others have done. I believe we decided in Bali on an approach and I endorse Anriette's path toward formalizing this. And I suggest we wrap up this conversation for now and move on to substance. Otherwise we delegitimze the broad support people worked towards over two days in Bali and make it more difficult to prepare for Brazil. -------- Original message -------- From: Rafik Dammak Date: 12/02/2013 8:22 AM (GMT-05:00) To: genekimmelman at gmail.com Cc: William Drake ,Parminder ,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT every response with such reluctance and such kind of arguments raise more questions than giving answers or appeasing those with concerns. as reminder BestBits initiative started in august 2012 when people were talking about WCIT and prepared first meeting IGF Baku, we will be in 2014 in few weeks and we are still with temporary settings. Rafik 2013/12/2 genekimmelman at gmail.com Internal accountability to a group with shared goals may differ from societal/global policy goals that the group will agree to if all others with power agree as well. Best not to confuse these. We should be accountable but not create internal processes that make it impossible to coordinate policy actions. -------- Original message -------- From: William Drake Date: 12/02/2013 3:52 AM (GMT-05:00) To: Parminder Singh Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Best Bits" Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT +1! On Dec 2, 2013, at 9:23 AM, parminder wrote: Civil society must always remain very vary of thinking of themselves as somehow so morally superior that they are exempt from normal accountability and transparency requirements ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Mon Dec 2 10:45:06 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 10:45:06 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Continuing the steering group through 2014 [was mag nomination...] In-Reply-To: <3BD37EF2-6990-45A7-9006-4EA996EB7C02@ciroap.org> References: <095d01ceef68$017e3a50$047aaef0$@gmail.com> <3BD37EF2-6990-45A7-9006-4EA996EB7C02@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <9422ba89-6044-4900-977c-d97b88fa4e65@email.android.com> " And in reply to Avri (I realise it can be hard to locate quickly), the interim steering committee is myself, Andrew Puddephatt, Deborah Brown, Anja Kovacs, Joana Varon Ferraz, Marianne Franklin, Nnenna Nwakanma and Valeria Betancourt. " A fine group of people I am happy to support for another year. Thanks Avri Doria -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Dec 2 12:11:14 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 22:41:14 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT In-Reply-To: <70C0E2CA-1B52-45AC-9CD6-039373D2D440@ciroap.org> References: <70C0E2CA-1B52-45AC-9CD6-039373D2D440@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <529CBF32.7070005@itforchange.net> On Monday 02 December 2013 07:28 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 2 Dec 2013, at 9:46 pm, genekimmelman at gmail.com > wrote: > >> To be more specific, maybe those with lingering concerns need to >> decide whether they want to participate on the best bits platform or >> not. You decide. If you think you can make it work better, please >> offer ideas like Anriette, Michael and others have done. I believe we >> decided in Bali on an approach and I endorse Anriette's path toward >> formalizing this. And I suggest we wrap up this conversation for now >> and move on to substance. Otherwise we delegitimze the broad support >> people worked towards over two days in Bali and make it more >> difficult to prepare for Brazil. > > Or, those for whom it is a priority for us to work on internal > processes could take that task on themselves, by developing a proposed > set of procedures that they would be happy with. In fact, please do - > that could actually be really helpful and be a more useful division of > labour. Jeremy, Since you ask... My preferred option is to make BB into a membership based organisation. My impression at its inaugural meeting was that it was supposed to emerge as a membership based body, where serious and committed civil society organisations/ individuals will like to work together in peace and with focus, away from the general din of civil society conversations. Very roughly and in brief... 1, It can have specific membership criteria, to ensure effective working, representation, and so on... to see it remains really and effectively civil society ...... 2, Preferably a basic charter with statement of vision/ mission, objectives and activities is written (it may take time, and get written as we go, as long as a decision is taken) 3, Consensus, rough consensus, polling etc processes to be evolved and coded to assess the views of members on various issues . 4, A small -4-5 member steering committee to be elected by the membership will to do routine tasks ( a two co- coordinator model can be used or a hybrid between the two) , and other tasks that may be decided in the charter, and by the membership from time to time. This will include representing BB network to others, but with keeping the group very closely posted about all things, helping the membership chose reps through nomcoms, online polling etc.. and so on.. 5, The committee/ co-cos will have a strong disciplinary role so that the space does not get rigged to be made ineffective, or otherwise spoiled... This power would of course be subject to appeal..... However, if some people insist that BB is just a neutral platform and should remain as one, and it only facilitates voluntary cooperation and voluntary common action by civil society groups/ individuals who want to do so, then BB can/ should only : 1. provide an open discussion forum, where over discussion people can work out positions to work further together on, and/ or take action together on, whereby they move the issue to discuss further among those who want to cooperate in this manner. 2. Host an online tool to put out statements which are open to signed by anyone, and then delivered (strictly) in the name of the signing organisation. Nowhere the name of BB is mentioned in these statements because any such mention just gives the impression to outsiders that it is a BB statement, which is a mis- representation. Since a platform represents no one (a statement also made recently by Jeremy) it cannot be represented by anyone for any substantive purpose, including by the steering committee. It has to forgo all such tasks (well, people can still issue joint statements proposing anything, including their - but not BB's - joint reps or nominees and so ) This is my understanding about the difference between a membership based organisation (which derives its legitimacy from its members) and a member-less platform which has merely a facilitating function (and thus has no 'substantive legitimacy' since there is no one to give it legitimacy) The above is a rather rough and indicative text and there would be many gaps in it..... So, BB can either be a membership based body or it can be just a neutral facilitating platform, but cant be shifting between two as per convenience of some - take up substantive tasks with assumed legitimacy as if it were a membership based body, and then when process question are asked - to ensure processes so that membership views are appropriately gathered and conveyed - take up the defence that BB is just a neutral platform... And if there are some real hybrid options, then lets discuss them as well... It is not necessary to agree on everything right now, and have charter, processes etc all ready right now - suspending substantive work till we have everything. Not at all.... We need to just try and form a broad agreement on overall form, and corresponding implications for processes and substantive docs etc. We can then begin giving it concrete shape without disturbing the current pace of work, which the current arrangement can keeping taking care or.... parminder > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge > hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Mon Dec 2 12:56:45 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 15:56:45 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] [Quick follow up] on the delivery of the letter about the 4 interim liaisons Message-ID: Dear all, According to previous concerns, the letter pointing the four Brazilian interim liaisons was sent last week to the Brazilian government, which has just replied, through Mr Vigilio Almeida, Secretary for Information Technology Policy at the Ministry of Science Technology and Innovation. The letter is currently hosted here: http://bestbits.net/brazil-reps/ and was sent reinforcing the idea that it is a interim nomination, that shall not be seen in disregard of the procedures to be established to populate the four Committees to be formed with a proper, less ad hoc procedure. As a response, Virgilio has kindly said that they are looking forward for contributions from the respective networks in preparing the April meeting agenda, and that there are still at the stage of internal organization to prepare next steps. best joana -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Mon Dec 2 13:26:02 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 23:56:02 +0530 Subject: Multi-Equal Stakeholderism (was Re: [bestbits] Joint civil society endorsements for London meeting of High-Level Panel) In-Reply-To: References: <16AB4A2A-C1F1-4929-BD90-9976DFC1391A@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Coming to this thread late, but I did wanted to thank McTim and all others for clarifying the origins of the multi-equal-stakeholder term for me, and also for the interesting discussion following that. I can see now how it founds its way into a letter directed at the ICANN CEO :) Though like Jeremy, I am not convinced of the usefulness of the term, at least not if people want to hold it up as *the* model to aspire to. I agree with those who say that multistakeholderism does not, and should not, look the same everywhere. Multi-equal-stakeholderism could then be seen as one of the shapes it can take, but it needn't necessarily be the only one. Best regards, Anja On 1 December 2013 10:03, McTim wrote: > > > > On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 10:00 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> On 1 Dec 2013, at 7:19 am, McTim wrote: >> >> , since many would say the IETF is not multi-stakeholder all, >>> >> >> I've never met anyone who has ever said that. Are you actually trying to >> make that claim? >> >> >> Hardly just me, a lot of people were saying so during the last IGF; it >> was a recurring theme that the term "multi-stakeholderism" had become >> meaningless because it was being applied to anything and everything. >> Although this came through strongly at a number of workshops, i >> particularly recall that it came up at the pre-event "Technical standards >> and metrics for measurable impact of multi-stakeholderism" ( >> http://www.internet-science.eu/igf-workshop-2013). I don't have time >> right now to look for specific references, but I suspect this observation >> may have also been made by CIGI (who were co-organisers of that pre-event) >> in their series of papers at >> http://www.cigionline.org/series/internet-governance. This is not to >> say that the IETF isn't procedurally open, but it isn't multi-stakeholder >> in any meaningful sense. >> > > > Except of course that people from all of the artificial WSIS SGs > participate, which is the definition of MSism in the WSIS sense. > > >> >> Hence the emergence of a range of more specific terms of which >> multi-equal stakeholderism is only one, and not even the ugliest. >> >> Stakeholder groupings are artificial boundaries imposed on us at WSIS >> by government types. >> >> It is NOT the way Internet policy has been made during the first 3 >> decades of Internet existence. >> >> >> And they never claimed to be multi-stakeholder back then, either. >> >> Though it's still a work in progress, our session at the Best Bits >> meeting in Bali towards defining multi-stakeholderism made the point very >> clearly that it required a balancing of power differences between >> stakeholder groups. This is vital, otherwise the perspectives of the >> powerless are simply drowned out. >> > > If everyone is equal, then no one's voice is drowned out. The notion of > "power" only comes into play when you buy into intergovernmental > (ITU/OECD/UNCTAD/$IGO) processes. > > I've been a WG Chair in a RIR PDP, and the only power is that of the > individual, speaking for themselves about what they think is in the best > interest of the Internet. Google or the USA has no more power in these > processes than you and I. I think that BB and CS in general should embrace > this kind of equality, not shun it in favor of intergovernmental processes > where we have to beg for seats at the table in order to talk about the > shape of other tables where actual policy work is being done. > > rgds, > > McTim > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Mon Dec 2 14:38:52 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 01:08:52 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto In-Reply-To: <05ec01ceeef6$878f3d00$96adb700$@gmail.com> References: <8CBC2521-BEEB-45C5-A8DE-B0248CCC272C@1st-mile.org> <033801ceeb99$2f08e9c0$8d1abd40$@gmail.com> <052701ceeedb$d73471b0$859d5510$@gmail.com> <3644866f-2f33-488f-ab5c-4275d34327d8@email.android.com> <05ec01ceeef6$878f3d00$96adb700$@gmail.com> Message-ID: I wouldn't actually agree that an approach that starts from the national level is the only way forward. In the analysis of the Internet Democracy Project, among important reasons why more progress has not been made on various goals set out in the WSIS Action Lines is not only because Action Lines have been implemented in too top-down a fashion, but also, and relatedly, because the Action Lines mix together two types of issues: those that fundamentally rely on the input of the larger development community, and those that are Internet governance issues in the more narrow sense. The latter frequently cut across Action Lines, and as long as they are not addressed adequately, it is unlikely that the development agenda that is at the heart of the Action Lines will take off either. The former is in many cases the foundation for the success of the latter. For this reason, the Internet Democracy Project proposed in September, when the first inputs into the preparatory process for the ITU's High Level Review meeting were due, to actually rearrange the Action Lines to make sure both aspects of the Action Lines get their due. This would entail highlighting, and addressing, the Internet governance agenda that is embedded in the Action Lines separately, without at any point losing sight of its connectedness with the development agenda. We resubmitted this proposal as an input into the zero draft of the zero draft of the WSIS+10 vision in November, please see: http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/inc/docs/phase2/rc/V1-D-2.docx While many development issues in the Action Lines require action first and foremost at local and national levels, many of the Internet governance issues are really global public policy issues (and by splitting the two strands, where to engage can become much more clear for a range of actors). We therefore also made this proposal an integral part of our proposals for the evolution of global Internet governance. If much of the groundwork to enhance cooperation has already been done in the context of the Action Lines, why not build on this rather than constituting a new, government-dominated body? This would also ensure that the enhanced cooperation agenda, too, is tethered quite closely to development - that seems to be the case only rarely now. Different issues require action at different levels and through different processes. The challenge is not which one to chose, but how to hold on to, organise and maximise the multitude. Best, Anja On 2 December 2013 06:06, michael gurstein wrote: > +1 > > > > M > > > > *From:* nashton at consensus.pro [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro] > *Sent:* Sunday, December 01, 2013 4:05 PM > *To:* michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto > > > > The merits of the report aside, your point, Michael, is one I believe > strongly to be true: the whole WSIS follow-up system is top-down, because > the ITU took control of it. What's needed is national-level action plans, > drawn up by all stakeholders, which can then be compared like-for-like as > to results internationally so countries can learn from what works in other > countries. The irony is that this model is how "Agenda 21" the climate > change process from the first Rio conference works; sadly WSIS didn't pick > this up despite it postdating Rio by more than a decade. > > In the WSIS review, we should fix this. The digital divide is not going to > be met in Geneva at one-annual "WSIS review" meetings where INGOs (however > well-meaning) compare notes and report cards - it will be met at the > grassroots level, with buyin from that level. > > > > michael gurstein wrote: > > Anyone wondering why a grassroots/community informatics perspective is > necessary in the WSIS and related ICT4D venues should take a close look at > this corporate driven top-down techno-fantasy of what could/should be done > with no attention being given to how it might actually be accomplished on > the ground even after almost twenty years of similar pronouncements and > failed (and hugely wasteful) similarly top down initiatives. > > > > M > > > > http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2013/67.asp > > > > Broadband infrastructure, applications and services have become critical > to driving growth, delivering social services, improving environmental > management, and transforming people’s lives, according to a new Manifesto > released by the Broadband Commission for Digital Development and signed by > 48 members of the Commission, along with other prominent figures from > industry, civil society and the United Nations. “Overcoming the digital > divide makes sense not only on the basis of principles of fairness and > justice; connecting the world makes soun d commercial sense,” the Manifesto > reads. “The vital role of broadband needs to be acknowledged at the core of > any post-2015 sustainable development framework, to ensure that all > countries – developed and developing alike – are empowered to participate > in the global digital economy.” > > > > Supporting Document > > > > > http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Documents/working-groups/bb-wg-taskforce-report.pdf > > > > > -- > Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Dec 2 17:16:49 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 14:16:49 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto In-Reply-To: References: <8CBC2521-BEEB-45C5-A8DE-B0248CCC272C@1st-mile.org> <033801ceeb99$2f08e9c0$8d1abd40$@gmail.com> <052701ceeedb$d73471b0$859d5510$@gmail.com> <3644866f-2f33-488f-ab5c-4275d34327d8@email.android.com> <05ec01ceeef6$878f3d00$96adb700$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0d6901ceefac$35ec3910$a1c4ab30$@gmail.com> Anja, I really haven't followed or kept up with the Action Lines process. The few times that I did take a look it seemed to be mostly around fairly empty self-congratulations about the success of one pilot project or paper exercise or another with little real connection with what might be happening on the ground. Rather I've tried to spend my time at my "day job" which is helping in various ways to support/enable bottom up development processes. As I tried to point out in my reply to George's comments on my earlier post the connection that I see between bottom up development (the kind that actually works) and say a WSIS process is that global policy influences national policy and national, multilateral and foundation funding. Bottom up development will only go so far until it runs into a policy or a funding blockage. If the supporting mechanisms/policies aren't there initiatives fail and ladders quickly turn into snakes. Then, the people with the fewest resources are required to start all over again while the those with the most get to jet off to another international conference talking about which square "Action Line" peg can be snaffled to fit into the required round hole so as to appear to be supportive of "Poverty Reduction" or whatever the flavor of the day happens to be. Action Lines aren't "development" they are a way of describing (or in most cases mis-describing) development activities taking place (or not) rather far distant from wherever those Action Lines are being discussed. The non-IG part of WSIS should be about the reality of development and a WSIS +10 either takes a close look at what worked (or more likely, didn't) on the ground and starts from there or it isn't about anything at all. M From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in] Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 11:39 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: Nick Ashton-Hart; IGC; bestbits Subject: Re: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto I wouldn't actually agree that an approach that starts from the national level is the only way forward. In the analysis of the Internet Democracy Project, among important reasons why more progress has not been made on various goals set out in the WSIS Action Lines is not only because Action Lines have been implemented in too top-down a fashion, but also, and relatedly, because the Action Lines mix together two types of issues: those that fundamentally rely on the input of the larger development community, and those that are Internet governance issues in the more narrow sense. The latter frequently cut across Action Lines, and as long as they are not addressed adequately, it is unlikely that the development agenda that is at the heart of the Action Lines will take off either. The former is in many cases the foundation for the success of the latter. For this reason, the Internet Democracy Project proposed in September, when the first inputs into the preparatory process for the ITU's High Level Review meeting were due, to actually rearrange the Action Lines to make sure both aspects of the Action Lines get their due. This would entail highlighting, and addressing, the Internet governance agenda that is embedded in the Action Lines separately, without at any point losing sight of its connectedness with the development agenda. We resubmitted this proposal as an input into the zero draft of the zero draft of the WSIS+10 vision in November, please see: http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/inc/docs/phase2/rc/V1-D-2.docx While many development issues in the Action Lines require action first and foremost at local and national levels, many of the Internet governance issues are really global public policy issues (and by splitting the two strands, where to engage can become much more clear for a range of actors). We therefore also made this proposal an integral part of our proposals for the evolution of global Internet governance. If much of the groundwork to enhance cooperation has already been done in the context of the Action Lines, why not build on this rather than constituting a new, government-dominated body? This would also ensure that the enhanced cooperation agenda, too, is tethered quite closely to development - that seems to be the case only rarely now. Different issues require action at different levels and through different processes. The challenge is not which one to chose, but how to hold on to, organise and maximise the multitude. Best, Anja On 2 December 2013 06:06, michael gurstein wrote: +1 M From: nashton at consensus.pro [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro] Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 4:05 PM To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits Subject: Re: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto The merits of the report aside, your point, Michael, is one I believe strongly to be true: the whole WSIS follow-up system is top-down, because the ITU took control of it. What's needed is national-level action plans, drawn up by all stakeholders, which can then be compared like-for-like as to results internationally so countries can learn from what works in other countries. The irony is that this model is how "Agenda 21" the climate change process from the first Rio conference works; sadly WSIS didn't pick this up despite it postdating Rio by more than a decade. In the WSIS review, we should fix this. The digital divide is not going to be met in Geneva at one-annual "WSIS review" meetings where INGOs (however well-meaning) compare notes and report cards - it will be met at the grassroots level, with buyin from that level. michael gurstein wrote: Anyone wondering why a grassroots/community informatics perspective is necessary in the WSIS and related ICT4D venues should take a close look at this corporate driven top-down techno-fantasy of what could/should be done with no attention being given to how it might actually be accomplished on the ground even after almost twenty years of similar pronouncements and failed (and hugely wasteful) similarly top down initiatives. M http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2013/67.asp Broadband infrastructure, applications and services have become critical to driving growth, delivering social services, improving environmental management, and transforming people's lives, according to a new Manifesto released by the Broadband Commission for Digital Development and signed by 48 members of the Commission, along with other prominent figures from industry, civil society and the United Nations. "Overcoming the digital divide makes sense not only on the basis of principles of fairness and justice; connecting the world makes soun d commercial sense," the Manifesto reads. "The vital role of broadband needs to be acknowledged at the core of any post-2015 sustainable development framework, to ensure that all countries - developed and developing alike - are empowered to participate in the global digital economy." Supporting Document http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Documents/working-groups/bb-wg-taskforce- report.pdf -- Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lorena at collaboratory.de Mon Dec 2 17:54:08 2013 From: lorena at collaboratory.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 23:54:08 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] FW: BB/ Brazil summit input - expression of interest In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello all, Specifically, about principles, you might be aware that the resolution > named The right to privacy in the digital age, proposed by Brazil and > Germany, is being voted *today *at the UNGA and will pass with consensus. > Text is here: > http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/C.3/68/L.45/Rev.1 > Deborah is in the plenary and might have more details. Its a starting > point. Also, in partnership with EFF, Privacy International, Human Rights > Watch , etc we are launching a campaign for gathering more support for the > principles on necessary and proportionate and I see it as also a way to go > forward. Taking into account the experiences of the Swedish government to > implement them. > > Please not that exceptions are the aspects that shape the rules. The following paragraph Noting that while concerns about public security may justify the gathering and protection of certain sensitive information, States must ensure full compliance with their obligations under international human rights law, neutralizes the principles stated before. I.e. the question of intelligence agencies and its limits remains unadressed. If you want to adress the limits of cyber-intelligence and espionage (there is no international juridical corpus doing this yet) I would suggest to make a specific proposal in the style of the Hague and Geneva Conventions. Best regards, Lorena Jaume-Palasí > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. * Coordinator of the Global Internet Governance (GIG) Ohu Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. www.collaboratory.de * Newsletter * Facebook * Twitter * Youtube -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vint at google.com Mon Dec 2 10:11:37 2013 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 07:11:37 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [Internet Policy] [I-coordination] [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment In-Reply-To: References: <249293DBA79E4116A89ACA705A26AD87@Toshiba> <14B804AD-FA81-4159-BDB9-B232DCF1B9FA@gmail.com> <06fe01cee86c$8ce59050$a6b0b0f0$@gmail.com> <5BDB0B33-2010-4E2C-9750-04CB82B5C6E2@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257073F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <529591D1.7060409@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Jeremy can we link in ALAC for ICANN aspects? On 2 Dec 2013 10:05, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: > Sorry for the blank reply just now (replying from my phone and my finger > slipped). Two options are to participate through one of the existing civil > society networks that is engaged (though as you say they are a bit > Internet-specific), or through 1net that is hoping to become a similar but > cross-stakeholder (if not really multi-stakeholder) dialogue. > > The second option is that there is a broader civil society steering group > in formation that is intended to bring in otherwise unrepresented CSOs who > have a stake in Internet issues but aren't deeply involved in Internet > governance discussions. Its role and processes are still being worked out > but at least include facilitating nominations of civil society participants > to the Brazil and related processes. It would be good for PI to be linked > in with that somehow, if not with Best Bits, IGC or 1net. > > On 2 Dec 2013, at 10:48 pm, Alexandrine Pirlot de Corbion < > alex at privacy.org> wrote: > > Hello, > > I am contacting you from Privacy International (PI) based in London. Here > is a quick introduction of Pl for those who are not familiar with our work. > PI is committed to fighting for the right to privacy across the world. > Working with 19 partners worldwide, we are doing research and advocacy > activities on promoting the right to privacy and doing an analysis on the > legal, institutional framework upholding the rights to privacy and the > protection of personal data advocating for strong national, regional, and > international laws that protect privacy. Additionally, we investigate the > secret world of government surveillance and expose the companies enabling > it. We litigate to ensure that surveillance is consistent with the rule of > law. We conduct research to catalyse policy change. We raise awareness > about technologies and laws that place privacy at risk, to ensure that the > public is informed and engaged. > > I was present in Bali at the IGF and have been following the discussions > within this forum and others on Brazil and internet governance in general > since. First of all, we are glad to being following the intense and > productive discussions happening through this mailing list which we > sincerely hope will contribute towards ensuring the multi-stakeholder > nature of the process as well as the event as promised by Brazil but also > those who are leading the discussions for its organisation. > > As the broad scope of the Brazil meeting, the development of internet > governance as an issue, and the on-going international debate since the > Snowden revelations have shown (i.e. recently passed UNGA on right to > privacy to be voted in early December), the issue has expanded to have to > consider the right to privacy and the protection of personal data, and the > use of surveillance technologies or if I may say so, the abuse of > communication mediums and technologies for surveillance purposes. > > Hence I was wondering what opportunities and space there will be for > organisations like PI (i.e. not part of Best Bits and other internet > governance focused groups as such) to be involved in the decision making > process of the civil society reps for the committees but in general in the > discussion leading up to and beyond this meeting. > > We look forward to hearing people’s thoughts and welcome suggestions. > > Best, > > Alexandrine > > > *Alexandrine Pirlot de Corbion* > > *Advocacy Officer* > Privacy International > 62 Britton Street > London, EC1M 5UY > United Kingdom > > E: alex at privacy.org > W: www.privacyinternational.org > T: + 44 (0) 203 422 4321 > Skype: alexpdec.pi > > Privacy International is a registered charity (No. 1147471). > > On 27 Nov 2013, at 06:31, parminder wrote: > > > On Tuesday 26 November 2013 03:11 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > George > Normally I would be very much in favor of shifting attention to issues and > substantive proposals. But in the present context, that constitutes a > diversion from the real problem at hand. > > The preparations for the Brazil conference have pushed representational > issues to the fore. Specifically, we have an entity called 1net that has > been given the authority to appoint half of the members of the steering > committees for the conference, > > > I dont think such an authority was ever give to 1net.... Though there > seems to have been a strong attempt to claim it - so strong that many > people thought they already had it . parminder > > and which has also promised that a fixed number of slots on these steering > committees will be given to specific stakeholder groups. > > Because these steering committees will control the agenda of the > conference, and hence will be in de facto control of our discussion of > substantive issues at the Sao Paulo conference, it behooves even those of > us exclusively interested in substan > > > > > > tive issues to pay attention to the composition of those committees. > > In particular, the coordinating committee of 1net itself needs to be > settled. Get that done, and yes, we can start to focus on substantive > issues. > > --MM > > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ > mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > ] *On Behalf Of *George Sadowsky > *Sent:* Monday, November 25, 2013 12:38 PM > *To:* Deirdre Williams > *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; gurstein michael; Peter Ian; > bestbits; Akplogan Adiel A.; Swinehart Theresa; > internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org; i-coordination at nro.net; Salanieta T. > Tamanikaiwaimaro > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a > multi-stakeholder environment > > Deirdre, and all, > > Thank you, Deirdre. I take your point that we should consider shifting > the focus to issue-based discussions and away from stakeholder > membership-based discussions. That is a very good way to phrase it. > (Note that accepting such a shift does not imply that it should replace all > other stakeholder membership activities.) > > Where should we have these issue-based discussions? There have been a > number of good and provocative responses to what I wrote below, and I > really don't know where to post them and my reactions to them. How can we > get these conversations started in a productive and inclusive manner? > > We now have four relevant lists that I know of, and here may well be more: > > - the IGC list, > - the BestBits list, > - the ISOC policy list, and > - the new 1Net coordination list. > > Many of us subscribe to some or all of these list, and therefore see the > same posting more than once. I subscribe to all four of the above. > > With some trepidation, I'm going to post this message on all of the above > lists, with the hope that we can converge on an acceptable solution. [I > have trimmed some early postings below that led to this point in the > discussion.] I myself would favor the 1net list, simply because it is new > and meant to be all-inclusive specifically for this purpose, whereas other > lists may be (I think) somewhat restrictive and more focused and used for > other purposes also. > > If you respond to this, please consider trimming the response > significantly, since the content below will have been posted to all of the > four lists. > > IMO the question to be answered is: on which list, or using which vehicle, > can we collect broad involvement in issue-based threads that have to do > with aspects of Internet governance? If we can converge on an answer, then > we'll eliminate some redundancy and we'll have a more inclusive and more > positive discussion of issues. If the redundancy is felt to be useful, > then we can keep it; it's agreement on the focal point that's important > here. > > Comments? Suggestions? Criticisms? > > George > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > On Nov 25, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > > > I began this message 12 days ago in response to a thread started by > Michael Gurstein > Let's Get Real Folks--Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST > Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society > I gave up. Now I am encouraged to try again by this new thread > Re: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder > environment > begun by George Sadowsky. > > Is there any way to shift the focus from the people to the issues? > In the final analysis everyone belongs to civil society. That point was > made by a representative of a local telecommunications company at a recent > workshop on IXPs held in Saint Lucia. As he said, his children also query > the speed of the Internet at home when they have to do their homework. The > only people excluded from civil society are incarcerated prisoners, and > that also is a statement that can be questioned. If I understand him > correctly George Sadowsky is making the same point. Civil society is us - > all of us. > > Instead of trying to disentangle the stakeholders from one another could > we try to reach agreement on the aspects of the issues? If no one is > wearing any particular hat then it should be possible to obtain a clearer > picture of the issues that need to be discussed, and the multiple aspects > of those issues. > > Surely at least a part of the "multistakeholder" configuration of WSIS was > to provide a means of identifying and harnessing the different types of > expertise available, to tackle the different aspects of the challenges > created by the Internet and its proliferation. In hindsight the intention > must have been partially collaboration and cooperation. Sadly the focus > shifted to a third "c" - competition - so that instead of team-powered > problem solving we ended up with separation and power struggles. And now on > top of that comes betrayal and the death of trust. And the "little people" > the "grassroots" become even further excluded from discussion of the > interests that affect them, washed out in a wave of personalities and > accusations. > > We do not need to let this breakdown continue. We CAN work together, we've > done it before. Trust can be rebuilt. It is a hard slow process, but each > of us retains threads of trust which we consider still to be viable. > Otherwise we would not be communicating at all. Weave these threads > together and we can build something stronger than what existed before, > because we will be depending on one another instead of on abstract external > factors. And together we will be able to disaggregate the issues into their > component aspects and negotiate a point of balance among the differing > needs of government, technicians, business and society. > > Deirdre > > > On 24 November 2013 12:59, George Sadowsky > wrote: > > All, > > *Please note that the opinions that follow are my own personal opinions > and are independent of any of the organizations with which I am affiliated.* > > <> > > > So with that understanding, I'd like to throw out some thoughts to see if > any of them resonate with any of you. > > *First*, I believe that the introduction of the idea of multi-stakeholder > approaches has had a significant negative effect between the Internet > technical community and the community that has coalesced to represent > classical civil society concerns. As I recall in the 1990s, these > communities were considerably intermingled; the promise of the Internet > encouraged us not only to help it evolve in beneficial ways but also to > explore how to exploit it for social and economic benefits. > > The solidification of different stakeholder groups resulting from the WSIS > process, caused informal differences to formalize. Issues of > representation, power, time at the microphone, visibility on (sometimes > competing) lists and victory in arguments on those lists grew, while > informal discussion gradually declined. Polarization of opinion grew as > willingness to respect others' opinions and to agree civilly to disagree > suffered. > > *Second*, I believe that the specific role of the Internet technical > community as a stakeholder group for the purposes of participating in the > MAG and in the IGF is not properly understood. At this point in its > evolution, the Internet is a very complex system at most levels. In order > to understand fully the implications of policies that have to do with > Internet administration, operation and governance, one has have a good > technical understand of what the effect of those policies will be at a > detailed level. The primary role of representatives of the Internet > technical community, in a MAG and IGF setting, is to study and understand > such effects and to inform those deliberating about them. That function > may well extend toward consideration of broader thematic areas and > suggestions of what needs to be discussed for continued Internet health, > either short or long term, or both. > > In the grand scheme of things, this is a moderately narrow focus, but it > is extremely important. > > *Third*, I believe that one result of formalized multi-stakeholderism > appears to have been to separate groups of people rather than separating > groups of ideas. A couple of examples illustrate the point. To the extent > that the Internet technical community does its work in guiding the MAG well > to enhance Internet evolution, I believe that involved representatives of > civil society benefit and should encourage their participation. > Conversely, representatives of the Internet technical community are > people, and many are very likely to have beliefs that are quite consistent > with the positions espoused by those same civil society representatives. > The multi-stakeholder approach, however, seems to create a silo effect that > minimizes or even denies the overlap of commonality of interest regarding > issues by separating people into different silos. So instead of > recognizing positive overlap of beliefs, the approach encourages a focus on > inter-stakeholder group separation. > > *Fourth*, I'd like to propose a reconceptualization of the term "civil > society." In the multi-stakeholder instantiation that is now employed by > the UN/MAG/IGF axis , it refers to groups if individuals, some representing > organizations of various sizes that agree to various extents regarding the > importance of individual rights of various kinds. These groups represent > civil society goals and are therefore grouped as "civil society" to > populate that stakeholder group. And although the goals of that group are > generally quite positive, their actions are often based upon pushing back > against other stakeholder groups, most notably government but also others. > Perhaps that reflects the reality of the tension between groups, but that > tension is not moderated, as it might sometimes be, by people bridging > groups instead of being siloed. > > An alternate way to define civil society is to start with all people in > the world and remove government involvement, the private sector > involvement, and perhaps other large institutional influences. To borrow a > phrase from Apple, what is left is "the rest of us," and it contains > fractions, generally large fractions of most of us as individuals. > > Most individuals have interests in more than one sector or stakeholder > group. We have interactions with government and may work for it. > Alternatively we may work for a private or other public sector > organization. Almost all of us are increasingly users of the internet. > Using this approach, perhaps an aggregate of 5 billion of us constitute > "civil society," as opposed to the people who are now labeled as being in > the civil society stakeholder group. If we are all civil society in large > parts of our lives, then we all have some claim to represent our views as > we live. Thus, a representative of Internet technology on the MAG is > likely to, and has a right to opine on issues in the larger space, just as > self-defined representatives of civil society positions have a right to do. > This illustrates again how the various stakeholder groups, or silos, are > really quite intertwined, making the siloed and often competitive > relationships between them at a formal level quite unrepresentative of the > underlying reality, > > *I conclude* that the multi-stakeholder approach that is accepted to be > an approach to bring us together, has not insignificant negative > externalities that serve to keep us apart. We need to assess the > multi-stakeholder approach with that in mind If it is retained as an > organizing principle, we need to recognize and understand those negative > effects so that we can minimize them and can exploit the positive aspects > of that approach. > > This is a much longer note than I ordinarily write, but it has helped me > to understand some of the roots of the often unnecessarily antagonistic > relationship between proponents of issues important to civil society and > technical community experts guiding the evolution of the Internet. Thank > you for taking the time to read it. I realize that what I have written, > and any discussion of it, is considerably more nuanced than what I have > presented above. However, I have tried to present the core of some ideas > that I think may be useful. The more nuanced discussion can and will come > later. > > Your comments are welcome. > > George > > > > > <> > > > _______________________________________________ > I-coordination mailing listI-coordination at nro.nethttps://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination > > > _______________________________________________ > I-coordination mailing list > I-coordination at nro.net > https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination > > > > _______________________________________________ > To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, > please log into the ISOC Member Portal: > https://portal.isoc.org/ > Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alex at privacy.org Mon Dec 2 09:48:57 2013 From: alex at privacy.org (Alexandrine Pirlot de Corbion) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 14:48:57 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [I-coordination] [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment In-Reply-To: <529591D1.7060409@itforchange.net> References: <249293DBA79E4116A89ACA705A26AD87@Toshiba> <14B804AD-FA81-4159-BDB9-B232DCF1B9FA@gmail.com> <06fe01cee86c$8ce59050$a6b0b0f0$@gmail.com> <5BDB0B33-2010-4E2C-9750-04CB82B5C6E2@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257073F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <529591D1.7060409@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hello, I am contacting you from Privacy International (PI) based in London. Here is a quick introduction of Pl for those who are not familiar with our work. PI is committed to fighting for the right to privacy across the world. Working with 19 partners worldwide, we are doing research and advocacy activities on promoting the right to privacy and doing an analysis on the legal, institutional framework upholding the rights to privacy and the protection of personal data advocating for strong national, regional, and international laws that protect privacy. Additionally, we investigate the secret world of government surveillance and expose the companies enabling it. We litigate to ensure that surveillance is consistent with the rule of law. We conduct research to catalyse policy change. We raise awareness about technologies and laws that place privacy at risk, to ensure that the public is informed and engaged. I was present in Bali at the IGF and have been following the discussions within this forum and others on Brazil and internet governance in general since. First of all, we are glad to being following the intense and productive discussions happening through this mailing list which we sincerely hope will contribute towards ensuring the multi-stakeholder nature of the process as well as the event as promised by Brazil but also those who are leading the discussions for its organisation. As the broad scope of the Brazil meeting, the development of internet governance as an issue, and the on-going international debate since the Snowden revelations have shown (i.e. recently passed UNGA on right to privacy to be voted in early December), the issue has expanded to have to consider the right to privacy and the protection of personal data, and the use of surveillance technologies or if I may say so, the abuse of communication mediums and technologies for surveillance purposes. Hence I was wondering what opportunities and space there will be for organisations like PI (i.e. not part of Best Bits and other internet governance focused groups as such) to be involved in the decision making process of the civil society reps for the committees but in general in the discussion leading up to and beyond this meeting. We look forward to hearing people’s thoughts and welcome suggestions. Best, Alexandrine Alexandrine Pirlot de Corbion Advocacy Officer Privacy International 62 Britton Street London, EC1M 5UY United Kingdom E: alex at privacy.org W: www.privacyinternational.org T: + 44 (0) 203 422 4321 Skype: alexpdec.pi Privacy International is a registered charity (No. 1147471). On 27 Nov 2013, at 06:31, parminder wrote: > > On Tuesday 26 November 2013 03:11 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> George >> Normally I would be very much in favor of shifting attention to issues and substantive proposals. But in the present context, that constitutes a diversion from the real problem at hand. >> >> The preparations for the Brazil conference have pushed representational issues to the fore. Specifically, we have an entity called 1net that has been given the authority to appoint half of the members of the steering committees for the conference, > > I dont think such an authority was ever give to 1net.... Though there seems to have been a strong attempt to claim it - so strong that many people thought they already had it . parminder > >> and which has also promised that a fixed number of slots on these steering committees will be given to specific stakeholder groups. >> >> Because these steering committees will control the agenda of the conference, and hence will be in de facto control of our discussion of substantive issues at the Sao Paulo conference, it behooves even those of us exclusively interested in substan > > > > >> tive issues to pay attention to the composition of those committees. >> >> In particular, the coordinating committee of 1net itself needs to be settled. Get that done, and yes, we can start to focus on substantive issues. >> >> --MM >> >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky >> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 12:38 PM >> To: Deirdre Williams >> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; gurstein michael; Peter Ian; bestbits; Akplogan Adiel A.; Swinehart Theresa; internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org; i-coordination at nro.net; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Subject: Re: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment >> >> Deirdre, and all, >> >> Thank you, Deirdre. I take your point that we should consider shifting the focus to issue-based discussions and away from stakeholder membership-based discussions. That is a very good way to phrase it. (Note that accepting such a shift does not imply that it should replace all other stakeholder membership activities.) >> >> Where should we have these issue-based discussions? There have been a number of good and provocative responses to what I wrote below, and I really don't know where to post them and my reactions to them. How can we get these conversations started in a productive and inclusive manner? >> >> We now have four relevant lists that I know of, and here may well be more: >> >> - the IGC list, >> - the BestBits list, >> - the ISOC policy list, and >> - the new 1Net coordination list. >> >> Many of us subscribe to some or all of these list, and therefore see the same posting more than once. I subscribe to all four of the above. >> >> With some trepidation, I'm going to post this message on all of the above lists, with the hope that we can converge on an acceptable solution. [I have trimmed some early postings below that led to this point in the discussion.] I myself would favor the 1net list, simply because it is new and meant to be all-inclusive specifically for this purpose, whereas other lists may be (I think) somewhat restrictive and more focused and used for other purposes also. >> >> If you respond to this, please consider trimming the response significantly, since the content below will have been posted to all of the four lists. >> >> IMO the question to be answered is: on which list, or using which vehicle, can we collect broad involvement in issue-based threads that have to do with aspects of Internet governance? If we can converge on an answer, then we'll eliminate some redundancy and we'll have a more inclusive and more positive discussion of issues. If the redundancy is felt to be useful, then we can keep it; it's agreement on the focal point that's important here. >> >> Comments? Suggestions? Criticisms? >> >> George >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> On Nov 25, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> >> >> I began this message 12 days ago in response to a thread started by Michael Gurstein >> Let's Get Real Folks--Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society >> >> I gave up. Now I am encouraged to try again by this new thread >> Re: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment >> >> begun by George Sadowsky. >> >> Is there any way to shift the focus from the people to the issues? >> In the final analysis everyone belongs to civil society. That point was made by a representative of a local telecommunications company at a recent workshop on IXPs held in Saint Lucia. As he said, his children also query the speed of the Internet at home when they have to do their homework. The only people excluded from civil society are incarcerated prisoners, and that also is a statement that can be questioned. If I understand him correctly George Sadowsky is making the same point. Civil society is us - all of us. >> >> Instead of trying to disentangle the stakeholders from one another could we try to reach agreement on the aspects of the issues? If no one is wearing any particular hat then it should be possible to obtain a clearer picture of the issues that need to be discussed, and the multiple aspects of those issues. >> >> Surely at least a part of the "multistakeholder" configuration of WSIS was to provide a means of identifying and harnessing the different types of expertise available, to tackle the different aspects of the challenges created by the Internet and its proliferation. In hindsight the intention must have been partially collaboration and cooperation. Sadly the focus shifted to a third "c" - competition - so that instead of team-powered problem solving we ended up with separation and power struggles. And now on top of that comes betrayal and the death of trust. And the "little people" the "grassroots" become even further excluded from discussion of the interests that affect them, washed out in a wave of personalities and accusations. >> >> We do not need to let this breakdown continue. We CAN work together, we've done it before. Trust can be rebuilt. It is a hard slow process, but each of us retains threads of trust which we consider still to be viable. Otherwise we would not be communicating at all. Weave these threads together and we can build something stronger than what existed before, because we will be depending on one another instead of on abstract external factors. And together we will be able to disaggregate the issues into their component aspects and negotiate a point of balance among the differing needs of government, technicians, business and society. >> >> Deirdre >> >> >> On 24 November 2013 12:59, George Sadowsky wrote: >> >> All, >> >> Please note that the opinions that follow are my own personal opinions and are independent of any of the organizations with which I am affiliated. >> >> <> >> >> >> So with that understanding, I'd like to throw out some thoughts to see if any of them resonate with any of you. >> >> First, I believe that the introduction of the idea of multi-stakeholder approaches has had a significant negative effect between the Internet technical community and the community that has coalesced to represent classical civil society concerns. As I recall in the 1990s, these communities were considerably intermingled; the promise of the Internet encouraged us not only to help it evolve in beneficial ways but also to explore how to exploit it for social and economic benefits. >> >> The solidification of different stakeholder groups resulting from the WSIS process, caused informal differences to formalize. Issues of representation, power, time at the microphone, visibility on (sometimes competing) lists and victory in arguments on those lists grew, while informal discussion gradually declined. Polarization of opinion grew as willingness to respect others' opinions and to agree civilly to disagree suffered. >> >> Second, I believe that the specific role of the Internet technical community as a stakeholder group for the purposes of participating in the MAG and in the IGF is not properly understood. At this point in its evolution, the Internet is a very complex system at most levels. In order to understand fully the implications of policies that have to do with Internet administration, operation and governance, one has have a good technical understand of what the effect of those policies will be at a detailed level. The primary role of representatives of the Internet technical community, in a MAG and IGF setting, is to study and understand such effects and to inform those deliberating about them. That function may well extend toward consideration of broader thematic areas and suggestions of what needs to be discussed for continued Internet health, either short or long term, or both. >> >> In the grand scheme of things, this is a moderately narrow focus, but it is extremely important. >> >> Third, I believe that one result of formalized multi-stakeholderism appears to have been to separate groups of people rather than separating groups of ideas. A couple of examples illustrate the point. To the extent that the Internet technical community does its work in guiding the MAG well to enhance Internet evolution, I believe that involved representatives of civil society benefit and should encourage their participation. Conversely, representatives of the Internet technical community are people, and many are very likely to have beliefs that are quite consistent with the positions espoused by those same civil society representatives. The multi-stakeholder approach, however, seems to create a silo effect that minimizes or even denies the overlap of commonality of interest regarding issues by separating people into different silos. So instead of recognizing positive overlap of beliefs, the approach encourages a focus on inter-stakeholder group separation. >> >> Fourth, I'd like to propose a reconceptualization of the term "civil society." In the multi-stakeholder instantiation that is now employed by the UN/MAG/IGF axis , it refers to groups if individuals, some representing organizations of various sizes that agree to various extents regarding the importance of individual rights of various kinds. These groups represent civil society goals and are therefore grouped as "civil society" to populate that stakeholder group. And although the goals of that group are generally quite positive, their actions are often based upon pushing back against other stakeholder groups, most notably government but also others. Perhaps that reflects the reality of the tension between groups, but that tension is not moderated, as it might sometimes be, by people bridging groups instead of being siloed. >> >> An alternate way to define civil society is to start with all people in the world and remove government involvement, the private sector involvement, and perhaps other large institutional influences. To borrow a phrase from Apple, what is left is "the rest of us," and it contains fractions, generally large fractions of most of us as individuals. >> >> Most individuals have interests in more than one sector or stakeholder group. We have interactions with government and may work for it. Alternatively we may work for a private or other public sector organization. Almost all of us are increasingly users of the internet. Using this approach, perhaps an aggregate of 5 billion of us constitute "civil society," as opposed to the people who are now labeled as being in the civil society stakeholder group. If we are all civil society in large parts of our lives, then we all have some claim to represent our views as we live. Thus, a representative of Internet technology on the MAG is likely to, and has a right to opine on issues in the larger space, just as self-defined representatives of civil society positions have a right to do. This illustrates again how the various stakeholder groups, or silos, are really quite intertwined, making the siloed and often competitive relationships between them at a formal level quite unrepresentative of the underlying reality, >> >> I conclude that the multi-stakeholder approach that is accepted to be an approach to bring us together, has not insignificant negative externalities that serve to keep us apart. We need to assess the multi-stakeholder approach with that in mind If it is retained as an organizing principle, we need to recognize and understand those negative effects so that we can minimize them and can exploit the positive aspects of that approach. >> >> This is a much longer note than I ordinarily write, but it has helped me to understand some of the roots of the often unnecessarily antagonistic relationship between proponents of issues important to civil society and technical community experts guiding the evolution of the Internet. Thank you for taking the time to read it. I realize that what I have written, and any discussion of it, is considerably more nuanced than what I have presented above. However, I have tried to present the core of some ideas that I think may be useful. The more nuanced discussion can and will come later. >> >> Your comments are welcome. >> >> George >> >> >> >> <> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> I-coordination mailing list >> I-coordination at nro.net >> https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination > > _______________________________________________ > I-coordination mailing list > I-coordination at nro.net > https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Dec 2 19:39:52 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 08:39:52 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [Internet Policy] [I-coordination] [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment In-Reply-To: References: <249293DBA79E4116A89ACA705A26AD87@Toshiba> <14B804AD-FA81-4159-BDB9-B232DCF1B9FA@gmail.com> <06fe01cee86c$8ce59050$a6b0b0f0$@gmail.com> <5BDB0B33-2010-4E2C-9750-04CB82B5C6E2@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257073F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <529591D1.7060409@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <530C1EAF-3BA6-4F60-8C45-99E9FC941DEA@ciroap.org> On 2 Dec 2013, at 11:11 pm, Vint Cerf wrote: > Jeremy can we link in ALAC for ICANN aspects? > Thanks, I will pass this on, though note Robin Gross is already participating for NCSG. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From pranesh at cis-india.org Mon Dec 2 19:55:28 2013 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 19:55:28 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Cross-posting on IGC Message-ID: <529D2C00.1000206@cis-india.org> Dear all, There's been a lot of cross-posting between this list (not counting summit@, etc.) and the IGC. A quick round up shows: * 740 mails sent to the IGC list which have also been sent to this list * 520 of those were since 2013-09-01. * 2180 mails sent to the IGC list since 2013-09-01. This means roughly 1/4 of all mails sent to the IGC list since September 1, 2013, were also sent to Best Bits list. * 632 mails sent to the Best Bits list have also been sent to the IGC list * 457 of those were since 2013-09-01. * 1290 mails sent to the Best Bits list since 2013-09-01. This means that more than 1/3 of all mails sent to the Best Bits list since September 1, 2013, were also sent to the IGC list. ==== I really don't see the point in having separate lists if: a) The people on both are overlapping to a large extent; b) The discussions on both lists are going to not only be similar, but are going to be the same. While cross-posting is sometimes inevitable, I urge that we try and keep it to a minimum. If that isn't really possible given the overlapping concerns, I feel we need to question the need for a separate list. Regards, Pranesh -- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash -------------------- Postgraduate Associate & Access to Knowledge Fellow Information Society Project, Yale Law School T: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From pranesh at cis-india.org Mon Dec 2 20:20:24 2013 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 20:20:24 -0500 Subject: Multi-Equal Stakeholderism (was Re: [bestbits] Joint civil society endorsements for London meeting of High-Level Panel) In-Reply-To: References: <16AB4A2A-C1F1-4929-BD90-9976DFC1391A@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <529D31D8.8010109@cis-india.org> McTim [2013-11-30 18:19]: >> , since many would say the IETF is not multi-stakeholder all, >> > > I've never met anyone who has ever said that. Are you actually trying to > make that claim? I'm curious, McTim: Has IETF ever made the claim that it is multi-stakeholder? Given the numerous documents in which IETF processes are described in great detail, is there any official IETF document where IETF refers to itself/its processes, etc., using that word? I can't find references in any Internet draft, RFC, etc., to IETF itself/its processes being multi-stakeholder.[1] [1]: http://goo.gl/443gya The closest I can find is a recent blog post by Jari Arkko in which he states: > "Some of you may have heard the term “multi-stakeholder” and thought about it as an abstract concept. But it is a very real concept, and one that we have to employ when developing any significant Internet technology." > Where the "we" presumably is the IETF. Otherwise, the other things that IETF documents have referred to as "multi-stakeholder", include: * ICANN (draft-diao-aip-dns / draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01.txt) * "Internet Numbers Registry System" (RFC 7020) * IGF (draft-bollow-ectf-07) * Internet governance (draft-hill-itr-non-accession-harmful-00) Regards, Pranesh -- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash -------------------- Access to Knowledge Fellow Information Society Project, Yale Law School T: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From pranesh at cis-india.org Mon Dec 2 21:08:39 2013 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 21:08:39 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Re: Multi-Equal Stakeholderism In-Reply-To: References: <16AB4A2A-C1F1-4929-BD90-9976DFC1391A@ciroap.org> <529A20AD.1050300@cis-india.org> <7d0aca53-f0d8-4f4c-94bf-0ab24ada2e7d@email.android.com> <529A40A6.1060201@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <529D3D27.2000001@cis-india.org> Avri Doria [2013-11-30 15:22]: > I don't know about how many government types use their government > email l. Not sure i understand why that matters. We see bunches using > other addresses in IGF space, so I am nor sure it is a clear > indicator. In any case I will see if there are any stats. I guess one other way to look at it would be to ask: * Has any government official ever co-authored an RFC? * Has any government official (especially non-US) ever participated in IETF discussions in an official capacity? McTim [2013-11-30 18:19]: > It's a great example. Can you name other settings in Internet policy that > has folks operating as equals without being divided by silos? Where > government folks and CS and people who run telco networks all have the same > status? Who are these "government folks" that are being talked about? Sure, they're "free" to come join the discussion, but unless they are actually part of the discussions, it makes little sense to talk of them having the "same status".[1] Formal equality vs. actual equality. Please note, I'm not making an argument that IETF should change and try and get government participation. I'm just saying that governments haven't participated in IETF. [1]: On the moon ants and antelopes have the same status. -- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash -------------------- Access to Knowledge Fellow Information Society Project, Yale Law School T: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From pranesh at cis-india.org Mon Dec 2 21:22:12 2013 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 21:22:12 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT In-Reply-To: <0a4401ceef73$1ff01bb0$5fd05310$@gmail.com> References: <0a4401ceef73$1ff01bb0$5fd05310$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <529D4054.7040306@cis-india.org> michael gurstein [2013-12-02 10:28]: > As of now the Community Informatics network as aligned around an > “Internet Justice” platform is sufficiently “formalized” that I can > speak on its behalf as a global network of community/grassroots and > community/grassroots oriented practitioners, researchers, and > activists and make representations including to Inet and the > Brazilian authorities on its behalf. When you talk of the "community informatics network", are you referring to this group of people? http://cirn.wikispaces.com/people -- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash -------------------- Access to Knowledge Fellow Information Society Project, Yale Law School T: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Dec 2 21:49:45 2013 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 11:49:45 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Gene, thanks for the reply. I feel some aggressive tone there with kind of mix of "shut-up" , "take it or leave it" and "if you don't like, you can quit", at least that is my interpretation . For sure that is not the best way to engage and convince people . If I recall correctly the interim steering committee started this summer (july) and that is before the brazil meeting announcement in October. I guess that any interim steering committee has a first goal to propose a long-term setting or process and moving from the transitional phase. we can every time postpone that arguing we have new challenges and issues to handle, but till when? it looks like technical debt in the software development world. There are concerns and I don't share all of them, but dismissing is not the answer .Why? because for every decision, move , they will pop-up again over again, why not to respond them now ? I can live with Anriette proposal and find it acceptable while I found that term is long and can be shorten. I feel that people are in defensive mode and react to critics. this discussion is not about individuals at all. We as individuals involved in CS world in different manners and fora, we tend to lecture others about accountability, transparency, sometimes in the borderline of patronizing, shouldn't we live to those principles first? I am not going further in this discussion since I think I expressed what I have to say already and not willing to disturb the social peace. Best, Rafik 2013/12/2 genekimmelman at gmail.com > To be more specific, maybe those with lingering concerns need to decide > whether they want to participate on the best bits platform or not. You > decide. If you think you can make it work better, please offer ideas like > Anriette, Michael and others have done. I believe we decided in Bali on an > approach and I endorse Anriette's path toward formalizing this. And I > suggest we wrap up this conversation for now and move on to substance. > Otherwise we delegitimze the broad support people worked towards over two > days in Bali and make it more difficult to prepare for Brazil. > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Rafik Dammak > Date: 12/02/2013 8:22 AM (GMT-05:00) > To: genekimmelman at gmail.com > Cc: William Drake ,Parminder < > parminder at itforchange.net>,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - > URGENT > > > every response with such reluctance and such kind of arguments raise more > questions than giving answers or appeasing those with concerns. > as reminder BestBits initiative started in august 2012 when people were > talking about WCIT and prepared first meeting IGF Baku, we will be in 2014 > in few weeks and we are still with temporary settings. > > Rafik > > 2013/12/2 genekimmelman at gmail.com > >> Internal accountability to a group with shared goals may differ from >> societal/global policy goals that the group will agree to if all others >> with power agree as well. Best not to confuse these. We should be >> accountable but not create internal processes that make it impossible to >> coordinate policy actions. >> >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: William Drake >> Date: 12/02/2013 3:52 AM (GMT-05:00) >> To: Parminder Singh >> Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Best Bits" >> >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - >> URGENT >> >> >> +1! >> >> On Dec 2, 2013, at 9:23 AM, parminder wrote: >> >> Civil society must always remain very vary of thinking of themselves as >> somehow so morally superior that they are exempt from normal accountability >> and transparency requirements >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From genekimmelman at gmail.com Mon Dec 2 22:19:51 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 22:19:51 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT Message-ID: <4cw8diiesyylf3jwi8kxd4px.1386040791760@email.android.com> Rafik, sorry if my message came across as aggressive,  it was not meant that way. I won't debate further either, you raise important points that deserve consideration.  I believe there have been some interesting process proposals put on the table to work out.  My tone was only meant to express my sense that we need to reach a point of resolution so we can focus adequate attention to substantive policy concerns.  And I must also admit that as a 30 year veteran of policy strategy,  I have never placed transparency as a goal equal to social equity, economic justice,  or the protection of fundamental human rights. Maybe  others in CS have a different hierarchy of concerns and therefore are more focused on how internal process rules are consistent with external demands of policymakers.  I'm just explaining that I personally think internal legitimacy of our group among those who opt in requires a sense of trust that may be quite different from transparency rules. And I look forward to working out how we can generate and maintain that trust as we actively engage in our work.  -------- Original message -------- From: Rafik Dammak Date: 12/02/2013 9:49 PM (GMT-05:00) To: genekimmelman at gmail.com Cc: William Drake ,Parminder ,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT Hi Gene, thanks for the reply. I feel some aggressive tone there with kind of mix of "shut-up" , "take it or leave it" and "if you don't like, you can quit", at least that is my interpretation . For sure that is not the best way to engage and convince people . If I recall correctly the interim steering committee started this summer (july) and that is before the brazil meeting announcement in October. I guess that any interim steering committee has a first goal to propose a long-term setting or process and moving from the transitional phase. we can every time postpone that arguing we have new challenges and issues to handle, but till when? it looks like technical debt in the software development world. There are concerns and I don't share all of them, but dismissing is not the answer .Why? because for every decision, move , they will pop-up again over again, why not to respond them now ? I can live with Anriette proposal and find it acceptable while I found that term is long and can be shorten.  I feel that people are in defensive mode and react to critics. this discussion is not about individuals at all. We as individuals involved in CS world in different manners and fora, we tend to lecture others about accountability, transparency, sometimes in the borderline of patronizing, shouldn't we live to those principles first? I am not going further in this discussion since I think I expressed what I have to say already and not willing to disturb the social peace. Best, Rafik 2013/12/2 genekimmelman at gmail.com To be more specific,  maybe those with lingering concerns need to decide whether they want to participate on the best bits platform or not. You decide.  If you think you can make it work better,  please offer ideas like Anriette, Michael and others have done. I believe we decided in Bali on an approach and I endorse Anriette's path toward formalizing this. And I suggest we wrap up this conversation for now and move on to substance.  Otherwise we delegitimze the broad support people worked towards over two days in Bali and make it more difficult to prepare for Brazil.  -------- Original message -------- From: Rafik Dammak Date: 12/02/2013 8:22 AM (GMT-05:00) To: genekimmelman at gmail.com Cc: William Drake ,Parminder ,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT every response with such reluctance and  such kind of arguments raise more questions than giving answers or appeasing those with concerns. as reminder BestBits initiative started in august 2012 when people were talking about WCIT and prepared first meeting IGF Baku, we will be in 2014 in few weeks and we are still with temporary settings. Rafik 2013/12/2 genekimmelman at gmail.com Internal accountability to a group with shared goals may differ from societal/global policy goals that the group will agree to if all others with power agree as well.  Best not to confuse these.  We should be accountable but not create internal processes that make it impossible to coordinate policy actions.  -------- Original message -------- From: William Drake Date: 12/02/2013 3:52 AM (GMT-05:00) To: Parminder Singh Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Best Bits" Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT +1!  On Dec 2, 2013, at 9:23 AM, parminder wrote: Civil society must always remain very vary of thinking of themselves as somehow so morally superior that they are exempt from normal accountability and transparency requirements ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Guru at ITforChange.net Mon Dec 2 22:54:40 2013 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 09:24:40 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] The Googlization of the Far Right .... Message-ID: <529D5600.3080209@ITforChange.net> This was bound to happen.... with loosening regulation of spending on political purposes, deep pockets especially of Internet based businesses will push private interests and hurt democracy, in the US and globally... something for IG CS to be concerned about... regards Guru http://truth-out.org/news/item/20372-the-googlization-of-the-far-right-why-is-google-funding-grover-norquist-heritage-action-and-alec excerpts.... "Political spending for corporations is purely transactional. It is all about getting policies that maximize profitability," Bob McChesney told CMD. “So even ostensibly hip companies like Google invariably spend lavishly to support groups and politicians that pursue decidedly anti-democratic policy outcomes. It is why sane democracies strictly regulate or even prohibit such spending, regarding it accurately as a cancer for democratic governance." Professor McChesney co-founded the media reform group Free Press in 2002, and this year authored How Capitalism is Turning the Internet Against Democracy..... ....Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), the anti-government group run by Republican operative Grover Norquist, was another new recipient of funding from Google in 2013. ATR is best known for its “Taxpayer Protection Pledge,” and for its fundamentalist attacks on any Republican who might dare to vote for any increase in taxes. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, ATR received 85% of its funding in 2012 ($26.4 million) from the ultra-partisan Karl Rove-run Crossroads GPS, another dark money group. ATR President Grover Norquist infamously said that he wants to shrink government "down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." Google’s position on the relative size of government versus bathtubs is not known, but according to a Bloomberg analysis of Google’s U.S. corporate filings, it avoids approximately $2 billion dollars globally in tax payments each year through the use of creative tax shelters. Bloomberg reported in May 2013 that in France alone Google is in the midst of a dispute over more than $1 billion in unpaid taxes that have been alleged. An August 2013 report by U.S. PIRG – “Offshore Shell Games ” -- found that Google is now holding more than $33 billion dollars offshore, avoiding taxes on these earnings in the United States. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Dec 2 23:12:40 2013 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 13:12:40 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [Internet Policy] [I-coordination] [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment In-Reply-To: <530C1EAF-3BA6-4F60-8C45-99E9FC941DEA@ciroap.org> References: <249293DBA79E4116A89ACA705A26AD87@Toshiba> <14B804AD-FA81-4159-BDB9-B232DCF1B9FA@gmail.com> <06fe01cee86c$8ce59050$a6b0b0f0$@gmail.com> <5BDB0B33-2010-4E2C-9750-04CB82B5C6E2@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257073F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <529591D1.7060409@itforchange.net> <530C1EAF-3BA6-4F60-8C45-99E9FC941DEA@ciroap.org> Message-ID: hello, Wearing the NCSG chair hat here , I confirm what Jeremy explained, that we are participating in that CS group as an SG involved within ICANN. I notice that several lists are in cc and probably not everybody is subscribed to all of them. Best, Rafik 2013/12/3 Jeremy Malcolm > On 2 Dec 2013, at 11:11 pm, Vint Cerf wrote: > > Jeremy can we link in ALAC for ICANN aspects? > > > Thanks, I will pass this on, though note Robin Gross is already > participating for NCSG. > > -- > > > > *Dr Jeremy MalcolmSenior Policy Officer Consumers International | the > global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub > |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Dec 2 23:39:22 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 20:39:22 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT In-Reply-To: <529D4054.7040306@cis-india.org> References: <0a4401ceef73$1ff01bb0$5fd05310$@gmail.com> <529D4054.7040306@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <0fc001ceefe1$a3d30a00$eb791e00$@gmail.com> Hi Pranesh, Those are some of the people, but no I'm referring to the group around here http://vancouvercommunity.net/lists/info/ciresearchers and here http://vancouvercommunity.net/lists/info/cracin-canada and here http://vancouvercommunity.net/lists/info/ci-research-sa and 3 or 4 more, of which the group you are pointing to would be a subset who have been involved in one way or another in a Community Informatics conference which has been held for the last ten years or so annually in Prato, Italy... The organizational dynamics are a bit complicated as the community has grown quite considerably and rhyzomatically and taken a number of directions and organizational forms over the last 10-15 years... The best overall perspective probably can be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_informatics... I try to give a bit of an overview and introduction at a talk I gave at the U. of British Columbia a couple of year ago.. here... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWpFiebFRDI Hope this helps, M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Pranesh Prakash Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 6:22 PM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT michael gurstein [2013-12-02 10:28]: > As of now the Community Informatics network as aligned around an > “Internet Justice” platform is sufficiently “formalized” that I can > speak on its behalf as a global network of community/grassroots and > community/grassroots oriented practitioners, researchers, and > activists and make representations including to Inet and the Brazilian > authorities on its behalf. When you talk of the "community informatics network", are you referring to this group of people? http://cirn.wikispaces.com/people -- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash -------------------- Access to Knowledge Fellow Information Society Project, Yale Law School T: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Dec 3 05:06:08 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 18:06:08 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT In-Reply-To: <0a4401ceef73$1ff01bb0$5fd05310$@gmail.com> References: <0a4401ceef73$1ff01bb0$5fd05310$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <529DAD10.90203@ciroap.org> On 02/12/13 23:28, michael gurstein wrote: > > Can I quote from the BB “procedures” (BTW, I probably missed it but > when were these proposed and ratified?) > Just below the part that you quoted, it actually explains that any procedure marked with [RFC] (which is currently all of them) has not been ratified and is still open for discussion and revision. A number of the procedures, for example the one on producing statements, have already benefited from feedback from multiple parties, including specific languages changes. So that is the process we have been going through to try to reach agreed upon procedures that work for everyone. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 263 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Dec 3 05:16:55 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 18:16:55 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT In-Reply-To: <529CBF32.7070005@itforchange.net> References: <70C0E2CA-1B52-45AC-9CD6-039373D2D440@ciroap.org> <529CBF32.7070005@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <529DAF97.5060401@ciroap.org> On 03/12/13 01:11, parminder wrote: > My preferred option is to make BB into a membership based > organisation. My impression at its inaugural meeting was that it was > supposed to emerge as a membership based body, where serious and > committed civil society organisations/ individuals will like to work > together in peace and with focus, away from the general din of civil > society conversations. Thanks, that's really much more helpful. We now know that your main objection is that you want a more tightly institutionalised Best Bits, closer to an organisation than to a loose platform or network, and you have now described what you are looking for specifically and clearly. However it does seem fair to say that most others don't want those changes, at the current point in time. This came across both at the meeting in Bali, and in responses here. Can we therefore park this disagreement and revisit it once the interim steering committee have issued their 2013 report, that Anriette called for in her proposal? This will at least give people (you and others) more background to inform their decision about whether Best Bits should change into an organisation with specific membership criteria, charter, etc. Meanwhile we can also try to limit straying into acting as a de facto organisation, though I still contend that there may be some actions that we can take, beyond sign-on statements, that the community should be able to endorse us doing by overall consensus, without requiring all the additional organisational baggage. Let's take the heat down a notch - your latest reply has helped - and we will try to be sensitive to the differences between organisation that you have described. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 263 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From kichango at gmail.com Tue Dec 3 05:53:33 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 10:53:33 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Re: Multi-Equal Stakeholderism In-Reply-To: <529D3D27.2000001@cis-india.org> References: <16AB4A2A-C1F1-4929-BD90-9976DFC1391A@ciroap.org> <529A20AD.1050300@cis-india.org> <7d0aca53-f0d8-4f4c-94bf-0ab24ada2e7d@email.android.com> <529A40A6.1060201@cis-india.org> <529D3D27.2000001@cis-india.org> Message-ID: But in all these discussions, do we even factor in the fact that English is not a language everybody (not matter how bright) can speak, understand and work in? How many billion people on this earth are in that category? How many governments around the world have English as, if not their official, at least one of their working languages? You already have that which filters out so many people, before even subtracting more on the basis of technical literacy. Where does that leave us/ this idealized model? Maybe we should have a universal course called "Internet Infrastructure" or something like that, to be taught in all curricula around the world in both English and the local education language? Something like a basic literacy thing that will be taught at all levels with increasing complexity along levels of education -- a bit like we all did math until the end of high school? Only then, I can give some credence to the BS "multi-equal"-whatever meme, graciously accepting the fact that some of us will still have to work in two languages to be equal. Mawaki On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 2:08 AM, Pranesh Prakash wrote: > Avri Doria [2013-11-30 15:22]: > > I don't know about how many government types use their government > > email l. Not sure i understand why that matters. We see bunches using > > other addresses in IGF space, so I am nor sure it is a clear > > indicator. In any case I will see if there are any stats. > > I guess one other way to look at it would be to ask: > * Has any government official ever co-authored an RFC? > * Has any government official (especially non-US) ever participated in > IETF discussions in an official capacity? > > McTim [2013-11-30 18:19]: > > It's a great example. Can you name other settings in Internet policy > that > > has folks operating as equals without being divided by silos? Where > > government folks and CS and people who run telco networks all have the > same > > status? > > Who are these "government folks" that are being talked about? Sure, > they're "free" to come join the discussion, but unless they are actually > part of the discussions, it makes little sense to talk of them having > the "same status".[1] Formal equality vs. actual equality. > > Please note, I'm not making an argument that IETF should change and try > and get government participation. I'm just saying that governments > haven't participated in IETF. > > [1]: On the moon ants and antelopes have the same status. > > -- > Pranesh Prakash > Policy Director > Centre for Internet and Society > T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org > PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash > -------------------- > Access to Knowledge Fellow > Information Society Project, Yale Law School > T: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew at gp-digital.org Tue Dec 3 06:09:25 2013 From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 11:09:25 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT In-Reply-To: <529DAF97.5060401@ciroap.org> References: <70C0E2CA-1B52-45AC-9CD6-039373D2D440@ciroap.org> <529CBF32.7070005@itforchange.net> <529DAF97.5060401@ciroap.org> Message-ID: I think this is a sensible way forward. My sense from the Bali meeting is that there was little enthusiasm for becoming a membership organisation, with a clear preference for staying as a platform. That means being careful in how the BB name is used as we shouldn't suggest that it is an organisation in anything we do. And there's lots of work for civil society groups to work on in the next few months Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: 03 December 2013 10:17 To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT On 03/12/13 01:11, parminder wrote: My preferred option is to make BB into a membership based organisation. My impression at its inaugural meeting was that it was supposed to emerge as a membership based body, where serious and committed civil society organisations/ individuals will like to work together in peace and with focus, away from the general din of civil society conversations. Thanks, that's really much more helpful. We now know that your main objection is that you want a more tightly institutionalised Best Bits, closer to an organisation than to a loose platform or network, and you have now described what you are looking for specifically and clearly. However it does seem fair to say that most others don't want those changes, at the current point in time. This came across both at the meeting in Bali, and in responses here. Can we therefore park this disagreement and revisit it once the interim steering committee have issued their 2013 report, that Anriette called for in her proposal? This will at least give people (you and others) more background to inform their decision about whether Best Bits should change into an organisation with specific membership criteria, charter, etc. Meanwhile we can also try to limit straying into acting as a de facto organisation, though I still contend that there may be some actions that we can take, beyond sign-on statements, that the community should be able to endorse us doing by overall consensus, without requiring all the additional organisational baggage. Let's take the heat down a notch - your latest reply has helped - and we will try to be sensitive to the differences between organisation that you have described. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Dec 3 09:28:45 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 19:58:45 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <529DEA9D.9080400@itforchange.net> On Monday 02 December 2013 07:16 PM, genekimmelman at gmail.com wrote: > To be more specific, maybe those with lingering concerns need to > decide whether they want to participate on the best bits platform or > not. You decide. better, Gene, you are being over generous with your invitations to leave... earlier somewhat subtly, and this time rather bluntly... And this I would humbly suggest is no way to manage a civil society group... > If you think you can make it work please offer ideas like Anriette, > Michael and others have done. I believe we decided in Bali on an > approach and I endorse Anriette's path toward formalizing this. And I > suggest we wrap up this conversation for now and move on to substance. > Otherwise we delegitimze the broad support people worked towards over > two days in Bali and make it more difficult to prepare for Brazil. Ideas were given at the f2f meeting, which I have further elaborated in an email yesterday... And I am not sure what approach we have agreed in Bali, Can you please explain. (Anja, says in a recent email and I quote "we had agreed in the session that there would be structured discussions on various things that remained difficult and unanswered on the mailing list (eg, the tension between being a platform and something more organised, and how to deal with this tension)". Doesnt look like an agreement... As for 'transparency versus social/ economic justice' objectives that you speak of in response to Rafik's email -- I dont know how do you construct this as an either or.. It is entirely a strawman.. the organisations that are most keen and effective in their social / economic justice work that I have seen are also some of the best examples of transparency and accountability.... On the other hand I have witnesses such a dichotomy often claimed by third world dictators... parminder > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Rafik Dammak > Date: 12/02/2013 8:22 AM (GMT-05:00) > To: genekimmelman at gmail.com > Cc: William Drake ,Parminder > ,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - > URGENT > > > every response with such reluctance and such kind of arguments raise > more questions than giving answers or appeasing those with concerns. > as reminder BestBits initiative started in august 2012 when people > were talking about WCIT and prepared first meeting IGF Baku, we will > be in 2014 in few weeks and we are still with temporary settings. > > Rafik > > 2013/12/2 genekimmelman at gmail.com > > > > Internal accountability to a group with shared goals may differ > from societal/global policy goals that the group will agree to if > all others with power agree as well. Best not to confuse these. > We should be accountable but not create internal processes that > make it impossible to coordinate policy actions. > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: William Drake > > Date: 12/02/2013 3:52 AM (GMT-05:00) > To: Parminder Singh > > Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > Best Bits" > > > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your > approval - URGENT > > > +1! > > On Dec 2, 2013, at 9:23 AM, parminder > wrote: > >> Civil society must always remain very vary of thinking of >> themselves as somehow so morally superior that they are exempt >> from normal accountability and transparency requirements > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Dec 3 10:04:04 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 10:04:04 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT In-Reply-To: <4cw8diiesyylf3jwi8kxd4px.1386040791760@email.android.com> References: <4cw8diiesyylf3jwi8kxd4px.1386040791760@email.android.com> Message-ID: I agree. I do believe policy makers respond better when we have clear content proposals to make. For instance, the APC letter went up the latter really fast in the Brazilian government.... And I do feel we are in a crucial moment to develop such content focus proposals. I actually feel we are getting late. The sooner we can send in constructive proposals - based on the 3 items Andrew have sent - the better. I also do feel the tension in this list has been too high sometimes, and I do wish people read emails as per their words... Finally, Rafik, is there any news from your conversations at ICANN that you may have accessed and could share with us due to current mandate? C On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:19 PM, genekimmelman at gmail.com < genekimmelman at gmail.com> wrote: > Rafik, sorry if my message came across as aggressive, it was not meant > that way. I won't debate further either, you raise important points that > deserve consideration. I believe there have been some interesting process > proposals put on the table to work out. My tone was only meant to express > my sense that we need to reach a point of resolution so we can focus > adequate attention to substantive policy concerns. And I must also admit > that as a 30 year veteran of policy strategy, I have never placed > transparency as a goal equal to social equity, economic justice, or the > protection of fundamental human rights. Maybe others in CS have a > different hierarchy of concerns and therefore are more focused on how > internal process rules are consistent with external demands of > policymakers. I'm just explaining that I personally think internal > legitimacy of our group among those who opt in requires a sense of trust > that may be quite different from transparency rules. And I look forward to > working out how we can generate and maintain that trust as we actively > engage in our work. > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Rafik Dammak > Date: 12/02/2013 9:49 PM (GMT-05:00) > To: genekimmelman at gmail.com > Cc: William Drake ,Parminder < > parminder at itforchange.net>,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - > URGENT > > > Hi Gene, > > thanks for the reply. I feel some aggressive tone there with kind of mix > of "shut-up" , "take it or leave it" and "if you don't like, you can quit", > at least that is my interpretation . For sure that is not the best way to > engage and convince people . > > If I recall correctly the interim steering committee started this summer > (july) and that is before the brazil meeting announcement in October. I > guess that any interim steering committee has a first goal to propose a > long-term setting or process and moving from the transitional phase. we can > every time postpone that arguing we have new challenges and issues to > handle, but till when? it looks like technical debt in the software > development world. > > There are concerns and I don't share all of them, but dismissing is not > the answer .Why? because for every decision, move , they will pop-up again > over again, why not to respond them now ? > > I can live with Anriette proposal and find it acceptable while I found > that term is long and can be shorten. > > I feel that people are in defensive mode and react to critics. this > discussion is not about individuals at all. > > We as individuals involved in CS world in different manners and fora, we > tend to lecture others about accountability, transparency, sometimes in the > borderline of patronizing, shouldn't we live to those principles first? > > I am not going further in this discussion since I think I expressed what I > have to say already and not willing to disturb the social peace. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2013/12/2 genekimmelman at gmail.com > >> To be more specific, maybe those with lingering concerns need to decide >> whether they want to participate on the best bits platform or not. You >> decide. If you think you can make it work better, please offer ideas like >> Anriette, Michael and others have done. I believe we decided in Bali on an >> approach and I endorse Anriette's path toward formalizing this. And I >> suggest we wrap up this conversation for now and move on to substance. >> Otherwise we delegitimze the broad support people worked towards over two >> days in Bali and make it more difficult to prepare for Brazil. >> >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Rafik Dammak >> Date: 12/02/2013 8:22 AM (GMT-05:00) >> To: genekimmelman at gmail.com >> Cc: William Drake ,Parminder < >> parminder at itforchange.net>,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - >> URGENT >> >> >> every response with such reluctance and such kind of arguments raise >> more questions than giving answers or appeasing those with concerns. >> as reminder BestBits initiative started in august 2012 when people were >> talking about WCIT and prepared first meeting IGF Baku, we will be in 2014 >> in few weeks and we are still with temporary settings. >> >> Rafik >> >> 2013/12/2 genekimmelman at gmail.com >> >>> Internal accountability to a group with shared goals may differ from >>> societal/global policy goals that the group will agree to if all others >>> with power agree as well. Best not to confuse these. We should be >>> accountable but not create internal processes that make it impossible to >>> coordinate policy actions. >>> >>> >>> >>> -------- Original message -------- >>> From: William Drake >>> Date: 12/02/2013 3:52 AM (GMT-05:00) >>> To: Parminder Singh >>> Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Best Bits" < >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> >>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - >>> URGENT >>> >>> >>> +1! >>> >>> On Dec 2, 2013, at 9:23 AM, parminder wrote: >>> >>> Civil society must always remain very vary of thinking of themselves as >>> somehow so morally superior that they are exempt from normal accountability >>> and transparency requirements >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Dec 3 10:19:02 2013 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 00:19:02 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT In-Reply-To: References: <4cw8diiesyylf3jwi8kxd4px.1386040791760@email.android.com> Message-ID: Hi Carolina Finally, Rafik, is there any news from your conversations at ICANN that you > may have accessed and could share with us due to current mandate? > > I am not sure about this request, what news are you asking about? Rafik > C > > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:19 PM, genekimmelman at gmail.com < > genekimmelman at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Rafik, sorry if my message came across as aggressive, it was not meant >> that way. I won't debate further either, you raise important points that >> deserve consideration. I believe there have been some interesting process >> proposals put on the table to work out. My tone was only meant to express >> my sense that we need to reach a point of resolution so we can focus >> adequate attention to substantive policy concerns. And I must also admit >> that as a 30 year veteran of policy strategy, I have never placed >> transparency as a goal equal to social equity, economic justice, or the >> protection of fundamental human rights. Maybe others in CS have a >> different hierarchy of concerns and therefore are more focused on how >> internal process rules are consistent with external demands of >> policymakers. I'm just explaining that I personally think internal >> legitimacy of our group among those who opt in requires a sense of trust >> that may be quite different from transparency rules. And I look forward to >> working out how we can generate and maintain that trust as we actively >> engage in our work. >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Rafik Dammak >> Date: 12/02/2013 9:49 PM (GMT-05:00) >> To: genekimmelman at gmail.com >> Cc: William Drake ,Parminder < >> parminder at itforchange.net>,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - >> URGENT >> >> >> Hi Gene, >> >> thanks for the reply. I feel some aggressive tone there with kind of mix >> of "shut-up" , "take it or leave it" and "if you don't like, you can quit", >> at least that is my interpretation . For sure that is not the best way to >> engage and convince people . >> >> If I recall correctly the interim steering committee started this summer >> (july) and that is before the brazil meeting announcement in October. I >> guess that any interim steering committee has a first goal to propose a >> long-term setting or process and moving from the transitional phase. we can >> every time postpone that arguing we have new challenges and issues to >> handle, but till when? it looks like technical debt in the software >> development world. >> >> There are concerns and I don't share all of them, but dismissing is not >> the answer .Why? because for every decision, move , they will pop-up again >> over again, why not to respond them now ? >> >> I can live with Anriette proposal and find it acceptable while I found >> that term is long and can be shorten. >> >> I feel that people are in defensive mode and react to critics. this >> discussion is not about individuals at all. >> >> We as individuals involved in CS world in different manners and fora, we >> tend to lecture others about accountability, transparency, sometimes in the >> borderline of patronizing, shouldn't we live to those principles first? >> >> I am not going further in this discussion since I think I expressed what >> I have to say already and not willing to disturb the social peace. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2013/12/2 genekimmelman at gmail.com >> >>> To be more specific, maybe those with lingering concerns need to decide >>> whether they want to participate on the best bits platform or not. You >>> decide. If you think you can make it work better, please offer ideas like >>> Anriette, Michael and others have done. I believe we decided in Bali on an >>> approach and I endorse Anriette's path toward formalizing this. And I >>> suggest we wrap up this conversation for now and move on to substance. >>> Otherwise we delegitimze the broad support people worked towards over two >>> days in Bali and make it more difficult to prepare for Brazil. >>> >>> >>> >>> -------- Original message -------- >>> From: Rafik Dammak >>> Date: 12/02/2013 8:22 AM (GMT-05:00) >>> To: genekimmelman at gmail.com >>> Cc: William Drake ,Parminder < >>> parminder at itforchange.net>,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - >>> URGENT >>> >>> >>> every response with such reluctance and such kind of arguments raise >>> more questions than giving answers or appeasing those with concerns. >>> as reminder BestBits initiative started in august 2012 when people were >>> talking about WCIT and prepared first meeting IGF Baku, we will be in 2014 >>> in few weeks and we are still with temporary settings. >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> 2013/12/2 genekimmelman at gmail.com >>> >>>> Internal accountability to a group with shared goals may differ from >>>> societal/global policy goals that the group will agree to if all others >>>> with power agree as well. Best not to confuse these. We should be >>>> accountable but not create internal processes that make it impossible to >>>> coordinate policy actions. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------- Original message -------- >>>> From: William Drake >>>> Date: 12/02/2013 3:52 AM (GMT-05:00) >>>> To: Parminder Singh >>>> Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Best Bits" < >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> >>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - >>>> URGENT >>>> >>>> >>>> +1! >>>> >>>> On Dec 2, 2013, at 9:23 AM, parminder >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Civil society must always remain very vary of thinking of themselves as >>>> somehow so morally superior that they are exempt from normal accountability >>>> and transparency requirements >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* > Open Technology Institute > *New America Foundation* > // > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew at gp-digital.org Tue Dec 3 10:21:57 2013 From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 15:21:57 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT In-Reply-To: References: <4cw8diiesyylf3jwi8kxd4px.1386040791760@email.android.com> Message-ID: This is where we are Jeremy has volunteered to co-ordinate Stream 1, Matthew Stream 2 and I will start with Stream 3. The survey will close of December 10th - I've had six responses (thanks everyone) but the more the merrier. I'd hope to analyse them by Dec 16 and be able to send round first thoughts on how to structure work. I think we should aim to move very quickly and encourage people to submit their ideas to CGI Volunteers so far are: Stream 1 Stream 2 Stream 3 Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote participation, stakeholder representation and selection) Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil and/or other existing principles documents). Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder Internet governance including: 1. Internationalisation of ICANN 2.International public policy issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group). Andrew Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression, privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free expression. Submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF) Matthew x x Nnenna x Claudio x - contribute, not lead Valeria/ APC x - contribute x - contribute Marianne/ IRP x Jeanette x - listen and comment Anriette APC x x x Anja x x Joana x x x M. Gurstein x x Marilia/ Joana 3.1/3.2 Rafik x x Joy x x Cynthia x Avri x Pranesh x x Carolina x x x Misha x Deborah/Access x x Poncelet x x Bertrand x Parminder x x x Matthias will offer international legal expertise on all issues x x x Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina Rossini Sent: 03 December 2013 15:04 To: Gene Kimmleman (external) Cc: Rafik Dammak; William Drake; parminder; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT I agree. I do believe policy makers respond better when we have clear content proposals to make. For instance, the APC letter went up the latter really fast in the Brazilian government.... And I do feel we are in a crucial moment to develop such content focus proposals. I actually feel we are getting late. The sooner we can send in constructive proposals - based on the 3 items Andrew have sent - the better. I also do feel the tension in this list has been too high sometimes, and I do wish people read emails as per their words... Finally, Rafik, is there any news from your conversations at ICANN that you may have accessed and could share with us due to current mandate? C On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:19 PM, genekimmelman at gmail.com > wrote: Rafik, sorry if my message came across as aggressive, it was not meant that way. I won't debate further either, you raise important points that deserve consideration. I believe there have been some interesting process proposals put on the table to work out. My tone was only meant to express my sense that we need to reach a point of resolution so we can focus adequate attention to substantive policy concerns. And I must also admit that as a 30 year veteran of policy strategy, I have never placed transparency as a goal equal to social equity, economic justice, or the protection of fundamental human rights. Maybe others in CS have a different hierarchy of concerns and therefore are more focused on how internal process rules are consistent with external demands of policymakers. I'm just explaining that I personally think internal legitimacy of our group among those who opt in requires a sense of trust that may be quite different from transparency rules. And I look forward to working out how we can generate and maintain that trust as we actively engage in our work. -------- Original message -------- From: Rafik Dammak > Date: 12/02/2013 9:49 PM (GMT-05:00) To: genekimmelman at gmail.com Cc: William Drake >,Parminder >,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT Hi Gene, thanks for the reply. I feel some aggressive tone there with kind of mix of "shut-up" , "take it or leave it" and "if you don't like, you can quit", at least that is my interpretation . For sure that is not the best way to engage and convince people . If I recall correctly the interim steering committee started this summer (july) and that is before the brazil meeting announcement in October. I guess that any interim steering committee has a first goal to propose a long-term setting or process and moving from the transitional phase. we can every time postpone that arguing we have new challenges and issues to handle, but till when? it looks like technical debt in the software development world. There are concerns and I don't share all of them, but dismissing is not the answer .Why? because for every decision, move , they will pop-up again over again, why not to respond them now ? I can live with Anriette proposal and find it acceptable while I found that term is long and can be shorten. I feel that people are in defensive mode and react to critics. this discussion is not about individuals at all. We as individuals involved in CS world in different manners and fora, we tend to lecture others about accountability, transparency, sometimes in the borderline of patronizing, shouldn't we live to those principles first? I am not going further in this discussion since I think I expressed what I have to say already and not willing to disturb the social peace. Best, Rafik 2013/12/2 genekimmelman at gmail.com > To be more specific, maybe those with lingering concerns need to decide whether they want to participate on the best bits platform or not. You decide. If you think you can make it work better, please offer ideas like Anriette, Michael and others have done. I believe we decided in Bali on an approach and I endorse Anriette's path toward formalizing this. And I suggest we wrap up this conversation for now and move on to substance. Otherwise we delegitimze the broad support people worked towards over two days in Bali and make it more difficult to prepare for Brazil. -------- Original message -------- From: Rafik Dammak > Date: 12/02/2013 8:22 AM (GMT-05:00) To: genekimmelman at gmail.com Cc: William Drake >,Parminder >,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT every response with such reluctance and such kind of arguments raise more questions than giving answers or appeasing those with concerns. as reminder BestBits initiative started in august 2012 when people were talking about WCIT and prepared first meeting IGF Baku, we will be in 2014 in few weeks and we are still with temporary settings. Rafik 2013/12/2 genekimmelman at gmail.com > Internal accountability to a group with shared goals may differ from societal/global policy goals that the group will agree to if all others with power agree as well. Best not to confuse these. We should be accountable but not create internal processes that make it impossible to coordinate policy actions. -------- Original message -------- From: William Drake > Date: 12/02/2013 3:52 AM (GMT-05:00) To: Parminder Singh > Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Best Bits" > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT +1! On Dec 2, 2013, at 9:23 AM, parminder > wrote: Civil society must always remain very vary of thinking of themselves as somehow so morally superior that they are exempt from normal accountability and transparency requirements ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Carolina Rossini Project Director, Latin America Resource Center Open Technology Institute New America Foundation // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Dec 3 10:37:18 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 00:37:18 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT In-Reply-To: References: <4cw8diiesyylf3jwi8kxd4px.1386040791760@email.android.com> Message-ID: <06030A98-7601-467E-8DF9-D478013D8090@glocom.ac.jp> Hi Andrew, Please add me to 2 and 3. Thanks for coordinating this. Adam On Dec 4, 2013, at 12:21 AM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > This is where we are > > Jeremy has volunteered to co-ordinate Stream 1, Matthew Stream 2 and I will start with Stream 3. > > The survey will close of December 10th – I’ve had six responses (thanks everyone) but the more the merrier. I’d hope to analyse them by Dec 16 and be able to send round first thoughts on how to structure work. I think we should aim to move very quickly and encourage people to submit their ideas to CGI > > Volunteers so far are: > > > Stream 1 > Stream 2 > Stream 3 > > Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote participation, stakeholder representation and selection) > Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil and/or other existing principles documents). > Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder Internet governance including: > 1. Internationalisation of ICANN > 2.International public policy issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group). > Andrew > > Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression, privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free expression. > Submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF) > Matthew > > x > x > Nnenna > x > > > Claudio > > x - contribute, not lead > > Valeria/ APC > > x - contribute > x - contribute > Marianne/ IRP > > x > > Jeanette > > > x - listen and comment > Anriette APC > x > x > x > Anja > x > > x > Joana > x > x > x > M. Gurstein > > x > x > Marilia/ Joana > > > 3.1/3.2 > Rafik > > x > x > Joy > > x > x > Cynthia > > x > > Avri > > x > > Pranesh > > x > x > Carolina > x > x > x > Misha > > x > > Deborah/Access > > x > x > Poncelet > x > > x > Bertrand > > > x > Parminder > x > x > x > Matthias will offer international legal expertise on all issues > x > x > x > > > > > > > > > Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Executive Director > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt > gp-digital.org > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina Rossini > Sent: 03 December 2013 15:04 > To: Gene Kimmleman (external) > Cc: Rafik Dammak; William Drake; parminder; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT > > I agree. I do believe policy makers respond better when we have clear content proposals to make. For instance, the APC letter went up the latter really fast in the Brazilian government.... > > And I do feel we are in a crucial moment to develop such content focus proposals. I actually feel we are getting late. The sooner we can send in constructive proposals - based on the 3 items Andrew have sent - the better. > > I also do feel the tension in this list has been too high sometimes, and I do wish people read emails as per their words... > > Finally, Rafik, is there any news from your conversations at ICANN that you may have accessed and could share with us due to current mandate? > > C > > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:19 PM, genekimmelman at gmail.com wrote: > Rafik, sorry if my message came across as aggressive, it was not meant that way. I won't debate further either, you raise important points that deserve consideration. I believe there have been some interesting process proposals put on the table to work out. My tone was only meant to express my sense that we need to reach a point of resolution so we can focus adequate attention to substantive policy concerns. And I must also admit that as a 30 year veteran of policy strategy, I have never placed transparency as a goal equal to social equity, economic justice, or the protection of fundamental human rights. Maybe others in CS have a different hierarchy of concerns and therefore are more focused on how internal process rules are consistent with external demands of policymakers. I'm just explaining that I personally think internal legitimacy of our group among those who opt in requires a sense of trust that may be quite different from transparency rules. And I look forward to working out how we can generate and maintain that trust as we actively engage in our work. > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Rafik Dammak > Date: 12/02/2013 9:49 PM (GMT-05:00) > To: genekimmelman at gmail.com > Cc: William Drake ,Parminder ,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT > > > Hi Gene, > > thanks for the reply. I feel some aggressive tone there with kind of mix of "shut-up" , "take it or leave it" and "if you don't like, you can quit", at least that is my interpretation . For sure that is not the best way to engage and convince people . > > If I recall correctly the interim steering committee started this summer (july) and that is before the brazil meeting announcement in October. I guess that any interim steering committee has a first goal to propose a long-term setting or process and moving from the transitional phase. we can every time postpone that arguing we have new challenges and issues to handle, but till when? it looks like technical debt in the software development world. > > There are concerns and I don't share all of them, but dismissing is not the answer .Why? because for every decision, move , they will pop-up again over again, why not to respond them now ? > > I can live with Anriette proposal and find it acceptable while I found that term is long and can be shorten. > > I feel that people are in defensive mode and react to critics. this discussion is not about individuals at all. > > We as individuals involved in CS world in different manners and fora, we tend to lecture others about accountability, transparency, sometimes in the borderline of patronizing, shouldn't we live to those principles first? > > I am not going further in this discussion since I think I expressed what I have to say already and not willing to disturb the social peace. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > 2013/12/2 genekimmelman at gmail.com > To be more specific, maybe those with lingering concerns need to decide whether they want to participate on the best bits platform or not. You decide. If you think you can make it work better, please offer ideas like Anriette, Michael and others have done. I believe we decided in Bali on an approach and I endorse Anriette's path toward formalizing this. And I suggest we wrap up this conversation for now and move on to substance. Otherwise we delegitimze the broad support people worked towards over two days in Bali and make it more difficult to prepare for Brazil. > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Rafik Dammak > Date: 12/02/2013 8:22 AM (GMT-05:00) > To: genekimmelman at gmail.com > Cc: William Drake ,Parminder ,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT > > > every response with such reluctance and such kind of arguments raise more questions than giving answers or appeasing those with concerns. > as reminder BestBits initiative started in august 2012 when people were talking about WCIT and prepared first meeting IGF Baku, we will be in 2014 in few weeks and we are still with temporary settings. > > Rafik > > 2013/12/2 genekimmelman at gmail.com > Internal accountability to a group with shared goals may differ from societal/global policy goals that the group will agree to if all others with power agree as well. Best not to confuse these. We should be accountable but not create internal processes that make it impossible to coordinate policy actions. > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: William Drake > Date: 12/02/2013 3:52 AM (GMT-05:00) > To: Parminder Singh > Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Best Bits" > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT > > > +1! > > On Dec 2, 2013, at 9:23 AM, parminder wrote: > > > Civil society must always remain very vary of thinking of themselves as somehow so morally superior that they are exempt from normal accountability and transparency requirements > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > Carolina Rossini > Project Director, Latin America Resource Center > Open Technology Institute > New America Foundation > // > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Dec 3 10:49:56 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 21:19:56 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT In-Reply-To: <529DAF97.5060401@ciroap.org> References: <70C0E2CA-1B52-45AC-9CD6-039373D2D440@ciroap.org> <529CBF32.7070005@itforchange.net> <529DAF97.5060401@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <529DFDA4.2010707@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 03 December 2013 03:46 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 03/12/13 01:11, parminder wrote: >> My preferred option is to make BB into a membership based >> organisation. My impression at its inaugural meeting was that it was >> supposed to emerge as a membership based body, where serious and >> committed civil society organisations/ individuals will like to work >> together in peace and with focus, away from the general din of civil >> society conversations. > > Thanks, that's really much more helpful. This just repeats and expands what I said at Bali, which point - about a membership based network - was also captured by another member making closing remarks (Al Alegre) . > We now know that your main objection is that you want a more tightly > institutionalised Best Bits, closer to an organisation No more than Internet Governance Caucus can be considered as an organisation... Dont think most consider it as an organisation. Organisation is not the right word... Network is better - or maybe a network with some organisational features enable some clear and specific functions.. > than to a loose platform or network, My email also gave the second option - loose platform - but then with the limitations about what it can do... Structure and outputting is a kind of a package... > and you have now described what you are looking for specifically and > clearly. Well, I thought I had said enough earlier as well.... But good now it has gone through... > > However it does seem fair to say that most others don't want those > changes, at the current point in time. This came across both at the > meeting in Bali, and in responses here. I am not so sure.... I think more people will prefer a network with clear membership, and membership driven decision making, facilitated by co-cos or a steering committee... But then if the decision to make it into a platform is to be taken, it should also clearly specify its functions, limits and structures... thanks parminder > > Can we therefore park this disagreement and revisit it once the > interim steering committee have issued their 2013 report, that > Anriette called for in her proposal? This will at least give people > (you and others) more background to inform their decision about > whether Best Bits should change into an organisation with specific > membership criteria, charter, etc. > > Meanwhile we can also try to limit straying into acting as a de facto > organisation, though I still contend that there may be some actions > that we can take, beyond sign-on statements, that the community should > be able to endorse us doing by overall consensus, without requiring > all the additional organisational baggage. > > Let's take the heat down a notch - your latest reply has helped - and > we will try to be sensitive to the differences between organisation > that you have described. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge > hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue Dec 3 10:51:53 2013 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 13:51:53 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT In-Reply-To: References: <4cw8diiesyylf3jwi8kxd4px.1386040791760@email.android.com> Message-ID: Perfect Andrew. Thanks for summarizing this and to help us stay productive and focused. The end of the semester is always hectic for professors but we'll answer the questionnaire before the deadline. Thanks for sharing your inputs btw. Marília On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > This is where we are > > > > Jeremy has volunteered to co-ordinate Stream 1, Matthew Stream 2 and I > will start with Stream 3. > > > > The survey will close of December 10th – I’ve had six responses (thanks > everyone) but the more the merrier. I’d hope to analyse them by Dec 16 and > be able to send round first thoughts on how to structure work. I think we > should aim to move very quickly and encourage people to submit their ideas > to CGI > > > > Volunteers so far are: > > > > > > *Stream 1* > > *Stream 2* > > *Stream 3* > > > > *Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote > participation, stakeholder representation and selection)* > > *Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil > and/or other existing principles documents).* > > *Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder > Internet governance including:* > > *1. Internationalisation of ICANN * > > * 2.International public policy issues (based on existing proposals put > before the WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).* > > Andrew > > > > Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression, > privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free expression. > > Submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed > structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to include > ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF) > > Matthew > > > > x > > x > > Nnenna > > x > > > > > > Claudio > > > > x - contribute, not lead > > > > Valeria/ APC > > > > x - contribute > > x - contribute > > Marianne/ IRP > > > > x > > > > Jeanette > > > > > > x - listen and comment > > Anriette APC > > x > > x > > x > > Anja > > x > > > > x > > Joana > > x > > x > > x > > M. Gurstein > > > > x > > x > > Marilia/ Joana > > > > > > 3.1/3.2 > > Rafik > > > > x > > x > > Joy > > > > x > > x > > Cynthia > > > > x > > > > Avri > > > > x > > > > Pranesh > > > > x > > x > > Carolina > > x > > x > > x > > Misha > > > > x > > > > Deborah/Access > > > > x > > x > > Poncelet > > x > > > > x > > Bertrand > > > > > > x > > Parminder > > x > > x > > x > > Matthias will offer international legal expertise on all issues > > x > > x > > x > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Andrew Puddephatt* | *GLOBAL PARTNERS* DIGITAL > > Executive Director > > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > > T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt > *gp-digital.org * > > > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: > bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Carolina Rossini > *Sent:* 03 December 2013 15:04 > *To:* Gene Kimmleman (external) > *Cc:* Rafik Dammak; William Drake; parminder; > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - > URGENT > > > > I agree. I do believe policy makers respond better when we have clear > content proposals to make. For instance, the APC letter went up the latter > really fast in the Brazilian government.... > > > > And I do feel we are in a crucial moment to develop such content focus > proposals. I actually feel we are getting late. The sooner we can send in > constructive proposals - based on the 3 items Andrew have sent - the > better. > > > > I also do feel the tension in this list has been too high sometimes, and I > do wish people read emails as per their words... > > > > Finally, Rafik, is there any news from your conversations at ICANN that > you may have accessed and could share with us due to current mandate? > > > > C > > > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:19 PM, genekimmelman at gmail.com < > genekimmelman at gmail.com> wrote: > > Rafik, sorry if my message came across as aggressive, it was not meant > that way. I won't debate further either, you raise important points that > deserve consideration. I believe there have been some interesting process > proposals put on the table to work out. My tone was only meant to express > my sense that we need to reach a point of resolution so we can focus > adequate attention to substantive policy concerns. And I must also admit > that as a 30 year veteran of policy strategy, I have never placed > transparency as a goal equal to social equity, economic justice, or the > protection of fundamental human rights. Maybe others in CS have a > different hierarchy of concerns and therefore are more focused on how > internal process rules are consistent with external demands of > policymakers. I'm just explaining that I personally think internal > legitimacy of our group among those who opt in requires a sense of trust > that may be quite different from transparency rules. And I look forward to > working out how we can generate and maintain that trust as we actively > engage in our work. > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Rafik Dammak > Date: 12/02/2013 9:49 PM (GMT-05:00) > To: genekimmelman at gmail.com > Cc: William Drake ,Parminder < > parminder at itforchange.net>,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - > URGENT > > Hi Gene, > > thanks for the reply. I feel some aggressive tone there with kind of mix > of "shut-up" , "take it or leave it" and "if you don't like, you can quit", > at least that is my interpretation . For sure that is not the best way to > engage and convince people . > > If I recall correctly the interim steering committee started this summer > (july) and that is before the brazil meeting announcement in October. I > guess that any interim steering committee has a first goal to propose a > long-term setting or process and moving from the transitional phase. we can > every time postpone that arguing we have new challenges and issues to > handle, but till when? it looks like technical debt in the software > development world. > > There are concerns and I don't share all of them, but dismissing is not > the answer .Why? because for every decision, move , they will pop-up again > over again, why not to respond them now ? > > I can live with Anriette proposal and find it acceptable while I found > that term is long and can be shorten. > > I feel that people are in defensive mode and react to critics. this > discussion is not about individuals at all. > > We as individuals involved in CS world in different manners and fora, we > tend to lecture others about accountability, transparency, sometimes in the > borderline of patronizing, shouldn't we live to those principles first? > > I am not going further in this discussion since I think I expressed what I > have to say already and not willing to disturb the social peace. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > > 2013/12/2 genekimmelman at gmail.com > > To be more specific, maybe those with lingering concerns need to decide > whether they want to participate on the best bits platform or not. You > decide. If you think you can make it work better, please offer ideas like > Anriette, Michael and others have done. I believe we decided in Bali on an > approach and I endorse Anriette's path toward formalizing this. And I > suggest we wrap up this conversation for now and move on to substance. > Otherwise we delegitimze the broad support people worked towards over two > days in Bali and make it more difficult to prepare for Brazil. > > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Rafik Dammak > Date: 12/02/2013 8:22 AM (GMT-05:00) > To: genekimmelman at gmail.com > Cc: William Drake ,Parminder < > parminder at itforchange.net>,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - > URGENT > > every response with such reluctance and such kind of arguments raise more > questions than giving answers or appeasing those with concerns. > > as reminder BestBits initiative started in august 2012 when people were > talking about WCIT and prepared first meeting IGF Baku, we will be in 2014 > in few weeks and we are still with temporary settings. > > > > Rafik > > > > 2013/12/2 genekimmelman at gmail.com > > Internal accountability to a group with shared goals may differ from > societal/global policy goals that the group will agree to if all others > with power agree as well. Best not to confuse these. We should be > accountable but not create internal processes that make it impossible to > coordinate policy actions. > > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: William Drake > Date: 12/02/2013 3:52 AM (GMT-05:00) > To: Parminder Singh > Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Best Bits" > > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - > URGENT > > +1! > > > > On Dec 2, 2013, at 9:23 AM, parminder wrote: > > > > Civil society must always remain very vary of thinking of themselves as > somehow so morally superior that they are exempt from normal accountability > and transparency requirements > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > -- > > *Carolina Rossini* > > *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* > > Open Technology Institute > > *New America Foundation* > > // > > http://carolinarossini.net/ > > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > > skype: carolrossini > > @carolinarossini > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kichango at gmail.com Tue Dec 3 13:57:42 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 18:57:42 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Re: Multi-Equal Stakeholderism In-Reply-To: References: <16AB4A2A-C1F1-4929-BD90-9976DFC1391A@ciroap.org> <529A20AD.1050300@cis-india.org> <7d0aca53-f0d8-4f4c-94bf-0ab24ada2e7d@email.android.com> <529A40A6.1060201@cis-india.org> <529D3D27.2000001@cis-india.org> Message-ID: Well, to be more precise, especially re. the last sentence in my previous message: I am not saying that this model of participation/standard-setting/policy-making is a bad one. In fact as a model (meaning an abstract construction) it is as good as they come when dealing with matters that require some minimum knowledge in specific/specialized fields (which political democracy doesn't require although I and many others think democracy works best when all citizens have a bit of education and are well informed.) And in that case, the fact that there is no room for arguments of authority but that ideas win on merit is to be appreciated and even lauded. However, let's also remain aware that as a concrete mechanism, it is only that good if every participant starts from a leveled playing field, same as for any other of his or her counterpart, in terms of their ability to be prepared to the same degree without such preparation incurring higher costs for some as compared to others. The reality is significantly different. Even for those of us who can navigate through our first working language and English, we still spend a lot more time to muster or to parse the concepts and contents of a substantive document, or to write such a document. That can cumulatively have a serious cost on how much you can do, with your day counting 24 hours like anyone else's. So celebrating the model without a recognition whatsoever of that kind of burden and limitation could make some of us cringe somewhat. p.s. I've been getting two different threads from this conversation, so it shouldn't come as a surprise if the content of some messages prior seems not to be taken into account in some later messages. I eventually read about JFC's post re. working in non-WG in multiple languages at the IETF. I applaud that and would suggest such efforts need to continue and amplify to become mainstream in the work of all I* organizations (not just translating outputs or offering interpretation during meetings, but making sure all existing working materials are available in as many languages as possible so that people can read them and offer their contributions in the language they feel more comfortable in.) Best, Mawaki On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > But in all these discussions, do we even factor in the fact that English > is not a language everybody (not matter how bright) can speak, understand > and work in? How many billion people on this earth are in that category? > How many governments around the world have English as, if not their > official, at least one of their working languages? You already have that > which filters out so many people, before even subtracting more on the basis > of technical literacy. Where does that leave us/ this idealized model? > > Maybe we should have a universal course called "Internet Infrastructure" > or something like that, to be taught in all curricula around the world in > both English and the local education language? Something like a basic > literacy thing that will be taught at all levels with increasing complexity > along levels of education -- a bit like we all did math until the end of > high school? Only then, I can give some credence to the BS > "multi-equal"-whatever meme, graciously accepting the fact that some of us > will still have to work in two languages to be equal. > > Mawaki > > > > On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 2:08 AM, Pranesh Prakash wrote: > >> Avri Doria [2013-11-30 15:22]: >> > I don't know about how many government types use their government >> > email l. Not sure i understand why that matters. We see bunches using >> > other addresses in IGF space, so I am nor sure it is a clear >> > indicator. In any case I will see if there are any stats. >> >> I guess one other way to look at it would be to ask: >> * Has any government official ever co-authored an RFC? >> * Has any government official (especially non-US) ever participated in >> IETF discussions in an official capacity? >> >> McTim [2013-11-30 18:19]: >> > It's a great example. Can you name other settings in Internet policy >> that >> > has folks operating as equals without being divided by silos? Where >> > government folks and CS and people who run telco networks all have the >> same >> > status? >> >> Who are these "government folks" that are being talked about? Sure, >> they're "free" to come join the discussion, but unless they are actually >> part of the discussions, it makes little sense to talk of them having >> the "same status".[1] Formal equality vs. actual equality. >> >> Please note, I'm not making an argument that IETF should change and try >> and get government participation. I'm just saying that governments >> haven't participated in IETF. >> >> [1]: On the moon ants and antelopes have the same status. >> >> -- >> Pranesh Prakash >> Policy Director >> Centre for Internet and Society >> T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org >> PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash >> -------------------- >> Access to Knowledge Fellow >> Information Society Project, Yale Law School >> T: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Dec 3 13:57:36 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 05:57:36 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT In-Reply-To: References: <4cw8diiesyylf3jwi8kxd4px.1386040791760@email.android.com> Message-ID: <5796C2D7A825443EBF67F5433844DCF2@Toshiba> Hi Andrew, can I join stream 3? Ian Peter From: Andrew Puddephatt Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 2:21 AM To: Carolina Rossini ; Gene Kimmleman (external) Cc: Rafik Dammak ; William Drake ; parminder ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: RE: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT This is where we are Jeremy has volunteered to co-ordinate Stream 1, Matthew Stream 2 and I will start with Stream 3. The survey will close of December 10th – I’ve had six responses (thanks everyone) but the more the merrier. I’d hope to analyse them by Dec 16 and be able to send round first thoughts on how to structure work. I think we should aim to move very quickly and encourage people to submit their ideas to CGI Volunteers so far are: Stream 1 Stream 2 Stream 3 Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote participation, stakeholder representation and selection) Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil and/or other existing principles documents). Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder Internet governance including: 1. Internationalisation of ICANN 2.International public policy issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group). Andrew Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression, privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free expression. Submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF) Matthew x x Nnenna x Claudio x - contribute, not lead Valeria/ APC x - contribute x - contribute Marianne/ IRP x Jeanette x - listen and comment Anriette APC x x x Anja x x Joana x x x M. Gurstein x x Marilia/ Joana 3.1/3.2 Rafik x x Joy x x Cynthia x Avri x Pranesh x x Carolina x x x Misha x Deborah/Access x x Poncelet x x Bertrand x Parminder x x x Matthias will offer international legal expertise on all issues x x x Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina Rossini Sent: 03 December 2013 15:04 To: Gene Kimmleman (external) Cc: Rafik Dammak; William Drake; parminder; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT I agree. I do believe policy makers respond better when we have clear content proposals to make. For instance, the APC letter went up the latter really fast in the Brazilian government.... And I do feel we are in a crucial moment to develop such content focus proposals. I actually feel we are getting late. The sooner we can send in constructive proposals - based on the 3 items Andrew have sent - the better. I also do feel the tension in this list has been too high sometimes, and I do wish people read emails as per their words... Finally, Rafik, is there any news from your conversations at ICANN that you may have accessed and could share with us due to current mandate? C On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:19 PM, genekimmelman at gmail.com wrote: Rafik, sorry if my message came across as aggressive, it was not meant that way. I won't debate further either, you raise important points that deserve consideration. I believe there have been some interesting process proposals put on the table to work out. My tone was only meant to express my sense that we need to reach a point of resolution so we can focus adequate attention to substantive policy concerns. And I must also admit that as a 30 year veteran of policy strategy, I have never placed transparency as a goal equal to social equity, economic justice, or the protection of fundamental human rights. Maybe others in CS have a different hierarchy of concerns and therefore are more focused on how internal process rules are consistent with external demands of policymakers. I'm just explaining that I personally think internal legitimacy of our group among those who opt in requires a sense of trust that may be quite different from transparency rules. And I look forward to working out how we can generate and maintain that trust as we actively engage in our work. -------- Original message -------- From: Rafik Dammak Date: 12/02/2013 9:49 PM (GMT-05:00) To: genekimmelman at gmail.com Cc: William Drake ,Parminder ,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT Hi Gene, thanks for the reply. I feel some aggressive tone there with kind of mix of "shut-up" , "take it or leave it" and "if you don't like, you can quit", at least that is my interpretation . For sure that is not the best way to engage and convince people . If I recall correctly the interim steering committee started this summer (july) and that is before the brazil meeting announcement in October. I guess that any interim steering committee has a first goal to propose a long-term setting or process and moving from the transitional phase. we can every time postpone that arguing we have new challenges and issues to handle, but till when? it looks like technical debt in the software development world. There are concerns and I don't share all of them, but dismissing is not the answer .Why? because for every decision, move , they will pop-up again over again, why not to respond them now ? I can live with Anriette proposal and find it acceptable while I found that term is long and can be shorten. I feel that people are in defensive mode and react to critics. this discussion is not about individuals at all. We as individuals involved in CS world in different manners and fora, we tend to lecture others about accountability, transparency, sometimes in the borderline of patronizing, shouldn't we live to those principles first? I am not going further in this discussion since I think I expressed what I have to say already and not willing to disturb the social peace. Best, Rafik 2013/12/2 genekimmelman at gmail.com To be more specific, maybe those with lingering concerns need to decide whether they want to participate on the best bits platform or not. You decide. If you think you can make it work better, please offer ideas like Anriette, Michael and others have done. I believe we decided in Bali on an approach and I endorse Anriette's path toward formalizing this. And I suggest we wrap up this conversation for now and move on to substance. Otherwise we delegitimze the broad support people worked towards over two days in Bali and make it more difficult to prepare for Brazil. -------- Original message -------- From: Rafik Dammak Date: 12/02/2013 8:22 AM (GMT-05:00) To: genekimmelman at gmail.com Cc: William Drake ,Parminder ,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT every response with such reluctance and such kind of arguments raise more questions than giving answers or appeasing those with concerns. as reminder BestBits initiative started in august 2012 when people were talking about WCIT and prepared first meeting IGF Baku, we will be in 2014 in few weeks and we are still with temporary settings. Rafik 2013/12/2 genekimmelman at gmail.com Internal accountability to a group with shared goals may differ from societal/global policy goals that the group will agree to if all others with power agree as well. Best not to confuse these. We should be accountable but not create internal processes that make it impossible to coordinate policy actions. -------- Original message -------- From: William Drake Date: 12/02/2013 3:52 AM (GMT-05:00) To: Parminder Singh Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Best Bits" Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT +1! On Dec 2, 2013, at 9:23 AM, parminder wrote: Civil society must always remain very vary of thinking of themselves as somehow so morally superior that they are exempt from normal accountability and transparency requirements ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Carolina Rossini Project Director, Latin America Resource Center Open Technology Institute New America Foundation // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Dec 3 17:17:02 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 17:17:02 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT In-Reply-To: References: <4cw8diiesyylf3jwi8kxd4px.1386040791760@email.android.com> Message-ID: Noncommercial Stakeholders Group in ICANN On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Carolina > > Finally, Rafik, is there any news from your conversations at ICANN that >> you may have accessed and could share with us due to current mandate? >> >> I am not sure about this request, what news are you asking about? > > Rafik > > >> C >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:19 PM, genekimmelman at gmail.com < >> genekimmelman at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Rafik, sorry if my message came across as aggressive, it was not meant >>> that way. I won't debate further either, you raise important points that >>> deserve consideration. I believe there have been some interesting process >>> proposals put on the table to work out. My tone was only meant to express >>> my sense that we need to reach a point of resolution so we can focus >>> adequate attention to substantive policy concerns. And I must also admit >>> that as a 30 year veteran of policy strategy, I have never placed >>> transparency as a goal equal to social equity, economic justice, or the >>> protection of fundamental human rights. Maybe others in CS have a >>> different hierarchy of concerns and therefore are more focused on how >>> internal process rules are consistent with external demands of >>> policymakers. I'm just explaining that I personally think internal >>> legitimacy of our group among those who opt in requires a sense of trust >>> that may be quite different from transparency rules. And I look forward to >>> working out how we can generate and maintain that trust as we actively >>> engage in our work. >>> >>> >>> -------- Original message -------- >>> From: Rafik Dammak >>> Date: 12/02/2013 9:49 PM (GMT-05:00) >>> To: genekimmelman at gmail.com >>> Cc: William Drake ,Parminder < >>> parminder at itforchange.net>,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - >>> URGENT >>> >>> >>> Hi Gene, >>> >>> thanks for the reply. I feel some aggressive tone there with kind of mix >>> of "shut-up" , "take it or leave it" and "if you don't like, you can quit", >>> at least that is my interpretation . For sure that is not the best way to >>> engage and convince people . >>> >>> If I recall correctly the interim steering committee started this summer >>> (july) and that is before the brazil meeting announcement in October. I >>> guess that any interim steering committee has a first goal to propose a >>> long-term setting or process and moving from the transitional phase. we can >>> every time postpone that arguing we have new challenges and issues to >>> handle, but till when? it looks like technical debt in the software >>> development world. >>> >>> There are concerns and I don't share all of them, but dismissing is not >>> the answer .Why? because for every decision, move , they will pop-up again >>> over again, why not to respond them now ? >>> >>> I can live with Anriette proposal and find it acceptable while I found >>> that term is long and can be shorten. >>> >>> I feel that people are in defensive mode and react to critics. this >>> discussion is not about individuals at all. >>> >>> We as individuals involved in CS world in different manners and fora, we >>> tend to lecture others about accountability, transparency, sometimes in the >>> borderline of patronizing, shouldn't we live to those principles first? >>> >>> I am not going further in this discussion since I think I expressed what >>> I have to say already and not willing to disturb the social peace. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> 2013/12/2 genekimmelman at gmail.com >>> >>>> To be more specific, maybe those with lingering concerns need to >>>> decide whether they want to participate on the best bits platform or not. >>>> You decide. If you think you can make it work better, please offer ideas >>>> like Anriette, Michael and others have done. I believe we decided in Bali >>>> on an approach and I endorse Anriette's path toward formalizing this. And I >>>> suggest we wrap up this conversation for now and move on to substance. >>>> Otherwise we delegitimze the broad support people worked towards over two >>>> days in Bali and make it more difficult to prepare for Brazil. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------- Original message -------- >>>> From: Rafik Dammak >>>> Date: 12/02/2013 8:22 AM (GMT-05:00) >>>> To: genekimmelman at gmail.com >>>> Cc: William Drake ,Parminder < >>>> parminder at itforchange.net>,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - >>>> URGENT >>>> >>>> >>>> every response with such reluctance and such kind of arguments raise >>>> more questions than giving answers or appeasing those with concerns. >>>> as reminder BestBits initiative started in august 2012 when people were >>>> talking about WCIT and prepared first meeting IGF Baku, we will be in 2014 >>>> in few weeks and we are still with temporary settings. >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> 2013/12/2 genekimmelman at gmail.com >>>> >>>>> Internal accountability to a group with shared goals may differ from >>>>> societal/global policy goals that the group will agree to if all others >>>>> with power agree as well. Best not to confuse these. We should be >>>>> accountable but not create internal processes that make it impossible to >>>>> coordinate policy actions. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -------- Original message -------- >>>>> From: William Drake >>>>> Date: 12/02/2013 3:52 AM (GMT-05:00) >>>>> To: Parminder Singh >>>>> Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Best Bits" < >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> >>>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - >>>>> URGENT >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> +1! >>>>> >>>>> On Dec 2, 2013, at 9:23 AM, parminder >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Civil society must always remain very vary of thinking of themselves >>>>> as somehow so morally superior that they are exempt from normal >>>>> accountability and transparency requirements >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> *Carolina Rossini* >> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* >> Open Technology Institute >> *New America Foundation* >> // >> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> skype: carolrossini >> @carolinarossini >> >> > -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew at gp-digital.org Wed Dec 4 04:35:10 2013 From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 09:35:10 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT In-Reply-To: <1386140888.96113.YahooMailNeo@web125101.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <4cw8diiesyylf3jwi8kxd4px.1386040791760@email.android.com> <5796C2D7A825443EBF67F5433844DCF2@Toshiba> <1386140888.96113.YahooMailNeo@web125101.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: OK – will do Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org From: Imran Ahmed Shah [mailto:ias_pk at yahoo.com] Sent: 04 December 2013 07:08 To: Ian Peter; Andrew Puddephatt Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT Dear Andrew, Please also add me in the Stream 3. Thanks and Regards Imran Ahmed Shah ________________________________ From: Ian Peter > To: Andrew Puddephatt > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Sent: Tuesday, 3 December 2013, 23:57 Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT Hi Andrew, can I join stream 3? Ian Peter From: Andrew Puddephatt Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 2:21 AM To: Carolina Rossini ; Gene Kimmleman (external) Cc: Rafik Dammak ; William Drake ; parminder ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: RE: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT This is where we are Jeremy has volunteered to co-ordinate Stream 1, Matthew Stream 2 and I will start with Stream 3. The survey will close of December 10th – I’ve had six responses (thanks everyone) but the more the merrier. I’d hope to analyse them by Dec 16 and be able to send round first thoughts on how to structure work. I think we should aim to move very quickly and encourage people to submit their ideas to CGI Volunteers so far are: Stream 1 Stream 2 Stream 3 Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote participation, stakeholder representation and selection) Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil and/or other existing principles documents). Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder Internet governance including: 1. Internationalisation of ICANN 2.International public policy issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group). Andrew Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression, privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free expression. Submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF) Matthew x x Nnenna x Claudio x - contribute, not lead Valeria/ APC x - contribute x - contribute Marianne/ IRP x Jeanette x - listen and comment Anriette APC x x x Anja x x Joana x x x M. Gurstein x x Marilia/ Joana 3.1/3.2 Rafik x x Joy x x Cynthia x Avri x Pranesh x x Carolina x x x Misha x Deborah/Access x x Poncelet x x Bertrand x Parminder x x x Matthias will offer international legal expertise on all issues x x x Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina Rossini Sent: 03 December 2013 15:04 To: Gene Kimmleman (external) Cc: Rafik Dammak; William Drake; parminder; > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT I agree. I do believe policy makers respond better when we have clear content proposals to make. For instance, the APC letter went up the latter really fast in the Brazilian government.... And I do feel we are in a crucial moment to develop such content focus proposals. I actually feel we are getting late. The sooner we can send in constructive proposals - based on the 3 items Andrew have sent - the better. I also do feel the tension in this list has been too high sometimes, and I do wish people read emails as per their words... Finally, Rafik, is there any news from your conversations at ICANN that you may have accessed and could share with us due to current mandate? C On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:19 PM, genekimmelman at gmail.com > wrote: Rafik, sorry if my message came across as aggressive, it was not meant that way. I won't debate further either, you raise important points that deserve consideration. I believe there have been some interesting process proposals put on the table to work out. My tone was only meant to express my sense that we need to reach a point of resolution so we can focus adequate attention to substantive policy concerns. And I must also admit that as a 30 year veteran of policy strategy, I have never placed transparency as a goal equal to social equity, economic justice, or the protection of fundamental human rights. Maybe others in CS have a different hierarchy of concerns and therefore are more focused on how internal process rules are consistent with external demands of policymakers. I'm just explaining that I personally think internal legitimacy of our group among those who opt in requires a sense of trust that may be quite different from transparency rules. And I look forward to working out how we can generate and maintain that trust as we actively engage in our work. -------- Original message -------- From: Rafik Dammak > Date: 12/02/2013 9:49 PM (GMT-05:00) To: genekimmelman at gmail.com Cc: William Drake >,Parminder >,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT Hi Gene, thanks for the reply. I feel some aggressive tone there with kind of mix of "shut-up" , "take it or leave it" and "if you don't like, you can quit", at least that is my interpretation . For sure that is not the best way to engage and convince people . If I recall correctly the interim steering committee started this summer (july) and that is before the brazil meeting announcement in October. I guess that any interim steering committee has a first goal to propose a long-term setting or process and moving from the transitional phase. we can every time postpone that arguing we have new challenges and issues to handle, but till when? it looks like technical debt in the software development world. There are concerns and I don't share all of them, but dismissing is not the answer .Why? because for every decision, move , they will pop-up again over again, why not to respond them now ? I can live with Anriette proposal and find it acceptable while I found that term is long and can be shorten. I feel that people are in defensive mode and react to critics. this discussion is not about individuals at all. We as individuals involved in CS world in different manners and fora, we tend to lecture others about accountability, transparency, sometimes in the borderline of patronizing, shouldn't we live to those principles first? I am not going further in this discussion since I think I expressed what I have to say already and not willing to disturb the social peace. Best, Rafik 2013/12/2 genekimmelman at gmail.com > To be more specific, maybe those with lingering concerns need to decide whether they want to participate on the best bits platform or not. You decide. If you think you can make it work better, please offer ideas like Anriette, Michael and others have done. I believe we decided in Bali on an approach and I endorse Anriette's path toward formalizing this. And I suggest we wrap up this conversation for now and move on to substance. Otherwise we delegitimze the broad support people worked towards over two days in Bali and make it more difficult to prepare for Brazil. -------- Original message -------- From: Rafik Dammak > Date: 12/02/2013 8:22 AM (GMT-05:00) To: genekimmelman at gmail.com Cc: William Drake >,Parminder >,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT every response with such reluctance and such kind of arguments raise more questions than giving answers or appeasing those with concerns. as reminder BestBits initiative started in august 2012 when people were talking about WCIT and prepared first meeting IGF Baku, we will be in 2014 in few weeks and we are still with temporary settings. Rafik 2013/12/2 genekimmelman at gmail.com > Internal accountability to a group with shared goals may differ from societal/global policy goals that the group will agree to if all others with power agree as well. Best not to confuse these. We should be accountable but not create internal processes that make it impossible to coordinate policy actions. -------- Original message -------- From: William Drake > Date: 12/02/2013 3:52 AM (GMT-05:00) To: Parminder Singh > Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Best Bits" > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT +1! On Dec 2, 2013, at 9:23 AM, parminder > wrote: Civil society must always remain very vary of thinking of themselves as somehow so morally superior that they are exempt from normal accountability and transparency requirements ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Carolina Rossini Project Director, Latin America Resource Center Open Technology Institute New America Foundation // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini ________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew at gp-digital.org Wed Dec 4 04:38:34 2013 From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 09:38:34 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT In-Reply-To: <5796C2D7A825443EBF67F5433844DCF2@Toshiba> References: <4cw8diiesyylf3jwi8kxd4px.1386040791760@email.android.com> <5796C2D7A825443EBF67F5433844DCF2@Toshiba> Message-ID: I’m updating the lost now Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: 03 December 2013 18:58 To: Andrew Puddephatt Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT Hi Andrew, can I join stream 3? Ian Peter From: Andrew Puddephatt Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 2:21 AM To: Carolina Rossini ; Gene Kimmleman (external) Cc: Rafik Dammak ; William Drake ; parminder ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: RE: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT This is where we are Jeremy has volunteered to co-ordinate Stream 1, Matthew Stream 2 and I will start with Stream 3. The survey will close of December 10th – I’ve had six responses (thanks everyone) but the more the merrier. I’d hope to analyse them by Dec 16 and be able to send round first thoughts on how to structure work. I think we should aim to move very quickly and encourage people to submit their ideas to CGI Volunteers so far are: Stream 1 Stream 2 Stream 3 Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote participation, stakeholder representation and selection) Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil and/or other existing principles documents). Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder Internet governance including: 1. Internationalisation of ICANN 2.International public policy issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group). Andrew Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression, privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free expression. Submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF) Matthew x x Nnenna x Claudio x - contribute, not lead Valeria/ APC x - contribute x - contribute Marianne/ IRP x Jeanette x - listen and comment Anriette APC x x x Anja x x Joana x x x M. Gurstein x x Marilia/ Joana 3.1/3.2 Rafik x x Joy x x Cynthia x Avri x Pranesh x x Carolina x x x Misha x Deborah/Access x x Poncelet x x Bertrand x Parminder x x x Matthias will offer international legal expertise on all issues x x x Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina Rossini Sent: 03 December 2013 15:04 To: Gene Kimmleman (external) Cc: Rafik Dammak; William Drake; parminder; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT I agree. I do believe policy makers respond better when we have clear content proposals to make. For instance, the APC letter went up the latter really fast in the Brazilian government.... And I do feel we are in a crucial moment to develop such content focus proposals. I actually feel we are getting late. The sooner we can send in constructive proposals - based on the 3 items Andrew have sent - the better. I also do feel the tension in this list has been too high sometimes, and I do wish people read emails as per their words... Finally, Rafik, is there any news from your conversations at ICANN that you may have accessed and could share with us due to current mandate? C On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:19 PM, genekimmelman at gmail.com > wrote: Rafik, sorry if my message came across as aggressive, it was not meant that way. I won't debate further either, you raise important points that deserve consideration. I believe there have been some interesting process proposals put on the table to work out. My tone was only meant to express my sense that we need to reach a point of resolution so we can focus adequate attention to substantive policy concerns. And I must also admit that as a 30 year veteran of policy strategy, I have never placed transparency as a goal equal to social equity, economic justice, or the protection of fundamental human rights. Maybe others in CS have a different hierarchy of concerns and therefore are more focused on how internal process rules are consistent with external demands of policymakers. I'm just explaining that I personally think internal legitimacy of our group among those who opt in requires a sense of trust that may be quite different from transparency rules. And I look forward to working out how we can generate and maintain that trust as we actively engage in our work. -------- Original message -------- From: Rafik Dammak > Date: 12/02/2013 9:49 PM (GMT-05:00) To: genekimmelman at gmail.com Cc: William Drake >,Parminder >,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT Hi Gene, thanks for the reply. I feel some aggressive tone there with kind of mix of "shut-up" , "take it or leave it" and "if you don't like, you can quit", at least that is my interpretation . For sure that is not the best way to engage and convince people . If I recall correctly the interim steering committee started this summer (july) and that is before the brazil meeting announcement in October. I guess that any interim steering committee has a first goal to propose a long-term setting or process and moving from the transitional phase. we can every time postpone that arguing we have new challenges and issues to handle, but till when? it looks like technical debt in the software development world. There are concerns and I don't share all of them, but dismissing is not the answer .Why? because for every decision, move , they will pop-up again over again, why not to respond them now ? I can live with Anriette proposal and find it acceptable while I found that term is long and can be shorten. I feel that people are in defensive mode and react to critics. this discussion is not about individuals at all. We as individuals involved in CS world in different manners and fora, we tend to lecture others about accountability, transparency, sometimes in the borderline of patronizing, shouldn't we live to those principles first? I am not going further in this discussion since I think I expressed what I have to say already and not willing to disturb the social peace. Best, Rafik 2013/12/2 genekimmelman at gmail.com > To be more specific, maybe those with lingering concerns need to decide whether they want to participate on the best bits platform or not. You decide. If you think you can make it work better, please offer ideas like Anriette, Michael and others have done. I believe we decided in Bali on an approach and I endorse Anriette's path toward formalizing this. And I suggest we wrap up this conversation for now and move on to substance. Otherwise we delegitimze the broad support people worked towards over two days in Bali and make it more difficult to prepare for Brazil. -------- Original message -------- From: Rafik Dammak > Date: 12/02/2013 8:22 AM (GMT-05:00) To: genekimmelman at gmail.com Cc: William Drake >,Parminder >,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT every response with such reluctance and such kind of arguments raise more questions than giving answers or appeasing those with concerns. as reminder BestBits initiative started in august 2012 when people were talking about WCIT and prepared first meeting IGF Baku, we will be in 2014 in few weeks and we are still with temporary settings. Rafik 2013/12/2 genekimmelman at gmail.com > Internal accountability to a group with shared goals may differ from societal/global policy goals that the group will agree to if all others with power agree as well. Best not to confuse these. We should be accountable but not create internal processes that make it impossible to coordinate policy actions. -------- Original message -------- From: William Drake > Date: 12/02/2013 3:52 AM (GMT-05:00) To: Parminder Singh > Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Best Bits" > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT +1! On Dec 2, 2013, at 9:23 AM, parminder > wrote: Civil society must always remain very vary of thinking of themselves as somehow so morally superior that they are exempt from normal accountability and transparency requirements ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Carolina Rossini Project Director, Latin America Resource Center Open Technology Institute New America Foundation // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini ________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew at gp-digital.org Wed Dec 4 04:39:43 2013 From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 09:39:43 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT In-Reply-To: <5796C2D7A825443EBF67F5433844DCF2@Toshiba> References: <4cw8diiesyylf3jwi8kxd4px.1386040791760@email.android.com> <5796C2D7A825443EBF67F5433844DCF2@Toshiba> Message-ID: I meant I’m updating the list – although the lost may also be a good label Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: 03 December 2013 18:58 To: Andrew Puddephatt Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT Hi Andrew, can I join stream 3? Ian Peter From: Andrew Puddephatt Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 2:21 AM To: Carolina Rossini ; Gene Kimmleman (external) Cc: Rafik Dammak ; William Drake ; parminder ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: RE: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT This is where we are Jeremy has volunteered to co-ordinate Stream 1, Matthew Stream 2 and I will start with Stream 3. The survey will close of December 10th – I’ve had six responses (thanks everyone) but the more the merrier. I’d hope to analyse them by Dec 16 and be able to send round first thoughts on how to structure work. I think we should aim to move very quickly and encourage people to submit their ideas to CGI Volunteers so far are: Stream 1 Stream 2 Stream 3 Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote participation, stakeholder representation and selection) Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil and/or other existing principles documents). Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder Internet governance including: 1. Internationalisation of ICANN 2.International public policy issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group). Andrew Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression, privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free expression. Submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF) Matthew x x Nnenna x Claudio x - contribute, not lead Valeria/ APC x - contribute x - contribute Marianne/ IRP x Jeanette x - listen and comment Anriette APC x x x Anja x x Joana x x x M. Gurstein x x Marilia/ Joana 3.1/3.2 Rafik x x Joy x x Cynthia x Avri x Pranesh x x Carolina x x x Misha x Deborah/Access x x Poncelet x x Bertrand x Parminder x x x Matthias will offer international legal expertise on all issues x x x Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina Rossini Sent: 03 December 2013 15:04 To: Gene Kimmleman (external) Cc: Rafik Dammak; William Drake; parminder; > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT I agree. I do believe policy makers respond better when we have clear content proposals to make. For instance, the APC letter went up the latter really fast in the Brazilian government.... And I do feel we are in a crucial moment to develop such content focus proposals. I actually feel we are getting late. The sooner we can send in constructive proposals - based on the 3 items Andrew have sent - the better. I also do feel the tension in this list has been too high sometimes, and I do wish people read emails as per their words... Finally, Rafik, is there any news from your conversations at ICANN that you may have accessed and could share with us due to current mandate? C On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:19 PM, genekimmelman at gmail.com > wrote: Rafik, sorry if my message came across as aggressive, it was not meant that way. I won't debate further either, you raise important points that deserve consideration. I believe there have been some interesting process proposals put on the table to work out. My tone was only meant to express my sense that we need to reach a point of resolution so we can focus adequate attention to substantive policy concerns. And I must also admit that as a 30 year veteran of policy strategy, I have never placed transparency as a goal equal to social equity, economic justice, or the protection of fundamental human rights. Maybe others in CS have a different hierarchy of concerns and therefore are more focused on how internal process rules are consistent with external demands of policymakers. I'm just explaining that I personally think internal legitimacy of our group among those who opt in requires a sense of trust that may be quite different from transparency rules. And I look forward to working out how we can generate and maintain that trust as we actively engage in our work. -------- Original message -------- From: Rafik Dammak > Date: 12/02/2013 9:49 PM (GMT-05:00) To: genekimmelman at gmail.com Cc: William Drake >,Parminder >,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT Hi Gene, thanks for the reply. I feel some aggressive tone there with kind of mix of "shut-up" , "take it or leave it" and "if you don't like, you can quit", at least that is my interpretation . For sure that is not the best way to engage and convince people . If I recall correctly the interim steering committee started this summer (july) and that is before the brazil meeting announcement in October. I guess that any interim steering committee has a first goal to propose a long-term setting or process and moving from the transitional phase. we can every time postpone that arguing we have new challenges and issues to handle, but till when? it looks like technical debt in the software development world. There are concerns and I don't share all of them, but dismissing is not the answer .Why? because for every decision, move , they will pop-up again over again, why not to respond them now ? I can live with Anriette proposal and find it acceptable while I found that term is long and can be shorten. I feel that people are in defensive mode and react to critics. this discussion is not about individuals at all. We as individuals involved in CS world in different manners and fora, we tend to lecture others about accountability, transparency, sometimes in the borderline of patronizing, shouldn't we live to those principles first? I am not going further in this discussion since I think I expressed what I have to say already and not willing to disturb the social peace. Best, Rafik 2013/12/2 genekimmelman at gmail.com > To be more specific, maybe those with lingering concerns need to decide whether they want to participate on the best bits platform or not. You decide. If you think you can make it work better, please offer ideas like Anriette, Michael and others have done. I believe we decided in Bali on an approach and I endorse Anriette's path toward formalizing this. And I suggest we wrap up this conversation for now and move on to substance. Otherwise we delegitimze the broad support people worked towards over two days in Bali and make it more difficult to prepare for Brazil. -------- Original message -------- From: Rafik Dammak > Date: 12/02/2013 8:22 AM (GMT-05:00) To: genekimmelman at gmail.com Cc: William Drake >,Parminder >,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT every response with such reluctance and such kind of arguments raise more questions than giving answers or appeasing those with concerns. as reminder BestBits initiative started in august 2012 when people were talking about WCIT and prepared first meeting IGF Baku, we will be in 2014 in few weeks and we are still with temporary settings. Rafik 2013/12/2 genekimmelman at gmail.com > Internal accountability to a group with shared goals may differ from societal/global policy goals that the group will agree to if all others with power agree as well. Best not to confuse these. We should be accountable but not create internal processes that make it impossible to coordinate policy actions. -------- Original message -------- From: William Drake > Date: 12/02/2013 3:52 AM (GMT-05:00) To: Parminder Singh > Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Best Bits" > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT +1! On Dec 2, 2013, at 9:23 AM, parminder > wrote: Civil society must always remain very vary of thinking of themselves as somehow so morally superior that they are exempt from normal accountability and transparency requirements ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Carolina Rossini Project Director, Latin America Resource Center Open Technology Institute New America Foundation // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini ________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lmottaz at INTERNEWS.ORG Wed Dec 4 04:45:06 2013 From: lmottaz at INTERNEWS.ORG (Laura Mottaz (lmottaz@INTERNEWS.ORG)) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 04:45:06 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT In-Reply-To: References: <4cw8diiesyylf3jwi8kxd4px.1386040791760@email.android.com> <5796C2D7A825443EBF67F5433844DCF2@Toshiba> Message-ID: <1DEB7534D981B444BF234789326B22A8A24DFE294B@MBX.INTERNEWS.LOCAL> Hi Andrew, Could I join streams 1 and 2? Thanks! Laura Laura Mottaz | Project Manager, Global Internet Policy Project lmottaz at internews.org | Mobile 763-360-2227 Skype lmottaz Address 1889 F Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20006 USA INTERNEWS | Local Voices. Global Change. www.internews.org | @internews | facebook.com/internews From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Andrew Puddephatt Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 10:40 AM To: Ian Peter Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: RE: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT I meant I’m updating the list – although the lost may also be a good label Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: 03 December 2013 18:58 To: Andrew Puddephatt Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT Hi Andrew, can I join stream 3? Ian Peter From: Andrew Puddephatt Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 2:21 AM To: Carolina Rossini ; Gene Kimmleman (external) Cc: Rafik Dammak ; William Drake ; parminder ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: RE: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT This is where we are Jeremy has volunteered to co-ordinate Stream 1, Matthew Stream 2 and I will start with Stream 3. The survey will close of December 10th – I’ve had six responses (thanks everyone) but the more the merrier. I’d hope to analyse them by Dec 16 and be able to send round first thoughts on how to structure work. I think we should aim to move very quickly and encourage people to submit their ideas to CGI Volunteers so far are: Stream 1 Stream 2 Stream 3 Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote participation, stakeholder representation and selection) Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil and/or other existing principles documents). Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder Internet governance including: 1. Internationalisation of ICANN 2.International public policy issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group). Andrew Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression, privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free expression. Submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF) Matthew x x Nnenna x Claudio x - contribute, not lead Valeria/ APC x - contribute x - contribute Marianne/ IRP x Jeanette x - listen and comment Anriette APC x x x Anja x x Joana x x x M. Gurstein x x Marilia/ Joana 3.1/3.2 Rafik x x Joy x x Cynthia x Avri x Pranesh x x Carolina x x x Misha x Deborah/Access x x Poncelet x x Bertrand x Parminder x x x Matthias will offer international legal expertise on all issues x x x Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina Rossini Sent: 03 December 2013 15:04 To: Gene Kimmleman (external) Cc: Rafik Dammak; William Drake; parminder; > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT I agree. I do believe policy makers respond better when we have clear content proposals to make. For instance, the APC letter went up the latter really fast in the Brazilian government.... And I do feel we are in a crucial moment to develop such content focus proposals. I actually feel we are getting late. The sooner we can send in constructive proposals - based on the 3 items Andrew have sent - the better. I also do feel the tension in this list has been too high sometimes, and I do wish people read emails as per their words... Finally, Rafik, is there any news from your conversations at ICANN that you may have accessed and could share with us due to current mandate? C On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:19 PM, genekimmelman at gmail.com > wrote: Rafik, sorry if my message came across as aggressive, it was not meant that way. I won't debate further either, you raise important points that deserve consideration. I believe there have been some interesting process proposals put on the table to work out. My tone was only meant to express my sense that we need to reach a point of resolution so we can focus adequate attention to substantive policy concerns. And I must also admit that as a 30 year veteran of policy strategy, I have never placed transparency as a goal equal to social equity, economic justice, or the protection of fundamental human rights. Maybe others in CS have a different hierarchy of concerns and therefore are more focused on how internal process rules are consistent with external demands of policymakers. I'm just explaining that I personally think internal legitimacy of our group among those who opt in requires a sense of trust that may be quite different from transparency rules. And I look forward to working out how we can generate and maintain that trust as we actively engage in our work. -------- Original message -------- From: Rafik Dammak > Date: 12/02/2013 9:49 PM (GMT-05:00) To: genekimmelman at gmail.com Cc: William Drake >,Parminder >,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT Hi Gene, thanks for the reply. I feel some aggressive tone there with kind of mix of "shut-up" , "take it or leave it" and "if you don't like, you can quit", at least that is my interpretation . For sure that is not the best way to engage and convince people . If I recall correctly the interim steering committee started this summer (july) and that is before the brazil meeting announcement in October. I guess that any interim steering committee has a first goal to propose a long-term setting or process and moving from the transitional phase. we can every time postpone that arguing we have new challenges and issues to handle, but till when? it looks like technical debt in the software development world. There are concerns and I don't share all of them, but dismissing is not the answer .Why? because for every decision, move , they will pop-up again over again, why not to respond them now ? I can live with Anriette proposal and find it acceptable while I found that term is long and can be shorten. I feel that people are in defensive mode and react to critics. this discussion is not about individuals at all. We as individuals involved in CS world in different manners and fora, we tend to lecture others about accountability, transparency, sometimes in the borderline of patronizing, shouldn't we live to those principles first? I am not going further in this discussion since I think I expressed what I have to say already and not willing to disturb the social peace. Best, Rafik 2013/12/2 genekimmelman at gmail.com > To be more specific, maybe those with lingering concerns need to decide whether they want to participate on the best bits platform or not. You decide. If you think you can make it work better, please offer ideas like Anriette, Michael and others have done. I believe we decided in Bali on an approach and I endorse Anriette's path toward formalizing this. And I suggest we wrap up this conversation for now and move on to substance. Otherwise we delegitimze the broad support people worked towards over two days in Bali and make it more difficult to prepare for Brazil. -------- Original message -------- From: Rafik Dammak > Date: 12/02/2013 8:22 AM (GMT-05:00) To: genekimmelman at gmail.com Cc: William Drake >,Parminder >,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT every response with such reluctance and such kind of arguments raise more questions than giving answers or appeasing those with concerns. as reminder BestBits initiative started in august 2012 when people were talking about WCIT and prepared first meeting IGF Baku, we will be in 2014 in few weeks and we are still with temporary settings. Rafik 2013/12/2 genekimmelman at gmail.com > Internal accountability to a group with shared goals may differ from societal/global policy goals that the group will agree to if all others with power agree as well. Best not to confuse these. We should be accountable but not create internal processes that make it impossible to coordinate policy actions. -------- Original message -------- From: William Drake > Date: 12/02/2013 3:52 AM (GMT-05:00) To: Parminder Singh > Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Best Bits" > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT +1! On Dec 2, 2013, at 9:23 AM, parminder > wrote: Civil society must always remain very vary of thinking of themselves as somehow so morally superior that they are exempt from normal accountability and transparency requirements ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Carolina Rossini Project Director, Latin America Resource Center Open Technology Institute New America Foundation // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini ________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits Click here to report this email as spam. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sana at bolobhi.org Wed Dec 4 04:48:34 2013 From: sana at bolobhi.org (Sana Saleem) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 14:48:34 +0500 Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT In-Reply-To: <1DEB7534D981B444BF234789326B22A8A24DFE294B@MBX.INTERNEWS.LOCAL> References: <4cw8diiesyylf3jwi8kxd4px.1386040791760@email.android.com> <5796C2D7A825443EBF67F5433844DCF2@Toshiba> <1DEB7534D981B444BF234789326B22A8A24DFE294B@MBX.INTERNEWS.LOCAL> Message-ID: Hi Andrew, Can I join stream 2 please? as a contributor. Thank you, Sana -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director, Bolo Bhi, Advocacy-Policy-Research [http://bolobhi.org] Blogger: Dawn.com [http://blog.dawn.com/author/sana-saleem/] Global Voices: [http://globalvoicesonline.org/author/sana-saleem/] The Guardian:[ www.guardian.co.uk/profile/sana-saleem] Blog: http://sanasaleem.com] Twitter: @sanasaleem @bolobhi On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Laura Mottaz (lmottaz at INTERNEWS.ORG) < lmottaz at internews.org> wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > > > Could I join streams 1 and 2? > > > > Thanks! > > Laura > > > > *Laura Mottaz* | Project Manager, Global Internet Policy Project > > lmottaz at internews.org | *Mobile* 763-360-2227 > > *Skype* lmottaz > > *Address* 1889 F Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20006 USA > > > > *INTERNEWS* | *Local Voices. Global Change.* > > www.internews.org | @internews | > facebook.com/internews > > > > > > > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: > bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Andrew Puddephatt > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 04, 2013 10:40 AM > *To:* Ian Peter > *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > *Subject:* RE: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - > URGENT > > > > I meant I’m updating the list – although the lost may also be a good label > > > > *Andrew Puddephatt* | *GLOBAL PARTNERS* DIGITAL > > Executive Director > > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > > T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt > *gp-digital.org * > > > > *From:* Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > *Sent:* 03 December 2013 18:58 > *To:* Andrew Puddephatt > *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - > URGENT > > > > Hi Andrew, can I join stream 3? > > > > Ian Peter > > > > *From:* Andrew Puddephatt > > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 04, 2013 2:21 AM > > *To:* Carolina Rossini ; Gene Kimmleman > (external) > > *Cc:* Rafik Dammak ; William Drake; > parminder ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > *Subject:* RE: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - > URGENT > > > > This is where we are > > > > Jeremy has volunteered to co-ordinate Stream 1, Matthew Stream 2 and I > will start with Stream 3. > > > > The survey will close of December 10th – I’ve had six responses (thanks > everyone) but the more the merrier. I’d hope to analyse them by Dec 16 and > be able to send round first thoughts on how to structure work. I think we > should aim to move very quickly and encourage people to submit their ideas > to CGI > > > > Volunteers so far are: > > > > > > *Stream 1* > > *Stream 2* > > *Stream 3* > > > > *Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote > participation, stakeholder representation and selection)* > > *Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil > and/or other existing principles documents).* > > *Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder > Internet governance including:* > > *1. Internationalisation of ICANN * > > *2.International public policy issues (based on existing proposals put > before the WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).* > > Andrew > > > > Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression, > privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free expression. > > Submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed > structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to include > ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF) > > Matthew > > > > x > > x > > Nnenna > > x > > > > > > Claudio > > > > x - contribute, not lead > > > > Valeria/ APC > > > > x - contribute > > x - contribute > > Marianne/ IRP > > > > x > > > > Jeanette > > > > > > x - listen and comment > > Anriette APC > > x > > x > > x > > Anja > > x > > > > x > > Joana > > x > > x > > x > > M. Gurstein > > > > x > > x > > Marilia/ Joana > > > > > > 3.1/3.2 > > Rafik > > > > x > > x > > Joy > > > > x > > x > > Cynthia > > > > x > > > > Avri > > > > x > > > > Pranesh > > > > x > > x > > Carolina > > x > > x > > x > > Misha > > > > x > > > > Deborah/Access > > > > x > > x > > Poncelet > > x > > > > x > > Bertrand > > > > > > x > > Parminder > > x > > x > > x > > Matthias will offer international legal expertise on all issues > > x > > x > > x > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Andrew Puddephatt* | *GLOBAL PARTNERS* DIGITAL > > Executive Director > > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > > T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt > *gp-digital.org * > > > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [ > mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] > *On Behalf Of *Carolina Rossini > *Sent:* 03 December 2013 15:04 > *To:* Gene Kimmleman (external) > *Cc:* Rafik Dammak; William Drake; parminder; > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - > URGENT > > > > I agree. I do believe policy makers respond better when we have clear > content proposals to make. For instance, the APC letter went up the latter > really fast in the Brazilian government.... > > > > And I do feel we are in a crucial moment to develop such content focus > proposals. I actually feel we are getting late. The sooner we can send in > constructive proposals - based on the 3 items Andrew have sent - the > better. > > > > I also do feel the tension in this list has been too high sometimes, and I > do wish people read emails as per their words... > > > > Finally, Rafik, is there any news from your conversations at ICANN that > you may have accessed and could share with us due to current mandate? > > > > C > > > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:19 PM, genekimmelman at gmail.com < > genekimmelman at gmail.com> wrote: > > Rafik, sorry if my message came across as aggressive, it was not meant > that way. I won't debate further either, you raise important points that > deserve consideration. I believe there have been some interesting process > proposals put on the table to work out. My tone was only meant to express > my sense that we need to reach a point of resolution so we can focus > adequate attention to substantive policy concerns. And I must also admit > that as a 30 year veteran of policy strategy, I have never placed > transparency as a goal equal to social equity, economic justice, or the > protection of fundamental human rights. Maybe others in CS have a > different hierarchy of concerns and therefore are more focused on how > internal process rules are consistent with external demands of > policymakers. I'm just explaining that I personally think internal > legitimacy of our group among those who opt in requires a sense of trust > that may be quite different from transparency rules. And I look forward to > working out how we can generate and maintain that trust as we actively > engage in our work. > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Rafik Dammak > Date: 12/02/2013 9:49 PM (GMT-05:00) > To: genekimmelman at gmail.com > Cc: William Drake ,Parminder < > parminder at itforchange.net>,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - > URGENT > > Hi Gene, > > thanks for the reply. I feel some aggressive tone there with kind of mix > of "shut-up" , "take it or leave it" and "if you don't like, you can quit", > at least that is my interpretation . For sure that is not the best way to > engage and convince people . > > If I recall correctly the interim steering committee started this summer > (july) and that is before the brazil meeting announcement in October. I > guess that any interim steering committee has a first goal to propose a > long-term setting or process and moving from the transitional phase. we can > every time postpone that arguing we have new challenges and issues to > handle, but till when? it looks like technical debt in the software > development world. > > There are concerns and I don't share all of them, but dismissing is not > the answer .Why? because for every decision, move , they will pop-up again > over again, why not to respond them now ? > > I can live with Anriette proposal and find it acceptable while I found > that term is long and can be shorten. > > I feel that people are in defensive mode and react to critics. this > discussion is not about individuals at all. > > We as individuals involved in CS world in different manners and fora, we > tend to lecture others about accountability, transparency, sometimes in the > borderline of patronizing, shouldn't we live to those principles first? > > I am not going further in this discussion since I think I expressed what I > have to say already and not willing to disturb the social peace. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > > 2013/12/2 genekimmelman at gmail.com > > To be more specific, maybe those with lingering concerns need to decide > whether they want to participate on the best bits platform or not. You > decide. If you think you can make it work better, please offer ideas like > Anriette, Michael and others have done. I believe we decided in Bali on an > approach and I endorse Anriette's path toward formalizing this. And I > suggest we wrap up this conversation for now and move on to substance. > Otherwise we delegitimze the broad support people worked towards over two > days in Bali and make it more difficult to prepare for Brazil. > > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Rafik Dammak > Date: 12/02/2013 8:22 AM (GMT-05:00) > To: genekimmelman at gmail.com > Cc: William Drake ,Parminder < > parminder at itforchange.net>,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - > URGENT > > every response with such reluctance and such kind of arguments raise more > questions than giving answers or appeasing those with concerns. > > as reminder BestBits initiative started in august 2012 when people were > talking about WCIT and prepared first meeting IGF Baku, we will be in 2014 > in few weeks and we are still with temporary settings. > > > > Rafik > > > > 2013/12/2 genekimmelman at gmail.com > > Internal accountability to a group with shared goals may differ from > societal/global policy goals that the group will agree to if all others > with power agree as well. Best not to confuse these. We should be > accountable but not create internal processes that make it impossible to > coordinate policy actions. > > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: William Drake > Date: 12/02/2013 3:52 AM (GMT-05:00) > To: Parminder Singh > Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Best Bits" > > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - > URGENT > > +1! > > > > On Dec 2, 2013, at 9:23 AM, parminder wrote: > > > > Civil society must always remain very vary of thinking of themselves as > somehow so morally superior that they are exempt from normal accountability > and transparency requirements > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > -- > > *Carolina Rossini* > > *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* > > Open Technology Institute > > *New America Foundation* > > // > > http://carolinarossini.net/ > > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > > skype: carolrossini > > @carolinarossini > > > ------------------------------ > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > Click hereto report this email as spam. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew at gp-digital.org Wed Dec 4 04:54:45 2013 From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 09:54:45 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] update on submissions to Brazil summitt Message-ID: I've had several requests to re send the link to the survey monkey - https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/YXPV2BD To remind everyone this will provide some information on people's interests and hopefully will enable to us to identify where we have common interests on which we can collaborate. The closing date is December 10th and I'll circulate the results as soon as I can afterwards. Please note that I'm looking at Stream 3 only. Matthew Shears is facilitating Stream 2 and Jeremy Stream 1 and they will be in touch about how to proceed with those areas. The latest list of those expressing interest is below - its really encouraging how many people want to be involved - thanks everyone! If you're not on the list and want to be, or I have incorrectly put an x against your interests let me know.. Stream 1 Stream 2 Stream 3 Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote participation, stakeholder representation and selection) Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil and/or other existing principles documents). Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder Internet governance including: 1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by Internet Governance Project and/or others). 2. Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group). Andrew Andrew at gp-digital.org Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression, privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free expression. Submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF) Matthew mshears at cdt.org x x Nnenna nnenna at webfoundation.org x Claudio claudio at derechosdigitales.org x - contribute, not lead Valeria/ APC valeriab at apc.org x - contribute x - contribute Marianne/ IRP m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk x Jeanette hofmann at internetundgesellschaft.de x - listen and comment Anriette APC anriette at apc.org x x x Anja anja at internetdemocracy.in x x Joana joana at varonferraz.com x x x Jeremy jeremy at ciroap.org x Michael gurstein at gmail.com x x Marilia mariliamaciel at gmail.com 3.1/3.2 Rafik rafik.dammak at gmail.com x x Joy joy at apc.org x x Imran ias_pk at yahoo.com x Ian ian.peter at ianpeter.com Chinmayi chinmayiarun at gmail.com x x Cynthia wongc at hrw.org x Avri avri at acm.org x Adam ajp at glocom.ac.jp x x Pranesh pranesh at cis-india.org x x Carolina carolina.rossini at gmail.com x x x Misha mishi at softwarefreedom.org x Deborah/Access deborah at accessnow.org x x Poncelet pileleji at ymca.gm x x Lorena lorena at collaboratory.de x Sana sana at bolobhi.org x Bertrand bdelachapelle at gmail.com x Laura lmottaz at INTERNEWS.ORG x x Parminder parminder at itforchange.net x x x Matthias offers international legal expertise matthias.kettemann at gmail.com x x x Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Wed Dec 4 05:11:36 2013 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 11:11:36 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT In-Reply-To: References: <4cw8diiesyylf3jwi8kxd4px.1386040791760@email.android.com> <5796C2D7A825443EBF67F5433844DCF2@Toshiba> Message-ID: <4CA7F16A-E48F-486A-82FD-ED538372E88F@theglobaljournal.net> Hi Andrew, Can I join stream 2 and 3 Thanks JC __________________________ Jean-Christophe Nothias Editor in Chief jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net @jc_nothias Follow us on Twitter and Like us on Facebook Follow my Op-Eds at the Huffington Post US Palais des Nations SP2-53 8-14 avenue de la Paix 1211 Geneva, Switzerland T: +41 22 917 12 97 www.theglobaljournal.com Le 4 déc. 2013 à 10:39, Andrew Puddephatt a écrit : > I meant I’m updating the list – although the lost may also be a good label > > Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Executive Director > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt > gp-digital.org > > From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > Sent: 03 December 2013 18:58 > To: Andrew Puddephatt > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT > > Hi Andrew, can I join stream 3? > > Ian Peter > > From: Andrew Puddephatt > Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 2:21 AM > To: Carolina Rossini ; Gene Kimmleman (external) > Cc: Rafik Dammak ; William Drake ; parminder ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: RE: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT > > This is where we are > > Jeremy has volunteered to co-ordinate Stream 1, Matthew Stream 2 and I will start with Stream 3. > > The survey will close of December 10th – I’ve had six responses (thanks everyone) but the more the merrier. I’d hope to analyse them by Dec 16 and be able to send round first thoughts on how to structure work. I think we should aim to move very quickly and encourage people to submit their ideas to CGI > > Volunteers so far are: > > > Stream 1 > Stream 2 > Stream 3 > > Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote participation, stakeholder representation and selection) > Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil and/or other existing principles documents). > Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder Internet governance including: > 1. Internationalisation of ICANN > 2.International public policy issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group). > Andrew > > Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression, privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free expression. > Submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF) > Matthew > > x > x > Nnenna > x > > > Claudio > > x - contribute, not lead > > Valeria/ APC > > x - contribute > x - contribute > Marianne/ IRP > > x > > Jeanette > > > x - listen and comment > Anriette APC > x > x > x > Anja > x > > x > Joana > x > x > x > M. Gurstein > > x > x > Marilia/ Joana > > > 3.1/3.2 > Rafik > > x > x > Joy > > x > x > Cynthia > > x > > Avri > > x > > Pranesh > > x > x > Carolina > x > x > x > Misha > > x > > Deborah/Access > > x > x > Poncelet > x > > x > Bertrand > > > x > Parminder > x > x > x > Matthias will offer international legal expertise on all issues > x > x > x > > > > > > > > > Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Executive Director > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt > gp-digital.org > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina Rossini > Sent: 03 December 2013 15:04 > To: Gene Kimmleman (external) > Cc: Rafik Dammak; William Drake; parminder; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT > > I agree. I do believe policy makers respond better when we have clear content proposals to make. For instance, the APC letter went up the latter really fast in the Brazilian government.... > > And I do feel we are in a crucial moment to develop such content focus proposals. I actually feel we are getting late. The sooner we can send in constructive proposals - based on the 3 items Andrew have sent - the better. > > I also do feel the tension in this list has been too high sometimes, and I do wish people read emails as per their words... > > Finally, Rafik, is there any news from your conversations at ICANN that you may have accessed and could share with us due to current mandate? > > C > > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:19 PM, genekimmelman at gmail.com wrote: > Rafik, sorry if my message came across as aggressive, it was not meant that way. I won't debate further either, you raise important points that deserve consideration. I believe there have been some interesting process proposals put on the table to work out. My tone was only meant to express my sense that we need to reach a point of resolution so we can focus adequate attention to substantive policy concerns. And I must also admit that as a 30 year veteran of policy strategy, I have never placed transparency as a goal equal to social equity, economic justice, or the protection of fundamental human rights. Maybe others in CS have a different hierarchy of concerns and therefore are more focused on how internal process rules are consistent with external demands of policymakers. I'm just explaining that I personally think internal legitimacy of our group among those who opt in requires a sense of trust that may be quite different from transparency rules. And I look forward to working out how we can generate and maintain that trust as we actively engage in our work. > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Rafik Dammak > Date: 12/02/2013 9:49 PM (GMT-05:00) > To: genekimmelman at gmail.com > Cc: William Drake ,Parminder ,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT > > Hi Gene, > > thanks for the reply. I feel some aggressive tone there with kind of mix of "shut-up" , "take it or leave it" and "if you don't like, you can quit", at least that is my interpretation . For sure that is not the best way to engage and convince people . > > If I recall correctly the interim steering committee started this summer (july) and that is before the brazil meeting announcement in October. I guess that any interim steering committee has a first goal to propose a long-term setting or process and moving from the transitional phase. we can every time postpone that arguing we have new challenges and issues to handle, but till when? it looks like technical debt in the software development world. > > There are concerns and I don't share all of them, but dismissing is not the answer .Why? because for every decision, move , they will pop-up again over again, why not to respond them now ? > > I can live with Anriette proposal and find it acceptable while I found that term is long and can be shorten. > > I feel that people are in defensive mode and react to critics. this discussion is not about individuals at all. > > We as individuals involved in CS world in different manners and fora, we tend to lecture others about accountability, transparency, sometimes in the borderline of patronizing, shouldn't we live to those principles first? > > I am not going further in this discussion since I think I expressed what I have to say already and not willing to disturb the social peace. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > 2013/12/2 genekimmelman at gmail.com > To be more specific, maybe those with lingering concerns need to decide whether they want to participate on the best bits platform or not. You decide. If you think you can make it work better, please offer ideas like Anriette, Michael and others have done. I believe we decided in Bali on an approach and I endorse Anriette's path toward formalizing this. And I suggest we wrap up this conversation for now and move on to substance. Otherwise we delegitimze the broad support people worked towards over two days in Bali and make it more difficult to prepare for Brazil. > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Rafik Dammak > Date: 12/02/2013 8:22 AM (GMT-05:00) > To: genekimmelman at gmail.com > Cc: William Drake ,Parminder ,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT > > every response with such reluctance and such kind of arguments raise more questions than giving answers or appeasing those with concerns. > as reminder BestBits initiative started in august 2012 when people were talking about WCIT and prepared first meeting IGF Baku, we will be in 2014 in few weeks and we are still with temporary settings. > > Rafik > > 2013/12/2 genekimmelman at gmail.com > Internal accountability to a group with shared goals may differ from societal/global policy goals that the group will agree to if all others with power agree as well. Best not to confuse these. We should be accountable but not create internal processes that make it impossible to coordinate policy actions. > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: William Drake > Date: 12/02/2013 3:52 AM (GMT-05:00) > To: Parminder Singh > Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Best Bits" > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT > > +1! > > On Dec 2, 2013, at 9:23 AM, parminder wrote: > > > Civil society must always remain very vary of thinking of themselves as somehow so morally superior that they are exempt from normal accountability and transparency requirements > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > Carolina Rossini > Project Director, Latin America Resource Center > Open Technology Institute > New America Foundation > // > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Global_logo-175x50px.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 14790 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Andrew at gp-digital.org Wed Dec 4 05:12:10 2013 From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 10:12:10 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT In-Reply-To: <4CA7F16A-E48F-486A-82FD-ED538372E88F@theglobaljournal.net> References: <4cw8diiesyylf3jwi8kxd4px.1386040791760@email.android.com> <5796C2D7A825443EBF67F5433844DCF2@Toshiba> <4CA7F16A-E48F-486A-82FD-ED538372E88F@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: You're in Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org From: Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal [mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net] Sent: 04 December 2013 10:12 To: Andrew Puddephatt Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT Hi Andrew, Can I join stream 2 and 3 Thanks JC __________________________ Jean-Christophe Nothias Editor in Chief jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net @jc_nothias Follow us on Twitter and Like us on Facebook Follow my Op-Eds at the Huffington Post US [cid:image001.jpg at 01CEF0D9.4B8D6450] Palais des Nations SP2-53 8-14 avenue de la Paix 1211 Geneva, Switzerland T: +41 22 917 12 97 www.theglobaljournal.com Le 4 déc. 2013 à 10:39, Andrew Puddephatt a écrit : I meant I'm updating the list - although the lost may also be a good label Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: 03 December 2013 18:58 To: Andrew Puddephatt Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT Hi Andrew, can I join stream 3? Ian Peter From: Andrew Puddephatt Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 2:21 AM To: Carolina Rossini ; Gene Kimmleman (external) Cc: Rafik Dammak ; William Drake ; parminder ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: RE: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT This is where we are Jeremy has volunteered to co-ordinate Stream 1, Matthew Stream 2 and I will start with Stream 3. The survey will close of December 10th - I've had six responses (thanks everyone) but the more the merrier. I'd hope to analyse them by Dec 16 and be able to send round first thoughts on how to structure work. I think we should aim to move very quickly and encourage people to submit their ideas to CGI Volunteers so far are: Stream 1 Stream 2 Stream 3 Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote participation, stakeholder representation and selection) Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil and/or other existing principles documents). Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder Internet governance including: 1. Internationalisation of ICANN 2.International public policy issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group). Andrew Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression, privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free expression. Submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF) Matthew x x Nnenna x Claudio x - contribute, not lead Valeria/ APC x - contribute x - contribute Marianne/ IRP x Jeanette x - listen and comment Anriette APC x x x Anja x x Joana x x x M. Gurstein x x Marilia/ Joana 3.1/3.2 Rafik x x Joy x x Cynthia x Avri x Pranesh x x Carolina x x x Misha x Deborah/Access x x Poncelet x x Bertrand x Parminder x x x Matthias will offer international legal expertise on all issues x x x Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina Rossini Sent: 03 December 2013 15:04 To: Gene Kimmleman (external) Cc: Rafik Dammak; William Drake; parminder; > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT I agree. I do believe policy makers respond better when we have clear content proposals to make. For instance, the APC letter went up the latter really fast in the Brazilian government.... And I do feel we are in a crucial moment to develop such content focus proposals. I actually feel we are getting late. The sooner we can send in constructive proposals - based on the 3 items Andrew have sent - the better. I also do feel the tension in this list has been too high sometimes, and I do wish people read emails as per their words... Finally, Rafik, is there any news from your conversations at ICANN that you may have accessed and could share with us due to current mandate? C On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:19 PM, genekimmelman at gmail.com > wrote: Rafik, sorry if my message came across as aggressive, it was not meant that way. I won't debate further either, you raise important points that deserve consideration. I believe there have been some interesting process proposals put on the table to work out. My tone was only meant to express my sense that we need to reach a point of resolution so we can focus adequate attention to substantive policy concerns. And I must also admit that as a 30 year veteran of policy strategy, I have never placed transparency as a goal equal to social equity, economic justice, or the protection of fundamental human rights. Maybe others in CS have a different hierarchy of concerns and therefore are more focused on how internal process rules are consistent with external demands of policymakers. I'm just explaining that I personally think internal legitimacy of our group among those who opt in requires a sense of trust that may be quite different from transparency rules. And I look forward to working out how we can generate and maintain that trust as we actively engage in our work. -------- Original message -------- From: Rafik Dammak > Date: 12/02/2013 9:49 PM (GMT-05:00) To: genekimmelman at gmail.com Cc: William Drake >,Parminder >,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT Hi Gene, thanks for the reply. I feel some aggressive tone there with kind of mix of "shut-up" , "take it or leave it" and "if you don't like, you can quit", at least that is my interpretation . For sure that is not the best way to engage and convince people . If I recall correctly the interim steering committee started this summer (july) and that is before the brazil meeting announcement in October. I guess that any interim steering committee has a first goal to propose a long-term setting or process and moving from the transitional phase. we can every time postpone that arguing we have new challenges and issues to handle, but till when? it looks like technical debt in the software development world. There are concerns and I don't share all of them, but dismissing is not the answer .Why? because for every decision, move , they will pop-up again over again, why not to respond them now ? I can live with Anriette proposal and find it acceptable while I found that term is long and can be shorten. I feel that people are in defensive mode and react to critics. this discussion is not about individuals at all. We as individuals involved in CS world in different manners and fora, we tend to lecture others about accountability, transparency, sometimes in the borderline of patronizing, shouldn't we live to those principles first? I am not going further in this discussion since I think I expressed what I have to say already and not willing to disturb the social peace. Best, Rafik 2013/12/2 genekimmelman at gmail.com > To be more specific, maybe those with lingering concerns need to decide whether they want to participate on the best bits platform or not. You decide. If you think you can make it work better, please offer ideas like Anriette, Michael and others have done. I believe we decided in Bali on an approach and I endorse Anriette's path toward formalizing this. And I suggest we wrap up this conversation for now and move on to substance. Otherwise we delegitimze the broad support people worked towards over two days in Bali and make it more difficult to prepare for Brazil. -------- Original message -------- From: Rafik Dammak > Date: 12/02/2013 8:22 AM (GMT-05:00) To: genekimmelman at gmail.com Cc: William Drake >,Parminder >,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT every response with such reluctance and such kind of arguments raise more questions than giving answers or appeasing those with concerns. as reminder BestBits initiative started in august 2012 when people were talking about WCIT and prepared first meeting IGF Baku, we will be in 2014 in few weeks and we are still with temporary settings. Rafik 2013/12/2 genekimmelman at gmail.com > Internal accountability to a group with shared goals may differ from societal/global policy goals that the group will agree to if all others with power agree as well. Best not to confuse these. We should be accountable but not create internal processes that make it impossible to coordinate policy actions. -------- Original message -------- From: William Drake > Date: 12/02/2013 3:52 AM (GMT-05:00) To: Parminder Singh > Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Best Bits" > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT +1! On Dec 2, 2013, at 9:23 AM, parminder > wrote: Civil society must always remain very vary of thinking of themselves as somehow so morally superior that they are exempt from normal accountability and transparency requirements ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Carolina Rossini Project Director, Latin America Resource Center Open Technology Institute New America Foundation // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini ________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 14790 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From Sarah.Clarke at pen-international.org Wed Dec 4 05:16:41 2013 From: Sarah.Clarke at pen-international.org (Sarah Clarke) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 10:16:41 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] RE: update on submissions to Brazil summitt In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Andrew, Can you put me down for stream 2 please? Many thanks, Sarah From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Andrew Puddephatt Sent: 04 December 2013 09:55 To: (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net) Subject: [bestbits] update on submissions to Brazil summitt I've had several requests to re send the link to the survey monkey - https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/YXPV2BD To remind everyone this will provide some information on people's interests and hopefully will enable to us to identify where we have common interests on which we can collaborate. The closing date is December 10th and I'll circulate the results as soon as I can afterwards. Please note that I'm looking at Stream 3 only. Matthew Shears is facilitating Stream 2 and Jeremy Stream 1 and they will be in touch about how to proceed with those areas. The latest list of those expressing interest is below - its really encouraging how many people want to be involved - thanks everyone! If you're not on the list and want to be, or I have incorrectly put an x against your interests let me know.. Stream 1 Stream 2 Stream 3 Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote participation, stakeholder representation and selection) Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil and/or other existing principles documents). Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder Internet governance including: 1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done by Internet Governance Project and/or others). 2. Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group). Andrew Andrew at gp-digital.org Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression, privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free expression. Submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF) Matthew mshears at cdt.org x x Nnenna nnenna at webfoundation.org x Claudio claudio at derechosdigitales.org x - contribute, not lead Valeria/ APC valeriab at apc.org x - contribute x - contribute Marianne/ IRP m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk x Jeanette hofmann at internetundgesellschaft.de x - listen and comment Anriette APC anriette at apc.org x x x Anja anja at internetdemocracy.in x x Joana joana at varonferraz.com x x x Jeremy jeremy at ciroap.org x Michael gurstein at gmail.com x x Marilia mariliamaciel at gmail.com 3.1/3.2 Rafik rafik.dammak at gmail.com x x Joy joy at apc.org x x Imran ias_pk at yahoo.com x Ian ian.peter at ianpeter.com Chinmayi chinmayiarun at gmail.com x x Cynthia wongc at hrw.org x Avri avri at acm.org x Adam ajp at glocom.ac.jp x x Pranesh pranesh at cis-india.org x x Carolina carolina.rossini at gmail.com x x x Misha mishi at softwarefreedom.org x Deborah/Access deborah at accessnow.org x x Poncelet pileleji at ymca.gm x x Lorena lorena at collaboratory.de x Sana sana at bolobhi.org x Bertrand bdelachapelle at gmail.com x Laura lmottaz at INTERNEWS.ORG x x Parminder parminder at itforchange.net x x x Matthias offers international legal expertise matthias.kettemann at gmail.com x x x Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: