From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Fri Jan  2 05:29:31 2015
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2015 08:29:31 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Open call for applications: Introduction to
 Internet Governance course
In-Reply-To: <CAHY7YHEW4Hc+3=1b5nPAzduhrdh3J_bKp6gZUXn4_g5-ziLGbg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHY7YHEW4Hc+3=1b5nPAzduhrdh3J_bKp6gZUXn4_g5-ziLGbg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAemzHtEBCat4nkWCizzZuAYdnNOeo_hmDAbCU5sumd_fA@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Stephanie Borg Psaila" <stephaniep at diplomacy.edu>
Date: Dec 31, 2014 8:20 AM
Subject: Open call for applications: Introduction to Internet Governance
course
To: <igcbp at diplomacy.edu>
Cc:

Dear friends,

In my last message for 2014, I'd like to share Diplo's call for
applications for the upcoming* Introduction to Internet Governance *course,
which kick-starts on 16 February. As many of you know, the 10-week course
introduces IG policy and covers main issues, including Infrastructure and
Standardisation, Legal, Economic, Sociocultural, and Development aspects,
and a section on IG processes and actors.

Details about the course are below, and at
http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/IGCBP-foundation

We appreciate if you could forward to those you think may benefit from this
course, especially anyone whose New Year resolution is to deepen one's
knowledge on Internet governance :-)

All the best to you and your loved ones for the New Year!

Stephanie


Introduction to Internet Governance

*Course details:*

*Internet Governance (IG) may be more important to you than you realise.*

Have you been reading and worrying about cybersecurity threats? Does online
surveillance concern you and your colleagues? These are important IG
issues. Learning more about IG will help you understand these personal and
professional issues, and what can and should be done about them. Net
neutrality? Privacy in online storage? Guidelines for cross-border Internet
issues? How can regulators enhance and protect without interfering with the
innovative principles that are the core of the Internet?

The 10-week Introduction to Internet Governance online course introduces IG
policy and covers main issues, including Infrastructure and
Standardisation, Legal, Economic, Sociocultural, and Development aspects,
and a section on IG processes and actors. The course covers broadband
policy; management of domain names and IP addresses, including the
transition from IPv4 to IPv6; network neutrality; jurisdiction,
intellectual property rights, open source and piracy; privacy protection;
data security and cybersecurity; child protection; human rights; content
management; digital signatures; emerging issues such as policies related to
social networks and cloud computing, and more, with space for regional and
other issues raised by the participants.

By the end of the course, participants should be able to:

   - Understand Internet-related terminology, concepts and issues
   - Understand the international aspects of Internet governance
   - Identify institutional and negotiation aspects of Internet governance
   - Explain the various regional and professional understandings and
   approaches to Internet governance
   - Engage in the Internet governance policy processes in their countries
   and regions, as well as in global policy processes.

The course forms part of Diplo's Internet Governance Capacity Building
Programme <http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/IGCBP> Foundation Phase.
 Excerpt from course materials

*‘...IG is sometimes used interchangeably with Internet regulation and
Internet policy. Although there is a considerable overlap, there are still
specific differences between these concepts. Regulation implies the
existence of legal rules with prescriptions of behaviour and sanctions,
while policy is a broader term, usually referring to a plan to guide
decisions and actions.’*
 Course outline

The Introduction to Internet Governance online course includes one week of
hypertext practice and platform familiarisation and introduction, and 8
in-depth course texts.

Course topics include:

   - Introduction to Internet governance: issues, processes and actors;
   evolution, international context, basic terminology, guiding principles;
   - Infrastructure and Standardisation Basket: infrastructure, TCP/IP,
   DNS, Root Servers, Internet Service Providers, economic models, security,
   Network Neutrality;
   - Legal Basket: legal mechanisms, jurisdiction, arbitration,
   Intellectual Property Rights, cybercrime;
   - Economic Basket: e-commerce, e-banking, and e-money;
   - Socio-Cultural Basket: content policy, privacy and data protection,
   multilingualism and cultural diversity;
   - Development Basket: the Digital Divide, access to knowledge, capacity
   development
   - Process (WSIS, IGF, ICANN), and actors (ICANN, RIR, ISOC, UN, ITU,
   regional organisations, governments, private sector, civil society)



*Who should apply:*

Diplo seeks applications from the following, from both developed and
developing countries:

   - Officials in government ministries, departments, or institutions
   dealing with Information Society, Internet and ICT-related policy issues
   (e.g. telecommunications, education, foreign affairs, justice);
   - Postgraduate students, academics and researchers in the IG field (e.g.
   in telecommunications, electrical engineering, law, economics, development
   studies);
   - Civil society activists in the IG and Information Society fields;
   - Journalists covering IG issues; and
   - Individuals in Internet business-related fields (e.g. ISPs, software
   developers).

This course may also be of interest to:

   - Journalists, staff of international and non-governmental
   organisations, translators, business people and others who interact with
   diplomats and wish to improve their understanding of diplomacy-related
   topics.
   - Postgraduate students or practitioners in other fields seeking an
   entry point into the world of diplomacy.
   - Postgraduate students of diplomacy or international relations wishing
   to study topics not offered through their university programmes or
   diplomatic academies and to gain deeper insight through interaction with
   practising diplomats.
   - Practising diplomats, civil servants, and others working in
   international relations who want to refresh or expand their knowledge on
   the subject, under the guidance of experienced practitioners and academics.



*Methodology:*

This course is conducted online over a period of ten weeks, including one
week of classroom orientation, eight weeks of dynamic class content and
activities, and one week for the final assignment. Reading materials and
tools for online interaction are provided through an online classroom. Each
week, participants read the provided lecture texts, adding comments,
references, and questions in the form of hypertext entries. The tutor and
other participants read and respond to these entries, creating interaction
based on the lecture text. During the week, participants complete
additional online activities (e.g. further discussion via blogs or forums
or quizzes). At the end of the week, participants and tutors meet online in
a chat room to discuss the week’s topic.

Courses are based on a collaborative approach to learning, involving a high
level of interaction. This course requires a minimum of eight to ten hours
of study time per week.

The course materials, the e-learning platform, and the working language of
the course is English. Applicants should consider whether their reading and
writing skills in English are sufficient to follow postgraduate level
materials and discussion. Spanish, Portuguese, and French options may be
offered. Please request more information if you are interested in a second
language option.

In addition to English-speaking groups, bilingual groups may be formed for
the course, having English as the primary language, and either Arabic,
French, Spanish, or Portuguese as the secondary language for communication
and interaction. This option will be offered depending on the needs of the
applicants. Applicants to the bilingual groups (if offered) are asked to
note that both languages are considered working languages within these
groups. Reading and writing skills in English must be sufficient to
understand learning materials and instructions, and for basic communication
and interaction. Reading and writing skills in the second language must be
sufficient for discussion and research purposes. Please request more
information if you are interested in a second language option.

Participants are invited to join Diplo’s global Internet governance online
community of over 1,400 members, and to attend monthly webinars and other
IG-related events and activities.

*Prerequistes:*

Applicants for the *certificate course* must have:

   - Basic IG knowledge and/or experience of the multistakeholder approach
   in international affairs;
   - Sufficient ability in the English language to undertake postgraduate
   level studies (including reading academic texts, discussing complex
   concepts with other course participants, and submitting written essay
   assignments).
   - Fluency in the second language for the applicants to any of the
   bilingual groups (if offered);
   - Regular access to the Internet (dial-up connection is sufficient,
   although broadband is preferable);
   - A minimum of 8-10 hours commitment per week, and the readiness to
   participate in class online sessions (once a week at specified times).

In addition to the above, applicants for the *accredited course* must also
meet University of Malta prerequisites:

   - Bachelor's degree in a relevant subject with at least Second Class
   Honours.
   - Proof of English language proficiency obtained within the last two
   years (minimum requirements TOEFL: paper-based – 650; Internet-based – 95.
   IELTS: 6.5. Cambridge: Proficiency Certificate with Grade C or better). If
   when applying you are still waiting for your English language proficiency
   results, the University may issue a conditional letter of acceptance.

*Fees:*

Course fees depend on whether you wish to obtain university credit for the
course:

   - €790 (University of Malta Accredited Course)
   - €650 (Diplo Certificate Course)

Applicants must pay full fees upon official acceptance into the course. The
fee includes:

   - Tuition fee
   - Access to all course materials online, via Diplo’s online classroom
   - Personal interaction via the online classroom with course lecturers,
   staff and other participants
   - Online technical support
   - University of Malta application fee (for University of Malta
   Accredited Courses only)
   - Access, via the Internet, to the University of Malta e-journal
   collection (University of Malta Accredited Courses only
   - For Diplo Certificate Courses, postgraduate level certificate issued
   by DiploFoundation on successful completion of course requirements
   (interaction and participation, all assignments)

 Financial assistance

A limited number of partial scholarships (maximum 20%) will be offered to
participants from developing and emerging countries. Participants who would
like to apply for financial assistance must upload the following documents
with their application:

   - a CV or resumé;
   - a motivation letter outlining relevant professional and educational
   background, and interest in the course.


As Diplo's ability to offer scholarship support is limited, candidates are
strongly encouraged to seek scholarship funding directly from local or
international institutions. Our guide to Finding Scholarships for Online
Study <http://www.diplomacy.edu/poolbin.asp?IDPool=725> may provide you
with some useful starting points.



*How to apply:*

A number of routes for application are available:

   - Apply for this course as a Diplo Certificate Course (see below)
   - Apply for this course as a University of Malta Accredited Course (see
   below)
   - Take this course as part of the Master/PGD in Contemporary Diplomacy
   <http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/MAPGD>

------------------------------
 Apply for a Diplo Certificate Course

Applicants for certificate courses should apply online
<http://learn.diplomacy.edu/registration/>.
Late applications will be considered if there are spaces available in the
course.
------------------------------
 Apply for a University of Malta Accredited Course

Complete application packages must be received by specified application
deadlines in order to be considered.

   1. Two copies of the University of Malta application form (click here
   <http://www.diplomacy.edu/poolbin.asp?IDPool=1433> to download and
   print) filled out in full.
   2. Certified copies of original degree(s) and official transcripts.
   3. English translations of degree(s) and transcripts if they are not in
   English, signed and stamped by translator.
   4. English language proficiency certificate obtained within the last two
   years (minimum requirements TOEFL: paper-based – 650; Internet-based – 95.
   IELTS: 6.5. Cambridge: Proficiency Certificate with Grade C or better).
   Please indicate on the application form if you are still waiting for your
   English language proficiency results.
   5. Photocopy of personal details pages of your passport.
   6. Application fee or proof of payment (€100 – non-refundable – see methods
   of payment) <http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/learning/payment>.

Please mail complete application packages to Ms Tanja Nikolic,
admissions at diplomacy.edu


*Application deadline: *
Credit: 15 December 2014

*. Late applications are still being accepted. Please contact Ms Tanja
Nikolic at admimssions at diplomacy.edu <admimssions at diplomacy.edu> for
details.*Certificate: 12 January 2015

------------------------------
 Cancellation Policy

Diplo reserves the right to cancel this course if enrolment is
insufficient. In case of cancellation, Diplo will notify applicants shortly
after the application deadline. Applicants who have paid an application fee
may apply this fee towards another course or receive a refund.



 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to igcbp+unsubscribe at diplomacy.edu.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150102/ce73df3c/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Jan  8 09:10:05 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 19:40:05 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] A BR view of multistkaholder processes...
In-Reply-To: <54AE806C.3090703@itforchange.net>
References: <54AD47FF.1000803@cafonso.ca> <54AE806C.3090703@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <54AE8FBD.30705@itforchange.net>

pa
On Thursday 08 January 2015 06:34 PM, parminder wrote:
> Dear Carlos,
>
> Thanks for the very useful article, and for posting it here. (For 
> those who would like to read it, i recommend downloading the full 
> magazine and then reading the article. It is very difficult to read it 
> online.)
>
> I am happy that finally multistakeholderism (MSism) is being openly 
> discussed and argued for, in formal write ups.
>
> I will like to make the following points about your article, and the 
> comparison it makes between the evolution of MSism in other areas of 
> global governance, largely within the UN system, and the MSism of the 
> IG world, of which the Net Mundial Initiative is the latest version.
>
> My main point here is that MS models hitherto, including all 
> historical examples that you have discussed, have always developed in 
> relation to a larger and clearly more formal and authoritative 
> decision making structure - and in all cases you discuss, such a 
> structure has been a UN body.

In fact, since the article mentions the CGI.Br model, and also, 
unfortunately, CGI guys seem to be driven to root for the NMI by the 
rightfulness and success of the CGI model,  it must be pointed out that 
CGI is what is it because it works clearly within and in relation to the 
state of Brazil, with its clear policy making systems and internal 
sovereignty. The equal footing MS model for IG at the global level, a la 
NMI, however, comes in and seeks to promote a global policy vacuum. This 
is not a small difference, it a basic structural one, which makes all 
the difference. Sorry to say, but one just hopes that the CGI people get 
this point.

On the other hand, even within the commanding overall structure of the 
Brazil state, there are 9 gov members in the 21 member CGI -- how is 
this equal footing? As you would see from the Commission for sustainable 
development  (CSD) participatory structures, the civil society group is 
so much vaster than business, which has just one small space. How is 
Internet different - how is it less significant to the lives of all 
people - why for instance media persons are not a separate group, as 
farmers are in the CSD, or women, as women are in the CSD? Because, the 
NMI is a plain and simple capture, by the US led status quoists, to 
prevent any global Internet normative and policy work. And 'they' spun 
the fable as suits them. To ask questions is of course to be on the side 
of China and Iran, the dark forces that are the ones that threaten the 
global Internet, not the US!

parminder


> In fact your article clearly speaks of the relationship of MS 
> structures to decision making bodies.
>
> (quote beings)
> *Connection to Decision-Makers*
>
> Multistakeholder bodies can interact in different ways with official 
> decision-making processes at the international, regional, or national 
> levels. Some MSM bodies are purely informative. Others can develop 
> best practices concerning a particular issue and present them to 
> governments. Multistakeholder bodies can also conduct participatory 
> monitoring of issues that affect society, such as a deforestation 
> index or the quality of Internet access provided by telecommunications 
> operators.
>
> (ends)
>
> Here, you lay our three functions of an MS system - providing 
> information and best practices (together, inputs) to decision makers, 
> and monitoring and assessments to hold policy makers accountable.
>
> All this is very well, and is what is generally called as 
> participatory democracy. In fact the Agenda 21  that you quote as 
> being the " first UN document to include different stakeholders’ roles 
> in a global agreement " is an excellent documenton participatory 
> democracy. (Incidentally, it neither speaks of MSism, nor even the 
> word 'stakeholder'.) Please see what kind of different roles it gives 
> to different groups (which you may like to call 'stakeholders'). 
> Especially see how NGOs and business are seen so differently, and how 
> the civil society group consists of so many different parts and 
> business/ industry is just one. And also of course all the roles of 
> all these groups stand is a specific relationship to policy makers.
>
> These are the values and principles that civil society has long fought 
> for - call it participatory democracy, or stakeholder consultations.. 
> However, and this is my principal point, the MSism that we see in the 
> IG space is not at all this kind of participatory democracy/ 
> stakeholder involvement . I of course speak of the *equal footing MS 
> model* that is we hear spoken of everywhere, and which is now meant to 
> be embodied in the NetMundial Initiative.
>
> This new post-democracy model cannot be derived from the growth of 
> participatory democracy in global governance that your papers tries to 
> derive it from... In this regard, I judge as inadequate, if not a bit 
> misleading, the premise - conclusion logic of your paper.
>
> The new equal footing (EF-MS) MS model, rather than work in relation 
> to a legitimate policy making structure, seeks to anticipate and 
> subvert it. We know that almost all NMI enthusiasts are firmly against 
> development of an Internet policy venue inside the UN, or in any other 
> democratic/ legitimate manner. It - the EF-MS model - seeks to itself 
> be the policy giver to the world in this area, which is the real 
> problem with equal footing MSism and with the NetMundial Initiative. 
> In the circumstances, it is quite inappropriate to connect its 
> evolution to that of participatory democracy in UN institutions, 
> including that for sustainable development.
>
> Now, you may say that neither is the equal footing MS model (nor the 
> NMI) into anticipating and preventing legitimate policy work at the 
> UN, nor is it even at all about policy work. Lets listen to the main 
> flag-bearer of the NMI idea, Fadi Chehade, defending the need for the NMI.
>
> "We need to make sure that next June we don't have delegation after 
> delegation going to UNGA [the United Nations General Assembly] saying 
> there are no solutions to these issues. "
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/12/im_begging_you_to_join_netmundial_initiative_gets_desperate/?page=2
>
> Clear attempt to anticipate and prevent UN based policy development, 
> or do we need even clearer proof! And since UN bodies develop policy, 
> the proposed 'existing solutions', in the form of NMI's work, will in 
> effect be policy stuff - there is a saying , you cannot compare apples 
> to oranges.
>
> Of course, there is considerable verbal acrobatics going on to hide 
> and whitewash the (policy) intentions of the NMI. This is what another 
> NMI champion Wolfgang says (on the NMI website):
>
> "The NetMundial Initiative will bring solutions to the broad range of 
> Internet related policy problems."
>
> Again, an apples and oranges problem... If you bring solutions to 
> policy problems, then they must be come kinds of policies, right! (One 
> should be more considerate to ordinary language, but this is the new 
> age PR.)
>
> (One good thing about the NMI is that it is *equal footing MSism* in 
> flesh and blood and so one can effectively critique it, unless the 
> earlier slippery non-theories and non-substance of equal footing 
> MSism, other than employing it as an self-evident and self-justifying 
> creed).
>
> In sum, I am unable to agree with your connecting the current versions 
> of equal footing MSism, intending policy work, as a continuation of 
> the evolution of some tendencies in the global governance system, 
> beginning prominently with the Rio Summit on sustainable development. 
> In fact, I believe that they go in exactly the opposite directions - 
> one as deepening democracy and other as subverting it (equal footing 
> MSism). I have above pointed to the chief structural difference 
> between the two which can be observed empirically - that, one is based 
> an a specific relationship to legitimate policy making systems and 
> other seeks to anticipate and prevent them.
>
> best regards
>
> parminder
>
>
>
> On Wednesday 07 January 2015 08:21 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>> Just published in the IEEE Internet Computing journal:
>>
>> http://online.qmags.com/IC0115?sessionID=BD7A2B7CBEF89C57D8F47874E&cid=3193795&eid=19210#pg76&mode2
>>
>> The Origin and Evolution of Multistakeholder Models
>>
>> Virgilio Almeida - Federal University of Minas Gerais
>> Demi Getschko - Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo
>> Carlos Afonso - Instituto Nupef, Rio de Janeiro
>>
>> Abstract: Various domains have adopted multistakeholder models (MSMs) to
>> address and deal with global challenges, such as sustainability,
>> environment, climate, and Internet governance. Here, the authors examine
>> the use of MSMs and their historical evolution, fundamentals, and
>> characteristics. They also present examples of how such models are used
>> in the global Internet governance ecosystem. Finally, the article
>> presents a series of research questions that can be tackled to improve
>> the efficiency of multistakeholder processes.
>>
>> frt rgds
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150108/4d270a0a/attachment.htm>

From nashton at consensus.pro  Thu Jan  8 12:38:38 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 18:38:38 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] A BR view of multistkaholder processes...
In-Reply-To: <54AD47FF.1000803@cafonso.ca>
References: <54AD47FF.1000803@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <C203BB0B-B065-443F-837D-625E35F014AC@consensus.pro>

Dear Carlos,

This is excellent. I got involved in MSMs in other areas of international policy in the 90s, before WSIS/IG/ etc during the HABITAT II process and parts of the 2nd Earth Summit. I've always thought that the Internet community needed to look at the MS models that preceded it (and in some ways inspired it) - WSIS was not the first, nor is it the biggest, international policy area to operate in an MS way. 

On 7 Jan 2015, at 15:51, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:

> Just published in the IEEE Internet Computing journal:
> 
> http://online.qmags.com/IC0115?sessionID=BD7A2B7CBEF89C57D8F47874E&cid=3193795&eid=19210#pg76&mode2
> 
> The Origin and Evolution of Multistakeholder Models
> 
> Virgilio Almeida - Federal University of Minas Gerais
> Demi Getschko - Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo
> Carlos Afonso - Instituto Nupef, Rio de Janeiro
> 
> Abstract: Various domains have adopted multistakeholder models (MSMs) to
> address and deal with global challenges, such as sustainability,
> environment, climate, and Internet governance. Here, the authors examine
> the use of MSMs and their historical evolution, fundamentals, and
> characteristics. They also present examples of how such models are used
> in the global Internet governance ecosystem. Finally, the article
> presents a series of research questions that can be tackled to improve
> the efficiency of multistakeholder processes.
> 
> frt rgds
> 
> --c.a.
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as 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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150108/c4247cf8/attachment.sig>

From ca at cafonso.ca  Thu Jan  8 14:19:03 2015
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 17:19:03 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] A BR view of multistkaholder processes...
In-Reply-To: <C203BB0B-B065-443F-837D-625E35F014AC@consensus.pro>
References: <54AD47FF.1000803@cafonso.ca> <C203BB0B-B065-443F-837D-625E35F014AC@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <54AED827.20202@cafonso.ca>

Thanks, Nick!

frt rgds

--c.a.

On 01/08/2015 03:38 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
> Dear Carlos,
> 
> This is excellent. I got involved in MSMs in other areas of international policy in the 90s, before WSIS/IG/ etc during the HABITAT II process and parts of the 2nd Earth Summit. I've always thought that the Internet community needed to look at the MS models that preceded it (and in some ways inspired it) - WSIS was not the first, nor is it the biggest, international policy area to operate in an MS way. 
> 
> On 7 Jan 2015, at 15:51, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
> 
>> Just published in the IEEE Internet Computing journal:
>>
>> http://online.qmags.com/IC0115?sessionID=BD7A2B7CBEF89C57D8F47874E&cid=3193795&eid=19210#pg76&mode2
>>
>> The Origin and Evolution of Multistakeholder Models
>>
>> Virgilio Almeida - Federal University of Minas Gerais
>> Demi Getschko - Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo
>> Carlos Afonso - Instituto Nupef, Rio de Janeiro
>>
>> Abstract: Various domains have adopted multistakeholder models (MSMs) to
>> address and deal with global challenges, such as sustainability,
>> environment, climate, and Internet governance. Here, the authors examine
>> the use of MSMs and their historical evolution, fundamentals, and
>> characteristics. They also present examples of how such models are used
>> in the global Internet governance ecosystem. Finally, the article
>> presents a series of research questions that can be tackled to improve
>> the efficiency of multistakeholder processes.
>>
>> frt rgds
>>
>> --c.a.
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as 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 ca at cafonso.ca  Thu Jan  8 15:45:38 2015
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 18:45:38 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] A BR view of multistkaholder processes...
In-Reply-To: <54AE806C.3090703@itforchange.net>
References: <54AD47FF.1000803@cafonso.ca> <54AE806C.3090703@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <54AEEC72.8040903@cafonso.ca>

Thanks for your comments, Parm. I've just copied to the other authors as 
well.

fraternal regards

--c.a.

On 08-01-15 11:04, parminder wrote:
> Dear Carlos,
>
> Thanks for the very useful article, and for posting it here. (For those
> who would like to read it, i recommend downloading the full magazine and
> then reading the article. It is very difficult to read it online.)
>
> I am happy that finally multistakeholderism (MSism) is being openly
> discussed and argued for, in formal write ups.
>
> I will like to make the following points about your article, and the
> comparison it makes between the evolution of MSism in other areas of
> global governance, largely within the UN system, and the MSism of the IG
> world, of which the Net Mundial Initiative is the latest version.
>
> My main point here is that MS models hitherto, including all historical
> examples that you have discussed, have always developed in relation to a
> larger and clearly more formal and authoritative decision making
> structure - and in all cases you discuss, such a structure has been a UN
> body. In fact your article clearly speaks of the relationship of MS
> structures to decision making bodies.
>
> (quote beings)
> *Connection to Decision-Makers*
>
> Multistakeholder bodies can interact in different ways with official
> decision-making processes at the international, regional, or national
> levels. Some MSM bodies are purely informative. Others can develop best
> practices concerning a particular issue and present them to governments.
> Multistakeholder bodies can also conduct participatory monitoring of
> issues that affect society, such as a deforestation index or the quality
> of Internet access provided by telecommunications operators.
>
> (ends)
>
> Here, you lay our three functions of an MS system - providing
> information and best practices (together, inputs) to decision makers,
> and monitoring and assessments to hold policy makers accountable.
>
> All this is very well, and is what is generally called as participatory
> democracy. In fact the Agenda 21  that you quote as being the " first UN
> document to include different stakeholders’ roles in a global agreement
> " is an excellent documenton participatory democracy. (Incidentally, it
> neither speaks of MSism, nor even the word 'stakeholder'.)  Please see
> what kind of different roles it gives to different groups (which you may
> like to call 'stakeholders'). Especially see how NGOs and business are
> seen so differently, and how the civil society group consists of so many
> different parts and business/ industry is just one. And also of course
> all the roles of all these groups stand is a specific relationship to
> policy makers.
>
> These are the values and principles that civil society has long fought
> for - call it participatory democracy, or stakeholder consultations..
> However, and this is my principal point, the MSism that we see in the IG
> space is not at all this kind of participatory democracy/ stakeholder
> involvement . I of course speak of the *equal footing MS model* that is
> we hear spoken of everywhere, and which is now meant to be embodied in
> the NetMundial Initiative.
>
> This new post-democracy model cannot be derived from the growth of
> participatory democracy in global governance that your papers tries to
> derive it from... In this regard, I judge as inadequate, if not a bit
> misleading, the premise - conclusion logic of your paper.
>
> The new equal footing (EF-MS) MS model, rather than work in relation to
> a legitimate policy making structure, seeks to anticipate and subvert
> it. We know that almost all NMI enthusiasts are firmly against
> development of an Internet policy venue inside the UN, or in any other
> democratic/ legitimate manner. It - the EF-MS model - seeks to itself be
> the policy giver to the world in this area, which is the real problem
> with equal footing MSism and with the NetMundial Initiative. In the
> circumstances, it is quite inappropriate to connect its evolution to
> that of participatory democracy in UN institutions, including that for
> sustainable development.
>
> Now, you may say that neither is the equal footing MS model (nor the
> NMI) into anticipating and preventing legitimate policy work at the UN,
> nor is it even at all about policy work. Lets listen to the main
> flag-bearer of the NMI idea, Fadi Chehade, defending the need for the NMI.
>
> "We need to make sure that next June we don't have delegation after
> delegation going to UNGA [the United Nations General Assembly] saying
> there are no solutions to these issues. "
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/12/im_begging_you_to_join_netmundial_initiative_gets_desperate/?page=2
>
> Clear attempt to anticipate and prevent UN based policy development, or
> do we need even clearer proof! And since UN bodies develop policy, the
> proposed 'existing solutions', in the form of NMI's work, will in effect
> be policy stuff - there is a saying , you cannot compare apples to oranges.
>
> Of course, there is considerable verbal acrobatics going on to hide and
> whitewash the (policy) intentions of the NMI. This is what another NMI
> champion Wolfgang says (on the NMI website):
>
> "The NetMundial Initiative will bring solutions to the broad range of
> Internet related policy problems."
>
> Again, an apples and oranges problem... If you bring solutions to policy
> problems, then they must be come kinds of policies, right! (One should
> be more considerate to ordinary language, but this is the new age PR.)
>
> (One good thing about the NMI is that it is *equal footing MSism* in
> flesh and blood and so one can effectively critique it, unless the
> earlier slippery non-theories and non-substance of equal footing MSism,
> other than employing it as an self-evident and self-justifying creed).
>
> In sum, I am unable to agree with your connecting the current versions
> of equal footing MSism, intending policy work, as a continuation of the
> evolution of some tendencies in the global governance system, beginning
> prominently with the Rio Summit on sustainable development. In fact, I
> believe that they go in exactly the opposite directions - one as
> deepening democracy and other as subverting it (equal footing MSism). I
> have above pointed to the chief structural difference between the two
> which can be observed empirically - that, one is based an a specific
> relationship to legitimate policy making systems and other seeks to
> anticipate and prevent them.
>
> best regards
>
> parminder
>
>
>
> On Wednesday 07 January 2015 08:21 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>> Just published in the IEEE Internet Computing journal:
>>
>> http://online.qmags.com/IC0115?sessionID=BD7A2B7CBEF89C57D8F47874E&cid=3193795&eid=19210#pg76&mode2
>>
>> The Origin and Evolution of Multistakeholder Models
>>
>> Virgilio Almeida - Federal University of Minas Gerais
>> Demi Getschko - Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo
>> Carlos Afonso - Instituto Nupef, Rio de Janeiro
>>
>> Abstract: Various domains have adopted multistakeholder models (MSMs) to
>> address and deal with global challenges, such as sustainability,
>> environment, climate, and Internet governance. Here, the authors examine
>> the use of MSMs and their historical evolution, fundamentals, and
>> characteristics. They also present examples of how such models are used
>> in the global Internet governance ecosystem. Finally, the article
>> presents a series of research questions that can be tackled to improve
>> the efficiency of multistakeholder processes.
>>
>> frt rgds
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as 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 carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Wed Jan 14 08:19:16 2015
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 08:19:16 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] ICANN/IANA transition - CWG-Stewardship Chairs'
 Statement - Weekend Sessions 10-11 January 2015
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAcsGtWF00oEknj8RDt8PrV9oK1=W4DPBYzwrtmysVHUjw@mail.gmail.com>

Begin forwarded message:

 *From:* ICANN News Alert <communications at icann.org>
*Date:* January 12, 2015 at 4:51:55 PM PST
*To:* <joe.catapano at icann.org>
*Subject:* *ICANN News Alert -- CWG-Stewardship Chairs' Statement - Weekend
Sessions 10-11 January 2015*
*Reply-To:* <communications at icann.org>

   [image: ICANN] <http://www.icann.org/> News Alert

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-01-12-en
------------------------------
CWG-Stewardship Chairs' Statement - Weekend Sessions 10-11 January 2015

12 January 2015

The Cross Community Working Group (CWG) on Naming Related Functions held an
intensive work weekend on 10-11 January 2015. The weekend comprised four,
two-hour virtual meetings held over two days, equivalent to one month of
full CWG meetings and had a significant focus on input received from public
comments on the draft proposal. The CWG is fully aware of the value of the
contribution provided by the comprehensive and thoughtful public comments
<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-cwg-naming-transition-01dec14/> it
received.

When originally scheduled, the work weekend was envisaged as a time to
finalize the basis of the CWG proposal in order for the proposal to be
prepared for submission to the five chartering organizations (ALAC, ccNSO,
GAC, GNSO, and SSAC) and thereafter, to the IANA Stewardship Transition
Coordination Group (ICG) as part of the overall IANA Stewardship Transition
<https://www.icann.org/stewardship> process. However, considering the
diversity of comments received during the public comment period on the
draft proposal, it became apparent to the CWG that more work was needed to
review and refine the proposal on the back of these. As such, the weekend's
focus was on further processing of the public comment input and identifying
areas of commonality within the CWG, using tools such as polls and surveys.

Going into the weekend, the CWG conducted two surveys
<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Current+Drafts> of
the whole group in order to get a high-level sense of the group's views
regarding different suggestions made in the submissions from the public
comment period. The surveys were based on suggestions arising from the
public comment submissions, as well as additional, related questions. The
results of the survey were used to guide the CWG in considering the public
comments and continuing its work toward development of a final proposal for
submission to the ICG.
Key Developments from the Weekend

Overall, the weekend served to hone a range of details within the CWG
proposal and to review the original timeline that the CWG agreed to in
October. The group also specifically addressed issues related to
accountability in order to best assist in the further development of the
related work of the CCWG on Enhancing ICANN Accountability
(CCWG-Accountability).

The meetings were recorded and transcribed and are available on the group's
Wiki <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51415494>,
along with the documents presented and the survey results
<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Draft+Proposal>. A
quick analysis of the survey results was done in preparation for the
weekend and a summary of the findings was presented to the CWG and then
systematically discussed by the group.

With regard to the link to the CCWG-Accountability, the CWG worked to
develop further input for the CCWG-Accountability ahead of their upcoming
meeting in Frankfurt, Germany on 19-20 January 2015. In addition, the group
began to identify components of the CWG proposal that are likely to be
contingent on key areas of the CCWG-Accountability work.
Looking Ahead

In striving to develop a consensus proposal, the CWG will now need to
consider and integrate the outcome of the weekend sessions as well as focus
on the critical next steps required. Key next steps include; obtaining
legal advice on relevant elements of the proposal and further engagement
with the CCWG-Accountability, as well as informing and preparing to seek
support from the Chartering Organizations, all of which we recognize will
affect the current timeline.
About the CWG

The CWG began its work in October 2014, with regular weekly virtual
meetings and a face-to-face meeting at ICANN 51
<https://community.icann.org/x/8CLxAg> in Los Angeles, California. In
addition to ICANN supported regular weekly CWG virtual meetings, and at the
request of the Chairs, ICANN agreed to support a two-full-day face-to-face
meeting in Frankfurt, Germany
<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-11-20-en> on 19-20 November
2014 to advance the work of the CWG. On 1 December, the CWG published its
draft proposal for a 21-day public comment period. Following the publication
of the draft proposal
<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823498/CWG-Dec01PublicConsultFINAL.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1417638162000&api=v2>
[PDF, 1.7 MB], between 4 – 6 December, the CWG hosted 3 public webinars to
present the draft proposal and engage with the broader community. The next CWG
working meeting
<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Meetings> is
scheduled for *15 January from 14:00-16:00 UTC*.

The CWG consists 131 people, organized as 19 members, appointed by and
accountable to chartering organizations, and 112 participants, who
participate as individuals. The CWG is an open group: anyone interested in
the work of the CWG, can join as a participant. Participants may be from a
chartering organization, from a stakeholder group or organization not
represented in the CWG or currently active within ICANN, or self-appointed.

Of the 131 CWG members and participants, the regional representation is as
follows:

   - 46 Asia/Asia Pacific
   - 35 Europe
   - 27 North America
   - 12 Latin America
   - 11 Africa

Of the 131 CWG members and participants, the stakeholder group
representation is as follows:

   - 45 (no affiliation)
   - 29 GNSO
   - 18 ccNSO/ccTLD
   - 18 At-Large
   - 18 GAC
   - 2 SSAC
   - 1 ASO

Also, there are 6 ICG members who participate in the CWG.


   This message was sent to joe.catapano at icann.org from:

ICANN News Alert | communications at icann.org | ICANN | 12025 Waterfront
Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536

Email Marketing by [image: iContact - Try It Free!]
<http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186>
  Manage Your Subscription
<http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=25886020&l=6333&s=7JA2&m=956614&c=165637>




-- 
-- 
*Carolina Rossini *
*Vice President, International Policy*
*Public Knowledge*
*http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150114/0ea548e9/attachment.htm>

From joly at punkcast.com  Wed Jan 14 09:47:26 2015
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 09:47:26 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] REMOTE PARTICIPATION: NCUC Meeting with DC Internet
 Governance people 10am today
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk2qzyMop2NfUfOGv-outh-_QkSpbQi9EVoYQE0S3rFEVg@mail.gmail.com>

​ISOC-NY is a member of the ​
​
NonCommercial Users Constituency, and our mebers are encouraged to involve
themselves in it's policy discussions. Here is a good opportunity.
Attending in person will be some of our DC Chapter colleagues plus Jane
Coffin from ISOC staff.

 joly posted: "Today Wednesday 14 January 2015, ancillary to the
intersessional meeting of the Non-Contracted Parties House (NCPH) of the
Generic Names Standing Organization (GNSO) at ICANN, the NonCommercial
Users Constituency (NCUC) will hold an outreach meeting with "


[image: NCUC] <http://ncuc.org>Today *Wednesday 14 January 2015*, ancillary
to the intersessional meeting
<https://community.icann.org/display/ncph/Intersessional+-+January+2015> of
the Non-Contracted Parties House (NCPH) of the Generic Names Standing
Organization (GNSO) at ICANN, the
*​​*
*NonCommercial Users Constituency* (NCUC) will hold *an outreach meeting
<http://www.ncuc.org/ncuc-civil-society-outreach-event-in-washington-dc-january-14/>*
with Internet Governance interested people at the Center for Democracy and
Technnology (CDT)in Washington DC. On the agenda, the IANA transition,
accountability mechanisms in the context of globalization, human rights in
internet governance, privacy and registry services, access to knowledge and
intellectual property, freedom of expression and development, and ICANN in
broader Internet governance, including NETmundial Initiative and the
Internet Governance Forum. The meeting is by invitation only, but *remote
participation* is possible via webex or phone bridge.








*What: NCUC Civil Society Outreach Event
<http://www.ncuc.org/ncuc-civil-society-outreach-event-in-washington-dc-january-14/>
Where: CDT, Washington DC When: Wednesday 14 January 2015 10am-Noon EST |
1500-1700 UTC Webex:
https://cdtmeetings.webex.com/cdtmeetings/j.php?MTID=m0abd02e67615e37bc2c948c3d722ec8d
<https://cdtmeetings.webex.com/cdtmeetings/j.php?MTID=m0abd02e67615e37bc2c948c3d722ec8d>
Phone bridge:
http://www.ncuc.org/ncuc-civil-society-outreach-event-in-washington-dc-january-14/
<http://www.ncuc.org/ncuc-civil-society-outreach-event-in-washington-dc-january-14/>
Twitter: @NCUC <https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&q=%40NCUC&src=typd> *
*Agenda:*

1. Participant Introductions
2. Brief introduction of NCUC @ ICANN
3. 2-3 minute introductions of issues NCUC works on in ICANN, e.g.
• IANA and the transitioning of US authority (Matt Shears)
• Accountability mechanisms in the context of globalization (Matt Shears)
• Human rights generally (Bill Drake)
• Privacy and registry services (Stephanie Perrin)
• Access to knowledge and intellectual property (Kathy Kleiman)
• Freedom of expression (David Cake)
• Development (Rafik Dammak)
• ICANN in broader Internet governance, e.g. NETmundial Initiative, IGF
(Bill Drake)
4. Inputs from local participants on how these and related issues are being
addressed in Washington DC and beyond
5. Open integrative discussion


Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7375#respond>   See all comments
<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7375#comments>






*​Permalink*
:
http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7375






---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast

 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
---------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150114/01b868d6/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Thu Jan 15 16:32:58 2015
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 16:32:58 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] NEW- Multistakeholder as Governance Groups
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAc_qtiedYj-14RrXJ3FWfVnjrXo0Nn533YAoZTc3anLAw@mail.gmail.com>

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/node/9574

https://publixphere.net/i/noc/page/IG_Case_Study_Water_Management_in_Northern_Ghana

https://publixphere.net/i/noc/page/IG_Case_Study_Swiss_ComCom_FTTH_Roundtable

congrats to all involved!
Multistakeholder as Governance Groups: New Study by Global Network of
Internet and Society CentersJanuary 15, 2015

The Global Network of Internet and Society Research Centers (NoC)
<http://networkofcenters.net/> and the Berkman Center for Internet & Society
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/> at Harvard University are pleased to
announce the release of a new report
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2549270> on
Multistakeholder Governance Groups, which informs the debate about Internet
governance models and mechanisms. The report is the result of a
globally-coordinated academic research effort among NoC participants and
consists of twelve geographically and topically diverse case studies
<https://publixphere.net/i/noc/page/Internet_Governance_Research_Project_Case_Studies>
of
governance structures, and a synthesis paper
<https://publixphere.net/i/noc/page/Internet_Governance_Research_Project_Synthesis>
that
summarizes key findings across these cases. The research examines
multistakeholder governance groups with the goal of informing the future
evolution of the Internet governance ecosystem. Building upon theNETmundial
Principles and Roadmap
<http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf>,
it contributes to current policy debates at the international level,
including the Internet Governance Forum, the NETmundial Initiative, and the
World Economic Forum.

"We are at crossroads when it comes to the global governance of the
Internet, where we must not only respond to complex technical challenges,
but also deal with a broad range of policy issues ranging from
cybersecurity to net neutrality and human rights," said Berkman Center
Executive Director and Harvard Law School Professor of Practice Urs Gasser,
who led the international effort. "This collaborative research wants to
strengthen the evidence-base as we search for future governance models that
preserve the generativity and openness of the Internet, while also
addressing pressing challenges and problems."

At a point where the future of Internet governance is being re-envisioned,
the report deepens our understanding of the formation, operation, and
critical success factors of governance groups. The study concludes that:

“...there is no single best-fit model for multistakeholder governance
groups that can be applied in all instances. Rather, it reveals a range of
approaches, mechanisms, and tools available for both the formation and
operation of such groups. The analysis demonstrates that the success of
governance groups depends to a large degree on the careful selection,
deployment, and management of suitable instruments from this ‘toolbox’. As
governance groups pass through different phases of operation, conveners and
facilitators must remain alert to changes in circumstances that necessitate
adjustments to the approaches, mechanisms, and tools that they deploy in
order to address evolving challenges from inside and from outside. The case
study series provides insights into how those instruments can be deployed
and adjusted over time within such groups, and highlights how their
interactions with important contextual factors may be successfully managed
within given resource restraints.”

Other key observations from the study, as further described in the
synthesis paper, include:

   - Inclusiveness (including mechanisms for participation) and
   transparency are critical factors to be managed and adjusted throughout the
   lifecycle of governance groups.
   - How governance groups define accountability and legitimacy is highly
   reflective of and dependent on contextual factors.
   - Different governance groups have different measures of success and
   effectiveness that are tied to their unique contexts and to factors that
   change over time.

The report is the first study by the recently launched Global Network of
Internet and Society Centers, which brings together over 30 academic
institutions from around the globe. As a milestone, it demonstrates that a
global network of academic research centers can create a shared repository
of timely and relevant research, which includes peer-reviewed methodologies
and adherence to academic standards, open data, and expertise on diverse
issues related to global policy debates. More broadly, the Network of
Centers seeks to contribute to a more generalized vision and longer-term
strategy for academia regarding its roles in research, facilitation and
convening, and education in and communication about the Internet age.

The Berkman Center has facilitated the research project, drafted the
synthesis document, and contributed the following two case studies to the
collaborative effort:

“Water Management in Northern Ghana”
<https://publixphere.net/i/noc/page/IG_Case_Study_Water_Management_in_Northern_Ghana>
This case study examines and compares the international deployment of the
decentralized integrated water resource management (IWRM) model for the
management of water resources at the local and transboundary levels of the
White Volta River Basin and discusses the development of IWRM in water
governance more broadly.

“Swiss ComCom FTTH Roundtable Case Study”
<https://publixphere.net/i/noc/page/IG_Case_Study_Swiss_ComCom_FTTH_Roundtable>
This case study explores the dimensions of how the Swiss government used a
multistakeholder process to organize private sector firms to begin
deploying in a coordinated fashion a fiber optic network connected to every
home in Switzerland.
The full text of these contributions, as well as the case studies by our
international partners and the synthesis paper
<https://publixphere.net/i/noc/page/Internet_Governance_Research_Project_Synthesis>,
are available on the Publixphere website
<https://publixphere.net/i/noc/page/Internet_Governance_Research_Project_Case_Studies>,
where the authors welcome comments and feedback. The series and individual
papers are also available for download from SSRN
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2549270>.

*About the Network of Internet and Society Research Centers*
The Global Network of Internet and Society Research Centers (NoC) was
launched by a group of academic centers – including the Berkman Center - in
2012 in recognition of the lack of internationally coordinated research and
engagement activities in issues concerning the Internet and related
technologies. The NoC is a collaborative initiative among academic
institutions with a focus on interdisciplinary research on the development,
social impact, policy implications, and legal issues concerning the
Internet. This collective aims to increase interoperability between
participating centers in order to stimulate the creation of new
cross-national, cross-disciplinary conversation, debate, teaching,
learning, and engagement regarding the most pressing questions around new
technologies, social change, and related policy and regulatory
developments. More information can be found at
http://networkofcenters.net/about. <http://networkofcenters.net/about>

*About the Berkman Center for Internet and Society: *
The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University is a
research program founded to explore cyberspace, share in its study, and
help pioneer its development. Founded in 1997, through a generous gift from
Jack N. and Lillian R. Berkman, the Center is home to an ever-growing
community of faculty, fellows, staff, and affiliates working on projects
that span the broad range of intersections between cyberspace, technology,
and society. More information can be found athttp://cyber.law.harvard.edu.
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/>

-- 
-- 
*Carolina Rossini *
*Vice President, International Policy*
*Public Knowledge*
*http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150115/3b34ad8a/attachment.htm>

From lea at gp-digital.org  Mon Jan 19 09:30:14 2015
From: lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 14:30:14 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] [GCCS2015] Call for Civil Society Expressions of
 Interest
Message-ID: <CAJTVAjyK=VaSJXCz961Hq6wAAhw+ppVnaH6J6ntWTgh=0Ax=Mg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Friends,



[Apologies for possible duplications]



We would like to bring to your attention the civil society call for
expressions of interest to participate in the Global Conference on
Cyberspace 2015 <https://www.gccs2015.com/gccs/all-about-gccs2015> (GCCS
2015) and a civil society pre-event, hosted by the government of the
Kingdom of the Netherlands, and taking place in The Hague on 16 and 17
April 2015.



Following on from the London (2011), Budapest (2012), and Seoul (2013)
Conferences, the 2015 event in The Hague will provide an opportunity for
strategic level discussion of key cyberspace issues. The Conference aims to
examine core issues <https://www.gccs2015.com/gccs/all-about-gccs2015> related
to the cyber domain, structured around the three main themes of Freedom
<https://www.gccs2015.com/themes/freedom>, Security
<https://www.gccs2015.com/themes/security-0> and Growth
<https://www.gccs2015.com/themes/growth>. Focus will be placed on exchange
of knowledge and ideas on these issues and the development of concrete
solutions. The Conference will encourage multi-stakeholder participation
from the worlds of business, academia as well as civil society.



A day and a half civil society pre-event will take place in the run-up to
the Conference (14-15 April) to facilitate civil society coordination and
input into the main Conference. An in-depth training on cyber security
issues will be offered as part of this pre-event. In addition, an online
training curriculum will be made available to the wider public. The
Conference organisers are interested in a balanced and diverse
participation and in supporting those who will find a practical use for the
training and attendance offered.



The Expression of Interest Form, in addition to logging interest in
attending the Conference and the civil society pre-event, will also serve
as a platform to capture requests for financial support. Limited financial
support is available for a number of civil society participants.



In order to be considered as a Conference/pre-event participant and/or a
candidate for financial support, please fill in the Expression of Interest
Form via the following link by *January 30*:
*https://www.gccs2015.com/civil-society-participation-form
<https://www.gccs2015.com/civil-society-participation-form>*



Expressions of interest and requests for funding received will be evaluated
by an ad hoc Advisory Board
<https://www.gccs2015.com/sites/default/files/attachments/AdvisoryBoardProfiles.pdf>
set
up to assist the organizers of the Conference in selecting civil society
participants to receive funding and to attend the GCCS2015 and the civil
society pre-event, to help ensure that the Conference is as inclusive and
representative as possible.



Criteria for financial support are designed to ensure a diverse spread of
applicants is achieved, focussing on global south applicants and aimed at
securing a balance of gender, regional diversity and level of experience in
cyber security issues.



Please feel free to share this information with your networks.



Best wishes,



On behalf of:

Andrew Puddephatt, Evelien Wijkstra, Tim Maurer

Advisory Board Co-chairs


*---*


*Lea Kaspar*

Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL

Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT

T: +44 (0)20 7549 033*7* | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 | Skype: l.kaspar

gp-digital.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150119/f5a5cb4c/attachment.htm>

From deborah at apc.org  Mon Jan 19 13:09:48 2015
From: deborah at apc.org (Deborah Brown)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 13:09:48 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Call for Submissions for new UN study on use of
 encryption and anonymity
Message-ID: <54BD486C.4020806@apc.org>


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Dear all,

In case of interest, the new UN Special Rapporteur David Kaye is looking
at the use of encryption and anonymity in his first report and is
encouraging input from civil society. The deadline is 10 Feb.

Best,
Deborah

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/FreedomOpinion/Pages/CallForSubmission.aspx


      Special Rapporteur will study the use of encryption and anonymity
in digital communications in his 2015 HRC report

The Special Rapporteur on the protection and promotion of the right to
freedom of opinion and expression, David Kaye, is currently preparing a
report on the legal framework governing the relationship between freedom
of expression and the use of encryption to secure transactions and
communications, and other technologies to transact and communicate
anonymously online. This report will be presented to the Human Rights
Council in June, 2015.

To prepare his study, Mr. Kaye is gathering information on national
laws, regulations, policies or practices that permit or limit, directly
or indirectly, the use of encryption technologies and services or the
ability of individuals to communicate anonymously online. All States are
being asked called to submit information on their relevant national
norms and policies.

Similarly, the Special Rapporteur would like to encourage all interested
non-governmental stakeholders – including civil society, corporate
actors, international and regional organizations, and national human
rights institutions – to provide their views on the appropriate scope of
the right to freedom of expression as applied to encryption and
anonymity. He would particularly appreciate receiving comments
addressing this matter from legal, state practice, or technical
perspectives.

Any available information should be sent electronically to
freedex at ohchr.org <mailto:freedex at ohchr.org>, *not later than 10
February 2015*.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
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=GAJy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


From joana at varonferraz.com  Mon Jan 19 13:42:54 2015
From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 16:42:54 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] Call for Submissions for new UN study on use of
 encryption and anonymity
In-Reply-To: <54BD486C.4020806@apc.org>
References: <54BD486C.4020806@apc.org>
Message-ID: <E7F8CE5D-C6DD-4EC5-B421-87BE33890068@varonferraz.com>

Very important. Thanks for sharing. Will be happy to produce inputs from the Brazilian Perspective. If anyone from Latam also want to do so, please, ping me and we can do something regional. 
best
jo

On 19 January 2015 16:09:48 GMT-02:00, Deborah Brown <deborah at apc.org> wrote:
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA512
>
>Dear all,
>
>In case of interest, the new UN Special Rapporteur David Kaye is
>looking
>at the use of encryption and anonymity in his first report and is
>encouraging input from civil society. The deadline is 10 Feb.
>
>Best,
>Deborah
>
>http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/FreedomOpinion/Pages/CallForSubmission.aspx
>
>
>      Special Rapporteur will study the use of encryption and anonymity
>in digital communications in his 2015 HRC report
>
>The Special Rapporteur on the protection and promotion of the right to
>freedom of opinion and expression, David Kaye, is currently preparing a
>report on the legal framework governing the relationship between
>freedom
>of expression and the use of encryption to secure transactions and
>communications, and other technologies to transact and communicate
>anonymously online. This report will be presented to the Human Rights
>Council in June, 2015.
>
>To prepare his study, Mr. Kaye is gathering information on national
>laws, regulations, policies or practices that permit or limit, directly
>or indirectly, the use of encryption technologies and services or the
>ability of individuals to communicate anonymously online. All States
>are
>being asked called to submit information on their relevant national
>norms and policies.
>
>Similarly, the Special Rapporteur would like to encourage all
>interested
>non-governmental stakeholders – including civil society, corporate
>actors, international and regional organizations, and national human
>rights institutions – to provide their views on the appropriate scope
>of
>the right to freedom of expression as applied to encryption and
>anonymity. He would particularly appreciate receiving comments
>addressing this matter from legal, state practice, or technical
>perspectives.
>
>Any available information should be sent electronically to
>freedex at ohchr.org <mailto:freedex at ohchr.org>, *not later than 10
>February 2015*.
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
>Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
>
>iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJUvUhsAAoJEPeieloNaneNhQ4P/3zkwxEs9SuYM82yL32pjhEq
>NNIRodorc2LkBo87B48g5Zry2lX86a4CZhkMlWSjtRjMMzIUT5dt1k4SEDPIixZl
>x0PjiSxvQsdv62LiGBnDq1XeDrIiH8lb+ynR6aZObDT9XvF+nbGAHZ3Z6MZR98jj
>22pLqvRcBSmkk2L3XqscNHhZBbdRYw7cJVNBo/XV6J7qD1xxW1WaxIVl+oWL5qfO
>iLtOxZZSY0hUPrdgUDbM+auisN9YbBCagYlF7a+IQS3bUJSM+wWrQKaFj2btDE1B
>GORpIF0sKyUACBVnprVgx1S6RkmUexUkU2go5ytHRhHbj3dW/hu8YWdevCwIWqGR
>JrVNT9XwtO9cU24SaP+9+xyrvTt8ek3VxEcOhqR21ofizOBj8Qh1/+3/IznO9qFa
>dlKC3trck4G+Mt3tbPnlqB9c5Tv3xKZZ4noIEgM9zX38LMIuBqiwGYgG4LXxvTXN
>d0SgUPD3kEfkFWJ+IhAmvFCXVAlnuiEQGE7ONsKLUEcAitcVwpzKP39UF6wWhCNA
>bzt14cATjyf8PxMwT+0T/3Dn1wzObC8rmCR2eH8r9WMbjDleBA1BPLku1cRD/bH8
>AWMQu9cYULBaBJkumRWSIma6pL1S9QIuvuDs99kKCmNkJOkSZFWt3Pfkhs0T8esx
>Z2UBEZjy+pnHs69QD0/U
>=GAJy
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150119/7a9d535d/attachment.htm>

From joao.caribe at me.com  Mon Jan  5 05:16:05 2015
From: joao.caribe at me.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Jo=E3o_Carlos_R=2E_Carib=E9=22?=)
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 08:16:05 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] FW: [IP] NETmundial Initiative
 Announces Formation of its Inaugural Coordination Council and a Broad
 Global Community Consultation Phase | NETmundial
In-Reply-To:  <CA+YNoKib5Nda9mAzeubZ-oKYkMxP=bwxnGH=B2Yvkn3bx9dHSw@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <CAKx4trib6y0BgranYnJ_prgVT15ACZkSMA_YCGiw2tVKUOUORg@mail.gmail.com>
 <0741505aceab44558fde236d2885c5b0@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>
 <CA+YNoKib5Nda9mAzeubZ-oKYkMxP=bwxnGH=B2Yvkn3bx9dHSw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0E1CD9E7-3CBE-4345-B63D-6B7746BFCD9A@me.com>

Interesting or Concerning ? 

I did a little search about Mr Lu Wei and found some concerning informations:

ICAN 50 open session speech - https://www.icann.org/news/multimedia/301

Note from GIP Platform about IANA transition - http://giplatform.org/resources/gip-summary-report-icann-50
[..]The High Level Government Meeting addressing ICANN’s accountability and the transition of NTIA’s stewardship of the IANA functions, and chaired by the UK minister Ed Vaizey, came under the spotlight. The mere presence of China’s highest-level cyberspace official, Lu Wei, Minister of Cyberspace Affairs Administration, was a clear signal that China is interested in playing a strong role in the transition process. Although his address however mostly followed the known Chinese positions asking for an intergovernmental supervision of ICANN, he also mentioned the greater participation of his country (and various Chinese communities) in ICANN and argued that the candidates for the working groups on ICANN’s internationalisation should be determined quickly, in accordance with the number of Internet users of each country.[..]

China's cyberspace admin. chief visits Facebook, Apple, Amazon
http://www.iloveafrica.com/2014/12/10/VIDE1418182021367254.shtml

[..]Lu Wei, Minister of China’s Cyberspace Affairs Administration, was in the US to attend a Chinese-American Internet conference, at which China pushed for a louder voice in the management of the Internet... a voice which was obviously heard loud and clear by the founder of Facebook.[..]


Em 26/12/2014, às 22:16, Izumi AIZU escreveu:

> I see at least two names from China as very interesting or significant: Minister Lu Wei and Jack Ma of Alibaba, both were central figures at the World Internet Conference held in Wuzhen, China last month. Their participation in this Multistakeholder venture is a good sign.
> 
> I also hope our Civil Society colleagues actively engage and advance our core values.
> 
> Of course, there are certain or uncertain elements that are troublesome, but I like to remain constructive, critical, but more positive.
> 
> And Happy holidays and New Year to all!!
> 
> Izumi
> 2014/12/25 3:21 "Lee W McKnight" <lmcknigh at syr.edu>:
> FYI and happy holidays!
> 
> 
> Lee
> From: Dave Farber via ip <ip at listbox.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2014 10:58 AM
> To: ip
> Subject: [IP] NETmundial Initiative Announces Formation of its Inaugural Coordination Council and a Broad Global Community Consultation Phase | NETmundial
>  
> https://www.netmundial.org/blog/secretariat/netmundial-initiative-announces-formation-its-inaugural-coordination-council-and
> 
> Archives   | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now	
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as 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

--
João Carlos R. Caribé
Consultor 
Skype joaocaribe
(021) 4042 7727 
(021) 9 8761 1967

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150105/df114d1c/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Mon Jan 19 16:25:14 2015
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 16:25:14 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Call for Submissions for new UN study on use of
 encryption and anonymity
In-Reply-To: <E7F8CE5D-C6DD-4EC5-B421-87BE33890068@varonferraz.com>
References: <54BD486C.4020806@apc.org>
	<E7F8CE5D-C6DD-4EC5-B421-87BE33890068@varonferraz.com>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAfEmWwjRNVKzLC7hXysHSJJnQXW8jOxa+Hnd-sotMUCNQ@mail.gmail.com>

Do we want to send something as BestBits?
Folks from the list, any interest for a collective input?

On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:

> Very important. Thanks for sharing. Will be happy to produce inputs from
> the Brazilian Perspective. If anyone from Latam also want to do so, please,
> ping me and we can do something regional.
> best
> jo
>
> On 19 January 2015 16:09:48 GMT-02:00, Deborah Brown <deborah at apc.org>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA512
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> In case of interest, the new UN Special Rapporteur David Kaye is looking
>> at the use of encryption and anonymity in his first report and is
>> encouraging input from civil society. The deadline is 10 Feb.
>>
>> Best,
>> Deborah
>>
>> http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/FreedomOpinion/Pages/CallForSubmission.aspx
>>
>>
>>       Special Rapporteur will study the use of encryption and anonymity
>> in digital communications in his 2015 HRC report
>>
>> The Special Rapporteur on the protection and promotion of the right to
>> freedom of opinion and expression, David Kaye, is currently preparing a
>> report on the legal framework governing the relationship between freedom
>> of expression and the use of encryption to secure transactions and
>> communications, and other technologies to transact and communicate
>> anonymously online. This report will be presented to the Human Rights
>> Council in June, 2015.
>>
>> To prepare his study, Mr. Kaye is gathering information on national
>> laws, regulations, policies or practices that permit or limit, directly
>> or indirectly, the use of encryption technologies and services or the
>> ability of individuals to communicate anonymously online. All States are
>> being asked called to submit information on their relevant national
>> norms and policies.
>>
>> Similarly, the Special Rapporteur would like to encourage all interested
>> non-governmental stakeholders – including civil society, corporate
>> actors, international and regional organizations, and national human
>> rights institutions – to provide their views on the appropriate scope of
>> the right to freedom of expression as applied to encryption and
>> anonymity. He would particularly appreciate receiving comments
>> addressing this matter from legal, state practice, or technical
>> perspectives.
>>
>> Any available information should be sent electronically to
>> freedex at ohchr.org <mailto:freedex at ohchr.org>, *not later than 10
>> February 2015*.
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
>> Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
>>
>> iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJUvUhsAAoJEPeieloNaneNhQ4P/3zkwxEs9SuYM82yL32pjhEq
>> NNIRodorc2LkBo87B48g5Zry2lX86a4CZhkMlWSjtRjMMzIUT5dt1k4SEDPIixZl
>> x0PjiSxvQsdv62LiGBnDq1XeDrIiH8lb+ynR6aZObDT9XvF+nbGAHZ3Z6MZR98jj
>> 22pLqvRcBSmkk2L3XqscNHhZBbdRYw7cJVNBo/XV6J7qD1xxW1WaxIVl+oWL5qfO
>> iLtOxZZSY0hUPrdgUDbM+auisN9YbBCagYlF7a+IQS3bUJSM+wWrQKaFj2btDE1B
>> GORpIF0sKyUACBVnprVgx1S6RkmUexUkU2go5ytHRhHbj3dW/hu8YWdevCwIWqGR
>> JrVNT9XwtO9cU24SaP+9+xyrvTt8ek3VxEcOhqR21ofizOBj8Qh1/+3/IznO9qFa
>> dlKC3trck4G+Mt3tbPnlqB9c5Tv3xKZZ4noIEgM9zX38LMIuBqiwGYgG4LXxvTXN
>> d0SgUPD3kEfkFWJ+IhAmvFCXVAlnuiEQGE7ONsKLUEcAitcVwpzKP39UF6wWhCNA
>> bzt14cATjyf8PxMwT+0T/3Dn1wzObC8rmCR2eH8r9WMbjDleBA1BPLku1cRD/bH8
>> AWMQu9cYULBaBJkumRWSIma6pL1S9QIuvuDs99kKCmNkJOkSZFWt3Pfkhs0T8esx
>> Z2UBEZjy+pnHs69QD0/U
>> =GAJy
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
> --
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 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
>



-- 
-- 
*Carolina Rossini *
*Vice President, International Policy*
*Public Knowledge*
*http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150119/4c686bbc/attachment.htm>

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Mon Jan 19 17:04:08 2015
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 09:04:08 +1100
Subject: [bestbits] Call for Submissions for new UN study on use of
 encryption and anonymity
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAfEmWwjRNVKzLC7hXysHSJJnQXW8jOxa+Hnd-sotMUCNQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <54BD486C.4020806@apc.org><E7F8CE5D-C6DD-4EC5-B421-87BE33890068@varonferraz.com> <CAK-FJAfEmWwjRNVKzLC7hXysHSJJnQXW8jOxa+Hnd-sotMUCNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8E8B9BF71B1A4D64AA17706ABA95F14D@Toshiba>

I think a response is extremely important, having just read this.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/obama-announces-new-cyber-war-games-partnership-with-great-britain-20150116

It suggests that Obama may side with UK in trying to outlaw strong encryption

Ian

From: Carolina Rossini 
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 8:25 AM
To: Joana Varon 
Cc: Deborah Brown ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call for Submissions for new UN study on use of encryption and anonymity

Do we want to send something as BestBits? 
Folks from the list, any interest for a collective input?

On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:

  Very important. Thanks for sharing. Will be happy to produce inputs from the Brazilian Perspective. If anyone from Latam also want to do so, please, ping me and we can do something regional. 
  best
  jo


  On 19 January 2015 16:09:48 GMT-02:00, Deborah Brown <deborah at apc.org> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----Hash: SHA512Dear all,In case of interest, the new UN Special Rapporteur David Kaye is lookingat the use of encryption and anonymity in his first report and isencouraging input from civil society. The deadline is 10 Feb.Best,Deborahhttp://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/FreedomOpinion/Pages/CallForSubmission.aspx      Special Rapporteur will study the use of encryption and anonymityin digital communications in his 2015 HRC reportThe Special Rapporteur on the protection and promotion of the right tofreedom of opinion and expression, David Kaye, is currently preparing areport on the legal framework governing the relationship between freedomof expression and the use of encryption to secure transactions andcommunications, and other technologies to transact and communicateanonymously online. This report will be presented to the Human RightsCouncil in June, 2015.To prepare his study, Mr. Kaye is gathering information on nationallaws, regulations, policies or practices that permit or limit, directlyor indirectly, the use of encryption technologies and services or theability of individuals to communicate anonymously online. All States arebeing asked called to submit information on their relevant nationalnorms and policies.Similarly, the Special Rapporteur would like to encourage all interestednon-governmental stakeholders – including civil society, corporateactors, international and regional organizations, and national humanrights institutions – to provide their views on the appropriate scope ofthe right to freedom of expression as applied to encryption andanonymity. He would particularly appreciate receiving commentsaddressing this matter from legal, state practice, or technicalperspectives.Any available information should be sent electronically tofreedex at ohchr.org <mailto:freedex at ohchr.org>, *not later than 10February 2015*.-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.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GAJy-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
----------------------------------------------------------------------------You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
  -- 
  Sent from my Android device with K-9 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





-- 

-- 

Carolina Rossini 
Vice President, International Policy
Public Knowledge
http://www.publicknowledge.org/

+ 1 6176979389 | 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150120/dbcc323f/attachment.htm>

From nashton at consensus.pro  Mon Jan 19 17:15:21 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 23:15:21 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Call for Submissions for new UN study on use of
 encryption and anonymity
In-Reply-To: <8E8B9BF71B1A4D64AA17706ABA95F14D@Toshiba>
References: <54BD486C.4020806@apc.org><E7F8CE5D-C6DD-4EC5-B421-87BE33890068@varonferraz.com> <CAK-FJAfEmWwjRNVKzLC7hXysHSJJnQXW8jOxa+Hnd-sotMUCNQ@mail.gmail.com> <8E8B9BF71B1A4D64AA17706ABA95F14D@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <074B6689-22FF-4E19-8700-110B9CD0DB63@consensus.pro>

Sadly, though I am not a betting man, I would put money on the premise that far from surveillance reform in 2015 we will actually find we're fighting a pretty desperate battle for things not to go badly wrong the other direction.

... and I would very, very much love to be wrong.

On 19 Jan 2015, at 23:04, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

> I think a response is extremely important, having just read this.
> 
> http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/obama-announces-new-cyber-war-games-partnership-with-great-britain-20150116
> 
> It suggests that Obama may side with UK in trying to outlaw strong encryption
> 
> Ian
> 
> From: Carolina Rossini 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 8:25 AM
> To: Joana Varon 
> Cc: Deborah Brown ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call for Submissions for new UN study on use of encryption and anonymity
> 
> Do we want to send something as BestBits? 
> Folks from the list, any interest for a collective input?
> 
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:
> 
>  Very important. Thanks for sharing. Will be happy to produce inputs from the Brazilian Perspective. If anyone from Latam also want to do so, please, ping me and we can do something regional. 
>  best
>  jo
> 
> 
>  On 19 January 2015 16:09:48 GMT-02:00, Deborah Brown <deborah at apc.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----Hash: SHA512Dear all,In case of interest, the new UN Special Rapporteur David Kaye is lookingat the use of encryption and anonymity in his first report and isencouraging input from civil society. The deadline is 10 Feb.Best,Deborahhttp://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/FreedomOpinion/Pages/CallForSubmission.aspx      Special Rapporteur will study the use of encryption and anonymityin digital communications in his 2015 HRC reportThe Special Rapporteur on the protection and promotion of the right tofreedom of opinion and expression, David Kaye, is currently preparing areport on the legal framework governing the relationship between freedomof expression and the use of encryption to secure transactions andcommunications, and other technologies to transact and communicateanonymously online. This report will be presented to the Human RightsCouncil in June, 2015.To prepare his study, Mr. Kaye is gathering information on nationallaws, regulations, policies or practices that permit or limit, directlyor indirectly, the use of encryption technologies and services or theability of individuals to communicate anonymously online. All States arebeing asked called to submit information on their relevant nationalnorms and policies.Similarly, the Special Rapporteur would like to encourage all interestednon-governmental stakeholders – including civil society, corporateactors, international and regional organizations, and national humanrights institutions – to provide their views on the appropriate scope ofthe right to freedom of expression as applied to encryption andanonymity. He would particularly appreciate receiving commentsaddressing this matter from legal, state practice, or technicalperspectives.Any available information should be sent electronically tofreedex at ohchr.org <mailto:freedex at ohchr.org>, *not later than 10February 2015*.-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.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GAJy-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>  -- 
>  Sent from my Android device with K-9 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Carolina Rossini 
> Vice President, International Policy
> Public Knowledge
> http://www.publicknowledge.org/
> 
> + 1 6176979389 | 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150119/f17d49d9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150119/f17d49d9/attachment.sig>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Mon Jan 19 22:08:47 2015
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 22:08:47 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Call for Submissions for new UN study on use of
 encryption and anonymity
In-Reply-To: <074B6689-22FF-4E19-8700-110B9CD0DB63@consensus.pro>
References: <54BD486C.4020806@apc.org><E7F8CE5D-C6DD-4EC5-B421-87BE33890068@varonferraz.com> <CAK-FJAfEmWwjRNVKzLC7hXysHSJJnQXW8jOxa+Hnd-sotMUCNQ@mail.gmail.com> <8E8B9BF71B1A4D64AA17706ABA95F14D@Toshiba> <074B6689-22FF-4E19-8700-110B9CD0DB63@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <54BDC6BF.1020606@mail.utoronto.ca>

I am afraid I would agree with Nick, which does seem to make it 
extremely important to get a very thorough piece submitted.  Short 
deadlines to round this kind of information up globally....
Stephanie Perrin
On 2015-01-19 17:15, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
> Sadly, though I am not a betting man, I would put money on the premise 
> that far from surveillance reform in 2015 we will actually find we're 
> fighting a pretty desperate battle for things not to go badly wrong 
> the other direction.
>
> ... and I would very, very much love to be wrong.
>
> On 19 Jan 2015, at 23:04, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com 
> <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>> wrote:
>
>> I think a response is extremely important, having just read this.
>>
>> http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/obama-announces-new-cyber-war-games-partnership-with-great-britain-20150116
>>
>> It suggests that Obama may side with UK in trying to outlaw strong 
>> encryption
>>
>> Ian
>>
>> From: Carolina Rossini
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 8:25 AM
>> To: Joana Varon
>> Cc: Deborah Brown ;mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call for Submissions for new UN study on use 
>> of encryption and anonymity
>>
>> Do we want to send something as BestBits?
>> Folks from the list, any interest for a collective input?
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com 
>> <mailto:joana at varonferraz.com>> wrote:
>>
>>  Very important. Thanks for sharing. Will be happy to produce inputs 
>> from the Brazilian Perspective. If anyone from Latam also want to do 
>> so, please, ping me and we can do something regional.
>>  best
>>  jo
>>
>>
>>  On 19 January 2015 16:09:48 GMT-02:00, Deborah Brown 
>> <deborah at apc.org <mailto:deborah at apc.org>> wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----Hash: SHA512Dear all,In case of 
>> interest, the new UN Special Rapporteur David Kaye is lookingat the 
>> use of encryption and anonymity in his first report and isencouraging 
>> input from civil society. The deadline is 10 
>> Feb.Best,Deborahhttp://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/FreedomOpinion/Pages/CallForSubmission.aspx 
>>      Special Rapporteur will study the use of encryption and 
>> anonymityin digital communications in his 2015 HRC reportThe Special 
>> Rapporteur on the protection and promotion of the right tofreedom of 
>> opinion and expression, David Kaye, is currently preparing areport on 
>> the legal framework governing the relationship between freedomof 
>> expression and the use of encryption to secure transactions 
>> andcommunications, and other technologies to transact and 
>> communicateanonymously online. This report will be presented to the 
>> Human RightsCouncil in June, 2015.To prepare his study, Mr. Kaye is 
>> gathering information on nationallaws, regulations, policies or 
>> practices that permit or limit, directlyor indirectly, the use of 
>> encryption technologies and services or theability of individuals to 
>> communicate anonymously online. All States arebeing asked called to 
>> submit information on their relevant nationalnorms and 
>> policies.Similarly, the Special Rapporteur would like to encourage 
>> all interestednon-governmental stakeholders – including civil 
>> society, corporateactors, international and regional organizations, 
>> and national humanrights institutions – to provide their views on the 
>> appropriate scope ofthe right to freedom of expression as applied to 
>> encryption andanonymity. He would particularly appreciate receiving 
>> commentsaddressing this matter from legal, state practice, or 
>> technicalperspectives.Any available information should be sent 
>> electronically tofreedex at ohchr.org <mailto:tofreedex at ohchr.org> 
>> <mailto:freedex at ohchr.org>, *not later than 10February 
>> 2015*.-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 
>> (Darwin)Comment: GPGTools - 
>> https://gpgtools.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GAJy-----END 
>> PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------You 
>> received this message as a subscriber on the list: 
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.To 
>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.To> unsubscribe or change your 
>> settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>  --
>>  Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>>
>>  ____________________________________________________________
>>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>  To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> --
>>
>> Carolina Rossini
>> Vice President, International Policy
>> Public Knowledge
>> http://www.publicknowledge.org/
>>
>> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>>
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto: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 <mailto: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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150119/366cb8d5/attachment.htm>

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Mon Jan 19 22:33:13 2015
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 14:33:13 +1100
Subject: [bestbits] Call for Submissions for new UN study on use of
 encryption and anonymity
In-Reply-To: <074B6689-22FF-4E19-8700-110B9CD0DB63@consensus.pro>
References: <54BD486C.4020806@apc.org><E7F8CE5D-C6DD-4EC5-B421-87BE33890068@varonferraz.com> <CAK-FJAfEmWwjRNVKzLC7hXysHSJJnQXW8jOxa+Hnd-sotMUCNQ@mail.gmail.com> <8E8B9BF71B1A4D64AA17706ABA95F14D@Toshiba> <074B6689-22FF-4E19-8700-110B9CD0DB63@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <B1B4C4A9942C4B4C872B54832D7586B7@Toshiba>

I tend to agree Nick – I thing there may be a strong push to outlaw some sorts of encryption as part of a very strong push to increase surveillance in coming months. However,
I think many industry voices will side with us in opposition to this. Plus I would suspect republican majority in USA is divided on this. So I think the debate could turn and we should make strong efforts.

To me there is a strong argument that any steps to control encryption will have no effect on terrorism at all, because new forms of encryption will evolve anyway faster than they can be regulated. Just as any increases in mass surveillance are unlikely to have any effect on terrorism whatsoever (see http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26801-mass-surveillance-not-effective-for-finding-terrorists.html#.VL2JBEeUdVT) In both the recent Sydney and Paris incidents the people responsible were already well known to police and under surveillance but that did not stop them. 

However, the efforts will create further extensive and widespread distrust in the Internet. That is a serious problem.

We will have strong allies here in both technical community and among business interests.


Ian 





From: Nick Ashton-Hart 
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 9:15 AM
To: Ian Peter 
Cc: Carolina Rossini ; Joana Varon ; Deborah Brown ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call for Submissions for new UN study on use of encryption and anonymity

Sadly, though I am not a betting man, I would put money on the premise that far from surveillance reform in 2015 we will actually find we're fighting a pretty desperate battle for things not to go badly wrong the other direction. 

... and I would very, very much love to be wrong.


On 19 Jan 2015, at 23:04, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:


  I think a response is extremely important, having just read this.

  http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/obama-announces-new-cyber-war-games-partnership-with-great-britain-20150116

  It suggests that Obama may side with UK in trying to outlaw strong encryption

  Ian

  From: Carolina Rossini 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 8:25 AM
  To: Joana Varon 
  Cc: Deborah Brown ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
  Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call for Submissions for new UN study on use of encryption and anonymity

  Do we want to send something as BestBits? 
  Folks from the list, any interest for a collective input?

  On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:

  Very important. Thanks for sharing. Will be happy to produce inputs from the Brazilian Perspective. If anyone from Latam also want to do so, please, ping me and we can do something regional. 
  best
  jo


  On 19 January 2015 16:09:48 GMT-02:00, Deborah Brown <deborah at apc.org> wrote:
  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----Hash: SHA512Dear all,In case of interest, the new UN Special Rapporteur David Kaye is lookingat the use of encryption and anonymity in his first report and isencouraging input from civil society. The deadline is 10 Feb.Best,Deborahhttp://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/FreedomOpinion/Pages/CallForSubmission.aspx      Special Rapporteur will study the use of encryption and anonymityin digital communications in his 2015 HRC reportThe Special Rapporteur on the protection and promotion of the right tofreedom of opinion and expression, David Kaye, is currently preparing areport on the legal framework governing the relationship between freedomof expression and the use of encryption to secure transactions andcommunications, and other technologies to transact and communicateanonymously online. This report will be presented to the Human RightsCouncil in June, 2015.To prepare his study, Mr. Kaye is gathering information on nationallaws, regulations, policies or practices that permit or limit, directlyor indirectly, the use of encryption technologies and services or theability of individuals to communicate anonymously online. All States arebeing asked called to submit information on their relevant nationalnorms and policies.Similarly, the Special Rapporteur would like to encourage all interestednon-governmental stakeholders – including civil society, corporateactors, international and regional organizations, and national humanrights institutions – to provide their views on the appropriate scope ofthe right to freedom of expression as applied to encryption andanonymity. He would particularly appreciate receiving commentsaddressing this matter from legal, state practice, or technicalperspectives.Any available information should be sent electronically tofreedex at ohchr.org <mailto:freedex at ohchr.org>, *not later than 10February 2015*.-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.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GAJy-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
  -- 
  Sent from my Android device with K-9 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





  -- 

  -- 

  Carolina Rossini 
  Vice President, International Policy
  Public Knowledge
  http://www.publicknowledge.org/

  + 1 6176979389 | 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150120/8b7bca28/attachment.htm>

From nashton at consensus.pro  Tue Jan 20 01:40:41 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 07:40:41 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Call for Submissions for new UN study on use of
 encryption and anonymity
In-Reply-To: <B1B4C4A9942C4B4C872B54832D7586B7@Toshiba>
References: <54BD486C.4020806@apc.org><E7F8CE5D-C6DD-4EC5-B421-87BE33890068@varonferraz.com> <CAK-FJAfEmWwjRNVKzLC7hXysHSJJnQXW8jOxa+Hnd-sotMUCNQ@mail.gmail.com> <8E8B9BF71B1A4D64AA17706ABA95F14D@Toshiba> <074B6689-22FF-4E19-8700-110B9CD0DB63@consensus.pro> <B1B4C4A9942C4B4C872B54832D7586B7@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <4C5F0DB9-CE3C-42D0-9345-FB0AC219DF54@consensus.pro>

Dear Ian,

I hope we are all wrong in our pessimism. Personally I think the 'other side' will be too clever to go for outlawing encryption. They'll go for a populist conception like a 'front door' to break it when they 'need' access - it will sound great to the vast majority who don't understand there are no front doors, only back doors.

There will be strong opposition from industry, undoubtedly. However, countries are already conflating their use of data and that of the private sector precisely because it puts the private sector on the defensive. 

There is division in the US Reps on this true - however that's far from the only country where this is playing out and in a number of European countries the laws are already pretty bad, and candidly I think there's far too much focus on the US changing its laws when this problem is inherently global, not national, and the fight is being lost, not won, more often than not; the obsession with US reform is sucking in an enormous amount of airtime and energy. I fear, very much, for my country, the UK - everything hangs on the election result.

On 20 Jan 2015, at 04:33, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

> I tend to agree Nick – I thing there may be a strong push to outlaw some sorts of encryption as part of a very strong push to increase surveillance in coming months. However,
> I think many industry voices will side with us in opposition to this. Plus I would suspect republican majority in USA is divided on this. So I think the debate could turn and we should make strong efforts.
>  
> To me there is a strong argument that any steps to control encryption will have no effect on terrorism at all, because new forms of encryption will evolve anyway faster than they can be regulated. Just as any increases in mass surveillance are unlikely to have any effect on terrorism whatsoever (see http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26801-mass-surveillance-not-effective-for-finding-terrorists.html#.VL2JBEeUdVT) In both the recent Sydney and Paris incidents the people responsible were already well known to police and under surveillance but that did not stop them.
>  
> However, the efforts will create further extensive and widespread distrust in the Internet. That is a serious problem.
>  
> We will have strong allies here in both technical community and among business interests.
>  
>  
> Ian
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> From: Nick Ashton-Hart
> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 9:15 AM
> To: Ian Peter
> Cc: Carolina Rossini ; Joana Varon ; Deborah Brown ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call for Submissions for new UN study on use of encryption and anonymity
>  
> Sadly, though I am not a betting man, I would put money on the premise that far from surveillance reform in 2015 we will actually find we're fighting a pretty desperate battle for things not to go badly wrong the other direction.
>  
> ... and I would very, very much love to be wrong.
> 
> On 19 Jan 2015, at 23:04, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> 
>> I think a response is extremely important, having just read this.
>> 
>> http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/obama-announces-new-cyber-war-games-partnership-with-great-britain-20150116
>> 
>> It suggests that Obama may side with UK in trying to outlaw strong encryption
>> 
>> Ian
>> 
>> From: Carolina Rossini 
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 8:25 AM
>> To: Joana Varon 
>> Cc: Deborah Brown ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call for Submissions for new UN study on use of encryption and anonymity
>> 
>> Do we want to send something as BestBits? 
>> Folks from the list, any interest for a collective input?
>> 
>> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Very important. Thanks for sharing. Will be happy to produce inputs from the Brazilian Perspective. If anyone from Latam also want to do so, please, ping me and we can do something regional. 
>> best
>> jo
>> 
>> 
>> On 19 January 2015 16:09:48 GMT-02:00, Deborah Brown <deborah at apc.org> wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----Hash: SHA512Dear all,In case of interest, the new UN Special Rapporteur David Kaye is lookingat the use of encryption and anonymity in his first report and isencouraging input from civil society. The deadline is 10 Feb.Best,Deborahhttp://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/FreedomOpinion/Pages/CallForSubmission.aspx      Special Rapporteur will study the use of encryption and anonymityin digital communications in his 2015 HRC reportThe Special Rapporteur on the protection and promotion of the right tofreedom of opinion and expression, David Kaye, is currently preparing areport on the legal framework governing the relationship between freedomof expression and the use of encryption to secure transactions andcommunications, and other technologies to transact and communicateanonymously online. This report will be presented to the Human RightsCouncil in June, 2015.To prepare his study, Mr. Kaye is gathering information on nationallaws, regulations, policies or practices that permit or limit, directlyor indirectly, the use of encryption technologies and services or theability of individuals to communicate anonymously online. All States arebeing asked called to submit information on their relevant nationalnorms and policies.Similarly, the Special Rapporteur would like to encourage all interestednon-governmental stakeholders – including civil society, corporateactors, international and regional organizations, and national humanrights institutions – to provide their views on the appropriate scope ofthe right to freedom of expression as applied to encryption andanonymity. He would particularly appreciate receiving commentsaddressing this matter from legal, state practice, or technicalperspectives.Any available information should be sent electronically tofreedex at ohchr.org <mailto:freedex at ohchr.org>, *not later than 10February 2015*.-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.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GAJy-----END PGP    SIGNATURE-----
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>> -- 
>> Sent from my Android device with K-9 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 
>> Carolina Rossini 
>> Vice President, International Policy
>> Public Knowledge
>> http://www.publicknowledge.org/
>> 
>> + 1 6176979389 | 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150120/c1866dcf/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150120/c1866dcf/attachment.sig>

From jmalcolm at eff.org  Tue Jan 20 12:59:45 2015
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 09:59:45 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] Call for Submissions for new UN study on use of
 encryption and anonymity
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAfEmWwjRNVKzLC7hXysHSJJnQXW8jOxa+Hnd-sotMUCNQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <54BD486C.4020806@apc.org>	<E7F8CE5D-C6DD-4EC5-B421-87BE33890068@varonferraz.com> <CAK-FJAfEmWwjRNVKzLC7hXysHSJJnQXW8jOxa+Hnd-sotMUCNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54BE9791.6080708@eff.org>

On 19/01/2015 1:25 pm, Carolina Rossini wrote:
> Do we want to send something as BestBits?
> Folks from the list, any interest for a collective input?

EFF will also be writing something separately, but very happy to
contribute to a joint submission if someone else can take the lead on it.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt
Fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220

Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 244 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150120/39167a5a/attachment.sig>

From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com  Tue Jan 20 13:24:38 2015
From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji)
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 19:24:38 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Call for Submissions for new UN study on use of
 encryption and anonymity
In-Reply-To: <4C5F0DB9-CE3C-42D0-9345-FB0AC219DF54@consensus.pro>
References: <54BD486C.4020806@apc.org>
	<E7F8CE5D-C6DD-4EC5-B421-87BE33890068@varonferraz.com>
	<CAK-FJAfEmWwjRNVKzLC7hXysHSJJnQXW8jOxa+Hnd-sotMUCNQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<8E8B9BF71B1A4D64AA17706ABA95F14D@Toshiba>
	<074B6689-22FF-4E19-8700-110B9CD0DB63@consensus.pro>
	<B1B4C4A9942C4B4C872B54832D7586B7@Toshiba>
	<4C5F0DB9-CE3C-42D0-9345-FB0AC219DF54@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <CAD_dc6ijT2ULCOomDKqk5BO0aoiDSUaYBhJCFFS5GMKdDMLkZA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

The first time I heard this, I wondered the practicality and implication;
so every bank in the UK will stop running on https, it also mean a typical
UK govt official will be banned from setting up VPN link in other to have
private conversations.

I believe UK govt knows the implication of banning encryption, however I
think the collaboration between UK/US will be more about having a looking
glass through the encrypted traffic which will also be good news to hackers
;-)

Cheers!
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 20 Jan 2015 07:41, "Nick Ashton-Hart" <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:

> Dear Ian,
>
> I hope we are all wrong in our pessimism. Personally I think the 'other
> side' will be too clever to go for outlawing encryption. They'll go for a
> populist conception like a 'front door' to break it when they 'need' access
> - it will sound great to the vast majority who don't understand there are
> no front doors, only back doors.
>
> There will be strong opposition from industry, undoubtedly. However,
> countries are already conflating their use of data and that of the private
> sector precisely because it puts the private sector on the defensive.
>
> There is division in the US Reps on this true - however that's far from
> the only country where this is playing out and in a number of European
> countries the laws are already pretty bad, and candidly I think there's far
> too much focus on the US changing its laws when this problem is inherently
> global, not national, and the fight is being lost, not won, more often than
> not; the obsession with US reform is sucking in an enormous amount of
> airtime and energy. I fear, very much, for my country, the UK - everything
> hangs on the election result.
>
> On 20 Jan 2015, at 04:33, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
>    I tend to agree Nick – I thing there may be a strong push to outlaw
> some sorts of encryption as part of a very strong push to increase
> surveillance in coming months. However,
> I think many industry voices will side with us in opposition to this. Plus
> I would suspect republican majority in USA is divided on this. So I think
> the debate could turn and we should make strong efforts.
>
> To me there is a strong argument that any steps to control encryption will
> have no effect on terrorism at all, because new forms of encryption will
> evolve anyway faster than they can be regulated. Just as any increases in
> mass surveillance are unlikely to have any effect on terrorism whatsoever
> (see
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26801-mass-surveillance-not-effective-for-finding-terrorists.html#.VL2JBEeUdVT)
> In both the recent Sydney and Paris incidents the people responsible were
> already well known to police and under surveillance but that did not stop
> them.
>
> However, the efforts will create further extensive and widespread distrust
> in the Internet. That is a serious problem.
>
> We will have strong allies here in both technical community and among
> business interests.
>
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
>
>  *From:* Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 20, 2015 9:15 AM
> *To:* Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> *Cc:* Carolina Rossini <carolina.rossini at gmail.com> ; Joana Varon
> <joana at varonferraz.com> ; Deborah Brown <deborah at apc.org> ;
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Call for Submissions for new UN study on use of
> encryption and anonymity
>
> Sadly, though I am not a betting man, I would put money on the premise
> that far from surveillance reform in 2015 we will actually find we're
> fighting a pretty desperate battle for things not to go badly wrong the
> other direction.
>
> ... and I would very, very much love to be wrong.
>
>  On 19 Jan 2015, at 23:04, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
>  I think a response is extremely important, having just read this.
>
>
> http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/obama-announces-new-cyber-war-games-partnership-with-great-britain-20150116
>
> It suggests that Obama may side with UK in trying to outlaw strong
> encryption
>
> Ian
>
> From: Carolina Rossini
> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 8:25 AM
> To: Joana Varon
> Cc: Deborah Brown ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call for Submissions for new UN study on use of
> encryption and anonymity
>
> Do we want to send something as BestBits?
> Folks from the list, any interest for a collective input?
>
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com>
> wrote:
>
> Very important. Thanks for sharing. Will be happy to produce inputs from
> the Brazilian Perspective. If anyone from Latam also want to do so, please,
> ping me and we can do something regional.
> best
> jo
>
>
> On 19 January 2015 16:09:48 GMT-02:00, Deborah Brown <deborah at apc.org>
> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----Hash: SHA512Dear all,In case of
> interest, the new UN Special Rapporteur David Kaye is lookingat the use of
> encryption and anonymity in his first report and isencouraging input from
> civil society. The deadline is 10 Feb.Best,
> Deborahhttp://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/FreedomOpinion/Pages/CallForSubmission.aspx
> Special Rapporteur will study the use of encryption and anonymityin digital
> communications in his 2015 HRC reportThe Special Rapporteur on the
> protection and promotion of the right tofreedom of opinion and expression,
> David Kaye, is currently preparing areport on the legal framework governing
> the relationship between freedomof expression and the use of encryption to
> secure transactions andcommunications, and other technologies to transact
> and communicateanonymously online. This report will be presented to the
> Human RightsCouncil in June, 2015.To prepare his study, Mr. Kaye is
> gathering information on nationallaws, regulations, policies or practices
> that permit or limit, directlyor indirectly, the use of encryption
> technologies and services or theability of individuals to communicate
> anonymously online. All States arebeing asked called to submit information
> on their relevant nationalnorms and policies.Similarly, the Special
> Rapporteur would like to encourage all interestednon-governmental
> stakeholders – including civil society, corporateactors, international and
> regional organizations, and national humanrights institutions – to provide
> their views on the appropriate scope ofthe right to freedom of expression
> as applied to encryption andanonymity. He would particularly appreciate
> receiving commentsaddressing this matter from legal, state practice, or
> technicalperspectives.Any available information should be sent
> electronically tofreedex at ohchr.org <mailto:freedex at ohchr.org
> <freedex at ohchr.org>>, *not later than 10February 2015*.-----BEGIN PGP
> SIGNATURE-----Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)Comment: GPGTools -
> https://gpgtools.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GAJy-----END
> <https://gpgtools.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GAJy-----END>
> PGP SIGNATURE-----
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------You
> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.To unsubscribe or change your settings,
> visit:     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> --
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 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
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> --
>
> Carolina Rossini
> Vice President, International Policy
> Public Knowledge
> http://www.publicknowledge.org/
>
> + 1 6176979389 | 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150120/f1180fb5/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Thu Jan 22 04:03:18 2015
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 18:03:18 +0900
Subject: [bestbits] =?UTF-8?Q?FW=3A_ICANN_News_Alert_--_Webinar_Invitation?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?_=E2=80=93_IANA_Stewardship_Transition=3A_ICANN_Workshop_and_We?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?binar_for_Civil_Society_and_the_Noncommercial_Sector?=
In-Reply-To: <ac22136e44f5420cbb47fd4f04416f15@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
References: <0.0.340.19C.1D035D860A2C62E.0@drone126.ral.icpbounce.com>
	<ac22136e44f5420cbb47fd4f04416f15@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThk-CAy+a3swfMaRgwrhuY4f_s-QSVYfSXDYdpmOf_vP6A@mail.gmail.com>

FYI

> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-01-21-en
>
> ________________________________
> Webinar Invitation – IANA Stewardship Transition: ICANN Workshop and
Webinar for Civil Society and the Noncommercial Sector
>
> 21 January 2015
>
> ICANN is hosting an information session to brief and discuss the ongoing
evolution of Internet governance. This session will be tailored to provide
an update on the U.S. Government's announcement to transition its oversight
of the IANA functions contract to the global multistakeholder community,
and the parallel process of Enhancing ICANN's Accountability in light of
this changing historical relationship.
>
> This will be an event to learn more on the latest developments on the two
processes and walk-through any upcoming opportunities for input. (Lunch
will be provided)
>
> When: 23 January 12:00-13:00 CET (UTC + 01:00)
> Where: ICANN Brussels Office, 1st floor, 6 Rond-Point Schuman
>
> Additionally, the event will be hosted as a Webinar:
>
> Conference dial-in details: An audio line will be available to take part
in the discussion.
>
> From Belgium: +32 78 480 286
> From the UK: +442070990867
> Conference ID: 21912
>
> (For other countries, please visit: http://adigo.com/icann).
>
> Suggested Agenda
> Introduction/Overview of the Internet Governance Ecosystem and ICANN
(Jean-Jacques Sahel and Adam Peake)
> Overview of the IANA Stewardship Transition and Enhancing ICANN
Accountability Processes (Theresa Swinehart)
> Presentation on the IANA Stewardship Transition (Theresa Swinehart and
Grace Abuhamad)
> Presentation on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (Theresa Swinehart, Adam
Peake and Alice Jansen)
>
> Please register by emailing europe at icann.org.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150122/e0b4fa75/attachment.htm>

From nb at bollow.ch  Thu Jan 22 08:37:01 2015
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 14:37:01 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Internet Social Forum
Message-ID: <20150122143701.3326fb2f@quill>

Global Civil Society launches the Internet Social Forum
– With a call to occupy the Internet

PRESS RELEASE. Geneva, Switzerland, 22st January, 2015.

A group of civil society organisations from around the world has
announced the Internet Social Forum, to bring together and articulate
bottom-up perspectives on the 'Internet we want'. Taking inspiration
from the World Social Forum, and its clarion call, 'Another World is
possible', the group seeks to draw urgent attention to the increasing
centralization of the Internet for extraction of monopoly rents and for
socio-political control, asserting that 'Another Internet is possible'!

The Internet Social Forum will inter alia offer an alternative to the
recently-launched World Economic Forum's 'Net Mundial Initiative' on
global Internet governance. While the World Economic Forum (WEF) and
the 'Net Mundial Initiative' convene global elites, the Internet Social
Forum will be a participatory and bottom-up space for all those who
believe that the global Internet must evolve in the public interest; a
direct parallel to the launch of the World Social Forum in 2001 as a
counter initiative to the WEF.

The Internet Social Forum will reach out to grassroots groups and
social movements across the world, catalysing a groundswell that
challenges the entrenched elite interests that currently control how
the Internet is managed. The Internet Social Forum's preparatory
process will kick off during the World Social Forum to take place in
Tunis, March 24th to 28th, 2015. The Internet Social Forum itself is
planned to be held either late 2015 or early 2016.

“While the world's biggest companies have every right to debate the
future of the Internet, we are concerned that their perspectives should
not drown out those of ordinary people who have no access to the
privileged terrain WEF occupies – in the end it is this wider public
interest that must be paramount in governing the Internet. We are
organising the Internet Social Forum to make sure their voices can't be
ignored in the corridors of power,” said Norbert Bollow, Co-Convenor of
the Just Net Coalition, which is one of the groups involved in the
initiative.

The Internet Social Forum, and its preparatory process, is intended as
a space to vision and build the 'Internet we want'. It will be
underpinned by values of democracy, human rights and social justice. It
will stand for participatory policy making and promote community media.
It will seek an Internet that is truly decentralized in its
architecture and based on people's full rights to data, information,
knowledge and other 'commons' that the Internet has enabled the world
community to generate and share.

Somewhat similar to Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee’s call for a ‘Magna
Carta for the Internet', the Internet Social Forum proposes to develop
a People's Internet Manifesto, through a bottom-up process involving
all concerned social groups and movements, in different areas, from
techies and ICT-for-development actors to media reform groups,
democracy movements and social justice activists.

This year will also see the 10 year high-level review of the World
Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), to be held in New York in
December. As a full-scale review of a major UN summit, this will be a
critical global political event. Since the WSIS, held in 2003 and 2005,
the Internet, and what it means socially, has undergone a paradigm
shift. The WSIS witnessed active engagement of civil society and
technical groups as well as of business. However, currently, there
seems to be an deliberate attempt to sideline this UN-led initiative on
governance issues of the information society and Internet in favour of
private, big-business-dominated initiatives like the WEF's Net Mundial
Initiative. The Internet Social Forum, while remaining primarily a
people's forum, will also seek to channel global civil society's
engagement towards the WSIS +10 review.

The following organisations form the initial group that is proposing
the Internet Social Forum, and many more are expected to join in the
immediate future. This is an open call to progressive groups from all
over the world to join this initiative, and participate in developing a
People's Internet Manifesto.

Just Net Coalition, Global
P2P Foundation, Global
Transnational Institute, Global
Forum on Communication for Integration of our America, Regional (Latin
America) Arab NGO Network for Development, Regional
Agencia Latinoamericana de Información, Regional
Alternative Informatics Association, Turkey
Knowledge Commons, India
Open-Root/EUROLINC, France
SLFC.in, India
CODE-IP Trust, Kenya
GodlyGlobal.org, Switzerland
Centre for Community Informatics Research, Development and Training,
Canada IT for Change, India
Association for Proper Internet Governance, Switzerland
Computer Professionals Union, Philippines
Free Press, USA
Advocates of Science and Technology for the People, Philippines
Other News, Italy
Free Software Movement of India
Global_Geneva, Switzerland
Solidarius (Solidarity Economy Network), Italy
All India Peoples Science Network, India
Institute for Local Self-Reliance - Community Broadband Networks, USA

Please contact us at secretariat at InternetSocialForum.net for further
information or clarification.

Or the following regional contacts:

Africa:        Alex Gakaru <AlexG at InternetSocialForum.net>
Asia:          Rishab Bailey <RishabB at InternetSocialForum.net>
Europe:        Norbert Bollow <NorbertB at InternetSocialForum.net>
North America: Micheal Gurstein <MichealG at InternetSocialForum.net>
South America: Sally Burch <SallyB at InternetSocialForum.net>


This press release is also available online, e.g. at
http://justnetcoalition.org/ISF

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Mon Jan  5 08:58:13 2015
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2015 11:58:13 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [LyonDCL] The "Road to Dignity by 2030" includes
 access to information and an open Internet
In-Reply-To: <4C7056044022974EBF0132E21CCA4482019C5E66@MFP02.IFLA.lan>
References: <4C7056044022974EBF0132E21CCA4482019C508C@MFP02.IFLA.lan>
	<4C7056044022974EBF0132E21CCA4482019C5E66@MFP02.IFLA.lan>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAd2wkr7QYQHrjORr5rNwGHnjR9zfWvO5tWBLZBiv8sqXQ@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Julia Brungs" <Julia.Brungs at ifla.org>
Date: Dec 17, 2014 9:59 AM
Subject: [LyonDCL] The "Road to Dignity by 2030" includes access to
information and an open Internet
To: "lyondcl at infoserv.inist.fr" <lyondcl at infoserv.inist.fr>
Cc:

 Dear all,



IFLA's response to the Synthesis Report of the UN Secretary-General on the
Post-2015 Development Agenda: "The Road to Dignity by 2030: Ending Poverty,
Transforming All Lives and Protecting the Planet"



*Access to information...Intellectual Property reform...access to open
data...affordable access to ICTs.* These are some of the important issues
IFLA and those of us in the greater library and information community are
grappling with in a variety of ways.

IFLA has been working with the international library community—as well as
civil society and member states—to develop its position on the creation of
the new UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
<http://www.ifla.org/node/8139> and help ensure that crucial elements such
as access to information are included in the UN post-2015 Development Agenda
<http://www.ifla.org/node/8873>. Throughout this process, it is important
that libraries are seen as being part of the conversation.



Last week, an advance "Synthesis Report of the UN Secretary-General On the
Post-2015 Agenda
<http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5527SR_advance%20unedited_final.pdf>"
was released. The Report outlines the priorities and main goals of the
post-2015 UN Development Agenda and has a serious goal: to transform our
economies, our environment, and our societies. IFLA welcomes the Report and
the inclusion of access to information, and encourages the United Nations
to recognise the role of access and skills as an essential pillar in the
transformational agenda for sustainable development. Unfortunately, we are
disappointed that the report lacks substance on the potential of ICTs for
development.



We encourage the UN and its Member States to use the Lyon Declaration
<http://www.lyondeclaration.org/> during the next stage of
intergovernmental negotiations on the post-2015 development agenda to
inform the inclusion of access to information, and the skills to use it
effectively by:

·         Acknowledging the public's right to access information and data,
while respecting the right to individual privacy;

·         Recognising the important role of local authorities, information
intermediaries and infrastructure such as ICTs and an open Internet as a
means of implementation;

·         Adopting policy, standards and legislation to ensure the
continued funding, integrity, preservation and provision of information by
governments, and access by people;

·         Developing targets and indicators that enable measurement of the
impact of access to information and data.



IFLA has already released a Toolkit
<http://www.ifla.org/libraries-development/toolkit> to support library
institutions and associations and other civil society organisations to
advocate for access to information in the context of post-2015 UN
Development Agenda—thereby empowering signatories of the Lyon Declaration
to make the voice of the library community heard on a national level.



*What next?*

Following the publication of the final synthesis report at the end of
December 2014, IFLA will produce a revised version of the Toolkit with
specific talking points and examples to support meetings with member state
representatives that library associations and institutions will organise in
early 2015.

The final synthesis report will become the baseline for the negations and
meetings that will take place throughout 2015, in the lead up to the
Special Summit on Sustainable Development. IFLA will be participating in
some of the meetings, including:

·         High-level thematic debate on the means of implementation for the
post-2015 development agenda (February 2015)

·         Millennium Development Goals Report 2015 (July 2015)

·         Millennium Development Goals Gap Task Force Report (September
2015)

·         Special Summit on Sustainable Development (September 2015)



Read the full response online <http://www.ifla.org/node/9254>.



Julia Brungs

Policy and Projects Officer

International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA)

P.O. Box 95312
2509 CH The Hague
Netherlands

Phone: 0031703140884

Email: Julia.brungs at ifla.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150105/110efbea/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Jan 22 11:01:47 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 21:31:47 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <20150122143701.3326fb2f@quill>
References: <20150122143701.3326fb2f@quill>
Message-ID: <54C11EEB.8000109@itforchange.net>

Enclosed Spanish version... parminder

On Thursday 22 January 2015 07:07 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> Global Civil Society launches the Internet Social Forum
> – With a call to occupy the Internet
>
> PRESS RELEASE. Geneva, Switzerland, 22st January, 2015.
>
> A group of civil society organisations from around the world has
> announced the Internet Social Forum, to bring together and articulate
> bottom-up perspectives on the 'Internet we want'. Taking inspiration
> from the World Social Forum, and its clarion call, 'Another World is
> possible', the group seeks to draw urgent attention to the increasing
> centralization of the Internet for extraction of monopoly rents and for
> socio-political control, asserting that 'Another Internet is possible'!
>
> The Internet Social Forum will inter alia offer an alternative to the
> recently-launched World Economic Forum's 'Net Mundial Initiative' on
> global Internet governance. While the World Economic Forum (WEF) and
> the 'Net Mundial Initiative' convene global elites, the Internet Social
> Forum will be a participatory and bottom-up space for all those who
> believe that the global Internet must evolve in the public interest; a
> direct parallel to the launch of the World Social Forum in 2001 as a
> counter initiative to the WEF.
>
> The Internet Social Forum will reach out to grassroots groups and
> social movements across the world, catalysing a groundswell that
> challenges the entrenched elite interests that currently control how
> the Internet is managed. The Internet Social Forum's preparatory
> process will kick off during the World Social Forum to take place in
> Tunis, March 24th to 28th, 2015. The Internet Social Forum itself is
> planned to be held either late 2015 or early 2016.
>
> “While the world's biggest companies have every right to debate the
> future of the Internet, we are concerned that their perspectives should
> not drown out those of ordinary people who have no access to the
> privileged terrain WEF occupies – in the end it is this wider public
> interest that must be paramount in governing the Internet. We are
> organising the Internet Social Forum to make sure their voices can't be
> ignored in the corridors of power,” said Norbert Bollow, Co-Convenor of
> the Just Net Coalition, which is one of the groups involved in the
> initiative.
>
> The Internet Social Forum, and its preparatory process, is intended as
> a space to vision and build the 'Internet we want'. It will be
> underpinned by values of democracy, human rights and social justice. It
> will stand for participatory policy making and promote community media.
> It will seek an Internet that is truly decentralized in its
> architecture and based on people's full rights to data, information,
> knowledge and other 'commons' that the Internet has enabled the world
> community to generate and share.
>
> Somewhat similar to Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee’s call for a ‘Magna
> Carta for the Internet', the Internet Social Forum proposes to develop
> a People's Internet Manifesto, through a bottom-up process involving
> all concerned social groups and movements, in different areas, from
> techies and ICT-for-development actors to media reform groups,
> democracy movements and social justice activists.
>
> This year will also see the 10 year high-level review of the World
> Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), to be held in New York in
> December. As a full-scale review of a major UN summit, this will be a
> critical global political event. Since the WSIS, held in 2003 and 2005,
> the Internet, and what it means socially, has undergone a paradigm
> shift. The WSIS witnessed active engagement of civil society and
> technical groups as well as of business. However, currently, there
> seems to be an deliberate attempt to sideline this UN-led initiative on
> governance issues of the information society and Internet in favour of
> private, big-business-dominated initiatives like the WEF's Net Mundial
> Initiative. The Internet Social Forum, while remaining primarily a
> people's forum, will also seek to channel global civil society's
> engagement towards the WSIS +10 review.
>
> The following organisations form the initial group that is proposing
> the Internet Social Forum, and many more are expected to join in the
> immediate future. This is an open call to progressive groups from all
> over the world to join this initiative, and participate in developing a
> People's Internet Manifesto.
>
> Just Net Coalition, Global
> P2P Foundation, Global
> Transnational Institute, Global
> Forum on Communication for Integration of our America, Regional (Latin
> America) Arab NGO Network for Development, Regional
> Agencia Latinoamericana de Información, Regional
> Alternative Informatics Association, Turkey
> Knowledge Commons, India
> Open-Root/EUROLINC, France
> SLFC.in, India
> CODE-IP Trust, Kenya
> GodlyGlobal.org, Switzerland
> Centre for Community Informatics Research, Development and Training,
> Canada IT for Change, India
> Association for Proper Internet Governance, Switzerland
> Computer Professionals Union, Philippines
> Free Press, USA
> Advocates of Science and Technology for the People, Philippines
> Other News, Italy
> Free Software Movement of India
> Global_Geneva, Switzerland
> Solidarius (Solidarity Economy Network), Italy
> All India Peoples Science Network, India
> Institute for Local Self-Reliance - Community Broadband Networks, USA
>
> Please contact us at secretariat at InternetSocialForum.net for further
> information or clarification.
>
> Or the following regional contacts:
>
> Africa:        Alex Gakaru <AlexG at InternetSocialForum.net>
> Asia:          Rishab Bailey <RishabB at InternetSocialForum.net>
> Europe:        Norbert Bollow <NorbertB at InternetSocialForum.net>
> North America: Micheal Gurstein <MichealG at InternetSocialForum.net>
> South America: Sally Burch <SallyB at InternetSocialForum.net>
>
>
> This press release is also available online, e.g. at
> http://justnetcoalition.org/ISF
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150122/f2c6ea4c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Comunicado FSI espa?ol.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 29696 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150122/f2c6ea4c/attachment.doc>

From lea at gp-digital.org  Thu Jan 22 11:37:48 2015
From: lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 16:37:48 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] IGF/MAG Update - January 2015
Message-ID: <CAJTVAjzhepqgDsh2J3aoG+swhH1L0ye=m1g_4Rt6r-w86XBhTQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear friends,

With apologies for not sharing this sooner, below is a brief update on the
current status of IGF preparations and the activities currently being
carried out by the IGF MAG.

To start with a time-sensitive issue, please note that the* community is
currently invited to provide input on IGF's inter-sessional activities*. The*
deadline *to submit input is *Monday, February 2*:
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/176-igf-2015/preparatory-process/2142-open-call-for-input-on-inter-sessional-work

Defining the modalities and themes for intersessional work is perhaps the
most important task for the MAG and the community this year. It will be
instrumental in maximising the value of the Forum beyond the annual
Conference, and, especially in light of the WSIS+10 Review, to demonstrate
its value to the wider audiences. As the IGF mandate runs out this year,
and its future gets decided by governments in New York this December,
getting intersessional work off the ground could be one of the key
variables in deciding the final outcome. So please share this call with
your networks and provide input if you can!

For those of you who want *to join* the dedicated MAG working group on
intersessional activities, the info on how to do this is below.

With warm wishes,

Lea

----

*Summary of the December MAG meeting and status of IGF 2015 preparations*

   - The newly formed MAG met for the first time on 1-3 December in Geneva.
   The Chair's summary can be found here
   <http://intgovforum.org/cms/documents/igf-meeting/igf-2015-joao-pessoa/422-december-2014-open-consultations-and-mag-meeting-summary-report/file>
   .
   - The work of the MAG and dedicated working groups (WGs) will be carried
   out remotely through calls and mailing lists, as well as through in person
   meetings. Next MAG face to face meetings will take place in:
   - *May 20-22, Geneva* (to focus on workshop selection*)*
      - *Early September, New York* (to maximise opportunity to engage
      decision-makers in NY involved in the WSIS process and push for
IGF mandate
      renewal)
   - To tackle specific tasks, work of the MAG has been organised into
   dedicated WGs. The WGs report regularly to the full MAG, which has the
   final decision-making authority.
   - At the December meeting, *7 WGs were set up:*

Working GroupMailing list nameMailing list sign up pageLead FacilitatorsIGF
2015 themesigf2015_themes at intgovforum.org
http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igf2015_themes_intgovforum.orgBenedicto
Fonseca Filho.Intersessional activitiesintersessional_2015 at intgovforum.org
http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/intersessional_2015_intgovforum.orgMourad
Boukadoum,; Virat Bhatia; Avri Doria; Lynn St. Amour.Main Session guidelines
ms_guidelines_2015 at intgovforum.org
http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/ms_guidelines_2015_intgovforum.orgFlavio
Wagner; Subi Chaturvedi; Virginia Paque.Outreach communication
outreach_com_2015 at intgovforum.org
http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/outreach_com_2015_intgovforum.orgDominique
LazanskiRemote participationrp_2015 at intgovforum.org
http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/rp_2015_intgovforum.orgGinger
Paque.Self-assessment
of IGFselfassesment_2015 at intgovforum.org
http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/selfassesment_2015_intgovforum.orgMarilyn
Cade.Workshop evaluation, selection criteria, and mechanisms
ws_selection_2015 at intgovforum.org
http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/ws_selection_2015_intgovforum.orgFiona
Alexander; Susan Chalmers.


   - It was decided that all WGs will be *open to the community*. If you
   are interested in participating in any of these WGs please register through
   the above links and the IGF secretariat will add you to the relevant
   mailing list(s). Volunteers are more than welcome!
   - In terms of progress of individual WGs, two groups will be finalising
   their work shortly: the group on IGF themes and the group on workshop
   evaluation.
   - The call for workshops for IGF 2015 is due to be published shortly
   (target date: *January 30*).
   - As it stands at the moment (pending final confirmation):
      - The overaching theme for IGF 2015 will be "*The Evolution of
      Internet Governance: Empowering Sustainable Development"*
      - Conference sub-themes will be: *Building Trust; Internet Economy;
      Inclusiveness and Diversity; Openess; Multistakeholder Cooperation;
      Internet and Human Rights*

As a group of civil society MAG members and observers (Aida Mahmutovic,
Bianca Ho, Avri Doria, Ginger Paque, Fatima Cambronero, Jac SM Kee, Ephraim
Percy Kenyanito, Amelia Andersdotter, Izumi Aizu, Bill Drake, Anriette
Esterhuysen, Adam Peake, Matthew Shears, etc. - sorry if I missed anyone!)
we made a relatively solid effort at trying to coordinate our input at the
meeting. We organised working lunches, a dedicated online communications
channel, and supported each others' interventions. Most of us have joined
several working groups, and Ginger and Avri are leading two of them. I
think we have a great group of dedicated and hard-working people who will
work to promote the public interest and contribute to strengthening the
IGF. I look forward to working with them this year!

I hope this captures the main developments - other colleagues who are
following the process, please add to this information in case I missed
anything!

-----

*Lea Kaspar*

Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL

Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT

T: +44 (0)20 7549 033*7* | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 | Skype: l.kaspar

gp-digital.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150122/a06124b4/attachment.htm>

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Thu Jan 22 12:50:54 2015
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 15:50:54 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] IGF/MAG Update - January 2015
In-Reply-To: <CAJTVAjzhepqgDsh2J3aoG+swhH1L0ye=m1g_4Rt6r-w86XBhTQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJTVAjzhepqgDsh2J3aoG+swhH1L0ye=m1g_4Rt6r-w86XBhTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK1SOhW6CFgwJNthwph2Q_dbK378w127NEEFGg+=Md7tPQ@mail.gmail.com>

Extremely useful, Lea. It will certainly facilitate planning and
engagement.
Thank you very much!
Marília

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Lea Kaspar <lea at gp-digital.org> wrote:

> Dear friends,
>
> With apologies for not sharing this sooner, below is a brief update on the
> current status of IGF preparations and the activities currently being
> carried out by the IGF MAG.
>
> To start with a time-sensitive issue, please note that the* community is
> currently invited to provide input on IGF's inter-sessional activities*.
> The* deadline *to submit input is *Monday, February 2*:
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/176-igf-2015/preparatory-process/2142-open-call-for-input-on-inter-sessional-work
>
> Defining the modalities and themes for intersessional work is perhaps the
> most important task for the MAG and the community this year. It will be
> instrumental in maximising the value of the Forum beyond the annual
> Conference, and, especially in light of the WSIS+10 Review, to demonstrate
> its value to the wider audiences. As the IGF mandate runs out this year,
> and its future gets decided by governments in New York this December,
> getting intersessional work off the ground could be one of the key
> variables in deciding the final outcome. So please share this call with
> your networks and provide input if you can!
>
> For those of you who want *to join* the dedicated MAG working group on
> intersessional activities, the info on how to do this is below.
>
> With warm wishes,
>
> Lea
>
> ----
>
> *Summary of the December MAG meeting and status of IGF 2015 preparations*
>
>    - The newly formed MAG met for the first time on 1-3 December in
>    Geneva. The Chair's summary can be found here
>    <http://intgovforum.org/cms/documents/igf-meeting/igf-2015-joao-pessoa/422-december-2014-open-consultations-and-mag-meeting-summary-report/file>
>    .
>    - The work of the MAG and dedicated working groups (WGs) will be
>    carried out remotely through calls and mailing lists, as well as through in
>    person meetings. Next MAG face to face meetings will take place in:
>    - *May 20-22, Geneva* (to focus on workshop selection*)*
>       - *Early September, New York* (to maximise opportunity to engage
>       decision-makers in NY involved in the WSIS process and push for IGF mandate
>       renewal)
>    - To tackle specific tasks, work of the MAG has been organised into
>    dedicated WGs. The WGs report regularly to the full MAG, which has the
>    final decision-making authority.
>    - At the December meeting, *7 WGs were set up:*
>
> Working GroupMailing list nameMailing list sign up pageLead FacilitatorsIGF
> 2015 themesigf2015_themes at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igf2015_themes_intgovforum.orgBenedicto
> Fonseca Filho.Intersessional activitiesintersessional_2015 at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/intersessional_2015_intgovforum.orgMourad
> Boukadoum,; Virat Bhatia; Avri Doria; Lynn St. Amour.Main Session
> guidelinesms_guidelines_2015 at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/ms_guidelines_2015_intgovforum.orgFlavio
> Wagner; Subi Chaturvedi; Virginia Paque.Outreach communication
> outreach_com_2015 at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/outreach_com_2015_intgovforum.orgDominique
> LazanskiRemote participationrp_2015 at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/rp_2015_intgovforum.orgGinger
> Paque.Self-assessment of IGFselfassesment_2015 at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/selfassesment_2015_intgovforum.orgMarilyn
> Cade.Workshop evaluation, selection criteria, and mechanisms
> ws_selection_2015 at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/ws_selection_2015_intgovforum.orgFiona
> Alexander; Susan Chalmers.
>
>
>    - It was decided that all WGs will be *open to the community*. If you
>    are interested in participating in any of these WGs please register through
>    the above links and the IGF secretariat will add you to the relevant
>    mailing list(s). Volunteers are more than welcome!
>    - In terms of progress of individual WGs, two groups will be
>    finalising their work shortly: the group on IGF themes and the group on
>    workshop evaluation.
>    - The call for workshops for IGF 2015 is due to be published shortly
>    (target date: *January 30*).
>    - As it stands at the moment (pending final confirmation):
>       - The overaching theme for IGF 2015 will be "*The Evolution of
>       Internet Governance: Empowering Sustainable Development"*
>       - Conference sub-themes will be: *Building Trust; Internet Economy;
>       Inclusiveness and Diversity; Openess; Multistakeholder Cooperation;
>       Internet and Human Rights*
>
> As a group of civil society MAG members and observers (Aida Mahmutovic,
> Bianca Ho, Avri Doria, Ginger Paque, Fatima Cambronero, Jac SM Kee, Ephraim
> Percy Kenyanito, Amelia Andersdotter, Izumi Aizu, Bill Drake, Anriette
> Esterhuysen, Adam Peake, Matthew Shears, etc. - sorry if I missed anyone!)
> we made a relatively solid effort at trying to coordinate our input at the
> meeting. We organised working lunches, a dedicated online communications
> channel, and supported each others' interventions. Most of us have joined
> several working groups, and Ginger and Avri are leading two of them. I
> think we have a great group of dedicated and hard-working people who will
> work to promote the public interest and contribute to strengthening the
> IGF. I look forward to working with them this year!
>
> I hope this captures the main developments - other colleagues who are
> following the process, please add to this information in case I missed
> anything!
>
> -----
>
> *Lea Kaspar*
>
> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
>
> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>
> T: +44 (0)20 7549 033*7* | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 | Skype: l.kaspar
>
> 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
PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/
Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" -
http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150122/666ff61c/attachment.htm>

From ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu  Thu Jan 22 13:01:56 2015
From: ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu (Eduardo Bertoni)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 15:01:56 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] IGF/MAG Update - January 2015
In-Reply-To: <CAJTVAjzhepqgDsh2J3aoG+swhH1L0ye=m1g_4Rt6r-w86XBhTQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJTVAjzhepqgDsh2J3aoG+swhH1L0ye=m1g_4Rt6r-w86XBhTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAApcLcLZ5c1Dp4nvJZYDBoCaCDjGAR+Q3OVb2BVVK5UGd-RCoQ@mail.gmail.com>

Very useful Lea. Thanks!!

e

Eduardo

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Lea Kaspar <lea at gp-digital.org> wrote:

> Dear friends,
>
> With apologies for not sharing this sooner, below is a brief update on the
> current status of IGF preparations and the activities currently being
> carried out by the IGF MAG.
>
> To start with a time-sensitive issue, please note that the* community is
> currently invited to provide input on IGF's inter-sessional activities*.
> The* deadline *to submit input is *Monday, February 2*:
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/176-igf-2015/preparatory-process/2142-open-call-for-input-on-inter-sessional-work
>
> Defining the modalities and themes for intersessional work is perhaps the
> most important task for the MAG and the community this year. It will be
> instrumental in maximising the value of the Forum beyond the annual
> Conference, and, especially in light of the WSIS+10 Review, to demonstrate
> its value to the wider audiences. As the IGF mandate runs out this year,
> and its future gets decided by governments in New York this December,
> getting intersessional work off the ground could be one of the key
> variables in deciding the final outcome. So please share this call with
> your networks and provide input if you can!
>
> For those of you who want *to join* the dedicated MAG working group on
> intersessional activities, the info on how to do this is below.
>
> With warm wishes,
>
> Lea
>
> ----
>
> *Summary of the December MAG meeting and status of IGF 2015 preparations*
>
>    - The newly formed MAG met for the first time on 1-3 December in
>    Geneva. The Chair's summary can be found here
>    <http://intgovforum.org/cms/documents/igf-meeting/igf-2015-joao-pessoa/422-december-2014-open-consultations-and-mag-meeting-summary-report/file>
>    .
>    - The work of the MAG and dedicated working groups (WGs) will be
>    carried out remotely through calls and mailing lists, as well as through in
>    person meetings. Next MAG face to face meetings will take place in:
>    - *May 20-22, Geneva* (to focus on workshop selection*)*
>       - *Early September, New York* (to maximise opportunity to engage
>       decision-makers in NY involved in the WSIS process and push for IGF mandate
>       renewal)
>    - To tackle specific tasks, work of the MAG has been organised into
>    dedicated WGs. The WGs report regularly to the full MAG, which has the
>    final decision-making authority.
>    - At the December meeting, *7 WGs were set up:*
>
> Working GroupMailing list nameMailing list sign up pageLead FacilitatorsIGF
> 2015 themesigf2015_themes at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igf2015_themes_intgovforum.orgBenedicto
> Fonseca Filho.Intersessional activitiesintersessional_2015 at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/intersessional_2015_intgovforum.orgMourad
> Boukadoum,; Virat Bhatia; Avri Doria; Lynn St. Amour.Main Session
> guidelinesms_guidelines_2015 at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/ms_guidelines_2015_intgovforum.orgFlavio
> Wagner; Subi Chaturvedi; Virginia Paque.Outreach communication
> outreach_com_2015 at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/outreach_com_2015_intgovforum.orgDominique
> LazanskiRemote participationrp_2015 at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/rp_2015_intgovforum.orgGinger
> Paque.Self-assessment of IGFselfassesment_2015 at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/selfassesment_2015_intgovforum.orgMarilyn
> Cade.Workshop evaluation, selection criteria, and mechanisms
> ws_selection_2015 at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/ws_selection_2015_intgovforum.orgFiona
> Alexander; Susan Chalmers.
>
>
>    - It was decided that all WGs will be *open to the community*. If you
>    are interested in participating in any of these WGs please register through
>    the above links and the IGF secretariat will add you to the relevant
>    mailing list(s). Volunteers are more than welcome!
>    - In terms of progress of individual WGs, two groups will be
>    finalising their work shortly: the group on IGF themes and the group on
>    workshop evaluation.
>    - The call for workshops for IGF 2015 is due to be published shortly
>    (target date: *January 30*).
>    - As it stands at the moment (pending final confirmation):
>       - The overaching theme for IGF 2015 will be "*The Evolution of
>       Internet Governance: Empowering Sustainable Development"*
>       - Conference sub-themes will be: *Building Trust; Internet Economy;
>       Inclusiveness and Diversity; Openess; Multistakeholder Cooperation;
>       Internet and Human Rights*
>
> As a group of civil society MAG members and observers (Aida Mahmutovic,
> Bianca Ho, Avri Doria, Ginger Paque, Fatima Cambronero, Jac SM Kee, Ephraim
> Percy Kenyanito, Amelia Andersdotter, Izumi Aizu, Bill Drake, Anriette
> Esterhuysen, Adam Peake, Matthew Shears, etc. - sorry if I missed anyone!)
> we made a relatively solid effort at trying to coordinate our input at the
> meeting. We organised working lunches, a dedicated online communications
> channel, and supported each others' interventions. Most of us have joined
> several working groups, and Ginger and Avri are leading two of them. I
> think we have a great group of dedicated and hard-working people who will
> work to promote the public interest and contribute to strengthening the
> IGF. I look forward to working with them this year!
>
> I hope this captures the main developments - other colleagues who are
> following the process, please add to this information in case I missed
> anything!
>
> -----
>
> *Lea Kaspar*
>
> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
>
> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>
> T: +44 (0)20 7549 033*7* | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 | Skype: l.kaspar
>
> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150122/427882d7/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Jan 23 03:24:12 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 13:54:12 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] for the WEF and NMI enthusiasts
Message-ID: <54C2052C.9010009@itforchange.net>

Maybe the following is something to ponder upon ..

Not only is the inequality at an unacceptable level, the pace of its 
growth in unthinkably high, coinciding with a period when Internet is 
transforming every social structure and system.

Is the IG civil society contributing to the problem or solving it - or 
has it even seen the problem in the right manner, beyond what is 
presented by those who gain the most from current Internet power 
configurations.....

But then perhaps one may want to ignore this as not an IG issue.... 
parminder

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/davos-world-economic-forum/article6812228.ece


thehindu.com 
<http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/davos-world-economic-forum/article6812228.ece> 



  In Davos, worrying about inequality

  * by Seumas Milne
  * Jan. 23, 2015
  * original
    <http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/davos-world-economic-forum/article6812228.ece>


The billionaires and corporate oligarchs meeting in Davos this week are 
getting worried about inequality. It might be hard to stomach that the 
overlords of a system that has delivered the widest global economic gulf 
in human history should be hand-wringing about the consequences of their 
own actions.

But even the architects of the crisis-ridden international economic 
order are starting to see the dangers. It’s not just the maverick 
hedge-funder George Soros, who likes to describe himself as a class 
traitor. Paul Polman, Unilever chief executive, frets about the 
“capitalist threat to capitalism.” Christine Lagarde, the IMF managing 
director, fears capitalism might indeed carry Marx’s “seeds of its own 
destruction” and warns that something needs to be done.

The scale of the crisis has been laid out for them by the charity Oxfam. 
Just 80 individuals now have the same net wealth as 3.5 billion people — 
half the entire global population. Last year, the best-off one per cent 
owned 48 per cent of the world’s wealth, up from 44 per cent five years 
ago. On current trends, the richest one per cent will have pocketed more 
than the other 99 per cent put together next year. The 0.1 per cent has 
been doing even better, quadrupling their share of U.S. income since the 
1980s.

This is wealth grab on a grotesque scale. For 30 years, under the rule 
of “market fundamentalism,” inequality in income and wealth has 
ballooned, both between and within the large majority of countries. In 
Africa, the absolute number living on less than $2 a day has doubled 
since 1981.

In most of the world, labour’s share of national income has fallen 
continuously and wages have stagnated under this regime of 
privatisation, deregulation and low taxes on the rich. At the same time 
finance has sucked wealth from the public realm into the hands of a 
small minority, even as it has laid waste the rest of the economy. Now 
the evidence has piled up that not only is such appropriation of wealth 
a moral and social outrage, but it is fuelling social and climate 
conflict, wars, mass migration and political corruption, stunting health 
and life chances and increasing poverty.

Escalating inequality has also been a crucial factor in the economic 
crisis of the past seven years, squeezing demand and fuelling the credit 
boom. We don’t just know that from the research of the French economist 
Thomas Piketty or the British authors of the social study The Spirit 
Level. After years of promoting Washington orthodoxy, even the 
western-dominated OECD and IMF argue that the widening income gap has 
been key to the slow growth of the past two neoliberal decades. The 
British economy would have been almost 10 per cent larger if inequality 
hadn’t mushroomed.

*The big exception*

The big exception to the tide of inequality in recent years has been 
Latin America. Progressive governments across the region turned their 
back on a disastrous economic model, took back resources from corporate 
control and slashed inequality. The numbers living on less than $2 a day 
have fallen from 108 million to 53 million in little over a decade. 
China, which also rejected much of the neoliberal catechism, has seen 
sharply rising inequality at home but also lifted more people out of 
poverty than the rest of the world combined, offsetting the growing 
global income gap.

These two cases underline that increasing inequality and poverty are 
very far from inevitable. They’re the result of political and economic 
decisions. The thinking person’s Davos oligarch realises that allowing 
things to carry on as they are is dangerous. So, some want a more 
“inclusive capitalism” — including more progressive taxes — to save the 
system from itself.

But it certainly won’t come about as a result of Swiss mountain musings 
or anxious Guildhall lunches. Whatever the feelings of some corporate 
barons, vested corporate and elite interests including the organisations 
they run and the political structures they have colonised have shown 
they will fight even modest reforms tooth and nail. To get the idea, you 
only have to listen to the squeals of protest, including from some in 
his own party, at Ed Miliband’s plans to tax homes worth over £2m to 
fund the health service, or the demand from the one-time reformist 
Fabian Society that the Labour leader be more pro-business, or the wall 
of congressional resistance to Barack Obama’s mild redistributive 
taxation proposals.

Perhaps a section of the worried elite might be prepared to pay a bit 
more tax. What they won’t accept is any change in the balance of social 
power — which is why, in one country after another, they resist any 
attempt to strengthen trade unions.

It’s only through a challenge to the entrenched interests that have 
dined off a dysfunctional economic order that the tide of inequality 
will be reversed. The anti-austerity Syriza party, favourite to win the 
Greek elections this weekend, is attempting to do just that — as the 
Latin American left has succeeded in doing over the past decade and a 
half. Even to get to that point demands stronger social and political 
movements to break down or bypass the blockage in a colonised political 
mainstream. Crocodile tears about inequality are a symptom of a fearful 
elite. But change will only come from unrelenting social pressure and 
political challenge.

— *© Guardian Newspapers Limited, 2015 *

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150123/ed55c582/attachment.htm>

From anriette at apc.org  Fri Jan 23 06:11:43 2015
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 13:11:43 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Call for Submissions for new UN study on use of
 encryption and anonymity
In-Reply-To: <8E8B9BF71B1A4D64AA17706ABA95F14D@Toshiba>
References: <54BD486C.4020806@apc.org><E7F8CE5D-C6DD-4EC5-B421-87BE33890068@varonferraz.com> <CAK-FJAfEmWwjRNVKzLC7hXysHSJJnQXW8jOxa+Hnd-sotMUCNQ@mail.gmail.com> <8E8B9BF71B1A4D64AA17706ABA95F14D@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <54C22C6F.10304@apc.org>

I definitely think we should Ian. Cameron's proposals are horrendous.
But we should also respond so that we can maintain good, supportive
relationship with the SR.

We all know how incredibly valuable the relationship with Frank la Rue
was. SR's require our support and we can benefit hugely from theirs.

We can make links with regional processes in our response (special
hearing in LAC that happened late last year and African Declaration
process in Africa, for example. Not sure if there is anything happening
in Asia?)

It is also a good opportunity to refer to the strengths (mention of the
UNGA resolution) and weaknesses in the NMI statement of principles with
regard to encryption and anonymity. 

Anriette


On 20/01/2015 00:04, Ian Peter wrote:
> I think a response is extremely important, having just read this.
> 
>
http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/obama-announces-new-cyber-war-games-partnership-with-great-britain-20150116
> 
> It suggests that Obama may side with UK in trying to outlaw strong
encryption
> 
> Ian
> 
> *From:* Carolina Rossini <mailto:carolina.rossini at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 20, 2015 8:25 AM
> *To:* Joana Varon <mailto:joana at varonferraz.com>
> *Cc:* Deborah Brown <mailto:deborah at apc.org> ;
mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Call for Submissions for new UN study on use
of encryption and anonymity
> 
> Do we want to send something as BestBits?
> Folks from the list, any interest for a collective input?
> 
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com
<mailto:joana at varonferraz.com>> wrote:
>
>     Very important. Thanks for sharing. Will be happy to produce
inputs from the Brazilian Perspective. If anyone from Latam also want to
do so, please, ping me and we can do something regional.
>     best
>     jo
>
>     On 19 January 2015 16:09:48 GMT-02:00, Deborah Brown
<deborah at apc.org <mailto:deborah at apc.org>> wrote:
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> In case of interest, the new UN Special Rapporteur David Kaye is looking
> at the use of encryption and anonymity in his first report and is
> encouraging input from civil society. The deadline is 10 Feb.
>
> Best,
> Deborah
>
> http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/FreedomOpinion/Pages/CallForSubmission.aspx
>
>
>       Special Rapporteur will study the use of encryption and anonymity
> in digital communications in his 2015 HRC report
>
> The Special Rapporteur on the protection and promotion of the right to
> freedom of opinion and expression, David Kaye, is currently preparing a
> report on the legal framework governing the relationship between freedom
> of expression and the use of encryption to secure transactions and
> communications, and other technologies to transact and communicate
> anonymously online. This report will be presented to the Human Rights
> Council in June, 2015.
>
> To prepare his study, Mr. Kaye is gathering information on national
> laws, regulations, policies or practices that permit or limit, directly
> or indirectly, the use of encryption technologies and services or the
> ability of individuals to communicate anonymously online. All States are
> being asked called to submit information on their relevant national
> norms and policies.
>
> Similarly, the Special Rapporteur would like to encourage all interested
> non-governmental stakeholders – including civil society, corporate
> actors, international and regional organizations, and national human
> rights institutions – to provide their views on the appropriate scope of
> the right to freedom of expression as applied to encryption and
> anonymity. He would particularly appreciate receiving comments
> addressing this matter from legal, state practice, or technical
> perspectives.
>
> Any available information should be sent electronically to
> freedex at ohchr.org <mailto:freedex at ohchr.org> <mailto:freedex at ohchr.org
> <mailto:freedex at ohchr.org>>, *not later than 10
> February 2015*.
>
>
>         -------------------------
>
>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>              bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>         To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>              http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>     --
>     Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
> 
> --
> --
> /Carolina Rossini /
> /Vice President, International Policy/
> *Public Knowledge*
> _http://www.publicknowledge.org/_
> + 1 6176979389 | 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

-- 
`````````````````````````````````
anriette esterhuysen
executive director
association for progressive communications
po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa
anriette at apc.org
www.apc.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150123/497c626a/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Fri Jan 23 08:31:41 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 05:31:41 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] FW: [discuss] Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <54C240EB.9090908@cafonso.ca>
References: <20150122144714.2bf24d0b@quill> <54C240EB.9090908@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <0ab001d03710$ece501e0$c6af05a0$@gmail.com>

FWIW... Flouting normal academic/journalistic etiquette Jeremy omitted to reference my comments quoted in his blog which for anyone who hasn't been following can be found with context and elaboration in my blog http://gurstein.wordpress.com (key word searches on "multi-stakeholder" and "civil society" should turn these up--and with a bit of digging one might find even more fearsomely critical comments including about CS's unholy partnerships with and financial support from the global Internet elites.

BTW, I'm looking forward to seeing the invitation from Jeremy and the other NMI-nik's inviting global Civil Society to their next 1% err WEF, ICANN, cgi Internet Governance lovefest -- perhaps it could be called the I(%) SF ...

M

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 4:39 AM
To: discuss at 1net.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] Internet Social Forum

Dear people,

Below is an excellent response from Jeremy Malcolm (Best Bits, EFF) regarding the proposal to create a "world social forum" of the Internet.
I am really puzzled: the call from JNC to join ISF is for governments to occupy the Internet??

fraternal regards

--c.a.

====

http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/who-are-the-just-net-coalition-and-what-can-we-expect-from-the-internet-social-forum

Who are the Just Net Coalition and what can we expect from the Internet Social Forum?

Jeremy Malcolm

Date: 23/1/2015 3:52 pm

Today, the Just Net Coalition (JNC) [1] has broadcast (on seven mailing lists alone that I subscribe to) its plans for an Internet Social Forum, modeled on the World Social Forum, the well-known anti-globalisation summit. Just as the World Social Forum is held in opposition to the annual Davos meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF), so the Internet Social Forum is framed as an alternative to the NETmundial Initiative [2], which JNC describes (inaccurately) as a project of the WEF.

Before saying anything more, I should clarify that I too have been critical [3] of the NETmundial Initiative, I too believe that the Internet governance status quo is overdue for reform [4], I also share concerns about a concentration of market power [5] in the hands of US-based Internet companies, and I do believe that governments have an important role to play [6] in future Internet governance arrangements.
However, I won't be supporting the Internet Social Forum, because the Just Net Coalition's objectives are misguided, and its mode of engagement with the rest of civil society has been profoundly dysfunctional.

History

Who are the Just Net Coalition? I briefly mentioned them in my last post [7], but today's announcement has raised further questions among some of my contacts, and led others to express support the proposal despite not knowing much of the history of those proposing it. This post is to provide some of that necessary background, so that those who choose to endorse the Internet Social Forum will not be taken by surprise when its proposed “People's Internet Manifesto” takes a course with which they may profoundly disagree.

The founding meeting of what became the Just Net Coalition February 2014 was invitation-only, and invitations were issued, in the first instance, only to those known to by sympathetic to the views of the organisers. (A few key individuals excluded from the first round of invitations were, at the urging of the meeting's funder, subsequently approached with late invitations to attend; speaking for myself as one of these, the approach came far too late for me to make the necessary arrangements even to obtain a visa.) Consequently, the content of that meeting's outcome document, the Delhi Declaration for a Just and Equitable Internet [8], was largely predetermined.

The political programme of that document (more on this below) has a long history in a disagreement between a few individuals who were members of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) [9], that has frequently threatened to tear that group apart. On some accounts, indeed, it has already done so – opinions vary on when or whether the IGC “jumped the shark”, but many count it as the day at an IGC meeting in 2013 when a prominent JNC member almost came to blows with a female attendee in an argument, ironically, over his own overbearing behaviour.

The formation of Best Bits [10] in 2012 was (at least on my part, as one of its founders), partly in response to the decline of the IGC and the need for a more action-oriented, globally-inclusive civil society community that could speak on Internet governance and human rights issues, without requiring a full consensus which (for the IGC, at least) had become completely unachievable. Those who now lead JNC, at the time, also held hopes (as did we) that they too could make effective use of Best Bits as a platform for actions and statements on which a broad consensus could be reached, which for a time they did, but what ultimately transpired will be recounted later.

So who are these individuals to whom I am obliquely referring? Although I don't wish to unduly personalise this post, it is relevant that they be identified in order to give context to the following section of this post; and equally, it is quite proper that as spokespersons for the group, they should be held accountable for their public behaviour and statements. (I should also add before going further that I have had a long record of working fruitfully with the individuals named both online and in person, dating back to 2004. I have even retained one of them as a paid consultant on a project I managed.)

Amongst the key individuals who have spoken publicly for JNC and who sit on its steering committee are Parminder Jeet Singh who leads Indian NGO IT for Change, Michael Gurstein who is a Canadian academic and edits the Journal of Community Informatics, Norbert Bollow who is a Swiss systems analyst and FOSS developer, and Richard Hill, former senior staff member of the ITU, who continues to advocate for an expanded role for the ITU on Internet-related public policy issues [11]. Many of the groups shown as supporting the Internet Social Forum in today's announcement are vanity or hobby projects of these founding individuals. For example Centre for Community Informatics Research, Development and Training is Gurstein, GodlyGlobal.org is Bollow, and Association for Proper Internet Governance is Hill.

(You might note that the majority JNC's most vocal key figures, including others not mentioned above such as Louis Pouzin and Jean-Christophe Nothias, are white men from industrialised countries.
Now as a white man myself I'm certainly not one to point fingers at them, but as an organisation that purports to be “globally concerned with…social justice”, as JNC does [12], this lack of diversity perhaps bears mentioning.)

Objectives

The positioning of the Just Net Coalition against multi-stakeholder Internet governance [13], and in favour of a state-centric model, although now quite overt, became evident gradually. The Delhi Declaration covers this obliquely, stating “The right to make Internet-related public policies lies exclusively with those who legitimately and directly represent people” (ie. states). Another coded phrase the JNC has used to call for the centralisation of Internet governance authority in states it its call for “legitimate political authority” [14].

A turning point came at the meeting of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation on Public Policy Issues Pertaining to the Internet (WGEC) of the UN Commission for Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) in April 2014. To the surprise of other civil society and technical community delegates at that meeting, Parminder Jeet Singh insisted that support for paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda [15] be retained in working group's report, as the representatives from Saudi Arabia and Iran also forcefully argued. Up until then, indeed for an unbroken decade, opposition to paragraph 35 had been a unanimous civil society position.

Paragraph 35 states (my emphasis):

We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both technical and public policy issues and should involve all stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international organizations. In this respect it is recognized that:

a. *Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of States*. They have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues.

b. The private sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role in the development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic fields.

c. *Civil society has also played an important role on Internet matters, especially *at community level*, and should continue to play such a role.

d. Intergovernmental organizations have had, and should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of Internet-related public policy issues.

e. International organizations have also had and should continue to have an important role in the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies.

In supporting this paragraph that constricts civil society's role in Internet governance, Parminder said:

"I have clarity about what is the role of different stakeholders being quite different to one another and I don't appreciate that non-governmental actors would have the same role in decision-making than governmental actors. That should not be acceptable at a global level."

This, translated into JNC policy and the agenda for its Internet Social Forum, marks a profound shift away from the decentralised and horizontal model of Internet governance that civil society had heretofore supported, towards an hierarchical, state-led model.

For a time, JNC attempted to explain away this change by drawing a straw man distinction between “democratic multi-stakeholderism” (which JNC
supports) and “equal footing multi-stakeholderism” (which it doesn't, mischaracterising it as “governance by self-selected elites”) [16]. But it has since mostly abandoned that pretense and become more overt in promoting an intergovernmental model of Internet governance [17], stating for example in a more recent statement, “We invite all countries to call for a Framework Convention on the Internet and to take up leadership in developing global Internet-related policies,” and averring that “[w]ithout governmental support, it is difficult, perhaps impossible to combat the dominance of global Internet monopolies” [18].

Now, I have argued elsewhere why governments ought not to have a monopoly on the development of Internet-related public policies, but why a model of multi-stakeholderism that includes governments as a key, but not dominant stakeholder can still be counted as democratic [19]. You can accept those arguments or not. If you don't, then you might come down on JNC's side on this issue, and that would be perfectly legitimate.

But that's only half of the problem with JNC. The other half is the toxic relationship that its representatives have cultivated with the rest of civil society.

Relationship with civil society

At the first Best Bits meeting in 2012, much time and many pains were taken to accommodate the demands of those future JNC committee members who attended, and this effort did successfully result in a consensus text to which they were willing to put their names [20]. But from this point, their participation in Best Bits became less productive and more divisive, largely over two issues, which were intertwined.

The first has already been mentioned: the fundamental ideological disagreement over the legitimacy of multi-stakeholder Internet governance, which was accepted by a majority of Best Bits participants, but not by those who were later to split off into JNC. This disagreement took on greater currency when the NETmundial meeting was announced and Best Bits participants began to coordinate the development of several joint inputs [21]. When the future JNC leaders found themselves unable to influence the drafting of these statements to sufficiently accord with their view that governments should have an outsized role in Internet governance, the next best option became to disrupt the development of those statements by hectoring, intimidating and disparaging participants who expressed pro-multistakeholder views.

As good an example as any, and a more recent one, is Gurstein's reaction in November 2014 to the qualified support of the Association for Progressive Communications (APC) for the NETmundial Initiative, to which he wrote to Anriette Esterhuysen, APC's Executive Director, “I’m taking from your argument that because the NMI offers some possibility, however remote for the advancement of human rights, you are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the pursuit of social justice.” To anyone who knows of the many years of devotion that Anriette and APC have given in the cause of social justice (and Gurstein certainly does), this is a farcical insult.

The second issue to which the disruptive behaviour of JNC representatives has been directed, which probably arose from the first, were criticisms of various processes that they found themselves unable to influence, including not only those of Best Bits, 1net [22], and the Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) [23]. In a rising tide of authoritarian behaviour, those who became JNC's leaders would demand appointment to a position of authority or that these fledgling groups hold elections immediately, insist that other participants in those groups disclose of their sources of funding, and cause a commotion about any strategic discussions that took place off-list or in closed groups.

The response of a relative outsider, Milton Mueller, to Gurstein's demands for inclusion in 1net aptly record the frustration that many others felt:

"Stop pretending that CI [Community Informatics] is some massive grassroots movement related to Internet governance that deserves special representation; and stop pretending that  your frustration with not being selected by CS means that their procedures were illegitimate. You [and] your group are free to contribute position papers to the process and to attend, as far as we know. Why don’t you see how far you can get on persuasion and education, if that’s really your mission?"

To give another example, Bollow, who had earlier demanded a full accounting of the funding sources of Best Bits participants, wrote in November 2013, “I hereby request the members of the BestBits steering committee, the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and the coordinators of the IGC to disclose any direct or indirect financial relationship to any 'capacity building' or similar kind of project where a US government agency is among the funders.”

Then again he wrote in October 2014 to the moderators of a closed strategy list formed for the recent ITU Plenipotentiary meeting – a list that he had not joined – demanding the right to “inspect” its archives on behalf of JNC. As for the CSCG, even after it acceded to JNC's requests and added Bollow as a representative, JNC betrayed that trust by publishing an account of its private deliberations which criticised other CSCG members [24], falsely stating that they had decided to support the NETmundial Initiative.

Although some of JNC's demands of other civil society groups and networks may have been reasonable in themselves – Best Bits, for example, always intended to hold steering committee elections and did hold them within a year of its formation – these demands were delivered with such hubris and entitlement that the effect has been to isolate JNC from other civil society groups and networks and to sow seeds of discord that will have lasting effects.

Ironically the result has been exactly the opposite of what JNC intended. Discussions have retreated from public, open lists into private, closed lists – or private cc groups that are not list-managed at all – precisely to avoid unproductive exchanges with JNC members.

Even more ironically, JNC does not hold itself to the same standards of transparency and accountability that it demands of others; it has never been publicly disclosed, for example, receiving funding from ThoughtWorks, and even the list of signatories of the Delhi Declaration, which formed the JNC's first membership list, was not made public for months after its supposed founding, even while further statements continued to be issued. Neither does JNC operate an open mailing list, despite vociferous demands that other civil society networks, such as Best Bits, should do so.

It might be countered that as pernicious as the behaviour of key JNC members may have been, they are only individuals, and this should not be attributed to the organisation as a whole. Whilst none of the other JNC members has ever “broken ranks” and spoken up against even the founders, this may not be because they are condoning their behaviour, but because they are unaware of it, since it takes place on other civil society mailing lists. Might a change of leadership of JNC be all that is required? This is hard to say, and at present a moot question since no such change is on the horizon.

Conclusion

What, then, can we expect from JNC's Internet Social Forum? Sadly, we can expect that any participants who support a distributed, multi-stakeholder model for Internet governance will be required to check those convictions at the door, and to embrace instead a UN-based model that places governments firmly in control of Internet public policy development. We can expect those who deviate from this line to be interrogated mercilessly, and accused of being props for neoliberal hegemony and corporate domination. May JNC's “take no prisoners”
approach serve them well.

This is a shame, because a well-reasoned leftist critique of Internet governance arrangements and reforms that directs its ire at powerful incumbents, rather than at those who seek to forge a middle path of inclusive multi-stakeholder governance, would actually be very valuable.
To date, JNC has exhibited no desire to provide such a sober, productive critique, instead preferring to focus its destructive anger on easier, weaker targets – its own civil society colleagues.

-----------------------------

Notes:

[1] http://justnetcoalition.org

[2] https://www.netmundial.org

[3]
http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles

[4]
http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-2014-submission-on-evolution-of-the-internet-governance-ecosystem

[5]
http://www.digitalnewsasia.com/insights/digital-consumers-breaking-through-the-cloud

[6]
http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/three-false-assumptions-internet-freedom-in-a-world-of-states-part-1

[7]
http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/civil-society-talks-tough-to-the-netmundial-initiative-but-holds-back-on-a-boycott

[8] http://justnetcoalition.org/delhi-declaration

[9] http://igcaucus.org

[10] http://bestbits.net

[11]
http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/roadmaps-for-further-evolution-of-internet-governance/65

[12]
http://justnetcoalition.org/sites/default/files/Delhi_Declaration_leaflet_0.pdf

[13]
http://blog.justnetcoalition.org/democracy-or-multi-stakeholderism-competing-models-of-governance-by-michael-gurstein

[14] http://justnetcoalition.org/sites/default/files/NewModel_r2.pdf

[15] http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html

[16] http://justnetcoalition.org/sites/default/files/ITU_PP_2014_Stmt2.pdf

[17]
http://blog.justnetcoalition.org/democracy-or-multi-stakeholderism-competing-models-of-governance-by-michael-gurstein

[18] http://justnetcoalition.org/sites/default/files/NewModel_r2.pdf

[19]
http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/a-civil-society-agenda-for-internet-governance-in-2013-internet-freedom-in-a-world-of-states-part-3

[20] http://bestbits.net/statement

[21] http://bestbits.net/netmundial-principles,
http://bestbits.net/netmundial-roadmap, and http://bestbits.net/netmundial-icann

[22] http://1net.org/

[23] http://lists.bestbits.net/info/cs-coord

[24] http://justnetcoalition.org/NMI-neoliberal-caravan

====

On 01/22/2015 11:47 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> Global Civil Society launches the Internet Social Forum – With a call 
> to occupy the Internet
> 
> PRESS RELEASE. Geneva, Switzerland, 22st January, 2015.
> 
> A group of civil society organisations from around the world has 
> announced the Internet Social Forum, to bring together and articulate 
> bottom-up perspectives on the 'Internet we want'. Taking inspiration 
> from the World Social Forum, and its clarion call, 'Another World is 
> possible', the group seeks to draw urgent attention to the increasing 
> centralization of the Internet for extraction of monopoly rents and 
> for socio-political control, asserting that 'Another Internet is possible'!
> 
> The Internet Social Forum will inter alia offer an alternative to the 
> recently-launched World Economic Forum's 'Net Mundial Initiative' on 
> global Internet governance. While the World Economic Forum (WEF) and 
> the 'Net Mundial Initiative' convene global elites, the Internet 
> Social Forum will be a participatory and bottom-up space for all those 
> who believe that the global Internet must evolve in the public 
> interest; a direct parallel to the launch of the World Social Forum in 
> 2001 as a counter initiative to the WEF.
> 
> The Internet Social Forum will reach out to grassroots groups and 
> social movements across the world, catalysing a groundswell that 
> challenges the entrenched elite interests that currently control how 
> the Internet is managed. The Internet Social Forum's preparatory 
> process will kick off during the World Social Forum to take place in 
> Tunis, March 24th to 28th, 2015. The Internet Social Forum itself is 
> planned to be held either late 2015 or early 2016.
> 
> “While the world's biggest companies have every right to debate the 
> future of the Internet, we are concerned that their perspectives 
> should not drown out those of ordinary people who have no access to 
> the privileged terrain WEF occupies – in the end it is this wider 
> public interest that must be paramount in governing the Internet. We 
> are organising the Internet Social Forum to make sure their voices 
> can't be ignored in the corridors of power,” said Norbert Bollow, 
> Co-Convenor of the Just Net Coalition, which is one of the groups 
> involved in the initiative.
> 
> The Internet Social Forum, and its preparatory process, is intended as 
> a space to vision and build the 'Internet we want'. It will be 
> underpinned by values of democracy, human rights and social justice. 
> It will stand for participatory policy making and promote community media.
> It will seek an Internet that is truly decentralized in its 
> architecture and based on people's full rights to data, information, 
> knowledge and other 'commons' that the Internet has enabled the world 
> community to generate and share.
> 
> Somewhat similar to Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee’s call for a ‘Magna 
> Carta for the Internet', the Internet Social Forum proposes to develop 
> a People's Internet Manifesto, through a bottom-up process involving 
> all concerned social groups and movements, in different areas, from 
> techies and ICT-for-development actors to media reform groups, 
> democracy movements and social justice activists.
> 
> This year will also see the 10 year high-level review of the World 
> Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), to be held in New York in 
> December. As a full-scale review of a major UN summit, this will be a 
> critical global political event. Since the WSIS, held in 2003 and 
> 2005, the Internet, and what it means socially, has undergone a 
> paradigm shift. The WSIS witnessed active engagement of civil society 
> and technical groups as well as of business. However, currently, there 
> seems to be an deliberate attempt to sideline this UN-led initiative 
> on governance issues of the information society and Internet in favour 
> of private, big-business-dominated initiatives like the WEF's Net 
> Mundial Initiative. The Internet Social Forum, while remaining 
> primarily a people's forum, will also seek to channel global civil 
> society's engagement towards the WSIS +10 review.
> 
> The following organisations form the initial group that is proposing 
> the Internet Social Forum, and many more are expected to join in the 
> immediate future. This is an open call to progressive groups from all 
> over the world to join this initiative, and participate in developing 
> a People's Internet Manifesto.
> 
> Just Net Coalition, Global
> P2P Foundation, Global
> Transnational Institute, Global
> Forum on Communication for Integration of our America, Regional (Latin
> America) Arab NGO Network for Development, Regional Agencia 
> Latinoamericana de Información, Regional Alternative Informatics 
> Association, Turkey Knowledge Commons, India Open-Root/EUROLINC, 
> France SLFC.in, India CODE-IP Trust, Kenya GodlyGlobal.org, 
> Switzerland Centre for Community Informatics Research, Development and 
> Training, Canada IT for Change, India Association for Proper Internet 
> Governance, Switzerland Computer Professionals Union, Philippines Free 
> Press, USA Advocates of Science and Technology for the People, 
> Philippines Other News, Italy Free Software Movement of India 
> Global_Geneva, Switzerland Solidarius (Solidarity Economy Network), 
> Italy All India Peoples Science Network, India Institute for Local 
> Self-Reliance - Community Broadband Networks, USA
> 
> Please contact us at secretariat at InternetSocialForum.net for further 
> information or clarification.
> 
> Or the following regional contacts:
> 
> Africa:        Alex Gakaru <AlexG at InternetSocialForum.net>
> Asia:          Rishab Bailey <RishabB at InternetSocialForum.net>
> Europe:        Norbert Bollow <NorbertB at InternetSocialForum.net>
> North America: Micheal Gurstein <MichealG at InternetSocialForum.net>
> South America: Sally Burch <SallyB at InternetSocialForum.net>
> 
> 
> This press release is also available online, e.g. at 
> http://justnetcoalition.org/ISF
> 
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 

_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Fri Jan 23 09:21:54 2015
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 08:21:54 -0600
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] FW: [discuss] Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <0ab001d03710$ece501e0$c6af05a0$@gmail.com>
References: <20150122144714.2bf24d0b@quill> <54C240EB.9090908@cafonso.ca> <0ab001d03710$ece501e0$c6af05a0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxi9SGyC+D-A8EuPpQsPyi1hN0PH6MH+y119JeYP_Jq+rA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear MG,

Your post just provided further proof everything that Jeremy wrote was true.



On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 7:31 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
wrote:

> FWIW... Flouting normal academic/journalistic etiquette Jeremy omitted to
> reference my comments quoted in his blog which for anyone who hasn't been
> following can be found with context and elaboration in my blog
> http://gurstein.wordpress.com (key word searches on "multi-stakeholder"
> and "civil society" should turn these up--and with a bit of digging one
> might find even more fearsomely critical comments including about CS's
> unholy partnerships with and financial support from the global Internet
> elites.
>
> BTW, I'm looking forward to seeing the invitation from Jeremy and the
> other NMI-nik's inviting global Civil Society to their next 1% err WEF,
> ICANN, cgi Internet Governance lovefest -- perhaps it could be called the
> I(%) SF ...
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On
> Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso
> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 4:39 AM
> To: discuss at 1net.org
> Subject: Re: [discuss] Internet Social Forum
>
> Dear people,
>
> Below is an excellent response from Jeremy Malcolm (Best Bits, EFF)
> regarding the proposal to create a "world social forum" of the Internet.
> I am really puzzled: the call from JNC to join ISF is for governments to
> occupy the Internet??
>
> fraternal regards
>
> --c.a.
>
> ====
>
>
> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/who-are-the-just-net-coalition-and-what-can-we-expect-from-the-internet-social-forum
>
> Who are the Just Net Coalition and what can we expect from the Internet
> Social Forum?
>
> Jeremy Malcolm
>
> Date: 23/1/2015 3:52 pm
>
> Today, the Just Net Coalition (JNC) [1] has broadcast (on seven mailing
> lists alone that I subscribe to) its plans for an Internet Social Forum,
> modeled on the World Social Forum, the well-known anti-globalisation
> summit. Just as the World Social Forum is held in opposition to the annual
> Davos meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF), so the Internet Social
> Forum is framed as an alternative to the NETmundial Initiative [2], which
> JNC describes (inaccurately) as a project of the WEF.
>
> Before saying anything more, I should clarify that I too have been
> critical [3] of the NETmundial Initiative, I too believe that the Internet
> governance status quo is overdue for reform [4], I also share concerns
> about a concentration of market power [5] in the hands of US-based Internet
> companies, and I do believe that governments have an important role to play
> [6] in future Internet governance arrangements.
> However, I won't be supporting the Internet Social Forum, because the Just
> Net Coalition's objectives are misguided, and its mode of engagement with
> the rest of civil society has been profoundly dysfunctional.
>
> History
>
> Who are the Just Net Coalition? I briefly mentioned them in my last post
> [7], but today's announcement has raised further questions among some of my
> contacts, and led others to express support the proposal despite not
> knowing much of the history of those proposing it. This post is to provide
> some of that necessary background, so that those who choose to endorse the
> Internet Social Forum will not be taken by surprise when its proposed
> “People's Internet Manifesto” takes a course with which they may profoundly
> disagree.
>
> The founding meeting of what became the Just Net Coalition February 2014
> was invitation-only, and invitations were issued, in the first instance,
> only to those known to by sympathetic to the views of the organisers. (A
> few key individuals excluded from the first round of invitations were, at
> the urging of the meeting's funder, subsequently approached with late
> invitations to attend; speaking for myself as one of these, the approach
> came far too late for me to make the necessary arrangements even to obtain
> a visa.) Consequently, the content of that meeting's outcome document, the
> Delhi Declaration for a Just and Equitable Internet [8], was largely
> predetermined.
>
> The political programme of that document (more on this below) has a long
> history in a disagreement between a few individuals who were members of the
> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) [9], that has frequently
> threatened to tear that group apart. On some accounts, indeed, it has
> already done so – opinions vary on when or whether the IGC “jumped the
> shark”, but many count it as the day at an IGC meeting in 2013 when a
> prominent JNC member almost came to blows with a female attendee in an
> argument, ironically, over his own overbearing behaviour.
>
> The formation of Best Bits [10] in 2012 was (at least on my part, as one
> of its founders), partly in response to the decline of the IGC and the need
> for a more action-oriented, globally-inclusive civil society community that
> could speak on Internet governance and human rights issues, without
> requiring a full consensus which (for the IGC, at least) had become
> completely unachievable. Those who now lead JNC, at the time, also held
> hopes (as did we) that they too could make effective use of Best Bits as a
> platform for actions and statements on which a broad consensus could be
> reached, which for a time they did, but what ultimately transpired will be
> recounted later.
>
> So who are these individuals to whom I am obliquely referring? Although I
> don't wish to unduly personalise this post, it is relevant that they be
> identified in order to give context to the following section of this post;
> and equally, it is quite proper that as spokespersons for the group, they
> should be held accountable for their public behaviour and statements. (I
> should also add before going further that I have had a long record of
> working fruitfully with the individuals named both online and in person,
> dating back to 2004. I have even retained one of them as a paid consultant
> on a project I managed.)
>
> Amongst the key individuals who have spoken publicly for JNC and who sit
> on its steering committee are Parminder Jeet Singh who leads Indian NGO IT
> for Change, Michael Gurstein who is a Canadian academic and edits the
> Journal of Community Informatics, Norbert Bollow who is a Swiss systems
> analyst and FOSS developer, and Richard Hill, former senior staff member of
> the ITU, who continues to advocate for an expanded role for the ITU on
> Internet-related public policy issues [11]. Many of the groups shown as
> supporting the Internet Social Forum in today's announcement are vanity or
> hobby projects of these founding individuals. For example Centre for
> Community Informatics Research, Development and Training is Gurstein,
> GodlyGlobal.org is Bollow, and Association for Proper Internet Governance
> is Hill.
>
> (You might note that the majority JNC's most vocal key figures, including
> others not mentioned above such as Louis Pouzin and Jean-Christophe
> Nothias, are white men from industrialised countries.
> Now as a white man myself I'm certainly not one to point fingers at them,
> but as an organisation that purports to be “globally concerned with…social
> justice”, as JNC does [12], this lack of diversity perhaps bears
> mentioning.)
>
> Objectives
>
> The positioning of the Just Net Coalition against multi-stakeholder
> Internet governance [13], and in favour of a state-centric model, although
> now quite overt, became evident gradually. The Delhi Declaration covers
> this obliquely, stating “The right to make Internet-related public policies
> lies exclusively with those who legitimately and directly represent people”
> (ie. states). Another coded phrase the JNC has used to call for the
> centralisation of Internet governance authority in states it its call for
> “legitimate political authority” [14].
>
> A turning point came at the meeting of the Working Group on Enhanced
> Cooperation on Public Policy Issues Pertaining to the Internet (WGEC) of
> the UN Commission for Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) in
> April 2014. To the surprise of other civil society and technical community
> delegates at that meeting, Parminder Jeet Singh insisted that support for
> paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda [15] be retained in working group's
> report, as the representatives from Saudi Arabia and Iran also forcefully
> argued. Up until then, indeed for an unbroken decade, opposition to
> paragraph 35 had been a unanimous civil society position.
>
> Paragraph 35 states (my emphasis):
>
> We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both technical
> and public policy issues and should involve all stakeholders and relevant
> intergovernmental and international organizations. In this respect it is
> recognized that:
>
> a. *Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the
> sovereign right of States*. They have rights and responsibilities for
> international Internet-related public policy issues.
>
> b. The private sector has had, and should continue to have, an important
> role in the development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic
> fields.
>
> c. *Civil society has also played an important role on Internet matters,
> especially *at community level*, and should continue to play such a role.
>
> d. Intergovernmental organizations have had, and should continue to have,
> a facilitating role in the coordination of Internet-related public policy
> issues.
>
> e. International organizations have also had and should continue to have
> an important role in the development of Internet-related technical
> standards and relevant policies.
>
> In supporting this paragraph that constricts civil society's role in
> Internet governance, Parminder said:
>
> "I have clarity about what is the role of different stakeholders being
> quite different to one another and I don't appreciate that non-governmental
> actors would have the same role in decision-making than governmental
> actors. That should not be acceptable at a global level."
>
> This, translated into JNC policy and the agenda for its Internet Social
> Forum, marks a profound shift away from the decentralised and horizontal
> model of Internet governance that civil society had heretofore supported,
> towards an hierarchical, state-led model.
>
> For a time, JNC attempted to explain away this change by drawing a straw
> man distinction between “democratic multi-stakeholderism” (which JNC
> supports) and “equal footing multi-stakeholderism” (which it doesn't,
> mischaracterising it as “governance by self-selected elites”) [16]. But it
> has since mostly abandoned that pretense and become more overt in promoting
> an intergovernmental model of Internet governance [17], stating for example
> in a more recent statement, “We invite all countries to call for a
> Framework Convention on the Internet and to take up leadership in
> developing global Internet-related policies,” and averring that “[w]ithout
> governmental support, it is difficult, perhaps impossible to combat the
> dominance of global Internet monopolies” [18].
>
> Now, I have argued elsewhere why governments ought not to have a monopoly
> on the development of Internet-related public policies, but why a model of
> multi-stakeholderism that includes governments as a key, but not dominant
> stakeholder can still be counted as democratic [19]. You can accept those
> arguments or not. If you don't, then you might come down on JNC's side on
> this issue, and that would be perfectly legitimate.
>
> But that's only half of the problem with JNC. The other half is the toxic
> relationship that its representatives have cultivated with the rest of
> civil society.
>
> Relationship with civil society
>
> At the first Best Bits meeting in 2012, much time and many pains were
> taken to accommodate the demands of those future JNC committee members who
> attended, and this effort did successfully result in a consensus text to
> which they were willing to put their names [20]. But from this point, their
> participation in Best Bits became less productive and more divisive,
> largely over two issues, which were intertwined.
>
> The first has already been mentioned: the fundamental ideological
> disagreement over the legitimacy of multi-stakeholder Internet governance,
> which was accepted by a majority of Best Bits participants, but not by
> those who were later to split off into JNC. This disagreement took on
> greater currency when the NETmundial meeting was announced and Best Bits
> participants began to coordinate the development of several joint inputs
> [21]. When the future JNC leaders found themselves unable to influence the
> drafting of these statements to sufficiently accord with their view that
> governments should have an outsized role in Internet governance, the next
> best option became to disrupt the development of those statements by
> hectoring, intimidating and disparaging participants who expressed
> pro-multistakeholder views.
>
> As good an example as any, and a more recent one, is Gurstein's reaction
> in November 2014 to the qualified support of the Association for
> Progressive Communications (APC) for the NETmundial Initiative, to which he
> wrote to Anriette Esterhuysen, APC's Executive Director, “I’m taking from
> your argument that because the NMI offers some possibility, however remote
> for the advancement of human rights, you are completely abandoning perhaps
> irrevocably, the pursuit of social justice.” To anyone who knows of the
> many years of devotion that Anriette and APC have given in the cause of
> social justice (and Gurstein certainly does), this is a farcical insult.
>
> The second issue to which the disruptive behaviour of JNC representatives
> has been directed, which probably arose from the first, were criticisms of
> various processes that they found themselves unable to influence, including
> not only those of Best Bits, 1net [22], and the Civil Society Coordination
> Group (CSCG) [23]. In a rising tide of authoritarian behaviour, those who
> became JNC's leaders would demand appointment to a position of authority or
> that these fledgling groups hold elections immediately, insist that other
> participants in those groups disclose of their sources of funding, and
> cause a commotion about any strategic discussions that took place off-list
> or in closed groups.
>
> The response of a relative outsider, Milton Mueller, to Gurstein's demands
> for inclusion in 1net aptly record the frustration that many others felt:
>
> "Stop pretending that CI [Community Informatics] is some massive
> grassroots movement related to Internet governance that deserves special
> representation; and stop pretending that  your frustration with not being
> selected by CS means that their procedures were illegitimate. You [and]
> your group are free to contribute position papers to the process and to
> attend, as far as we know. Why don’t you see how far you can get on
> persuasion and education, if that’s really your mission?"
>
> To give another example, Bollow, who had earlier demanded a full
> accounting of the funding sources of Best Bits participants, wrote in
> November 2013, “I hereby request the members of the BestBits steering
> committee, the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and the coordinators
> of the IGC to disclose any direct or indirect financial relationship to any
> 'capacity building' or similar kind of project where a US government agency
> is among the funders.”
>
> Then again he wrote in October 2014 to the moderators of a closed strategy
> list formed for the recent ITU Plenipotentiary meeting – a list that he had
> not joined – demanding the right to “inspect” its archives on behalf of
> JNC. As for the CSCG, even after it acceded to JNC's requests and added
> Bollow as a representative, JNC betrayed that trust by publishing an
> account of its private deliberations which criticised other CSCG members
> [24], falsely stating that they had decided to support the NETmundial
> Initiative.
>
> Although some of JNC's demands of other civil society groups and networks
> may have been reasonable in themselves – Best Bits, for example, always
> intended to hold steering committee elections and did hold them within a
> year of its formation – these demands were delivered with such hubris and
> entitlement that the effect has been to isolate JNC from other civil
> society groups and networks and to sow seeds of discord that will have
> lasting effects.
>
> Ironically the result has been exactly the opposite of what JNC intended.
> Discussions have retreated from public, open lists into private, closed
> lists – or private cc groups that are not list-managed at all – precisely
> to avoid unproductive exchanges with JNC members.
>
> Even more ironically, JNC does not hold itself to the same standards of
> transparency and accountability that it demands of others; it has never
> been publicly disclosed, for example, receiving funding from ThoughtWorks,
> and even the list of signatories of the Delhi Declaration, which formed the
> JNC's first membership list, was not made public for months after its
> supposed founding, even while further statements continued to be issued.
> Neither does JNC operate an open mailing list, despite vociferous demands
> that other civil society networks, such as Best Bits, should do so.
>
> It might be countered that as pernicious as the behaviour of key JNC
> members may have been, they are only individuals, and this should not be
> attributed to the organisation as a whole. Whilst none of the other JNC
> members has ever “broken ranks” and spoken up against even the founders,
> this may not be because they are condoning their behaviour, but because
> they are unaware of it, since it takes place on other civil society mailing
> lists. Might a change of leadership of JNC be all that is required? This is
> hard to say, and at present a moot question since no such change is on the
> horizon.
>
> Conclusion
>
> What, then, can we expect from JNC's Internet Social Forum? Sadly, we can
> expect that any participants who support a distributed, multi-stakeholder
> model for Internet governance will be required to check those convictions
> at the door, and to embrace instead a UN-based model that places
> governments firmly in control of Internet public policy development. We can
> expect those who deviate from this line to be interrogated mercilessly, and
> accused of being props for neoliberal hegemony and corporate domination.
> May JNC's “take no prisoners”
> approach serve them well.
>
> This is a shame, because a well-reasoned leftist critique of Internet
> governance arrangements and reforms that directs its ire at powerful
> incumbents, rather than at those who seek to forge a middle path of
> inclusive multi-stakeholder governance, would actually be very valuable.
> To date, JNC has exhibited no desire to provide such a sober, productive
> critique, instead preferring to focus its destructive anger on easier,
> weaker targets – its own civil society colleagues.
>
> -----------------------------
>
> Notes:
>
> [1] http://justnetcoalition.org
>
> [2] https://www.netmundial.org
>
> [3]
>
> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles
>
> [4]
>
> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-2014-submission-on-evolution-of-the-internet-governance-ecosystem
>
> [5]
>
> http://www.digitalnewsasia.com/insights/digital-consumers-breaking-through-the-cloud
>
> [6]
>
> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/three-false-assumptions-internet-freedom-in-a-world-of-states-part-1
>
> [7]
>
> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/civil-society-talks-tough-to-the-netmundial-initiative-but-holds-back-on-a-boycott
>
> [8] http://justnetcoalition.org/delhi-declaration
>
> [9] http://igcaucus.org
>
> [10] http://bestbits.net
>
> [11]
>
> http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/roadmaps-for-further-evolution-of-internet-governance/65
>
> [12]
>
> http://justnetcoalition.org/sites/default/files/Delhi_Declaration_leaflet_0.pdf
>
> [13]
>
> http://blog.justnetcoalition.org/democracy-or-multi-stakeholderism-competing-models-of-governance-by-michael-gurstein
>
> [14] http://justnetcoalition.org/sites/default/files/NewModel_r2.pdf
>
> [15] http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html
>
> [16] http://justnetcoalition.org/sites/default/files/ITU_PP_2014_Stmt2.pdf
>
> [17]
>
> http://blog.justnetcoalition.org/democracy-or-multi-stakeholderism-competing-models-of-governance-by-michael-gurstein
>
> [18] http://justnetcoalition.org/sites/default/files/NewModel_r2.pdf
>
> [19]
>
> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/a-civil-society-agenda-for-internet-governance-in-2013-internet-freedom-in-a-world-of-states-part-3
>
> [20] http://bestbits.net/statement
>
> [21] http://bestbits.net/netmundial-principles,
> http://bestbits.net/netmundial-roadmap, and
> http://bestbits.net/netmundial-icann
>
> [22] http://1net.org/
>
> [23] http://lists.bestbits.net/info/cs-coord
>
> [24] http://justnetcoalition.org/NMI-neoliberal-caravan
>
> ====
>
> On 01/22/2015 11:47 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> > Global Civil Society launches the Internet Social Forum – With a call
> > to occupy the Internet
> >
> > PRESS RELEASE. Geneva, Switzerland, 22st January, 2015.
> >
> > A group of civil society organisations from around the world has
> > announced the Internet Social Forum, to bring together and articulate
> > bottom-up perspectives on the 'Internet we want'. Taking inspiration
> > from the World Social Forum, and its clarion call, 'Another World is
> > possible', the group seeks to draw urgent attention to the increasing
> > centralization of the Internet for extraction of monopoly rents and
> > for socio-political control, asserting that 'Another Internet is
> possible'!
> >
> > The Internet Social Forum will inter alia offer an alternative to the
> > recently-launched World Economic Forum's 'Net Mundial Initiative' on
> > global Internet governance. While the World Economic Forum (WEF) and
> > the 'Net Mundial Initiative' convene global elites, the Internet
> > Social Forum will be a participatory and bottom-up space for all those
> > who believe that the global Internet must evolve in the public
> > interest; a direct parallel to the launch of the World Social Forum in
> > 2001 as a counter initiative to the WEF.
> >
> > The Internet Social Forum will reach out to grassroots groups and
> > social movements across the world, catalysing a groundswell that
> > challenges the entrenched elite interests that currently control how
> > the Internet is managed. The Internet Social Forum's preparatory
> > process will kick off during the World Social Forum to take place in
> > Tunis, March 24th to 28th, 2015. The Internet Social Forum itself is
> > planned to be held either late 2015 or early 2016.
> >
> > “While the world's biggest companies have every right to debate the
> > future of the Internet, we are concerned that their perspectives
> > should not drown out those of ordinary people who have no access to
> > the privileged terrain WEF occupies – in the end it is this wider
> > public interest that must be paramount in governing the Internet. We
> > are organising the Internet Social Forum to make sure their voices
> > can't be ignored in the corridors of power,” said Norbert Bollow,
> > Co-Convenor of the Just Net Coalition, which is one of the groups
> > involved in the initiative.
> >
> > The Internet Social Forum, and its preparatory process, is intended as
> > a space to vision and build the 'Internet we want'. It will be
> > underpinned by values of democracy, human rights and social justice.
> > It will stand for participatory policy making and promote community
> media.
> > It will seek an Internet that is truly decentralized in its
> > architecture and based on people's full rights to data, information,
> > knowledge and other 'commons' that the Internet has enabled the world
> > community to generate and share.
> >
> > Somewhat similar to Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee’s call for a ‘Magna
> > Carta for the Internet', the Internet Social Forum proposes to develop
> > a People's Internet Manifesto, through a bottom-up process involving
> > all concerned social groups and movements, in different areas, from
> > techies and ICT-for-development actors to media reform groups,
> > democracy movements and social justice activists.
> >
> > This year will also see the 10 year high-level review of the World
> > Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), to be held in New York in
> > December. As a full-scale review of a major UN summit, this will be a
> > critical global political event. Since the WSIS, held in 2003 and
> > 2005, the Internet, and what it means socially, has undergone a
> > paradigm shift. The WSIS witnessed active engagement of civil society
> > and technical groups as well as of business. However, currently, there
> > seems to be an deliberate attempt to sideline this UN-led initiative
> > on governance issues of the information society and Internet in favour
> > of private, big-business-dominated initiatives like the WEF's Net
> > Mundial Initiative. The Internet Social Forum, while remaining
> > primarily a people's forum, will also seek to channel global civil
> > society's engagement towards the WSIS +10 review.
> >
> > The following organisations form the initial group that is proposing
> > the Internet Social Forum, and many more are expected to join in the
> > immediate future. This is an open call to progressive groups from all
> > over the world to join this initiative, and participate in developing
> > a People's Internet Manifesto.
> >
> > Just Net Coalition, Global
> > P2P Foundation, Global
> > Transnational Institute, Global
> > Forum on Communication for Integration of our America, Regional (Latin
> > America) Arab NGO Network for Development, Regional Agencia
> > Latinoamericana de Información, Regional Alternative Informatics
> > Association, Turkey Knowledge Commons, India Open-Root/EUROLINC,
> > France SLFC.in, India CODE-IP Trust, Kenya GodlyGlobal.org,
> > Switzerland Centre for Community Informatics Research, Development and
> > Training, Canada IT for Change, India Association for Proper Internet
> > Governance, Switzerland Computer Professionals Union, Philippines Free
> > Press, USA Advocates of Science and Technology for the People,
> > Philippines Other News, Italy Free Software Movement of India
> > Global_Geneva, Switzerland Solidarius (Solidarity Economy Network),
> > Italy All India Peoples Science Network, India Institute for Local
> > Self-Reliance - Community Broadband Networks, USA
> >
> > Please contact us at secretariat at InternetSocialForum.net for further
> > information or clarification.
> >
> > Or the following regional contacts:
> >
> > Africa:        Alex Gakaru <AlexG at InternetSocialForum.net>
> > Asia:          Rishab Bailey <RishabB at InternetSocialForum.net>
> > Europe:        Norbert Bollow <NorbertB at InternetSocialForum.net>
> > North America: Micheal Gurstein <MichealG at InternetSocialForum.net>
> > South America: Sally Burch <SallyB at InternetSocialForum.net>
> >
> >
> > This press release is also available online, e.g. at
> > http://justnetcoalition.org/ISF
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > discuss mailing list
> > discuss at 1net.org
> > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150123/b6db04c9/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Jan 23 18:21:48 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2015 04:51:48 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A70@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <20150122143615.700b2f52@quill> <54C11EDD.50505@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A70@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <54C2D78C.2010900@itforchange.net>


On Friday 23 January 2015 11:31 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> Hi Parminder,
>
> how the ISF is linked to the IGF?

Hi Wolfgang

One is a civil society forum, the other a multistakeholder one. One 
develops people's and civil society's positions on the key issue of the 
global Internet, the other is a place where such positions can enter 
into dialogue with holders of political and economic power - the 
governments and the corporate actors.

Unless now the whole idea and concept of civil society - and along with 
those of people's movements, grassroots, activism, and so on - has been 
fully coopted in some people's mind with that of multistakeholderism 
(whatever one actually means by it, something that has remained 
notoriously unclear), the connection or link that you inquire about is 
extremely clear to me.

Internet is not the first thing for which there has been felt a need for 
'independently' forming a people's conception and set of hopes, 
expectations and demands - away from conclaves of power. There have been 
scores of others, and newer ones continue to arise. Accordingly if 
people's and civil society forums etc have been meaningful and needed in 
these areas, it is incumbent upon *those* who think they are *not 
needed* in the Internet space to explain why it is so, then the other 
way around.

To put is somewhat flippantly, ISF is also a reaction of people who are 
fed up with an ongoing IG charade where for instance Fadi Chehade can 
with a straight face call the WEF's Net Mundial Initiative as the 
'mother of all bottom -up processes' - even jokes require some 
plausibility limits!

To take the example of one of the latest international global forums on 
a key global governance issue, the Lima meeting on climate change, you 
will perhaps know that parallel to it a people's meeting was held. 
Internet and its governance also needs such meetings, that is the simple 
logic of the Internet Social Forum. If you think that in the Internet's 
case, such meetings and forums are not needed, I would of course be 
curious to hear your case.

I am happy to engage further with you on this issue, and answer your 
questions.

Lastly, let me invite you to join the ISF process. We work under the 
World Social Forum (WSF) process and principles - whereby its meetings 
are open to all civil society participants subject to very inimum 
conditions that are listed on their website.

Further, if the discussion is to now turn to the WSF, its meaning, 
relevance, etc, I am as happy to engage with you on that subject.

Regards, parminder

>
> Wolfgang
>
>   
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von parminder
> Gesendet: Do 22.01.2015 17:01
> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Betreff: Re: [governance] Internet Social Forum
>   
> Enclosed Spanish version... parminder
>
>
> On Thursday 22 January 2015 07:06 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>> Global Civil Society launches the Internet Social Forum
>> - With a call to occupy the Internet
>>
>> PRESS RELEASE. Geneva, Switzerland, 22st January, 2015.
>>
>> A group of civil society organisations from around the world has
>> announced the Internet Social Forum, to bring together and articulate
>> bottom-up perspectives on the 'Internet we want'. Taking inspiration
>> from the World Social Forum, and its clarion call, 'Another World is
>> possible', the group seeks to draw urgent attention to the increasing
>> centralization of the Internet for extraction of monopoly rents and for
>> socio-political control, asserting that 'Another Internet is possible'!
>>
>> The Internet Social Forum will inter alia offer an alternative to the
>> recently-launched World Economic Forum's 'Net Mundial Initiative' on
>> global Internet governance. While the World Economic Forum (WEF) and
>> the 'Net Mundial Initiative' convene global elites, the Internet Social
>> Forum will be a participatory and bottom-up space for all those who
>> believe that the global Internet must evolve in the public interest; a
>> direct parallel to the launch of the World Social Forum in 2001 as a
>> counter initiative to the WEF.
>>
>> The Internet Social Forum will reach out to grassroots groups and
>> social movements across the world, catalysing a groundswell that
>> challenges the entrenched elite interests that currently control how
>> the Internet is managed. The Internet Social Forum's preparatory
>> process will kick off during the World Social Forum to take place in
>> Tunis, March 24th to 28th, 2015. The Internet Social Forum itself is
>> planned to be held either late 2015 or early 2016.
>>
>> "While the world's biggest companies have every right to debate the
>> future of the Internet, we are concerned that their perspectives should
>> not drown out those of ordinary people who have no access to the
>> privileged terrain WEF occupies - in the end it is this wider public
>> interest that must be paramount in governing the Internet. We are
>> organising the Internet Social Forum to make sure their voices can't be
>> ignored in the corridors of power," said Norbert Bollow, Co-Convenor of
>> the Just Net Coalition, which is one of the groups involved in the
>> initiative.
>>
>> The Internet Social Forum, and its preparatory process, is intended as
>> a space to vision and build the 'Internet we want'. It will be
>> underpinned by values of democracy, human rights and social justice. It
>> will stand for participatory policy making and promote community media.
>> It will seek an Internet that is truly decentralized in its
>> architecture and based on people's full rights to data, information,
>> knowledge and other 'commons' that the Internet has enabled the world
>> community to generate and share.
>>
>> Somewhat similar to Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee's call for a 'Magna
>> Carta for the Internet', the Internet Social Forum proposes to develop
>> a People's Internet Manifesto, through a bottom-up process involving
>> all concerned social groups and movements, in different areas, from
>> techies and ICT-for-development actors to media reform groups,
>> democracy movements and social justice activists.
>>
>> This year will also see the 10 year high-level review of the World
>> Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), to be held in New York in
>> December. As a full-scale review of a major UN summit, this will be a
>> critical global political event. Since the WSIS, held in 2003 and 2005,
>> the Internet, and what it means socially, has undergone a paradigm
>> shift. The WSIS witnessed active engagement of civil society and
>> technical groups as well as of business. However, currently, there
>> seems to be an deliberate attempt to sideline this UN-led initiative on
>> governance issues of the information society and Internet in favour of
>> private, big-business-dominated initiatives like the WEF's Net Mundial
>> Initiative. The Internet Social Forum, while remaining primarily a
>> people's forum, will also seek to channel global civil society's
>> engagement towards the WSIS +10 review.
>>
>> The following organisations form the initial group that is proposing
>> the Internet Social Forum, and many more are expected to join in the
>> immediate future. This is an open call to progressive groups from all
>> over the world to join this initiative, and participate in developing a
>> People's Internet Manifesto.
>>
>> Just Net Coalition, Global
>> P2P Foundation, Global
>> Transnational Institute, Global
>> Forum on Communication for Integration of our America, Regional (Latin
>> America) Arab NGO Network for Development, Regional
>> Agencia Latinoamericana de Información, Regional
>> Alternative Informatics Association, Turkey
>> Knowledge Commons, India
>> Open-Root/EUROLINC, France
>> SLFC.in, India
>> CODE-IP Trust, Kenya
>> GodlyGlobal.org, Switzerland
>> Centre for Community Informatics Research, Development and Training,
>> Canada IT for Change, India
>> Association for Proper Internet Governance, Switzerland
>> Computer Professionals Union, Philippines
>> Free Press, USA
>> Advocates of Science and Technology for the People, Philippines
>> Other News, Italy
>> Free Software Movement of India
>> Global_Geneva, Switzerland
>> Solidarius (Solidarity Economy Network), Italy
>> All India Peoples Science Network, India
>> Institute for Local Self-Reliance - Community Broadband Networks, USA
>>
>> Please contact us at secretariat at InternetSocialForum.net for further
>> information or clarification.
>>
>> Or the following regional contacts:
>>
>> Africa:        Alex Gakaru <AlexG at InternetSocialForum.net>
>> Asia:          Rishab Bailey <RishabB at InternetSocialForum.net>
>> Europe:        Norbert Bollow <NorbertB at InternetSocialForum.net>
>> North America: Micheal Gurstein <MichealG at InternetSocialForum.net>
>> South America: Sally Burch <SallyB at InternetSocialForum.net>
>>
>>
>> This press release is also available online, e.g. at
>> http://justnetcoalition.org/ISF
>>
>
>


From jefsey at jefsey.com  Fri Jan 23 19:22:11 2015
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2015 01:22:11 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] [discuss] [governance] Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <54C2D78C.2010900@itforchange.net>
References: <20150122143615.700b2f52@quill>
 <54C11EDD.50505@itforchange.net>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A70@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <54C2D78C.2010900@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <mailman.145.1642081890.12520.bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org>

At 00:21 24/01/2015, parminder wrote:
>One is a civil society forum, the other a multistakeholder one.

Hi! Parminder,
I have a real difficulty understanding why you civil society activist 
continue using the "multistakeholder" discriminatroy concept and do 
not rally the omnistakeholder non discriminatory vision. Everyone is 
to be accepted as a network co-owner/builder and a co-decision member 
(through the pragmantic mechanisms of influence, synergy and emergence).
jfc


From joly at punkcast.com  Mon Jan  5 13:44:30 2015
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2015 13:44:30 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] FW: [IP] NETmundial Initiative
 Announces Formation of its Inaugural Coordination Council and a Broad
 Global Community Consultation Phase | NETmundial
In-Reply-To: <0E1CD9E7-3CBE-4345-B63D-6B7746BFCD9A@me.com>
References: <CAKx4trib6y0BgranYnJ_prgVT15ACZkSMA_YCGiw2tVKUOUORg@mail.gmail.com>
 <0741505aceab44558fde236d2885c5b0@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> <CA+YNoKib5Nda9mAzeubZ-oKYkMxP=bwxnGH=B2Yvkn3bx9dHSw@mail.gmail.com>
 <0E1CD9E7-3CBE-4345-B63D-6B7746BFCD9A@me.com>
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk3NQUXXRXTYDMDnKt8Wz6Qy9R5G4_FR3dqcL86DVLJ=LA@mail.gmail.com>

Note Fadi's comments, in NYC having just returned from China, about a "seat
at the table".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhFk-fcuTEM

​and then the NMI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvH2FTAM2y8​

On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 5:16 AM, "João Carlos R. Caribé" <joao.caribe at me.com>
wrote:

> Interesting or Concerning ?
>
> I did a little search about Mr Lu Wei and found some concerning
> informations:
>
> ICAN 50 open session speech - https://www.icann.org/news/multimedia/301
>
> Note from GIP Platform about IANA transition -
> http://giplatform.org/resources/gip-summary-report-icann-50
> [..]The High Level Government Meeting addressing ICANN’s accountability
> and the transition of NTIA’s stewardship of the IANA functions, and chaired
> by the UK minister Ed Vaizey, came under the spotlight. The mere presence
> of China’s highest-level cyberspace official, Lu Wei, Minister of
> Cyberspace Affairs Administration, was a clear signal that *China is
> interested in playing a strong role in the transition process*. Although
> his address however mostly followed the known Chinese positions asking for
> an intergovernmental supervision of ICANN, he also mentioned the greater
> participation of his country (and various Chinese communities) in ICANN and
> argued that the candidates for the working groups on ICANN’s
> internationalisation should be determined quickly, in *accordance with
> the number of Internet users of each country*.[..]
>
> China's cyberspace admin. chief visits Facebook, Apple, Amazon
> http://www.iloveafrica.com/2014/12/10/VIDE1418182021367254.shtml
>
> [..]Lu Wei, Minister of China’s Cyberspace Affairs Administration, was in
> the US to attend a Chinese-American Internet conference, at which China
> pushed for a louder voice in the management of the Internet... a voice
> which was obviously heard loud and clear by the founder of Facebook.[..]
>
>
> Em 26/12/2014, às 22:16, Izumi AIZU escreveu:
>
> I see at least two names from China as very interesting or significant:
> Minister Lu Wei and Jack Ma of Alibaba, both were central figures at the
> World Internet Conference held in Wuzhen, China last month. Their
> participation in this Multistakeholder venture is a good sign.
>
> I also hope our Civil Society colleagues actively engage and advance our
> core values.
>
> Of course, there are certain or uncertain elements that are troublesome,
> but I like to remain constructive, critical, but more positive.
>
> And Happy holidays and New Year to all!!
>
> Izumi
>  2014/12/25 3:21 "Lee W McKnight" <lmcknigh at syr.edu>:
>
>>  FYI and happy holidays!
>>
>>
>> Lee
>>  ------------------------------
>> *From:* Dave Farber via ip <ip at listbox.com>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 24, 2014 10:58 AM
>> *To:* ip
>> *Subject:* [IP] NETmundial Initiative Announces Formation of its
>> Inaugural Coordination Council and a Broad Global Community Consultation
>> Phase | NETmundial
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.netmundial.org/blog/secretariat/netmundial-initiative-announces-formation-its-inaugural-coordination-council-and
>>   Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/8923115-8446eb07> |
>> Modify
>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-86ed04cc>
>> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now
>> <https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-e899f1f0&post_id=20141224105832:B3E1D282-8B85-11E4-A91F-F4DD3793BE5A>
>> <http://www.listbox.com/>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as 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
>
>
> --
> João Carlos R. Caribé
> Consultor
> Skype joaocaribe
> (021) 4042 7727
> (021) 9 8761 1967
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150105/58c0c1ca/attachment.htm>

From mctimconsulting at gmail.com  Fri Jan 23 22:18:07 2015
From: mctimconsulting at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 21:18:07 -0600
Subject: [bestbits] [discuss] [governance] Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <20150124002225.6E00380904@bestbits.net>
References: <20150122143615.700b2f52@quill> <54C11EDD.50505@itforchange.net>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A70@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <54C2D78C.2010900@itforchange.net> <20150124002225.6E00380904@bestbits.net>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxhhaxGOabSQJEhpzb5jfjNY5iXOHzj1JOhutHvi1AU9RA@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 6:22 PM, JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:

> At 00:21 24/01/2015, parminder wrote:
>
>> One is a civil society forum, the other a multistakeholder one.
>>
>
> Hi! Parminder,
> I have a real difficulty understanding why you civil society activist
> continue using the "multistakeholder" discriminatroy concept and do not
> rally the omnistakeholder non discriminatory vision. Everyone is to be
> accepted as a network co-owner/builder and a co-decision member (through
> the pragmantic mechanisms of influence, synergy and emergence).
>

The above is how I have seen "multistakeholderism" played out in
(non-Geneva based) IG settings.

"Everyone is a co-decision maker" is the essence of the MS model.




> jfc
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150123/ebeea54b/attachment.htm>

From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net  Sat Jan 24 02:23:23 2015
From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal)
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2015 08:23:23 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <54C2D78C.2010900@itforchange.net>
References: <20150122143615.700b2f52@quill> <54C11EDD.50505@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A70@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54C2D78C.2010900@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <62347604-80DB-474B-9421-91A684E17797@theglobaljournal.net>

Quoted a Register piece written by Kieren McCarthy
Hibernating NetMundial continues to rattle internet governance world reg.cx/2dZG

As to NetMundial's three-month consultation period, that will seemingly be led by respected internet governance academic and ICANN Board member Wolfgang Kleinwachter. The NetMundial organizers did not reveal how much they will pay Kleinwachter to lend the initiative his credibility, but his first attempt to make the internet community learn to love the idea came in the form of a blog post at the start of the year.




Le 24 janv. 2015 à 00:21, parminder a écrit :

> 
> On Friday 23 January 2015 11:31 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>> Hi Parminder,
>> 
>> how the ISF is linked to the IGF?
> 
> Hi Wolfgang
> 
> One is a civil society forum, the other a multistakeholder one. One develops people's and civil society's positions on the key issue of the global Internet, the other is a place where such positions can enter into dialogue with holders of political and economic power - the governments and the corporate actors.
> 
> Unless now the whole idea and concept of civil society - and along with those of people's movements, grassroots, activism, and so on - has been fully coopted in some people's mind with that of multistakeholderism (whatever one actually means by it, something that has remained notoriously unclear), the connection or link that you inquire about is extremely clear to me.
> 
> Internet is not the first thing for which there has been felt a need for 'independently' forming a people's conception and set of hopes, expectations and demands - away from conclaves of power. There have been scores of others, and newer ones continue to arise. Accordingly if people's and civil society forums etc have been meaningful and needed in these areas, it is incumbent upon *those* who think they are *not needed* in the Internet space to explain why it is so, then the other way around.
> 
> To put is somewhat flippantly, ISF is also a reaction of people who are fed up with an ongoing IG charade where for instance Fadi Chehade can with a straight face call the WEF's Net Mundial Initiative as the 'mother of all bottom -up processes' - even jokes require some plausibility limits!
> 
> To take the example of one of the latest international global forums on a key global governance issue, the Lima meeting on climate change, you will perhaps know that parallel to it a people's meeting was held. Internet and its governance also needs such meetings, that is the simple logic of the Internet Social Forum. If you think that in the Internet's case, such meetings and forums are not needed, I would of course be curious to hear your case.
> 
> I am happy to engage further with you on this issue, and answer your questions.
> 
> Lastly, let me invite you to join the ISF process. We work under the World Social Forum (WSF) process and principles - whereby its meetings are open to all civil society participants subject to very inimum conditions that are listed on their website.
> 
> Further, if the discussion is to now turn to the WSF, its meaning, relevance, etc, I am as happy to engage with you on that subject.
> 
> Regards, parminder
> 
>> 
>> Wolfgang
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von parminder
>> Gesendet: Do 22.01.2015 17:01
>> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Betreff: Re: [governance] Internet Social Forum
>>  Enclosed Spanish version... parminder
>> 
>> 
>> On Thursday 22 January 2015 07:06 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>>> Global Civil Society launches the Internet Social Forum
>>> - With a call to occupy the Internet
>>> 
>>> PRESS RELEASE. Geneva, Switzerland, 22st January, 2015.
>>> 
>>> A group of civil society organisations from around the world has
>>> announced the Internet Social Forum, to bring together and articulate
>>> bottom-up perspectives on the 'Internet we want'. Taking inspiration
>>> from the World Social Forum, and its clarion call, 'Another World is
>>> possible', the group seeks to draw urgent attention to the increasing
>>> centralization of the Internet for extraction of monopoly rents and for
>>> socio-political control, asserting that 'Another Internet is possible'!
>>> 
>>> The Internet Social Forum will inter alia offer an alternative to the
>>> recently-launched World Economic Forum's 'Net Mundial Initiative' on
>>> global Internet governance. While the World Economic Forum (WEF) and
>>> the 'Net Mundial Initiative' convene global elites, the Internet Social
>>> Forum will be a participatory and bottom-up space for all those who
>>> believe that the global Internet must evolve in the public interest; a
>>> direct parallel to the launch of the World Social Forum in 2001 as a
>>> counter initiative to the WEF.
>>> 
>>> The Internet Social Forum will reach out to grassroots groups and
>>> social movements across the world, catalysing a groundswell that
>>> challenges the entrenched elite interests that currently control how
>>> the Internet is managed. The Internet Social Forum's preparatory
>>> process will kick off during the World Social Forum to take place in
>>> Tunis, March 24th to 28th, 2015. The Internet Social Forum itself is
>>> planned to be held either late 2015 or early 2016.
>>> 
>>> "While the world's biggest companies have every right to debate the
>>> future of the Internet, we are concerned that their perspectives should
>>> not drown out those of ordinary people who have no access to the
>>> privileged terrain WEF occupies - in the end it is this wider public
>>> interest that must be paramount in governing the Internet. We are
>>> organising the Internet Social Forum to make sure their voices can't be
>>> ignored in the corridors of power," said Norbert Bollow, Co-Convenor of
>>> the Just Net Coalition, which is one of the groups involved in the
>>> initiative.
>>> 
>>> The Internet Social Forum, and its preparatory process, is intended as
>>> a space to vision and build the 'Internet we want'. It will be
>>> underpinned by values of democracy, human rights and social justice. It
>>> will stand for participatory policy making and promote community media.
>>> It will seek an Internet that is truly decentralized in its
>>> architecture and based on people's full rights to data, information,
>>> knowledge and other 'commons' that the Internet has enabled the world
>>> community to generate and share.
>>> 
>>> Somewhat similar to Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee's call for a 'Magna
>>> Carta for the Internet', the Internet Social Forum proposes to develop
>>> a People's Internet Manifesto, through a bottom-up process involving
>>> all concerned social groups and movements, in different areas, from
>>> techies and ICT-for-development actors to media reform groups,
>>> democracy movements and social justice activists.
>>> 
>>> This year will also see the 10 year high-level review of the World
>>> Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), to be held in New York in
>>> December. As a full-scale review of a major UN summit, this will be a
>>> critical global political event. Since the WSIS, held in 2003 and 2005,
>>> the Internet, and what it means socially, has undergone a paradigm
>>> shift. The WSIS witnessed active engagement of civil society and
>>> technical groups as well as of business. However, currently, there
>>> seems to be an deliberate attempt to sideline this UN-led initiative on
>>> governance issues of the information society and Internet in favour of
>>> private, big-business-dominated initiatives like the WEF's Net Mundial
>>> Initiative. The Internet Social Forum, while remaining primarily a
>>> people's forum, will also seek to channel global civil society's
>>> engagement towards the WSIS +10 review.
>>> 
>>> The following organisations form the initial group that is proposing
>>> the Internet Social Forum, and many more are expected to join in the
>>> immediate future. This is an open call to progressive groups from all
>>> over the world to join this initiative, and participate in developing a
>>> People's Internet Manifesto.
>>> 
>>> Just Net Coalition, Global
>>> P2P Foundation, Global
>>> Transnational Institute, Global
>>> Forum on Communication for Integration of our America, Regional (Latin
>>> America) Arab NGO Network for Development, Regional
>>> Agencia Latinoamericana de Información, Regional
>>> Alternative Informatics Association, Turkey
>>> Knowledge Commons, India
>>> Open-Root/EUROLINC, France
>>> SLFC.in, India
>>> CODE-IP Trust, Kenya
>>> GodlyGlobal.org, Switzerland
>>> Centre for Community Informatics Research, Development and Training,
>>> Canada IT for Change, India
>>> Association for Proper Internet Governance, Switzerland
>>> Computer Professionals Union, Philippines
>>> Free Press, USA
>>> Advocates of Science and Technology for the People, Philippines
>>> Other News, Italy
>>> Free Software Movement of India
>>> Global_Geneva, Switzerland
>>> Solidarius (Solidarity Economy Network), Italy
>>> All India Peoples Science Network, India
>>> Institute for Local Self-Reliance - Community Broadband Networks, USA
>>> 
>>> Please contact us at secretariat at InternetSocialForum.net for further
>>> information or clarification.
>>> 
>>> Or the following regional contacts:
>>> 
>>> Africa:        Alex Gakaru <AlexG at InternetSocialForum.net>
>>> Asia:          Rishab Bailey <RishabB at InternetSocialForum.net>
>>> Europe:        Norbert Bollow <NorbertB at InternetSocialForum.net>
>>> North America: Micheal Gurstein <MichealG at InternetSocialForum.net>
>>> South America: Sally Burch <SallyB at InternetSocialForum.net>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> This press release is also available online, e.g. at
>>> http://justnetcoalition.org/ISF
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150124/5dc9af3a/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Jan 24 20:11:00 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 06:41:00 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Piece on IG in the annual 'state of power' publication
Message-ID: <54C442A4.40904@itforchange.net>

Some of you may be aware that the Transnational Institute brings out an 
annual 'State of Power' publication to conclude with the WEF meetings in 
Davos and the declarations by the 1 percent that may be issued over there.

The introduction to this publication is as follows;

"The fourth edition of our annual State of Power report, coinciding with 
the international meeting in Switzerland of what Susan George calls “the 
Davos class”. This series seeks to examine different dimensions of 
power, unmask the key holders of power in our globalised world, and 
identify sources of transformative counter-power."
(ends)

While the whole of it is worth reading, I especially point to the 
chapter on Internet governance "The true stakes of Internet governance".

please see http://www.tni.org/stateofpower2015

parminder
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150125/278f9253/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Sun Jan 25 10:41:31 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 07:41:31 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] FW: [governance] FW: Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com> <54BFBF0D.3000504@itforchange.net> <EBD518CE-0A41-4F63-8AB4-E68F33E602FB@globalgeneva.net> <20150121172634.0fbbd8b5@quill> <54BFE3E9.8080005@itforchange.net> <1421862025.163813248@apps.rackspace.com> <54BFE647.50205@itforchange.net> <20150121190917.3066b781@quill> <54BFEF3A.6080307@alainet.org> <20150121194828.1ce2f9ef@quill> <b6bf4820c07c5c5367db7cfe2f2c89c1.squirrel@webmail.tni.org> <54C0BF75.9030809@itforchange.net> <207E590CDEB1344EB16A3D3424E8D74202304FE5AB3B@EXVMBX016-2.exch016.msoutlookonline.net> <54C0DFD4.6070202@itforchange.net> <54C111D0.2050809@itforchange.net> <54C12314.2060407@alainet.org> <54C236DE.3050903@itforchange.net> <54C2E1A8.9040703@itforchange.net> <001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com>

Hi Wolfgang,

I think that Parminder gave you a quite extensive answer which I won't even
attempt to repeat...

My own (and personal take) is that the ISF will give prominence to issues
related to the Internet and social justice, something which has been more or
less completely ignored in the context of the IGF and other Internet
Governance processes.

For me, my work in the context of community informatics and my activities in
linking the Community Informatics network to the JNC (and in future (I
expect) to the ISF) is about how the Internet (and ICTs overall) can be used
to promote social justice and how various kinds of interventions may be
needed to overcome the massive amounts of economic (and thus social)
inequalities which are emerging (one can assume causatively) as a more or
less direct result of the interventions of the Internet.

That civil society in Internet Governance has ignored these issues of social
justice and has allowed the various processes concerning Internet Governance
equally to ignore (including dare I say, allowing for and enabling the high
degree of selectivity in the choices of which Human Rights to promote and
which to avoid), is to my mind scandalous and a serious dereliction of their
responsibilities to the point where it is laughable and a fairly serious
category mistake to refer to most of the individuals and groups involved as
civil society at all.

So, to answer your question my own activities in relation to the ISF will be
to ensure that questions of social justice and economic and social
inequality in the context of the Internet, of Internet governance, and of
governance of and with the Internet are front and centre in our discussions.

Best,

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
[mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de]
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 4:59 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein;
governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: AW: [governance] FW: Towards an Internet Social Forum

Hi Michael,

I asked already Parminder how the ISF is linked to the IGF and I did not get
an answer. Can you reply? 

Wolfgang




-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von michael gurstein
Gesendet: So 25.01.2015 13:19
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Betreff: [governance] FW: Towards an Internet Social Forum
 
Coverage of the ISF in an Indian daily

M

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/455369/towards-democratic-internet-gover
nance.html


Towards democratic Internet governance


*	1 min read 
*	 

Shruthi H M, Bengaluru, Jan 24, 2015, DHNS:

The Internet might have pervaded the common man's life but its governance
still remains in the hands of a few corporate giants. To counter this, civil
society organisations propose democratic Internet governance. 

Though Google's Eric Schmidt predicts the "disappearance of Internet into
the background", a group of organisations have set out to bring to fore
voices that have remained in the background in spite of the Internet's all
pervasive nature.As the World Economic Forum (WEF) 2015 is in progress in
Davos (Jan 21-24), civil society organisations have come together to create
a global 'Internet Social Forum' countering the WEF's NETmundial initiative
for Internet governance. The organisations aim to create an Internet space
governed in public interest. 

Bengaluru-based organisation IT for Change will be an active part of this
global forum, along with five other Indian organisations: Society For
Knowledge Commons, All India Peoples Science Network, Free Software Movement
of India, SLFC.in and Digital Empowrment Foundation. 

The Internet Social Forum will consist of civil society organisations from
across the globe who believe that Internet governance should not be limited
to the vested interests of corporate giants. Their endeavour is to put in
place a "bottom's up" approach, where grassroots groups can have their say
in regulating Internet space.

Civil organisations feel that the WEF's global internet policy making and
governance initiative the 'NETmundial', restricts itself to the voices of
the global elite. The concept of WEF itself has been countered by the "World
Social Forum" and the Internet Social Forum draws inspiration from it. In
fact, the "preparatory process" of the forum is likely to be held in March
2015 in Tunis, during the World Social Forum meet.

When one searches for something on the Internet, the most popular links
related to the subject appear at the top of the list. 

However, more often links that appear first are not guided by popularity but
by the money invested by interested parties to ensure they are displayed on
top. In this regard, the Internet Social Forum will fight for "Net
neutrality". 

IT For Change Executive Director Parminder Jeet Singh said, "In its current
form, internet governance has not yet become a people's movement. The
Internet is increasingly controlled by corporates." 

Community owned broadband, data ownership, limits to copyright and including
rural communities in the dialogue process are some of the issues that the
forum seeks to address.

Rishab Bailey, Director (legal), Society For Knowledge Commons, added that
such an initiative was significant as, at present, a lot of thought is going
into setting up institutions for Internet governance. "We have to ensure a
representative and democratic Internet governance. Internet is a global
construct and it touches all our lives. As of now there are no concrete
mechanisms to deal with issues pertaining to Internet governance. We have to
make sure that Internet governance is a true bottoms up approach." 

 



From avri at acm.org  Sun Jan 25 13:01:50 2015
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 13:01:50 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] [discuss] FW: [governance] FW: Towards an Internet
 Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com>	<54BFBF0D.3000504@itforchange.net>	<EBD518CE-0A41-4F63-8AB4-E68F33E602FB@globalgeneva.net>	<20150121172634.0fbbd8b5@quill> <54BFE3E9.8080005@itforchange.net>	<1421862025.163813248@apps.rackspace.com>	<54BFE647.50205@itforchange.net>	<20150121190917.3066b781@quill> <54BFEF3A.6080307@alainet.org>	<20150121194828.1ce2f9ef@quill>	<b6bf4820c07c5c5367db7cfe2f2c89c1.squirrel@webmail.tni.org>	<54C0BF75.9030809@itforchange.net>	<207E590CDEB1344EB16A3D3424E8D74202304FE5AB3B@EXVMBX016-2.exch016.msoutlookonline.net>	<54C0DFD4.6070202@itforchange.net>	<54C111D0.2050809@itforchange.net> <54C12314.2060407@alainet.org>	<54C236DE.3050903@itforchange.net>	<54C2E1A8.9040703@itforchange.net>	<001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com>	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>	<007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com> <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org>

Hi,

There have been a lot of criticisms of NMI based on its lack of
transparency and top down decsion making. It appears to be trying to fix
itself, but does not seem to having great success at this point.  How
will the ISF distinguish itself in this respect.

Also, I do hope the ISF takes more pains than the NMI has in terms of
appearing to challenge the existence of the IGF.

avri



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150125/254fd6d7/attachment.htm>

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Sun Jan 25 15:30:12 2015
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 07:30:12 +1100
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] AW: From Confusion to Clarification
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A86@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba> <54762985.2010101@apc.org> <053001d009ba$768cf260$63a6d720$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A86@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <D52271F36A224E63965667671E785EE1@Toshiba>

Hi Wolfgang,

I am glad you raised this again, because I think the idea is great.

I am not sure that a direct correlation with CSCG and with the different 
groups within civil society who are CSCG members is the best way to proceed 
(eg one JNC article followed by one Best Bits article etc) - because I think 
many of our best people sit between and across various groups and I am not 
sure that direct characterisation of opinions with groupings is always 
accurate or helpful.

But I am entirely behind the idea of a publication which would reflect in a 
balanced way all the voices within civil society, and including 
organisational stances on issues where these are clear.

But one catch. Although I am happy to be involved, I cannot take on the 
central organising role for this. I am wondering if someone else would like 
to take this on - I would be happy to assist, even be co-editor - but in 
this timeframe my time is limited due to other commitments.

If someone with the time available and organising skills would like to take 
on a coordinating role, I would be pleased to participate and help. Contact 
me off line if you wish.

It would be great to see this idea materialise.

Ian


-----Original Message----- 
From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 11:15 PM
To: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; michael 
gurstein ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: [governance] AW: From Confusion to Clarification

Dear friends,

six weeks ago I made a proposal under the thread "From Confusion to 
Clarification" to produce a Civil Society Internet Governance Compendium or 
Handbook. What was the idea behind the proposal?

Civil Society is a recognized and needed stakeholder in the global Internet 
Governance debate and a needed partner in the evolving multistakeholder 
approaches to manage Internet related public policy issues.
2015 will see a number of Internet Governance events where the voice of 
civil society has to be raised: It starts with the ITU Council IG Working 
Group Meetings in February, continues with UNESCO conferences and meetings 
of the UNCSTD, the HRC, the forthcoming Cybersecurity Conference in The 
Hague, the IGF in Brazil, the WSIS 10+ conference in New York in December 
2015 and others.

Civil Society does not speak with one voice. It is characterized by a broad 
diversity. This is not a weakness, this is a strength. It reflects the 
reality. And it is not different from the diversity within other stakeholder 
groups. In the governmental stakeholder group you have a broad varierty of 
positions - from the US via EU, Brazil, Egypt and India to China. In the 
private sector stakeholder group there are different approaches among 
transnational corporations and small and medium enterprises from developed 
and developing countries. And even among the I* organizations there are 
differences, as we have seen recently in the positioning towards the 
NetMundial initiative. This pluralism and diversity reflects the reality of 
the Internet Governance ecosystem. If one want to achieve sustainable 
progress a rough consensus has to include the main arguments from the main 
groups of all stakeholders. To achieve concrete results openess and 
transparency with regard to the various positions is a key pre-condition to 
promote mutual understanding.

Insofar it would be good if civil society Internet Governance groups or 
individuals could describe openly what they are standing for. To have on 
paper the various perspectives different civil society groups have if it 
comes to Internet policy related issues would be useful anbd could enhance 
civil society input into the forthcoming negotiations, in particular with 
regard to WSIS 10+.

Since I did send this proposals to this list I got numerous comments and 
critical remarks. Some respondents supported the project and called it a 
good idea. Others argued that this is a bad, unrealistic and 
counterproductive idea. Many partners made concrete proposals how such a 
project could be further enhanced. Taking into account all the feed back I 
got since last month I would specify my proposal in the following way:

I. Ian Peter, in his capacity as acting chair of the CSCG, should function 
as the main editor. Each member of the CSCG should nominate a co-editor. The 
role of the editor and the co-editors would be technical. They should not 
intervene into the content of the individual contributions. The six 
co-editors of the six member groups of the CWSG should invite four 
contributors from their group, one for each chapter. It is up to the groups 
whether the individual author expresses his own individual position or 
represents the position of the whole group. Each contribution should be 4 - 
8 pages. Each author would be free to cover either the whole subject or to 
select a special sub-item.

II. The book should have four chapters:
1. Human Rights and Internet(Access, Freedom of Expression, Privacy, 
Content, Culture etc.)
2. Security in Cyberspace (Cyberwar, Cyberterrorism, Cybercrime, 
Surveillance, National Sovereignty etc.)
3. Social, Economic and Cultural Development (Digital Divide, Market 
Domination, Competition, Infrastructure Development, Cultural and Linguistic 
Diversity etc.)
4. Technical Coordination (Names, Numbers, Protocols, Accountability etc.)

III. Timetable
It would be good to have a first draft ready until early May (for the 
Meeting of the UNCSTD). The final e-Version of the whole book should be 
ready until early September for use by the WSIS 10+ negotiations groups. A 
formal presentation should be organized during the 10th IGF in Brazil. 
Efforts should be undertake to produce also a paper version for distribution 
at the 10th IGF in November 2014.

Best regards

Wolfgang

PS:
I have described the "Four Baskets" more in detail in my blog in CircleID
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150103_internet_governance_outlook_2015_2_processes_many_venues_4_baskets/

w



Hi everybody

After weeks of confusing conflicts let´s move towards clarifying 
collaboration. What we have seen in the recent (sometimes unfriendly) 
disputes is that there are many different  civil society activists with 
different civil society positions. This is confusing, both for newcomers who 
want to join civil society groups in Internet Governance discussions as well 
as for other stakeholders who want to collaborate with civil society. On the 
othher Hand: This is natural. The civil Society Stakeholder Groups has 
similar differences as the governmental stakeholder group if you compare the 
governmental positions of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, US, EU, Brazil, 
India, Japan, Australia etc.
This not the Problem. The probllem is that you have to know what the 
position. So it is about transparency and clarity.

Here is a proposal how to move forward:  We have seen so many people writing 
long e-mails arguing for their position. Wouldn´t it be better if we use 
this energy to write more comprehensive and structured position or issue 
papers so that newbies or outsiders will better understand what the real 
points under discussions are in CS circles? We have seen rather different 
arguments around the same issue from JNC to APC and NCUC folks.

I propose that we start to work on what I call a “Civil Society Internet 
Governance Handbook”.  This handbook would allow all CS groups within the 
CSCG to present their own individual points of views so that everybody knows 
what the positions are. The book could be structured into four main 
chapters:

1. Human Rights (Access, Freedom of Expression, Privacy etc.)
2. Security (Cyberwar, Cyberterrorism, Cybercrime etc.)
3. Economic Development (Market domination, competition, infrastructure 
development etc.)
4. Technical Coordination (Names, Numbers, Protocols etc.)

Each of the six groups under the CSCG (IGC, BB, JNC, NCSG, Diplo, APC) could 
nominate four authors (one for each chapter). Each author would be free to 
argue for her/his position (five to maximum teen pages). There is no need 
for consensus. Every author would be free to present her/his radical, 
moderate, liberal and whatsoever position on one of the four main issues.

Such a compendium would help to bring more transparency into the process and 
would enable a more fact based discussion in the IG events ahead of us.

We could deliver this as an e-book (probably with an Annex with main 
official texts as Tunis Agenda, Sao Paulo Principles, UN Resolutions etc.) 
until the May 2015 Sessions in Geneva. In total this book would be around 
250 pages. If we find a sponsor we could publish this for the New York event 
in December 2015. Such a book would seen by the rest of the IG Community as 
a helpful contribution, it would strengthen the role of CS in the emerging 
IG multistakeholder mechanisms and would be also an input into the WSIS 10+ 
process.

The chair of the CSCG (together with the co-chairs from the six groups) 
would be the editor.

Any comment?

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 


From jefsey at jefsey.com  Sun Jan 25 20:31:25 2015
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 02:31:25 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] AW: From Confusion to Clarification
References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba>
 <54762985.2010101@apc.org>
 <053001d009ba$768cf260$63a6d720$@gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <mailman.146.1642081890.12520.bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org>

Dear Wolfgang,

However I disagree with the ultimate target ...

At 13:15 25/01/2015, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:
>This pluralism and diversity reflects the 
>reality of the Internet Governance ecosystem. If 
>one want to achieve sustainable progress a rough 
>consensus has to include the main arguments from 
>the main groups of all stakeholders.

because we are not confronted to a semi 
democratic multistakhoderic but to a necessarily 
polycratic omnistakeholderic global network issue,

>To achieve concrete results openess and 
>transparency with regard to the various 
>positions is a key pre-condition to promote mutual understanding.

I certainly agree with this.


>Insofar it would be good if civil society 
>Internet Governance groups or individuals could 
>describe openly what they are standing for. To 
>have on paper the various perspectives different 
>civil society groups have if it comes to 
>Internet policy related issues would be useful 
>and could enhance civil society input into the 
>forthcoming negotiations, in particular with regard to WSIS 10+.

Yes.

>Since I did send this proposals to this list I 
>got numerous comments and critical remarks. Some 
>respondents supported the project and called it 
>a good idea. Others argued that this is a bad, 
>unrealistic and counterproductive idea. Many 
>partners made concrete proposals how such a 
>project could be further enhanced. Taking into 
>account all the feed back I got since last month 
>I would specify my proposal in the following way:

The processus is correct if no topic and no 
response is blocked. In any case a common and 
clear thematic reference grid will have been worked out.

>II. The book should have four chapters:
>1.      Human Rights and Internet(Access, 
>Freedom of Expression, Privacy, Content, Culture etc.)
>2.      Security in Cyberspace (Cyberwar, 
>Cyberterrorism, Cybercrime, Surveillance, National Sovereignty etc.)
>3.      Social, Economic and Cultural 
>Development (Digital Divide, Market Domination, 
>Competition, Infrastructure Development, 
>Cultural and Linguistic Diversity etc.)
>4.      Technical Coordination (Names, Numbers, 
>Protocols, Accountability etc.)

 From this I infer that the matter is open, yet 
also Internet centered. This only addresses half 
of the pending issues. The other half, which are 
at the origin of the current transition is the 
insertion of the internet issues within a quickly expending digitality.

>III. Timetable
>It would be good to have a first draft ready 
>until early May (for the Meeting of the UNCSTD). 
>The final e-Version of the whole book should be 
>ready until early September for use by the WSIS 
>10+ negotiations groups. A formal presentation 
>should be organized during the 10th IGF in 
>Brazil. Efforts should be undertake to produce 
>also a paper version for distribution at the 10th IGF in November 2014.

This is an acceptable framework. I note FYI that:

1. I may delay the IETF contributive RFC by my appeal that will reach ISOC.
2. The reason of this appeal is the dillution of 
the ICANN accountability to IAB through 
technology conformance and IANA. This leads to an 
accountability by coopetition (along the RFC 6852 
paradigm), at least with the Free/Libre community.

However, the result should only a formal 
clarification/affirmation of the IAB/IETF position.

It should therefore
1. not affect the framework and help the proposed process.
2. lead to a debate on two missing chapters of the book:
     - (sub)structural description of the cyberspace
     - cyberspace accountability framwork

Best
Jefsey


>
>
>Best regards
>
>Wolfgang
>
>PS:
>I have described the "Four Baskets" more in detail in my blog in CircleID
>http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150103_internet_governance_outlook_2015_2_processes_many_venues_4_baskets/


From pouzin at well.com  Sun Jan 25 23:27:35 2015
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 05:27:35 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] From Confusion to Clarification
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba> <54762985.2010101@apc.org>
 <053001d009ba$768cf260$63a6d720$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <CA+EjHYqo2c1W-Dck8ge5wZapObPMTGpf9Hn438nMbNazs8N-6A@mail.gmail.com>

There isn't anything on stakeholders roles, in particular States and USA.

Louis
- - -

On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 8:21 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

> Hi everybody
>
> After weeks of confusing conflicts let´s move towards clarifying
> collaboration. What we have seen in the recent (sometimes unfriendly)
> disputes is that there are many different  civil society activists with
> different civil society positions. This is confusing, both for newcomers
> who want to join civil society groups in Internet Governance discussions as
> well as for other stakeholders who want to collaborate with civil society.
> On the othher Hand: This is natural. The civil Society Stakeholder Groups
> has similar differences as the governmental stakeholder group if you
> compare the governmental positions of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, US, EU,
> Brazil, India, Japan, Australia etc.
> This not the Problem. The probllem is that you have to know what the
> position. So it is about transparency and clarity.
>
> Here is a proposal how to move forward:  We have seen so many people
> writing long e-mails arguing for their position. Wouldn´t it be better if
> we use this energy to write more comprehensive and structured position or
> issue papers so that newbies or outsiders will better understand what the
> real points under discussions are in CS circles? We have seen rather
> different arguments around the same issue from JNC to APC and NCUC folks.
>
> I propose that we start to work on what I call a "Civil Society Internet
> Governance Handbook".  This handbook would allow all CS groups within the
> CSCG to present their own individual points of views so that everybody
> knows what the positions are. The book could be structured into four main
> chapters:
>
> 1.      Human Rights (Access, Freedom of Expression, Privacy etc.)
> 2.      Security (Cyberwar, Cyberterrorism, Cybercrime etc.)
> 3.      Economic Development (Market domination, competition,
> infrastructure development etc.)
> 4.      Technical Coordination (Names, Numbers, Protocols etc.)
>
> Each of the six groups under the CSCG (IGC, BB, JNC, NCSG, Diplo, APC)
> could nominate four authors (one for each chapter). Each author would be
> free to argue for her/his position (five to maximum teen pages). There is
> no need for consensus. Every author would be free to present her/his
> radical, moderate, liberal and whatsoever position on one of the four main
> issues.
>
> Such a compendium would help to bring more transparency into the process
> and would enable a more fact based discussion in the IG events ahead of us.
>
> We could deliver this as an e-book (probably with an Annex with main
> official texts as Tunis Agenda, Sao Paulo Principles, UN Resolutions etc.)
> until the May 2015 Sessions in Geneva. In total this book would be around
> 250 pages. If we find a sponsor we could publish this for the New York
> event in December 2015. Such a book would seen by the rest of the IG
> Community as a helpful contribution, it would strengthen the role of CS in
> the emerging IG multistakeholder mechanisms and would be also an input into
> the WSIS 10+ process.
>
> The chair of the CSCG (together with the co-chairs from the six groups)
> would be the editor.
>
> Any comment?
>
> Wolfgang
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150126/66ecad91/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Mon Jan 26 05:43:10 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 02:43:10 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] [discuss] FW: [governance] FW: Towards an Internet
 Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <06D35A10-7DB0-49E5-9B2A-3F2C691D1BB4@isoc-cr.org>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com>
 <54BFBF0D.3000504@itforchange.net> <EBD518CE-0A41-4F63-8AB4-E68F33E602FB@globalgeneva.net>
 <20150121172634.0fbbd8b5@quill> <54BFE3E9.8080005@itforchange.net>
 <1421862025.163813248@apps.rackspace.com> <54BFE647.50205@itforchange.net>
 <20150121190917.3066b781@quill> <54BFEF3A.6080307@alainet.org>
 <20150121194828.1ce2f9ef@quill> <b6bf4820c07c5c5367db7cfe2f2c89c1.squirrel@webmail.tni.org>
 <54C0BF75.9030809@itforchange.net> <207E590CDEB1344EB16A3D3424E8D74202304FE5AB3B@EXVMBX016-2.exch016.msoutlookonline.net>
 <54C0DFD4.6070202@itforchange.net> <54C111D0.2050809@itforchange.net>
 <54C12314.2060407@alainet.org> <54C236DE.3050903@itforchange.net>
 <54C2E1A8.9040703@itforchange.net> <001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com> <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com>
 <06D35A10-7DB0-49E5-9B2A-3F2C691D1BB4@isoc-cr.org>
Message-ID: <005f01d03954$e10fa780$a32ef680$@gmail.com>

Hi Carlos,

I think your question is better addressed to the ISF itself which is, as already noted, only in the process of formulation and development.  My own feelings and opinions in response to your question are probably best left to the upcoming discussion concerning the People's Internet Manifesto to which all those who are in general agreement with the Invitation will be wishing to address their attention in the very near future.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos Raúl G. [mailto:crg at isoc-cr.org] 
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 8:27 AM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>; 1Net Discuss
Subject: Re: [discuss] FW: [governance] FW: Towards an Internet Social Forum

Thank you Mike for the IGF - ISF explanation.

What about the NM São Paulo statement? Valid? Building on it? Or just forgotten?

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
+506 8837 7176 (New Number)
Enviado desde mi iPhone

> El ene 25, 2015, a las 9:41 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> escribió:
> 
> Hi Wolfgang,
> 
> I think that Parminder gave you a quite extensive answer which I won't 
> even attempt to repeat...
> 
> My own (and personal take) is that the ISF will give prominence to 
> issues related to the Internet and social justice, something which has 
> been more or less completely ignored in the context of the IGF and 
> other Internet Governance processes.
> 
> For me, my work in the context of community informatics and my 
> activities in linking the Community Informatics network to the JNC 
> (and in future (I
> expect) to the ISF) is about how the Internet (and ICTs overall) can 
> be used to promote social justice and how various kinds of 
> interventions may be needed to overcome the massive amounts of 
> economic (and thus social) inequalities which are emerging (one can 
> assume causatively) as a more or less direct result of the interventions of the Internet.
> 
> That civil society in Internet Governance has ignored these issues of 
> social justice and has allowed the various processes concerning 
> Internet Governance equally to ignore (including dare I say, allowing 
> for and enabling the high degree of selectivity in the choices of 
> which Human Rights to promote and which to avoid), is to my mind 
> scandalous and a serious dereliction of their responsibilities to the 
> point where it is laughable and a fairly serious category mistake to 
> refer to most of the individuals and groups involved as civil society at all.
> 
> So, to answer your question my own activities in relation to the ISF 
> will be to ensure that questions of social justice and economic and 
> social inequality in the context of the Internet, of Internet 
> governance, and of governance of and with the Internet are front and centre in our discussions.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Mike
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
> [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de]
> Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 4:59 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; 
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: AW: [governance] FW: Towards an Internet Social Forum
> 
> Hi Michael,
> 
> I asked already Parminder how the ISF is linked to the IGF and I did 
> not get an answer. Can you reply?
> 
> Wolfgang
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von michael 
> gurstein
> Gesendet: So 25.01.2015 13:19
> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Betreff: [governance] FW: Towards an Internet Social Forum
> 
> Coverage of the ISF in an Indian daily
> 
> M
> 
> http://www.deccanherald.com/content/455369/towards-democratic-internet
> -gover
> nance.html
> 
> 
> Towards democratic Internet governance
> 
> 
> *    1 min read 
> *     
> 
> Shruthi H M, Bengaluru, Jan 24, 2015, DHNS:
> 
> The Internet might have pervaded the common man's life but its 
> governance still remains in the hands of a few corporate giants. To 
> counter this, civil society organisations propose democratic Internet governance.
> 
> Though Google's Eric Schmidt predicts the "disappearance of Internet 
> into the background", a group of organisations have set out to bring 
> to fore voices that have remained in the background in spite of the 
> Internet's all pervasive nature.As the World Economic Forum (WEF) 2015 
> is in progress in Davos (Jan 21-24), civil society organisations have 
> come together to create a global 'Internet Social Forum' countering 
> the WEF's NETmundial initiative for Internet governance. The 
> organisations aim to create an Internet space governed in public interest.
> 
> Bengaluru-based organisation IT for Change will be an active part of 
> this global forum, along with five other Indian organisations: Society 
> For Knowledge Commons, All India Peoples Science Network, Free 
> Software Movement of India, SLFC.in and Digital Empowrment Foundation.
> 
> The Internet Social Forum will consist of civil society organisations 
> from across the globe who believe that Internet governance should not 
> be limited to the vested interests of corporate giants. Their 
> endeavour is to put in place a "bottom's up" approach, where 
> grassroots groups can have their say in regulating Internet space.
> 
> Civil organisations feel that the WEF's global internet policy making 
> and governance initiative the 'NETmundial', restricts itself to the 
> voices of the global elite. The concept of WEF itself has been 
> countered by the "World Social Forum" and the Internet Social Forum 
> draws inspiration from it. In fact, the "preparatory process" of the 
> forum is likely to be held in March
> 2015 in Tunis, during the World Social Forum meet.
> 
> When one searches for something on the Internet, the most popular 
> links related to the subject appear at the top of the list.
> 
> However, more often links that appear first are not guided by 
> popularity but by the money invested by interested parties to ensure 
> they are displayed on top. In this regard, the Internet Social Forum 
> will fight for "Net neutrality".
> 
> IT For Change Executive Director Parminder Jeet Singh said, "In its 
> current form, internet governance has not yet become a people's 
> movement. The Internet is increasingly controlled by corporates."
> 
> Community owned broadband, data ownership, limits to copyright and 
> including rural communities in the dialogue process are some of the 
> issues that the forum seeks to address.
> 
> Rishab Bailey, Director (legal), Society For Knowledge Commons, added 
> that such an initiative was significant as, at present, a lot of 
> thought is going into setting up institutions for Internet governance. 
> "We have to ensure a representative and democratic Internet 
> governance. Internet is a global construct and it touches all our 
> lives. As of now there are no concrete mechanisms to deal with issues 
> pertaining to Internet governance. We have to make sure that Internet governance is a true bottoms up approach."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


From kichango at gmail.com  Mon Jan 26 07:03:20 2015
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:03:20 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] AW: From Confusion to Clarification
In-Reply-To: <D52271F36A224E63965667671E785EE1@Toshiba>
References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba> <54762985.2010101@apc.org>
 <053001d009ba$768cf260$63a6d720$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A86@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <D52271F36A224E63965667671E785EE1@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v-tsTzgPbiTMQYYuhdSkdYqUyxFLqjkO930Uq+HU0MTpg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 8:30 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

> Hi Wolfgang,
>
> I am glad you raised this again, because I think the idea is great.
>
> I am not sure that a direct correlation with CSCG and with the different
> groups within civil society who are CSCG members is the best way to proceed
> (eg one JNC article followed by one Best Bits article etc) - because I
> think many of our best people sit between and across various groups and I
> am not sure that direct characterisation of opinions with groupings is
> always accurate or helpful.
>

This has been my concern, too, from my very first reply to the initial
proposal, and still remains. We are far from having a homomorphism between
the CSCG member groupings and the "diverse voices" you are referring to,
Wolfgang. It seems to me the most identifiable voice(s) within the CSCG
setting -- in terms of what all members stand for -- include JNC (social
justice) and maybe BestBits (?), both of whom spun off from IGC where they
still have their footprint aside possible other voices. In other words, IGC
which is also a CSCG member is certainly not one voice. I suspect there is
also notable diversity of voices within NCSG although it is my sense that
they have clearer and tested working processes and are more ready to reach
a common position on a whole host of issues than IGC does. Furthermore you
have
on the other hand
folks such as JFC and their following, whom I am not sure to what extent
they overlap with JNC and to what extent they have a distinct voice.

All of this to say, you may go with the above groupings but I am not sure
they will provide a clear map of the actual voices that exist within CS in
terms of families of thought, basic assumptions, visions, goals, values or
principles of commitments, etc. If we can find a practical way to identify
those, that would be great but I recognize it might be challenging. I am
just putting the idea out there so that we recognize that potential
limitation and see whether we can come up with some innovative ways to work
around it. (Again, I also understand that you may just have made the
deliberate choice to start from the existing _social groupings_
 and let them
bear the responsibility to put forward their common voice OR their diverse
voices on the issues, taking the burden away from the architect of the
project (outline of the volume) as well as from the editors and placing it
on the groups themselves, which will not make IGC business any easier ;-)
Nevertheless, this approach also has its won merits.)


Mawaki



>
> -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
> Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 11:15 PM
> To: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; michael
> gurstein ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: [governance] AW: From Confusion to Clarification
>
>
> Dear friends,
>
> six weeks ago I made a proposal under the thread "From Confusion to
> Clarification" to produce a Civil Society Internet Governance Compendium or
> Handbook. What was the idea behind the proposal?
>
> Civil Society is a recognized and needed stakeholder in the global
> Internet Governance debate and a needed partner in the evolving
> multistakeholder approaches to manage Internet related public policy issues.
> 2015 will see a number of Internet Governance events where the voice of
> civil society has to be raised: It starts with the ITU Council IG Working
> Group Meetings in February, continues with UNESCO conferences and meetings
> of the UNCSTD, the HRC, the forthcoming Cybersecurity Conference in The
> Hague, the IGF in Brazil, the WSIS 10+ conference in New York in December
> 2015 and others.
>
> Civil Society does not speak with one voice. It is characterized by a
> broad diversity. This is not a weakness, this is a strength. It reflects
> the reality. And it is not different from the diversity within other
> stakeholder groups. In the governmental stakeholder group you have a broad
> varierty of positions - from the US via EU, Brazil, Egypt and India to
> China. In the private sector stakeholder group there are different
> approaches among transnational corporations and small and medium
> enterprises from developed and developing countries. And even among the I*
> organizations there are differences, as we have seen recently in the
> positioning towards the NetMundial initiative. This pluralism and diversity
> reflects the reality of the Internet Governance ecosystem. If one want to
> achieve sustainable progress a rough consensus has to include the main
> arguments from the main groups of all stakeholders. To achieve concrete
> results openess and transparency with regard to the various positions is a
> key pre-condition to promote mutual understanding.
>
> Insofar it would be good if civil society Internet Governance groups or
> individuals could describe openly what they are standing for. To have on
> paper the various perspectives different civil society groups have if it
> comes to Internet policy related issues would be useful anbd could enhance
> civil society input into the forthcoming negotiations, in particular with
> regard to WSIS 10+.
>
> Since I did send this proposals to this list I got numerous comments and
> critical remarks. Some respondents supported the project and called it a
> good idea. Others argued that this is a bad, unrealistic and
> counterproductive idea. Many partners made concrete proposals how such a
> project could be further enhanced. Taking into account all the feed back I
> got since last month I would specify my proposal in the following way:
>
> I. Ian Peter, in his capacity as acting chair of the CSCG, should function
> as the main editor. Each member of the CSCG should nominate a co-editor.
> The role of the editor and the co-editors would be technical. They should
> not intervene into the content of the individual contributions. The six
> co-editors of the six member groups of the CWSG should invite four
> contributors from their group, one for each chapter. It is up to the groups
> whether the individual author expresses his own individual position or
> represents the position of the whole group. Each contribution should be 4 -
> 8 pages. Each author would be free to cover either the whole subject or to
> select a special sub-item.
>
> II. The book should have four chapters:
> 1. Human Rights and Internet(Access, Freedom of Expression, Privacy,
> Content, Culture etc.)
> 2. Security in Cyberspace (Cyberwar, Cyberterrorism, Cybercrime,
> Surveillance, National Sovereignty etc.)
> 3. Social, Economic and Cultural Development (Digital Divide, Market
> Domination, Competition, Infrastructure Development, Cultural and
> Linguistic Diversity etc.)
> 4. Technical Coordination (Names, Numbers, Protocols, Accountability etc.)
>
> III. Timetable
> It would be good to have a first draft ready until early May (for the
> Meeting of the UNCSTD). The final e-Version of the whole book should be
> ready until early September for use by the WSIS 10+ negotiations groups. A
> formal presentation should be organized during the 10th IGF in Brazil.
> Efforts should be undertake to produce also a paper version for
> distribution at the 10th IGF in November 2014.
>
> Best regards
>
> Wolfgang
>
> PS:
> I have described the "Four Baskets" more in detail in my blog in CircleID
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150103_internet_governance_
> outlook_2015_2_processes_many_venues_4_baskets/
>
> w
>
>
>
> Hi everybody
>
> After weeks of confusing conflicts let´s move towards clarifying
> collaboration. What we have seen in the recent (sometimes unfriendly)
> disputes is that there are many different  civil society activists with
> different civil society positions. This is confusing, both for newcomers
> who want to join civil society groups in Internet Governance discussions as
> well as for other stakeholders who want to collaborate with civil society.
> On the othher Hand: This is natural. The civil Society Stakeholder Groups
> has similar differences as the governmental stakeholder group if you
> compare the governmental positions of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, US, EU,
> Brazil, India, Japan, Australia etc.
> This not the Problem. The probllem is that you have to know what the
> position. So it is about transparency and clarity.
>
> Here is a proposal how to move forward:  We have seen so many people
> writing long e-mails arguing for their position. Wouldn´t it be better if
> we use this energy to write more comprehensive and structured position or
> issue papers so that newbies or outsiders will better understand what the
> real points under discussions are in CS circles? We have seen rather
> different arguments around the same issue from JNC to APC and NCUC folks.
>
> I propose that we start to work on what I call a "Civil Society Internet
> Governance Handbook".  This handbook would allow all CS groups within the
> CSCG to present their own individual points of views so that everybody
> knows what the positions are. The book could be structured into four main
> chapters:
>
> 1. Human Rights (Access, Freedom of Expression, Privacy etc.)
> 2. Security (Cyberwar, Cyberterrorism, Cybercrime etc.)
> 3. Economic Development (Market domination, competition, infrastructure
> development etc.)
> 4. Technical Coordination (Names, Numbers, Protocols etc.)
>
> Each of the six groups under the CSCG (IGC, BB, JNC, NCSG, Diplo, APC)
> could nominate four authors (one for each chapter). Each author would be
> free to argue for her/his position (five to maximum teen pages). There is
> no need for consensus. Every author would be free to present her/his
> radical, moderate, liberal and whatsoever position on one of the four main
> issues.
>
> Such a compendium would help to bring more transparency into the process
> and would enable a more fact based discussion in the IG events ahead of us.
>
> We could deliver this as an e-book (probably with an Annex with main
> official texts as Tunis Agenda, Sao Paulo Principles, UN Resolutions etc.)
> until the May 2015 Sessions in Geneva. In total this book would be around
> 250 pages. If we find a sponsor we could publish this for the New York
> event in December 2015. Such a book would seen by the rest of the IG
> Community as a helpful contribution, it would strengthen the role of CS in
> the emerging IG multistakeholder mechanisms and would be also an input into
> the WSIS 10+ process.
>
> The chair of the CSCG (together with the co-chairs from the six groups)
> would be the editor.
>
> Any comment?
>
> 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
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150126/dfec0965/attachment.htm>

From ca at cafonso.ca  Wed Jan  7 09:51:43 2015
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 12:51:43 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] A BR view of multistkaholder processes...
Message-ID: <54AD47FF.1000803@cafonso.ca>

Just published in the IEEE Internet Computing journal:

http://online.qmags.com/IC0115?sessionID=BD7A2B7CBEF89C57D8F47874E&cid=3193795&eid=19210#pg76&mode2

The Origin and Evolution of Multistakeholder Models

Virgilio Almeida - Federal University of Minas Gerais
Demi Getschko - Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo
Carlos Afonso - Instituto Nupef, Rio de Janeiro

Abstract: Various domains have adopted multistakeholder models (MSMs) to
address and deal with global challenges, such as sustainability,
environment, climate, and Internet governance. Here, the authors examine
the use of MSMs and their historical evolution, fundamentals, and
characteristics. They also present examples of how such models are used
in the global Internet governance ecosystem. Finally, the article
presents a series of research questions that can be tackled to improve
the efficiency of multistakeholder processes.

frt rgds

--c.a.

From kichango at gmail.com  Mon Jan 26 10:00:39 2015
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 15:00:39 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] AW: From Confusion to Clarification
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v-tsTzgPbiTMQYYuhdSkdYqUyxFLqjkO930Uq+HU0MTpg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba> <54762985.2010101@apc.org>
 <053001d009ba$768cf260$63a6d720$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A86@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <D52271F36A224E63965667671E785EE1@Toshiba> <CACTo+v-tsTzgPbiTMQYYuhdSkdYqUyxFLqjkO930Uq+HU0MTpg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v9MxQx3UTLXj4nDbR5aOhE4gT4UyfwybqNFyq=9YCooXQ@mail.gmail.com>

N.B. Of course there also is APC as a clearly identifiable CS party under
the parasol of rights, but I would say more specifically women rights (as
several other CS families can also claim HR as their compass.) Anyway, that
was just to correct an oversight. For the rest it is up to each grouping to
come up with their best and accurate self-characterization. And just for
the sake of being complete, Diplo is an hybrid in my view and I'm not sure
how they would characterize their CS commitments (and btw, if my
information is correct they have announced their intention to withdraw from
CSCG which causes another problem if you rely on the latter to define which
groups will be included in this proposed opus.) Civicus has never really
engaged wiith CSCG as far as I can tell.

mC


On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 8:30 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Wolfgang,
>>
>> I am glad you raised this again, because I think the idea is great.
>>
>> I am not sure that a direct correlation with CSCG and with the different
>> groups within civil society who are CSCG members is the best way to proceed
>> (eg one JNC article followed by one Best Bits article etc) - because I
>> think many of our best people sit between and across various groups and I
>> am not sure that direct characterisation of opinions with groupings is
>> always accurate or helpful.
>>
>
> This has been my concern, too, from my very first reply to the initial
> proposal, and still remains. We are far from having a homomorphism between
> the CSCG member groupings and the "diverse voices" you are referring to,
> Wolfgang. It seems to me the most identifiable voice(s) within the CSCG
> setting -- in terms of what all members stand for -- include JNC (social
> justice) and maybe BestBits (?), both of whom spun off from IGC where they
> still have their footprint aside possible other voices. In other words, IGC
> which is also a CSCG member is certainly not one voice. I suspect there is
> also notable diversity of voices within NCSG although it is my sense that
> they have clearer and tested working processes and are more ready to reach
> a common position on a whole host of issues than IGC does. Furthermore you
> have
> on the other hand
> folks such as JFC and their following, whom I am not sure to what extent
> they overlap with JNC and to what extent they have a distinct voice.
>
> All of this to say, you may go with the above groupings but I am not sure
> they will provide a clear map of the actual voices that exist within CS in
> terms of families of thought, basic assumptions, visions, goals, values or
> principles of commitments, etc. If we can find a practical way to identify
> those, that would be great but I recognize it might be challenging. I am
> just putting the idea out there so that we recognize that potential
> limitation and see whether we can come up with some innovative ways to work
> around it. (Again, I also understand that you may just have made the
> deliberate choice to start from the existing _social groupings_
>  and let them
> bear the responsibility to put forward their common voice OR their diverse
> voices on the issues, taking the burden away from the architect of the
> project (outline of the volume) as well as from the editors and placing it
> on the groups themselves, which will not make IGC business any easier ;-)
> Nevertheless, this approach also has its won merits.)
>
>
> Mawaki
>
>
>
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
>> Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 11:15 PM
>> To: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; michael
>> gurstein ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Subject: [governance] AW: From Confusion to Clarification
>>
>>
>> Dear friends,
>>
>> six weeks ago I made a proposal under the thread "From Confusion to
>> Clarification" to produce a Civil Society Internet Governance Compendium or
>> Handbook. What was the idea behind the proposal?
>>
>> Civil Society is a recognized and needed stakeholder in the global
>> Internet Governance debate and a needed partner in the evolving
>> multistakeholder approaches to manage Internet related public policy issues.
>> 2015 will see a number of Internet Governance events where the voice of
>> civil society has to be raised: It starts with the ITU Council IG Working
>> Group Meetings in February, continues with UNESCO conferences and meetings
>> of the UNCSTD, the HRC, the forthcoming Cybersecurity Conference in The
>> Hague, the IGF in Brazil, the WSIS 10+ conference in New York in December
>> 2015 and others.
>>
>> Civil Society does not speak with one voice. It is characterized by a
>> broad diversity. This is not a weakness, this is a strength. It reflects
>> the reality. And it is not different from the diversity within other
>> stakeholder groups. In the governmental stakeholder group you have a broad
>> varierty of positions - from the US via EU, Brazil, Egypt and India to
>> China. In the private sector stakeholder group there are different
>> approaches among transnational corporations and small and medium
>> enterprises from developed and developing countries. And even among the I*
>> organizations there are differences, as we have seen recently in the
>> positioning towards the NetMundial initiative. This pluralism and diversity
>> reflects the reality of the Internet Governance ecosystem. If one want to
>> achieve sustainable progress a rough consensus has to include the main
>> arguments from the main groups of all stakeholders. To achieve concrete
>> results openess and transparency with regard to the various positions is a
>> key pre-condition to promote mutual understanding.
>>
>> Insofar it would be good if civil society Internet Governance groups or
>> individuals could describe openly what they are standing for. To have on
>> paper the various perspectives different civil society groups have if it
>> comes to Internet policy related issues would be useful anbd could enhance
>> civil society input into the forthcoming negotiations, in particular with
>> regard to WSIS 10+.
>>
>> Since I did send this proposals to this list I got numerous comments and
>> critical remarks. Some respondents supported the project and called it a
>> good idea. Others argued that this is a bad, unrealistic and
>> counterproductive idea. Many partners made concrete proposals how such a
>> project could be further enhanced. Taking into account all the feed back I
>> got since last month I would specify my proposal in the following way:
>>
>> I. Ian Peter, in his capacity as acting chair of the CSCG, should
>> function as the main editor. Each member of the CSCG should nominate a
>> co-editor. The role of the editor and the co-editors would be technical.
>> They should not intervene into the content of the individual contributions.
>> The six co-editors of the six member groups of the CWSG should invite four
>> contributors from their group, one for each chapter. It is up to the groups
>> whether the individual author expresses his own individual position or
>> represents the position of the whole group. Each contribution should be 4 -
>> 8 pages. Each author would be free to cover either the whole subject or to
>> select a special sub-item.
>>
>> II. The book should have four chapters:
>> 1. Human Rights and Internet(Access, Freedom of Expression, Privacy,
>> Content, Culture etc.)
>> 2. Security in Cyberspace (Cyberwar, Cyberterrorism, Cybercrime,
>> Surveillance, National Sovereignty etc.)
>> 3. Social, Economic and Cultural Development (Digital Divide, Market
>> Domination, Competition, Infrastructure Development, Cultural and
>> Linguistic Diversity etc.)
>> 4. Technical Coordination (Names, Numbers, Protocols, Accountability etc.)
>>
>> III. Timetable
>> It would be good to have a first draft ready until early May (for the
>> Meeting of the UNCSTD). The final e-Version of the whole book should be
>> ready until early September for use by the WSIS 10+ negotiations groups. A
>> formal presentation should be organized during the 10th IGF in Brazil.
>> Efforts should be undertake to produce also a paper version for
>> distribution at the 10th IGF in November 2014.
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> Wolfgang
>>
>> PS:
>> I have described the "Four Baskets" more in detail in my blog in CircleID
>> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150103_internet_governance_
>> outlook_2015_2_processes_many_venues_4_baskets/
>>
>> w
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi everybody
>>
>> After weeks of confusing conflicts let´s move towards clarifying
>> collaboration. What we have seen in the recent (sometimes unfriendly)
>> disputes is that there are many different  civil society activists with
>> different civil society positions. This is confusing, both for newcomers
>> who want to join civil society groups in Internet Governance discussions as
>> well as for other stakeholders who want to collaborate with civil society.
>> On the othher Hand: This is natural. The civil Society Stakeholder Groups
>> has similar differences as the governmental stakeholder group if you
>> compare the governmental positions of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, US, EU,
>> Brazil, India, Japan, Australia etc.
>> This not the Problem. The probllem is that you have to know what the
>> position. So it is about transparency and clarity.
>>
>> Here is a proposal how to move forward:  We have seen so many people
>> writing long e-mails arguing for their position. Wouldn´t it be better if
>> we use this energy to write more comprehensive and structured position or
>> issue papers so that newbies or outsiders will better understand what the
>> real points under discussions are in CS circles? We have seen rather
>> different arguments around the same issue from JNC to APC and NCUC folks.
>>
>> I propose that we start to work on what I call a "Civil Society Internet
>> Governance Handbook".  This handbook would allow all CS groups within the
>> CSCG to present their own individual points of views so that everybody
>> knows what the positions are. The book could be structured into four main
>> chapters:
>>
>> 1. Human Rights (Access, Freedom of Expression, Privacy etc.)
>> 2. Security (Cyberwar, Cyberterrorism, Cybercrime etc.)
>> 3. Economic Development (Market domination, competition, infrastructure
>> development etc.)
>> 4. Technical Coordination (Names, Numbers, Protocols etc.)
>>
>> Each of the six groups under the CSCG (IGC, BB, JNC, NCSG, Diplo, APC)
>> could nominate four authors (one for each chapter). Each author would be
>> free to argue for her/his position (five to maximum teen pages). There is
>> no need for consensus. Every author would be free to present her/his
>> radical, moderate, liberal and whatsoever position on one of the four main
>> issues.
>>
>> Such a compendium would help to bring more transparency into the process
>> and would enable a more fact based discussion in the IG events ahead of us.
>>
>> We could deliver this as an e-book (probably with an Annex with main
>> official texts as Tunis Agenda, Sao Paulo Principles, UN Resolutions etc.)
>> until the May 2015 Sessions in Geneva. In total this book would be around
>> 250 pages. If we find a sponsor we could publish this for the New York
>> event in December 2015. Such a book would seen by the rest of the IG
>> Community as a helpful contribution, it would strengthen the role of CS in
>> the emerging IG multistakeholder mechanisms and would be also an input into
>> the WSIS 10+ process.
>>
>> The chair of the CSCG (together with the co-chairs from the six groups)
>> would be the editor.
>>
>> Any comment?
>>
>> 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
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150126/82392ab9/attachment.htm>

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Mon Jan 26 11:31:38 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:31:38 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] AW: From Confusion to Clarification
In-Reply-To: <CAAYFVLuxSTLpbhF4_+CJxHhVY-1+O7KtbM_sXtk5odNuJpQ5+A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba> <54762985.2010101@apc.org>
 <053001d009ba$768cf260$63a6d720$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A86@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <D52271F36A224E63965667671E785EE1@Toshiba> <CACTo+v-tsTzgPbiTMQYYuhdSkdYqUyxFLqjkO930Uq+HU0MTpg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v9MxQx3UTLXj4nDbR5aOhE4gT4UyfwybqNFyq=9YCooXQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAAYFVLuxSTLpbhF4_+CJxHhVY-1+O7KtbM_sXtk5odNuJpQ5+A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN4ETabZUGPzhc7nZd7jZUsDdJ8rygfHJtWyMca2+T6nhQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Jose,
Thank you.
I think this message makes very good suggestions.
Expect to hear more from us when Analia and I can reply together.
Meanwhile thank you again
Deirdre

Estimado José,
Gracias.
Creo que este mensaje hace muy buenas sugerencias.
Espera escuchar más de nosotros cuando Analia y yo puedo responder juntos.
Mientras tanto gracias de nuevo
Deirdre

On 26 January 2015 at 12:15, José Félix Arias Ynche <jaryn56 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Podemos estar un poco lejos de una estructura similar y de composición
> de ideas y voces, pero eso no quiere decir que estemos lejos de llegar
> éticamente a un acuerdo de las diversas voces de los grupos, tanto
> dentro de la CSCG o de NCSG, o de diversos grupos no afiliados e
> independientes sobre la Gobernanza de Internet.
>
> Lo que falta es un llamado al dialogo y discusión sobre un fin, en el
> cual todos den su opinión y sobre ello llegar a un acuerdo en donde no
> haya vencidos ni vencedores.
>
> Podemos comenzar como ejemplo un dialogo de ideas y sugerencias en
> nuestra lista, pidiéndoles a todos los miembros que den su parecer o
> su punto de vista de los temas que se debe de discutir o enriquecer
> para llegar a un acuerdo, porque creo que aun dentro de nuestra lista
> governance.lists.igcaucus.org, no todos comparten las misas opiniones
> o ideas
>
>
> Todo esto no quiere decir que de inmediato tendremos un mapa claro de
> las voces de los diversos miembros o de las demás agrupaciones
> aceptando, pero si estoy seguro de que proporcionará un mapa claro de
> las voces reales que existen dentro de las diversas agrupaciones sobre
> la Gobernanza de Internet, y con ello dar el nacimiento a lo que
> podría ser a nivel mundial, como por ejemplo:
>
> ·  Los supuestos básicos en lo que se debe de regir una “Constitución
> Única” sobre la Gobernanza de Internet.
>
> ·  Sus visiones y metas.
>
>
>
> Todo ello es un reto, pero la idea es que aun siendo un reto grande,
> tenemos que tener la voluntad de decidirnos a encontrar una forma de
> unir criterios, ideas y voces, de que si podemos llegar a formas
> innovadoras de unidad de ideas y de trabajar alrededor de ella.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Cordialmente:         José Félix Arias Ynche
>                         Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo
>
>
> 2015-01-26 10:00 GMT-05:00 Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>:
> > N.B. Of course there also is APC as a clearly identifiable CS party under
> > the parasol of rights, but I would say more specifically women rights (as
> > several other CS families can also claim HR as their compass.) Anyway,
> that
> > was just to correct an oversight. For the rest it is up to each grouping
> to
> > come up with their best and accurate self-characterization. And just for
> the
> > sake of being complete, Diplo is an hybrid in my view and I'm not sure
> how
> > they would characterize their CS commitments (and btw, if my information
> is
> > correct they have announced their intention to withdraw from CSCG which
> > causes another problem if you rely on the latter to define which groups
> will
> > be included in this proposed opus.) Civicus has never really engaged
> wiith
> > CSCG as far as I can tell.
> >
> > mC
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 8:30 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Wolfgang,
> >>>
> >>> I am glad you raised this again, because I think the idea is great.
> >>>
> >>> I am not sure that a direct correlation with CSCG and with the
> different
> >>> groups within civil society who are CSCG members is the best way to
> proceed
> >>> (eg one JNC article followed by one Best Bits article etc) - because I
> think
> >>> many of our best people sit between and across various groups and I am
> not
> >>> sure that direct characterisation of opinions with groupings is always
> >>> accurate or helpful.
> >>
> >>
> >> This has been my concern, too, from my very first reply to the initial
> >> proposal, and still remains. We are far from having a homomorphism
> between
> >> the CSCG member groupings and the "diverse voices" you are referring to,
> >> Wolfgang. It seems to me the most identifiable voice(s) within the CSCG
> >> setting -- in terms of what all members stand for -- include JNC (social
> >> justice) and maybe BestBits (?), both of whom spun off from IGC where
> they
> >> still have their footprint aside possible other voices. In other words,
> IGC
> >> which is also a CSCG member is certainly not one voice. I suspect there
> is
> >> also notable diversity of voices within NCSG although it is my sense
> that
> >> they have clearer and tested working processes and are more ready to
> reach a
> >> common position on a whole host of issues than IGC does. Furthermore you
> >> have
> >> on the other hand
> >> folks such as JFC and their following, whom I am not sure to what extent
> >> they overlap with JNC and to what extent they have a distinct voice.
> >>
> >> All of this to say, you may go with the above groupings but I am not
> sure
> >> they will provide a clear map of the actual voices that exist within CS
> in
> >> terms of families of thought, basic assumptions, visions, goals, values
> or
> >> principles of commitments, etc. If we can find a practical way to
> identify
> >> those, that would be great but I recognize it might be challenging. I am
> >> just putting the idea out there so that we recognize that potential
> >> limitation and see whether we can come up with some innovative ways to
> work
> >> around it. (Again, I also understand that you may just have made the
> >> deliberate choice to start from the existing _social groupings_
> >>  and let them
> >> bear the responsibility to put forward their common voice OR their
> diverse
> >> voices on the issues, taking the burden away from the architect of the
> >> project (outline of the volume) as well as from the editors and placing
> it
> >> on the groups themselves, which will not make IGC business any easier
> ;-)
> >> Nevertheless, this approach also has its won merits.)
> >>
> >>
> >> Mawaki
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
> >>> Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 11:15 PM
> >>> To: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; michael
> >>> gurstein ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >>> Subject: [governance] AW: From Confusion to Clarification
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Dear friends,
> >>>
> >>> six weeks ago I made a proposal under the thread "From Confusion to
> >>> Clarification" to produce a Civil Society Internet Governance
> Compendium or
> >>> Handbook. What was the idea behind the proposal?
> >>>
> >>> Civil Society is a recognized and needed stakeholder in the global
> >>> Internet Governance debate and a needed partner in the evolving
> >>> multistakeholder approaches to manage Internet related public policy
> issues.
> >>> 2015 will see a number of Internet Governance events where the voice of
> >>> civil society has to be raised: It starts with the ITU Council IG
> Working
> >>> Group Meetings in February, continues with UNESCO conferences and
> meetings
> >>> of the UNCSTD, the HRC, the forthcoming Cybersecurity Conference in The
> >>> Hague, the IGF in Brazil, the WSIS 10+ conference in New York in
> December
> >>> 2015 and others.
> >>>
> >>> Civil Society does not speak with one voice. It is characterized by a
> >>> broad diversity. This is not a weakness, this is a strength. It
> reflects the
> >>> reality. And it is not different from the diversity within other
> stakeholder
> >>> groups. In the governmental stakeholder group you have a broad
> varierty of
> >>> positions - from the US via EU, Brazil, Egypt and India to China. In
> the
> >>> private sector stakeholder group there are different approaches among
> >>> transnational corporations and small and medium enterprises from
> developed
> >>> and developing countries. And even among the I* organizations there are
> >>> differences, as we have seen recently in the positioning towards the
> >>> NetMundial initiative. This pluralism and diversity reflects the
> reality of
> >>> the Internet Governance ecosystem. If one want to achieve sustainable
> >>> progress a rough consensus has to include the main arguments from the
> main
> >>> groups of all stakeholders. To achieve concrete results openess and
> >>> transparency with regard to the various positions is a key
> pre-condition to
> >>> promote mutual understanding.
> >>>
> >>> Insofar it would be good if civil society Internet Governance groups or
> >>> individuals could describe openly what they are standing for. To have
> on
> >>> paper the various perspectives different civil society groups have if
> it
> >>> comes to Internet policy related issues would be useful anbd could
> enhance
> >>> civil society input into the forthcoming negotiations, in particular
> with
> >>> regard to WSIS 10+.
> >>>
> >>> Since I did send this proposals to this list I got numerous comments
> and
> >>> critical remarks. Some respondents supported the project and called it
> a
> >>> good idea. Others argued that this is a bad, unrealistic and
> >>> counterproductive idea. Many partners made concrete proposals how such
> a
> >>> project could be further enhanced. Taking into account all the feed
> back I
> >>> got since last month I would specify my proposal in the following way:
> >>>
> >>> I. Ian Peter, in his capacity as acting chair of the CSCG, should
> >>> function as the main editor. Each member of the CSCG should nominate a
> >>> co-editor. The role of the editor and the co-editors would be
> technical.
> >>> They should not intervene into the content of the individual
> contributions.
> >>> The six co-editors of the six member groups of the CWSG should invite
> four
> >>> contributors from their group, one for each chapter. It is up to the
> groups
> >>> whether the individual author expresses his own individual position or
> >>> represents the position of the whole group. Each contribution should
> be 4 -
> >>> 8 pages. Each author would be free to cover either the whole subject
> or to
> >>> select a special sub-item.
> >>>
> >>> II. The book should have four chapters:
> >>> 1. Human Rights and Internet(Access, Freedom of Expression, Privacy,
> >>> Content, Culture etc.)
> >>> 2. Security in Cyberspace (Cyberwar, Cyberterrorism, Cybercrime,
> >>> Surveillance, National Sovereignty etc.)
> >>> 3. Social, Economic and Cultural Development (Digital Divide, Market
> >>> Domination, Competition, Infrastructure Development, Cultural and
> Linguistic
> >>> Diversity etc.)
> >>> 4. Technical Coordination (Names, Numbers, Protocols, Accountability
> >>> etc.)
> >>>
> >>> III. Timetable
> >>> It would be good to have a first draft ready until early May (for the
> >>> Meeting of the UNCSTD). The final e-Version of the whole book should be
> >>> ready until early September for use by the WSIS 10+ negotiations
> groups. A
> >>> formal presentation should be organized during the 10th IGF in Brazil.
> >>> Efforts should be undertake to produce also a paper version for
> distribution
> >>> at the 10th IGF in November 2014.
> >>>
> >>> Best regards
> >>>
> >>> Wolfgang
> >>>
> >>> PS:
> >>> I have described the "Four Baskets" more in detail in my blog in
> CircleID
> >>>
> >>>
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150103_internet_governance_outlook_2015_2_processes_many_venues_4_baskets/
> >>>
> >>> w
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Hi everybody
> >>>
> >>> After weeks of confusing conflicts let´s move towards clarifying
> >>> collaboration. What we have seen in the recent (sometimes unfriendly)
> >>> disputes is that there are many different  civil society activists with
> >>> different civil society positions. This is confusing, both for
> newcomers who
> >>> want to join civil society groups in Internet Governance discussions
> as well
> >>> as for other stakeholders who want to collaborate with civil society.
> On the
> >>> othher Hand: This is natural. The civil Society Stakeholder Groups has
> >>> similar differences as the governmental stakeholder group if you
> compare the
> >>> governmental positions of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, US, EU, Brazil,
> >>> India, Japan, Australia etc.
> >>> This not the Problem. The probllem is that you have to know what the
> >>> position. So it is about transparency and clarity.
> >>>
> >>> Here is a proposal how to move forward:  We have seen so many people
> >>> writing long e-mails arguing for their position. Wouldn´t it be better
> if we
> >>> use this energy to write more comprehensive and structured position or
> issue
> >>> papers so that newbies or outsiders will better understand what the
> real
> >>> points under discussions are in CS circles? We have seen rather
> different
> >>> arguments around the same issue from JNC to APC and NCUC folks.
> >>>
> >>> I propose that we start to work on what I call a “Civil Society
> Internet
> >>> Governance Handbook”.  This handbook would allow all CS groups within
> the
> >>> CSCG to present their own individual points of views so that everybody
> knows
> >>> what the positions are. The book could be structured into four main
> >>> chapters:
> >>>
> >>> 1. Human Rights (Access, Freedom of Expression, Privacy etc.)
> >>> 2. Security (Cyberwar, Cyberterrorism, Cybercrime etc.)
> >>> 3. Economic Development (Market domination, competition, infrastructure
> >>> development etc.)
> >>> 4. Technical Coordination (Names, Numbers, Protocols etc.)
> >>>
> >>> Each of the six groups under the CSCG (IGC, BB, JNC, NCSG, Diplo, APC)
> >>> could nominate four authors (one for each chapter). Each author would
> be
> >>> free to argue for her/his position (five to maximum teen pages). There
> is no
> >>> need for consensus. Every author would be free to present her/his
> radical,
> >>> moderate, liberal and whatsoever position on one of the four main
> issues.
> >>>
> >>> Such a compendium would help to bring more transparency into the
> process
> >>> and would enable a more fact based discussion in the IG events ahead
> of us.
> >>>
> >>> We could deliver this as an e-book (probably with an Annex with main
> >>> official texts as Tunis Agenda, Sao Paulo Principles, UN Resolutions
> etc.)
> >>> until the May 2015 Sessions in Geneva. In total this book would be
> around
> >>> 250 pages. If we find a sponsor we could publish this for the New York
> event
> >>> in December 2015. Such a book would seen by the rest of the IG
> Community as
> >>> a helpful contribution, it would strengthen the role of CS in the
> emerging
> >>> IG multistakeholder mechanisms and would be also an input into the
> WSIS 10+
> >>> process.
> >>>
> >>> The chair of the CSCG (together with the co-chairs from the six groups)
> >>> would be the editor.
> >>>
> >>> Any comment?
> >>>
> >>> 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
> >>>
> >>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>> You received this message as 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
>
>


-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150126/56bef81a/attachment.htm>

From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Sun Jan 25 07:15:02 2015
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 13:15:02 +0100
Subject: AW: [bestbits] From Confusion to Clarification
References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba>
 <54762985.2010101@apc.org> <053001d009ba$768cf260$63a6d720$@gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A86@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Dear friends,

six weeks ago I made a proposal under the thread "From Confusion to Clarification" to produce a Civil Society Internet Governance Compendium or Handbook. What was the idea behind the proposal? 

Civil Society is a recognized and needed stakeholder in the global Internet Governance debate and a needed partner in the evolving multistakeholder approaches to manage Internet related public policy issues. 
2015 will see a number of Internet Governance events where the voice of civil society has to be raised: It starts with the ITU Council IG Working Group Meetings in February, continues with UNESCO conferences and meetings of the UNCSTD, the HRC, the forthcoming Cybersecurity Conference in The Hague, the IGF in Brazil, the WSIS 10+ conference in New York in December 2015 and others. 

Civil Society does not speak with one voice. It is characterized by a broad diversity. This is not a weakness, this is a strength. It reflects the reality. And it is not different from the diversity within other stakeholder groups. In the governmental stakeholder group you have a broad varierty of positions - from the US via EU, Brazil, Egypt and India to China. In the private sector stakeholder group there are different approaches among transnational corporations and small and medium enterprises from developed and developing countries. And even among the I* organizations there are differences, as we have seen recently in the positioning towards the NetMundial initiative. This pluralism and diversity reflects the reality of the Internet Governance ecosystem. If one want to achieve sustainable progress a rough consensus has to include the main arguments from the main groups of all stakeholders. To achieve concrete results openess and transparency with regard to the various positions is a key pre-condition to promote mutual understanding. 

Insofar it would be good if civil society Internet Governance groups or individuals could describe openly what they are standing for. To have on paper the various perspectives different civil society groups have if it comes to Internet policy related issues would be useful anbd could enhance civil society input into the forthcoming negotiations, in particular with regard to WSIS 10+.         

Since I did send this proposals to this list I got numerous comments and critical remarks. Some respondents supported the project and called it a good idea. Others argued that this is a bad, unrealistic and counterproductive idea. Many partners made concrete proposals how such a project could be further enhanced. Taking into account all the feed back I got since last month I would specify my proposal in the following way:

I. Ian Peter, in his capacity as acting chair of the CSCG, should function as the main editor. Each member of the CSCG should nominate a co-editor. The role of the editor and the co-editors would be technical. They should not intervene into the content of the individual contributions. The six co-editors of the six member groups of the CWSG should invite four contributors from their group, one for each chapter. It is up to the groups whether the individual author expresses his own individual position or represents the position of the whole group. Each contribution should be 4 - 8 pages. Each author would be free to cover either the whole subject or to select a special sub-item. 

II. The book should have four chapters:
1.	Human Rights and Internet(Access, Freedom of Expression, Privacy, Content, Culture etc.)
2.	Security in Cyberspace (Cyberwar, Cyberterrorism, Cybercrime, Surveillance, National Sovereignty etc.)
3.	Social, Economic and Cultural Development (Digital Divide, Market Domination, Competition, Infrastructure Development, Cultural and Linguistic Diversity etc.)
4.	Technical Coordination (Names, Numbers, Protocols, Accountability etc.)

III. Timetable
It would be good to have a first draft ready until early May (for the Meeting of the UNCSTD). The final e-Version of the whole book should be ready until early September for use by the WSIS 10+ negotiations groups. A formal presentation should be organized during the 10th IGF in Brazil. Efforts should be undertake to produce also a paper version for distribution at the 10th IGF in November 2014. 

Best regards

Wolfgang

PS: 
I have described the "Four Baskets" more in detail in my blog in CircleID 
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150103_internet_governance_outlook_2015_2_processes_many_venues_4_baskets/

w



Hi everybody

After weeks of confusing conflicts let´s move towards clarifying collaboration. What we have seen in the recent (sometimes unfriendly) disputes is that there are many different  civil society activists with different civil society positions. This is confusing, both for newcomers who want to join civil society groups in Internet Governance discussions as well as for other stakeholders who want to collaborate with civil society. On the othher Hand: This is natural. The civil Society Stakeholder Groups has similar differences as the governmental stakeholder group if you compare the governmental positions of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, US, EU, Brazil, India, Japan, Australia etc.
This not the Problem. The probllem is that you have to know what the position. So it is about transparency and clarity. 

Here is a proposal how to move forward:  We have seen so many people writing long e-mails arguing for their position. Wouldn´t it be better if we use this energy to write more comprehensive and structured position or issue papers so that newbies or outsiders will better understand what the real points under discussions are in CS circles? We have seen rather different arguments around the same issue from JNC to APC and NCUC folks.       

I propose that we start to work on what I call a “Civil Society Internet Governance Handbook”.  This handbook would allow all CS groups within the CSCG to present their own individual points of views so that everybody knows what the positions are. The book could be structured into four main chapters:

1.	Human Rights (Access, Freedom of Expression, Privacy etc.)
2.	Security (Cyberwar, Cyberterrorism, Cybercrime etc.)
3.	Economic Development (Market domination, competition, infrastructure development etc.)
4.	Technical Coordination (Names, Numbers, Protocols etc.)

Each of the six groups under the CSCG (IGC, BB, JNC, NCSG, Diplo, APC) could nominate four authors (one for each chapter). Each author would be free to argue for her/his position (five to maximum teen pages). There is no need for consensus. Every author would be free to present her/his radical, moderate, liberal and whatsoever position on one of the four main issues. 

Such a compendium would help to bring more transparency into the process and would enable a more fact based discussion in the IG events ahead of us.

We could deliver this as an e-book (probably with an Annex with main official texts as Tunis Agenda, Sao Paulo Principles, UN Resolutions etc.) until the May 2015 Sessions in Geneva. In total this book would be around 250 pages. If we find a sponsor we could publish this for the New York event in December 2015. Such a book would seen by the rest of the IG Community as a helpful contribution, it would strengthen the role of CS in the emerging IG multistakeholder mechanisms and would be also an input into the WSIS 10+ process. 

The chair of the CSCG (together with the co-chairs from the six groups) would be the editor.  

Any comment?

Wolfgang



From lea at gp-digital.org  Tue Jan 27 19:34:32 2015
From: lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar)
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 00:34:32 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] WSIS+10 Review - Info-sharing & CS coordination event
 [March 2, Paris]
Message-ID: <CAJTVAjwnazYyOhAaSFjBGbF2yAHQv6sPgZEnqPGmPG58U6v=gg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear friends,

On Monday, March 2, in Paris, a group of civil society organisations -
Global Partners Digital (GPD), Association for Progressive Communications
(APC), Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), International Federation
of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA), Internet Democracy
Project, and KICTANet – in collaboration with the Internet Society (ISOC) -
will be holding a *1-day event focused on the WSIS+10 Overall Review*.

The purpose of the event will be to raise awareness of the review process
and to facilitate coordination and strategy development for effective civil
society engagement. While principally aimed at coordinating civil society
efforts in engaging in the WSIS, part of the event will be dedicated to
facilitating cross-community dialogue with representatives from the
technical community, the business sector and governments. The event will be
held on the margins of UNESCO's CONNECTing the Dots
<http://www.unesco.org/new/en/netconference2015> conference.

A *briefing note* with basic background information about the WSIS and its
review can be found here:
http://bestbits.net/wsis10-overall-review-briefing-note/. We hope this is
useful and welcome any feedback.

To give us an idea of interest for this event among civil society, please *let
us know if you would be interested in attending* by RSVP-ing via this link:
http://bestbits.net/events/wsis10-coordination/ Please note that limited
funding for civil society from developing countries will be made available.

A draft agenda and relevant logistical details will be circulated closer to
the date.

If any organisations are interested in helping organise this event please
let me know off-list or by replying to this email.

With warm wishes,

*Lea Kaspar*

Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL

Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT

T: +44 (0)20 7549 033*7* | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 | Skype: l.kaspar

gp-digital.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150128/e1a6f923/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Wed Jan 28 11:00:02 2015
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 11:00:02 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: New Report: Data Beyond Borders
In-Reply-To: <0783c5af752516db406e4edd7d7e996790e.20150128140000@mail186.wdc02.mcdlv.net>
References: <0783c5af752516db406e4edd7d7e996790e.20150128140000@mail186.wdc02.mcdlv.net>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAf0_K+10VohVEQ=PyoH0yb-agtcHrsQJDyZpGqueYmLQQ@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Global Network Initiative <info at globalnetworkinitiative.org>
Date: Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 9:00 AM
Subject: New Report: Data Beyond Borders
To: C <carolina.rossini at gmail.com>


         A report released by GNI outlines key principles and specific
reforms to drive a human rights-based approach to MLA reform for the
twenty-first century.    View this email in your browser
<http://us5.campaign-archive2.com/?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=974a62b74c&e=d7e996790e>
<http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=8198c2ee46&e=d7e996790e>
<http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=fd236d3a5a&e=d7e996790e>
<http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=634384d9d8&e=d7e996790e>
<http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=82c1463aa8&e=d7e996790e>
<http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=6e6b459c45&e=d7e996790e>
      New
GNI Report Offers Reforms to Manage Rising Number of International Law
Enforcement Requests for User Data              WASHINGTON, DC—The Mutual
Legal Assistance (MLA) regime—which consists of hundreds of bilateral and
multilateral treaties that regulate government-to-government requests for
user data—has struggled to keep up with the enormous number of requests for
digital evidence arising from global Internet services. A report
<http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=8eb2f1502b&e=d7e996790e>
released today by the Global Network Initiative, entitled “Data Beyond
Borders: Mutual Legal Assistance in the Internet Era
<http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=b73ce26bdf&e=d7e996790e>,”
outlines key principles and specific reforms to drive a human rights-based
approach to MLA reform for the twenty-first century.

“When mutual legal assistance does not function swiftly and fairly,
governments resort to other tactics such as demanding data localization or
attempting to apply their laws extraterritorially,” says report author
Andrew K. Woods, assistant professor of law at the University of Kentucky.
He added, “It is therefore critical that states work together to make
mutual legal assistance more efficient and more protective of human rights.
This is not an impossible task: states that are serious about reforming MLA
can implement many of the most-urgent reforms in the next year.”

The report recommends that states work together to create a secure
electronic system for managing MLA requests, increase staffing for MLA
issues, and conduct thorough trainings at all levels of law enforcement to
ensure that MLA requests are generated and processed as efficiently as
possible and in a way that respects international human rights.

“This report offers a mutually beneficial approach to mutual legal
assistance reform,” says GNI Policy and Communications Director David
Sullivan. “Internet users, companies, and law enforcement officials would
all benefit from a robust, principled, and transparent system for managing
lawful requests across jurisdictions.”

###

Contact:
David Sullivan, dsullivan at globalnetworkinitiative.org, +1-646-595-5373

*GNI is a multi-stakeholder group of companies, civil society organizations
(including human rights and press freedom groups), investors and academics,
who have created a collaborative approach to protect and advance freedom of
expression and privacy in the ICT sector. GNI provides resources for ICT
companies to help them address difficult issues related to freedom of
expression and privacy that they may face anywhere in the world. GNI has
created a framework of principles and a confidential, collaborative
approach to working through challenges of corporate responsibility in the
ICT sector. Read more: www.globalnetworkinitiative.org
<http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=729ecb1f0b&e=d7e996790e>*

<http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=01435567c7&e=d7e996790e>
Share
<http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=4b0677cda2&e=d7e996790e>
<http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=da88157fd9&e=d7e996790e>
Tweet
<http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=1399cd5ca8&e=d7e996790e>
<http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=0c664dde74&e=d7e996790e>
Share
<http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=d2b8b7a76a&e=d7e996790e>
<http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=74f52816ea&e=d7e996790e>
  Download
the report.
<http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=ee2b718b17&e=d7e996790e>
Today at 1pm EST, the Center for Strategic and International Studies
<http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=f3f0fe2ce8&e=d7e996790e>
will host the report launch, featuring:

*Andrew K. Woods*
University of Kentucky College of Law

*Nicole Jones*
Google

*Gail Kent*
UK National Crime Agency

*Sarah St. Vincent*
Center for Democracy & Technology

*Frank Torres*
Microsoft

*James A. Lewis*
CSIS

WATCH THE LIVE STREAM
<http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=2aa3633cb6&e=d7e996790e>
               *Copyright
© 2015 Global Network Initiative, All rights reserved.*
You are receiving this email because you opted in at our website, or
through another method.

*Our mailing address is:*
Global Network Initiative
1634 I St. NW
Suite 1100
Washington, Dc 20006

Add us to your address book
<http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/vcard?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=8c54375c8a>


unsubscribe from this list
<http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=8c54375c8a&e=d7e996790e&c=974a62b74c>
update subscription preferences
<http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/profile?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=8c54375c8a&e=d7e996790e>


[image: Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp]
<http://www.mailchimp.com/monkey-rewards/?utm_source=freemium_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=monkey_rewards&aid=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&afl=1>



-- 
-- 
*Carolina Rossini *
*Vice President, International Policy*
*Public Knowledge*
*http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150128/1c01b95b/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed Jan 28 11:00:52 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 08:00:52 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Internet Social Forum-->Jeremy's
 Jeremiad and Philip's Phillipic
Message-ID: <01e601d03b13$982da510$c888ef30$@gmail.com>

McTim (or should I say (Sen.) McCarthy…

 

I’m hoping that folks are wise enough not to think that if a lie is repeated often enough and loudly enough and particularly if it can be referenced to a blogpost with a reference to a (slightly deranged err over the top) blogpost that provides significantly distorted and selective references to a further set of documents then somehow it has a reality beyond simply self-interested commentary (sigh, but such is the Internet… 

 

And now to:

 

Jeremy’s Jeremiad <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiad>  and Phillip’s Philippic <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippic> 

 

As they say the worst insult is to be ignored, and no publicity is bad publicity… so thanks folks for spreading the word about the JNC and the ISF.

                                                                                                                                             

That Philip got it wrong following Jeremy’s wild distortions and misrepresentations shouldn’t be too surprising.  I’ll leave a detailed cross referencing between reality and what Jeremy has oozed out to others with a more Talmudic bent but just to say that I’m expecting a libel action to be forthcoming from my PM Stephen Harper at the possibility that he might be funding my contributions to the JNC or the ISF (I would expect similar rumblings from various of the other “state actors” to which he might so circuitously and ponderously be referring).

 

But just to note—it is only in the minds of the profoundly anti-democratic (and historically illiterate) that statements to the effect that “The right to make Internet-related public policies lies exclusively with those who legitimately and directly represent people” is (mis) represented as calling for governance solely by and through existing governmental (or inter-governmental) structures or more specifically existing and very often undemocratic and unrepresentative governments and state structures/actors (whoever they may be).  

 

M

 

 

 

 

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 9:02 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal
Cc: parminder; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; discuss at 1net.org >> 1Net List
Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Internet Social Forum

 

Quoting a CircleID piece by Philip Corwin:

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150125_occupy_ig_internet_social_forum_targets_netmundial_initiative/

"The author is not familiar with most of the groups constituting ISF. As always, a good rule for understanding true intent is "follow the money". We'd find it illuminating to know where they get their funding and whether any state actors are involved (and a colleague more familiar with the global IG scene advises that at least several are indeed closely linked to their national governments, and are unsurprisingly more favorable toward the government-led multilateral approach on IG than the private sector oriented MSM). So there is some question as to whether ISF is a genuine grassroots Netizen movement — or a convergence of government-dominated organizations pairing with "useful idiot <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot> ” entities to pursue a broader and more pernicious agenda of undermining the MSM and replacing it with a UN-led, government-dominated one. "




 

On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 1:23 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:

Quoted a Register piece written by Kieren McCarthy

Hibernating NetMundial continues to rattle internet governance world  <http://t.co/0D2vSUtqqf> reg.cx/2dZG

 

As to NetMundial's three-month consultation period, that will seemingly be led by respected internet governance academic and ICANN Board member Wolfgang Kleinwachter. The NetMundial organizers did not reveal how much they will pay Kleinwachter to lend the initiative his credibility, but his first attempt to make the internet community learn to love the idea came in the form of a  <http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150103_internet_governance_outlook_2015_2_processes_many_venues_4_baskets/> blog post at the start of the year.

 

 

Le 24 janv. 2015 à 00:21, parminder a écrit :

 


On Friday 23 January 2015 11:31 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:

Hi Parminder,

 

how the ISF is linked to the IGF?


Hi Wolfgang

One is a civil society forum, the other a multistakeholder one. One develops people's and civil society's positions on the key issue of the global Internet, the other is a place where such positions can enter into dialogue with holders of political and economic power - the governments and the corporate actors.

Unless now the whole idea and concept of civil society - and along with those of people's movements, grassroots, activism, and so on - has been fully coopted in some people's mind with that of multistakeholderism (whatever one actually means by it, something that has remained notoriously unclear), the connection or link that you inquire about is extremely clear to me.

Internet is not the first thing for which there has been felt a need for 'independently' forming a people's conception and set of hopes, expectations and demands - away from conclaves of power. There have been scores of others, and newer ones continue to arise. Accordingly if people's and civil society forums etc have been meaningful and needed in these areas, it is incumbent upon *those* who think they are *not needed* in the Internet space to explain why it is so, then the other way around.

To put is somewhat flippantly, ISF is also a reaction of people who are fed up with an ongoing IG charade where for instance Fadi Chehade can with a straight face call the WEF's Net Mundial Initiative as the 'mother of all bottom -up processes' - even jokes require some plausibility limits!

To take the example of one of the latest international global forums on a key global governance issue, the Lima meeting on climate change, you will perhaps know that parallel to it a people's meeting was held. Internet and its governance also needs such meetings, that is the simple logic of the Internet Social Forum. If you think that in the Internet's case, such meetings and forums are not needed, I would of course be curious to hear your case.

I am happy to engage further with you on this issue, and answer your questions.

Lastly, let me invite you to join the ISF process. We work under the World Social Forum (WSF) process and principles - whereby its meetings are open to all civil society participants subject to very inimum conditions that are listed on their website.

Further, if the discussion is to now turn to the WSF, its meaning, relevance, etc, I am as happy to engage with you on that subject.

Regards, parminder



 

Wolfgang

 

 

 

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----

Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von parminder

Gesendet: Do 22.01.2015 17:01

An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org

Betreff: Re: [governance] Internet Social Forum

 Enclosed Spanish version... parminder

 

 

On Thursday 22 January 2015 07:06 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote:

Global Civil Society launches the Internet Social Forum

- With a call to occupy the Internet

 

PRESS RELEASE. Geneva, Switzerland, 22st January, 2015.

 

A group of civil society organisations from around the world has

announced the Internet Social Forum, to bring together and articulate

bottom-up perspectives on the 'Internet we want'. Taking inspiration

from the World Social Forum, and its clarion call, 'Another World is

possible', the group seeks to draw urgent attention to the increasing

centralization of the Internet for extraction of monopoly rents and for

socio-political control, asserting that 'Another Internet is possible'!

 

The Internet Social Forum will inter alia offer an alternative to the

recently-launched World Economic Forum's 'Net Mundial Initiative' on

global Internet governance. While the World Economic Forum (WEF) and

the 'Net Mundial Initiative' convene global elites, the Internet Social

Forum will be a participatory and bottom-up space for all those who

believe that the global Internet must evolve in the public interest; a

direct parallel to the launch of the World Social Forum in 2001 as a

counter initiative to the WEF.

 

The Internet Social Forum will reach out to grassroots groups and

social movements across the world, catalysing a groundswell that

challenges the entrenched elite interests that currently control how

the Internet is managed. The Internet Social Forum's preparatory

process will kick off during the World Social Forum to take place in

Tunis, March 24th to 28th, 2015. The Internet Social Forum itself is

planned to be held either late 2015 or early 2016.

 

"While the world's biggest companies have every right to debate the

future of the Internet, we are concerned that their perspectives should

not drown out those of ordinary people who have no access to the

privileged terrain WEF occupies - in the end it is this wider public

interest that must be paramount in governing the Internet. We are

organising the Internet Social Forum to make sure their voices can't be

ignored in the corridors of power," said Norbert Bollow, Co-Convenor of

the Just Net Coalition, which is one of the groups involved in the

initiative.

 

The Internet Social Forum, and its preparatory process, is intended as

a space to vision and build the 'Internet we want'. It will be

underpinned by values of democracy, human rights and social justice. It

will stand for participatory policy making and promote community media.

It will seek an Internet that is truly decentralized in its

architecture and based on people's full rights to data, information,

knowledge and other 'commons' that the Internet has enabled the world

community to generate and share.

 

Somewhat similar to Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee's call for a 'Magna

Carta for the Internet', the Internet Social Forum proposes to develop

a People's Internet Manifesto, through a bottom-up process involving

all concerned social groups and movements, in different areas, from

techies and ICT-for-development actors to media reform groups,

democracy movements and social justice activists.

 

This year will also see the 10 year high-level review of the World

Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), to be held in New York in

December. As a full-scale review of a major UN summit, this will be a

critical global political event. Since the WSIS, held in 2003 and 2005,

the Internet, and what it means socially, has undergone a paradigm

shift. The WSIS witnessed active engagement of civil society and

technical groups as well as of business. However, currently, there

seems to be an deliberate attempt to sideline this UN-led initiative on

governance issues of the information society and Internet in favour of

private, big-business-dominated initiatives like the WEF's Net Mundial

Initiative. The Internet Social Forum, while remaining primarily a

people's forum, will also seek to channel global civil society's

engagement towards the WSIS +10 review.

 

The following organisations form the initial group that is proposing

the Internet Social Forum, and many more are expected to join in the

immediate future. This is an open call to progressive groups from all

over the world to join this initiative, and participate in developing a

People's Internet Manifesto.

 

Just Net Coalition, Global

P2P Foundation, Global

Transnational Institute, Global

Forum on Communication for Integration of our America, Regional (Latin

America) Arab NGO Network for Development, Regional

Agencia Latinoamericana de Información, Regional

Alternative Informatics Association, Turkey

Knowledge Commons, India

Open-Root/EUROLINC, France

SLFC.in, India

CODE-IP Trust, Kenya

GodlyGlobal.org, Switzerland

Centre for Community Informatics Research, Development and Training,

Canada IT for Change, India

Association for Proper Internet Governance, Switzerland

Computer Professionals Union, Philippines

Free Press, USA

Advocates of Science and Technology for the People, Philippines

Other News, Italy

Free Software Movement of India

Global_Geneva, Switzerland

Solidarius (Solidarity Economy Network), Italy

All India Peoples Science Network, India

Institute for Local Self-Reliance - Community Broadband Networks, USA

 

Please contact us at secretariat at InternetSocialForum.net for further

information or clarification.

 

Or the following regional contacts:

 

Africa:        Alex Gakaru <AlexG at InternetSocialForum.net>

Asia:          Rishab Bailey <RishabB at InternetSocialForum.net>

Europe:        Norbert Bollow <NorbertB at InternetSocialForum.net>

North America: Micheal Gurstein <MichealG at InternetSocialForum.net>

South America: Sally Burch <SallyB at InternetSocialForum.net>

 

 

This press release is also available online, e.g. at

http://justnetcoalition.org/ISF

 

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as 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




-- 

Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150128/8a1c8850/attachment.htm>

From avri at acm.org  Wed Jan 28 12:23:06 2015
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 12:23:06 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Internet Social Forum-->Jeremy's
 Jeremiad and Philip's Phillipic
In-Reply-To: <01e601d03b13$982da510$c888ef30$@gmail.com>
References: <01e601d03b13$982da510$c888ef30$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54C91AFA.9040403@acm.org>

Hi,

I must say, I am in complete agreement with the notion that a lie
repeated often enough neither becomes the truth nor  represents that
which is the case.

A main issue, however, is identifying whose statements constitute lies,
and I expect there are differences of opinion on who is putting forward
falsehoods.

Beyond that, I did not know we had any US Senators on this list.  
Living or dead.

avri


On 28-Jan-15 11:00, michael gurstein wrote:
>
> McTim (or should I say (Sen.) McCarthy…
>
>  
>
> I’m hoping that folks are wise enough not to think that if a lie is
> repeated often enough and loudly enough and particularly if it can be
> referenced to a blogpost with a reference to a (slightly deranged err
> over the top) blogpost that provides significantly distorted and
> selective references to a further set of documents then somehow it has
> a reality beyond simply self-interested commentary (sigh, but such is
> the Internet…
>
>  
>
> And now to:
>
>  
>
> Jeremy’s Jeremiad <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiad> and
> Phillip’s Philippic <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippic>
>
>  
>
> As they say the worst insult is to be ignored, and no publicity is bad
> publicity… so thanks folks for spreading the word about the JNC and
> the ISF.
>
>                                                                                                                                             
>
>
> That Philip got it wrong following Jeremy’s wild distortions and
> misrepresentations shouldn’t be too surprising.  I’ll leave a detailed
> cross referencing between reality and what Jeremy has oozed out to
> others with a more Talmudic bent but just to say that I’m expecting a
> libel action to be forthcoming from my PM Stephen Harper at the
> possibility that he might be funding my contributions to the JNC or
> the ISF (I would expect similar rumblings from various of the other
> “state actors” to which he might so circuitously and ponderously be
> referring).
>
>  
>
> But just to note—it is only in the minds of the profoundly
> anti-democratic (and historically illiterate) that statements to the
> effect that “The right to make Internet-related public policies lies
> exclusively with those who legitimately and directly represent
> people”is (mis) represented as calling for governance solely by and
> through existing governmental (or inter-governmental) structures or
> more specifically existing and very often undemocratic and
> unrepresentative governments and state structures/actors (whoever they
> may be). 
>
>  
>
> M
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *McTim
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 27, 2015 9:02 AM
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The
> Global Journal
> *Cc:* parminder; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; discuss at 1net.org >> 1Net
> List
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] [governance] Internet Social Forum
>
>  
>
> Quoting a CircleID piece by Philip Corwin:
>
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150125_occupy_ig_internet_social_forum_targets_netmundial_initiative/
>
> "The author is not familiar with most of the groups constituting ISF.
> As always, a good rule for understanding true intent is "follow the
> money". We'd find it illuminating to know where they get their funding
> and whether any state actors are involved (and a colleague more
> familiar with the global IG scene advises that at least several are
> indeed closely linked to their national governments, and are
> unsurprisingly more favorable toward the government-led multilateral
> approach on IG than the private sector oriented MSM). So there is some
> question as to whether ISF is a genuine grassroots Netizen movement —
> or a convergence of government-dominated organizations pairing with
> "useful idiot <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot>” entities
> to pursue a broader and more pernicious agenda of undermining the MSM
> and replacing it with a UN-led, government-dominated one. "
>
>
>  
>
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 1:23 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
> Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
> <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>> wrote:
>
> Quoted a Register piece written by Kieren McCarthy
>
> Hibernating NetMundial continues to rattle internet governance
> world reg.cx/2dZG <http://t.co/0D2vSUtqqf>
>
>  
>
> As to NetMundial's three-month consultation period, that will
> seemingly be led by respected internet governance academic and ICANN
> Board member Wolfgang Kleinwachter. The NetMundial organizers did not
> reveal how much they will pay Kleinwachter to lend the initiative his
> credibility, but his first attempt to make the internet community
> learn to love the idea came in the form of a blog post
> <http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150103_internet_governance_outlook_2015_2_processes_many_venues_4_baskets/> at
> the start of the year.
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Le 24 janv. 2015 à 00:21, parminder a écrit :
>
>  
>
>
> On Friday 23 January 2015 11:31 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>
> Hi Parminder,
>
>      
>
>     how the ISF is linked to the IGF?
>
>
> Hi Wolfgang
>
> One is a civil society forum, the other a multistakeholder one. One
> develops people's and civil society's positions on the key issue of
> the global Internet, the other is a place where such positions can
> enter into dialogue with holders of political and economic power - the
> governments and the corporate actors.
>
> Unless now the whole idea and concept of civil society - and along
> with those of people's movements, grassroots, activism, and so on -
> has been fully coopted in some people's mind with that of
> multistakeholderism (whatever one actually means by it, something that
> has remained notoriously unclear), the connection or link that you
> inquire about is extremely clear to me.
>
> Internet is not the first thing for which there has been felt a need
> for 'independently' forming a people's conception and set of hopes,
> expectations and demands - away from conclaves of power. There have
> been scores of others, and newer ones continue to arise. Accordingly
> if people's and civil society forums etc have been meaningful and
> needed in these areas, it is incumbent upon *those* who think they are
> *not needed* in the Internet space to explain why it is so, then the
> other way around.
>
> To put is somewhat flippantly, ISF is also a reaction of people who
> are fed up with an ongoing IG charade where for instance Fadi Chehade
> can with a straight face call the WEF's Net Mundial Initiative as the
> 'mother of all bottom -up processes' - even jokes require some
> plausibility limits!
>
> To take the example of one of the latest international global forums
> on a key global governance issue, the Lima meeting on climate change,
> you will perhaps know that parallel to it a people's meeting was held.
> Internet and its governance also needs such meetings, that is the
> simple logic of the Internet Social Forum. If you think that in the
> Internet's case, such meetings and forums are not needed, I would of
> course be curious to hear your case.
>
> I am happy to engage further with you on this issue, and answer your
> questions.
>
> Lastly, let me invite you to join the ISF process. We work under the
> World Social Forum (WSF) process and principles - whereby its meetings
> are open to all civil society participants subject to very inimum
> conditions that are listed on their website.
>
> Further, if the discussion is to now turn to the WSF, its meaning,
> relevance, etc, I am as happy to engage with you on that subject.
>
> Regards, parminder
>
>  
>
>     Wolfgang
>
>      
>
>      
>
>      
>
>     -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>
>     Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>     <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> im Auftrag von
>     parminder
>
>     Gesendet: Do 22.01.2015 17:01
>
>     An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>     <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>
>     Betreff: Re: [governance] Internet Social Forum
>
>      Enclosed Spanish version... parminder
>
>      
>
>      
>
>     On Thursday 22 January 2015 07:06 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>
>         Global Civil Society launches the Internet Social Forum
>
>         - With a call to occupy the Internet
>
>          
>
>         PRESS RELEASE. Geneva, Switzerland, 22st January, 2015.
>
>          
>
>         A group of civil society organisations from around the world has
>
>         announced the Internet Social Forum, to bring together and
>         articulate
>
>         bottom-up perspectives on the 'Internet we want'. Taking
>         inspiration
>
>         from the World Social Forum, and its clarion call, 'Another
>         World is
>
>         possible', the group seeks to draw urgent attention to the
>         increasing
>
>         centralization of the Internet for extraction of monopoly
>         rents and for
>
>         socio-political control, asserting that 'Another Internet is
>         possible'!
>
>          
>
>         The Internet Social Forum will inter alia offer an alternative
>         to the
>
>         recently-launched World Economic Forum's 'Net Mundial
>         Initiative' on
>
>         global Internet governance. While the World Economic Forum
>         (WEF) and
>
>         the 'Net Mundial Initiative' convene global elites, the
>         Internet Social
>
>         Forum will be a participatory and bottom-up space for all
>         those who
>
>         believe that the global Internet must evolve in the public
>         interest; a
>
>         direct parallel to the launch of the World Social Forum in
>         2001 as a
>
>         counter initiative to the WEF.
>
>          
>
>         The Internet Social Forum will reach out to grassroots groups and
>
>         social movements across the world, catalysing a groundswell that
>
>         challenges the entrenched elite interests that currently
>         control how
>
>         the Internet is managed. The Internet Social Forum's preparatory
>
>         process will kick off during the World Social Forum to take
>         place in
>
>         Tunis, March 24th to 28th, 2015. The Internet Social Forum
>         itself is
>
>         planned to be held either late 2015 or early 2016.
>
>          
>
>         "While the world's biggest companies have every right to
>         debate the
>
>         future of the Internet, we are concerned that their
>         perspectives should
>
>         not drown out those of ordinary people who have no access to the
>
>         privileged terrain WEF occupies - in the end it is this wider
>         public
>
>         interest that must be paramount in governing the Internet. We are
>
>         organising the Internet Social Forum to make sure their voices
>         can't be
>
>         ignored in the corridors of power," said Norbert Bollow,
>         Co-Convenor of
>
>         the Just Net Coalition, which is one of the groups involved in the
>
>         initiative.
>
>          
>
>         The Internet Social Forum, and its preparatory process, is
>         intended as
>
>         a space to vision and build the 'Internet we want'. It will be
>
>         underpinned by values of democracy, human rights and social
>         justice. It
>
>         will stand for participatory policy making and promote
>         community media.
>
>         It will seek an Internet that is truly decentralized in its
>
>         architecture and based on people's full rights to data,
>         information,
>
>         knowledge and other 'commons' that the Internet has enabled
>         the world
>
>         community to generate and share.
>
>          
>
>         Somewhat similar to Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee's call for a
>         'Magna
>
>         Carta for the Internet', the Internet Social Forum proposes to
>         develop
>
>         a People's Internet Manifesto, through a bottom-up process
>         involving
>
>         all concerned social groups and movements, in different areas,
>         from
>
>         techies and ICT-for-development actors to media reform groups,
>
>         democracy movements and social justice activists.
>
>          
>
>         This year will also see the 10 year high-level review of the World
>
>         Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), to be held in New
>         York in
>
>         December. As a full-scale review of a major UN summit, this
>         will be a
>
>         critical global political event. Since the WSIS, held in 2003
>         and 2005,
>
>         the Internet, and what it means socially, has undergone a paradigm
>
>         shift. The WSIS witnessed active engagement of civil society and
>
>         technical groups as well as of business. However, currently, there
>
>         seems to be an deliberate attempt to sideline this UN-led
>         initiative on
>
>         governance issues of the information society and Internet in
>         favour of
>
>         private, big-business-dominated initiatives like the WEF's Net
>         Mundial
>
>         Initiative. The Internet Social Forum, while remaining primarily a
>
>         people's forum, will also seek to channel global civil society's
>
>         engagement towards the WSIS +10 review.
>
>          
>
>         The following organisations form the initial group that is
>         proposing
>
>         the Internet Social Forum, and many more are expected to join
>         in the
>
>         immediate future. This is an open call to progressive groups
>         from all
>
>         over the world to join this initiative, and participate in
>         developing a
>
>         People's Internet Manifesto.
>
>          
>
>         Just Net Coalition, Global
>
>         P2P Foundation, Global
>
>         Transnational Institute, Global
>
>         Forum on Communication for Integration of our America,
>         Regional (Latin
>
>         America) Arab NGO Network for Development, Regional
>
>         Agencia Latinoamericana de Información, Regional
>
>         Alternative Informatics Association, Turkey
>
>         Knowledge Commons, India
>
>         Open-Root/EUROLINC, France
>
>         SLFC.in, India
>
>         CODE-IP Trust, Kenya
>
>         GodlyGlobal.org <http://GodlyGlobal.org>, Switzerland
>
>         Centre for Community Informatics Research, Development and
>         Training,
>
>         Canada IT for Change, India
>
>         Association for Proper Internet Governance, Switzerland
>
>         Computer Professionals Union, Philippines
>
>         Free Press, USA
>
>         Advocates of Science and Technology for the People, Philippines
>
>         Other News, Italy
>
>         Free Software Movement of India
>
>         Global_Geneva, Switzerland
>
>         Solidarius (Solidarity Economy Network), Italy
>
>         All India Peoples Science Network, India
>
>         Institute for Local Self-Reliance - Community Broadband
>         Networks, USA
>
>          
>
>         Please contact us at secretariat at InternetSocialForum.net
>         <mailto:secretariat at InternetSocialForum.net> for further
>
>         information or clarification.
>
>          
>
>         Or the following regional contacts:
>
>          
>
>         Africa:        Alex Gakaru <AlexG at InternetSocialForum.net
>         <mailto:AlexG at InternetSocialForum.net>>
>
>         Asia:          Rishab Bailey <RishabB at InternetSocialForum.net
>         <mailto:RishabB at InternetSocialForum.net>>
>
>         Europe:        Norbert Bollow
>         <NorbertB at InternetSocialForum.net
>         <mailto:NorbertB at InternetSocialForum.net>>
>
>         North America: Micheal Gurstein
>         <MichealG at InternetSocialForum.net
>         <mailto:MichealG at InternetSocialForum.net>>
>
>         South America: Sally Burch <SallyB at InternetSocialForum.net
>         <mailto:SallyB at InternetSocialForum.net>>
>
>          
>
>          
>
>         This press release is also available online, e.g. at
>
>         http://justnetcoalition.org/ISF
>
>          
>
>      
>
>      
>
>  
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto: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 <mailto: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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150128/d438a08e/attachment.htm>

From willi.uebelherr at gmail.com  Wed Jan 28 19:22:12 2015
From: willi.uebelherr at gmail.com (willi uebelherr)
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 20:22:12 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] from confusion to clarification
Message-ID: <54C97D34.1060106@gmail.com>


from confusion to clarification

Dear friends,

Wolfgang Kleinwaechter has chosen a great title for his text. And it is 
also clear that each person develops their own interpretation. So I did too.

It's about what we call the Internet. But this is a forgery. A huge lies 
theater. And even those who declare themselves as experts often do not 
know about what they are talking.

Internet, "the Inter connection of local Networks". We have 2 elements. 
The local networks, autonomous and independent, and the connections. A 
transport system for digital data. On this basis rests my contribution 
to this discussion.

1. Decentralization must be materialized in the inner architecture. It 
is an illusion that structures, that are based on the centralism, can be 
decentralized, distributed, open and transparent organized. That is why 
the claim to have created an open and "democratic" Internet Governance 
is at most an illusion. In fact, a vast and useless theater.

2. We need a technical basis for our transport system that allows a 
distributed and open structure, because it contains these principles 
themselves. Therefore, the retention of virtual address spaces is a 
complete contradiction to our intentions for an open participation of 
all, if we take this seriously and not just talk like that. But then 
comes our focus to the derivation of the global IP address of the local 
networks from their geographical position to the foreground.

3. Internet is nothing more than "the interconnection of local 
networks". From there the name comes. It is a transport system of 
digital data. Nothing more. The technical bases prepared Louis Pouzin 
along with his colleague in the 70s of last century. There is nothing 
new. We need to understand it that we can use it.

4. The basis in order to make our internet how we need it, is the 
independence in technology. Without this independence is all just cheap 
talk. Or illusionary fog. The centralization and monopolization is a 
fact. We can not oppose with gentle arguments.

5. "think globally, act locally" and "knowledge is always world 
heritage". On this basis, the free technology arises. Free for all 
people on our planet. For the theoretical basis we work together. The 
materialization takes place locally and regionally. We help each other.

6) We need the diversity and not the monotony. Monotony always leads to 
the death. Life is diversity. In it the optimal solutions arise. It is a 
free cooperation process that don't requires any dominant center.

This post is based on my proposal "Internet, the interconnection of 
local networks", which I introduced in May 2014 in the mail list of 
www.1net.org.

Internet: the INTER-connection of local NET-works 04.05.2014
http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/2014-May/004073.html

1. general discussion post 05.05.2014
http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/2014-May/004096.html

2. general discussion post 15.05.2014
http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/2014-May/004184.html

3. general discussion post 23.05.2014
http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/2014-May/004247.html

May 2014 Archives by date
http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/2014-May/date.html

Sorry for the bad English.
many greetings, willi
La Paz, Bolivia

From nathaliecoupet at yahoo.com  Wed Jan 28 20:26:18 2015
From: nathaliecoupet at yahoo.com (Nathalie Coupet)
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 20:26:18 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] [discuss] from confusion to clarification
In-Reply-To: <54C97D34.1060106@gmail.com>
References: <54C97D34.1060106@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54C75205-014A-4AE1-8372-263F5389FC5F@yahoo.com>

Willi,

Could you explain what kind of decentralized architecture would be necessary to eliminate the retention of virtual address spaces? 
What process would need to be in place to assign address space according to the geographical position in the network? 

Thank you.

Nathalie

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 28, 2015, at 7:22 PM, willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> from confusion to clarification
> 
> Dear friends,
> 
> Wolfgang Kleinwaechter has chosen a great title for his text. And it is also clear that each person develops their own interpretation. So I did too.
> 
> It's about what we call the Internet. But this is a forgery. A huge lies theater. And even those who declare themselves as experts often do not know about what they are talking.
> 
> Internet, "the Inter connection of local Networks". We have 2 elements. The local networks, autonomous and independent, and the connections. A transport system for digital data. On this basis rests my contribution to this discussion.
> 
> 1. Decentralization must be materialized in the inner architecture. It is an illusion that structures, that are based on the centralism, can be decentralized, distributed, open and transparent organized. That is why the claim to have created an open and "democratic" Internet Governance is at most an illusion. In fact, a vast and useless theater.
> 
> 2. We need a technical basis for our transport system that allows a distributed and open structure, because it contains these principles themselves. Therefore, the retention of virtual address spaces is a complete contradiction to our intentions for an open participation of all, if we take this seriously and not just talk like that. But then comes our focus to the derivation of the global IP address of the local networks from their geographical position to the foreground.
> 
> 3. Internet is nothing more than "the interconnection of local networks". From there the name comes. It is a transport system of digital data. Nothing more. The technical bases prepared Louis Pouzin along with his colleague in the 70s of last century. There is nothing new. We need to understand it that we can use it.
> 
> 4. The basis in order to make our internet how we need it, is the independence in technology. Without this independence is all just cheap talk. Or illusionary fog. The centralization and monopolization is a fact. We can not oppose with gentle arguments.
> 
> 5. "think globally, act locally" and "knowledge is always world heritage". On this basis, the free technology arises. Free for all people on our planet. For the theoretical basis we work together. The materialization takes place locally and regionally. We help each other.
> 
> 6) We need the diversity and not the monotony. Monotony always leads to the death. Life is diversity. In it the optimal solutions arise. It is a free cooperation process that don't requires any dominant center.
> 
> This post is based on my proposal "Internet, the interconnection of local networks", which I introduced in May 2014 in the mail list of www.1net.org.
> 
> Internet: the INTER-connection of local NET-works 04.05.2014
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/2014-May/004073.html
> 
> 1. general discussion post 05.05.2014
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/2014-May/004096.html
> 
> 2. general discussion post 15.05.2014
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/2014-May/004184.html
> 
> 3. general discussion post 23.05.2014
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/2014-May/004247.html
> 
> May 2014 Archives by date
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/2014-May/date.html
> 
> Sorry for the bad English.
> many greetings, willi
> La Paz, Bolivia
> 
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

From willi.uebelherr at gmail.com  Thu Jan 29 09:48:52 2015
From: willi.uebelherr at gmail.com (willi uebelherr)
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 10:48:52 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] from confusion to clarification
In-Reply-To: <54C75205-014A-4AE1-8372-263F5389FC5F@yahoo.com>
References: <54C97D34.1060106@gmail.com> <54C75205-014A-4AE1-8372-263F5389FC5F@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <54CA4854.9040804@gmail.com>

Dear Nathalie.

Am 28/01/2015 um 09:26 p.m. schrieb Nathalie Coupet:
> Could you explain what kind of decentralized architecture would be necessary to eliminate the retention of virtual address spaces?

In general, addresses are geografical position. Then the transport is 
very easy. If you destroy this principle, then you need administration 
to create the necessary information about the geografical location from 
you virtual address.

For me, the "decentralized architecture" is the reality of distributed 
local communities, where we live. The reality self is the "architecture 
of decentralization".

The "Internet Governance" is a useless and cheap theater. For that, they 
need this virtualisation of addresses.

> What process would need to be in place to assign address space according to the geographical position in the network?

We have to create a open discussion about a useful world coordinate 
system. Our WC84, what we mostly use, is not really optimal. The 
distances between 2 degrees is on the pol 0 and on the equator max. We 
use triangles.

Also we have to discuss our transform algorithm from WC (world 
coordinate) to 64 bit global IP-address and back. The local 64 bit 
IP-address is independent of that. The people decide the address mechanism.

And we have to discuss our decentralized DNS-System. The roots are 
always the local networks. You can ask this roots and save for later. Or 
forget and ask later the same. But because all people need it, we 
organize it as a common task in the locality.

> Thank you. Nathalie
> Sent from my iPhone

Thank you, Willi
Sent from my mail client Thunderbird portable with PortableApps

From ekenyanito at gmail.com  Wed Jan  7 13:48:46 2015
From: ekenyanito at gmail.com (Ephraim Percy Kenyanito)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 21:48:46 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] ICT, Internet Rights and Post 2015 Development Agenda
Message-ID: <CAHwnKeH4u-5DSemM3+4itKHnYYS_4UOHbhxk2ODdCDy45g1WAA@mail.gmail.com>

Happy 2015,

Apologies for cross posting,

Just letting those in and around NYC, have time next week and are
interested in the Post 2015 process that the President of the 69th session
of the United Nations General Assembly, H.E. Mr. Sam Kutesa, is inviting
civil society representatives to a special interactive dialogue to be held
on Friday, 16 January, from 1:15 - 2:45 p.m. in the *Trusteeship Council
Chamber*.

If you have a valid UN Grounds Pass, you may attend the event without an
additional ticket. If you do not possess a UN Grounds Pass, please apply
for a Special Event Ticket by completing this online form by 13 January
2015: http://bit.ly/PGA-SETs

Please see attached to this email for further information.

The draft programmes and registration links for the *post-2015 preparatory
forum for major groups and other stakeholders*, to be held on 16 January,
and the *first post-2015 negotiating session*, to be held from 19-21
January, are now available on:

*UN FORMS AND INFORMATION*
*Stakeholder Preparatory Forum - 16 January 2015*
*To register, please click here
<https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1alZ1t9FFOl92F1kxzBsJUSOn2tvt4Z3i87mwUg5C9OM/viewform?c=0&w=1>
(deadline
12 January 2014). The draft proposed agenda is available
here: http://bit.ly/16Jan-Proposed-Agenda
<http://bit.ly/16Jan-Proposed-Agenda> DESA-DSD and UN-NGLS are coordinating
a preparatory forum for major groups and other civil society stakeholders
to be held on Friday, 16 January, in advance of the 19-21 January
negotiating session on the post-2015 development agenda.*

*​Post-2015 intergovernmental negotiations*
19 Jan 2015 - 21 Jan 2015
New York

*Programme*

Draft Programme for stocktaking session Intergovernmental negotiations on
the post-2015 development agenda
<http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5814Programme%20for%20stocktaking%20session%20Jan%2019%20to%2021%20rev2.pdf>

*Other documents*

Letter from Post-2015 co-facilitators regarding revised draft decision on
modalities for the process of intergovernmental negotiations on the
post-2015 development agenda
<http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5665Letter_transmittal_modalities_1212.pdf>

*Side events*

Guidelines for Organizers of Side Events
<http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5650Side%20Event%20Guidelines.pdf>
Side Event Request Form
<http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5675Side%20Event%20Request%20Form.docx>


--

Best Regards,
​​
*Ephraim Percy Kenyanito*
Website: http://about.me/ekenyanito
tel: (+254)-786-191-930 / (+254)-751-804-120
@ekenyanito
Skype: ekenyanito
PGP: E6BA8DC1
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150107/d22f1265/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SAVETHEDATECIVILSOCIETY-2.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 15089 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150107/d22f1265/attachment.docx>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Fri Jan 30 11:18:58 2015
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 11:18:58 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] job opening - policy director at Access
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAcdE7DRC0SoWG9xpaGkas+xemLsizBSCT-Q6a8ibhW8Dw@mail.gmail.com>

https://www.accessnow.org/about/jobs#Policy_Director

-- 
-- 
*Carolina Rossini *
*Vice President, International Policy*
*Public Knowledge*
*http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150130/9d9436f7/attachment.htm>

From willi.uebelherr at gmail.com  Fri Jan 30 12:10:02 2015
From: willi.uebelherr at gmail.com (willi uebelherr)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 13:10:02 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] from confusion to clarification
In-Reply-To: <F3AE17F1-F412-4C18-A152-53E0E10BFC09@gmail.com>
References: <54C97D34.1060106@gmail.com> <54C75205-014A-4AE1-8372-263F5389FC5F@yahoo.com> <54CA4854.9040804@gmail.com> <F3AE17F1-F412-4C18-A152-53E0E10BFC09@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54CBBAEA.3010907@gmail.com>

Am 29/01/2015 um 11:04 a.m. schrieb Eduardo Villanueva:
"For what I understand of your argument, you believe that “internet 
governance” is irrelevant because there is only need for a number 
(perhaps a limited number) of technical decisions to guarantee that the 
Internet continues to work as such. While I think there’s a lot more 
there to discuss than just the technical issues of the interconnection 
of networks as they stand today, may I ask you how do you think the 
institutional arrangements necessary to reach the technical solutions 
should be? Just maintain the IETF? Or something different?

This particular issue is at the center of many debates about Internet 
governance, but i gather you may think that there is a better, simpler 
solution that will resolve the issue without all the hoopla around the 
IGF, NMI, ISF and everything else."


Dear Eduardo,

i was very happy to read a answer from Peru. We need here in Latin 
America the open discussion about the structure of the Internet, what we 
need and what we want. Then we can part of the big international discussion.

IGF, NM (NMI is different), ISF are answers to a real situation. The 
most people in our world don't like this centralisation and monopolizing 
of the technical bases. And, of course, all this institutions, was we 
have to manage the "Internet" are a result of this technical 
definitions. And they reproduce and defend this structures.

For me, in the IGF, NM, ISF, ISOC and many other we can find a process 
of self-organizing. But alway we have to be clear about, what we need, 
before we can go to a new destination.

Wolfgang Kleinwaechter initiate this handbook as a summary for all the 
different positions and perspectives in this different groups. i like 
this idea very much. And i hope, that this text collection can really 
bring out the essential elements of the various groups expressed.

The unity in diversity. This is our process. the unity with respect to a 
free global communication system for all people of our planet. The 
diversity in the ideas and suggestions for practical implementation.

The technology is always the base to realize the transportsystem for 
digital data. And if this technology is a instrument for centralized and 
monopolized groups, then we are always slaves. Then never we can say, "a 
InterNet is possible".

In the IETF we have the RFC's (request for comment". This is a very 
important instrument for us to distribute and discuss our technical 
principles, based on our philosophical principles. But this comes from 
Jonathan Postel and we know, how strong he was attacked and blocked in 
his work.

"Occupy the Internet". Yes, with all its consequences. Never we can say: 
"Papa, i need the technical components" like "Mama, i am hungry". No, we 
have to end our passivity, our wait on the activity of others. We have 
to do it yourself.

I will translate this answer to spanish and then send to my friends in 
Bolivia, Peru and Ecuador and to you.

many greetings, willi
La Paz, Bolivia


Am 29/01/2015 um 11:04 a.m. schrieb Eduardo Villanueva:
> Hi Willi
> For what I understand of your argument, you believe that “internet governance” is irrelevant because there is only need for a number (perhaps a limited number) of technical decisions to guarantee that the Internet continues to work as such. While I think there’s a lot more there to discuss than just the technical issues of the interconnection of networks as they stand today, may I ask you how do you think the institutional arrangements necessary to reach the technical solutions should be? Just maintain the IETF? Or something different?
> This particular issue is at the center of many debates about Internet governance, but i gather you may think that there is a better, simpler solution that will resolve the issue without all the hoopla around the IGF, NMI, ISF and everything else.
> Thanks for your time.
>
> Eduardo Villanueva-Mansilla
> Associate Professor, Dept. Communications
> Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
> evillan at pucp.pe
> www.eduardovillanueva.com
>
>
>
>> El 29/1/2015, a las 9:48, willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at gmail.com> escribió:
>>
>> Dear Nathalie.
>>
>> Am 28/01/2015 um 09:26 p.m. schrieb Nathalie Coupet:
>>> Could you explain what kind of decentralized architecture would be necessary to eliminate the retention of virtual address spaces?
>>
>> In general, addresses are geografical position. Then the transport is very easy. If you destroy this principle, then you need administration to create the necessary information about the geografical location from you virtual address.
>>
>> For me, the "decentralized architecture" is the reality of distributed local communities, where we live. The reality self is the "architecture of decentralization".
>>
>> The "Internet Governance" is a useless and cheap theater. For that, they need this virtualisation of addresses.
>>
>>> What process would need to be in place to assign address space according to the geographical position in the network?
>>
>> We have to create a open discussion about a useful world coordinate system. Our WC84, what we mostly use, is not really optimal. The distances between 2 degrees is on the pol 0 and on the equator max. We use triangles.
>>
>> Also we have to discuss our transform algorithm from WC (world coordinate) to 64 bit global IP-address and back. The local 64 bit IP-address is independent of that. The people decide the address mechanism.
>>
>> And we have to discuss our decentralized DNS-System. The roots are always the local networks. You can ask this roots and save for later. Or forget and ask later the same. But because all people need it, we organize it as a common task in the locality.
>>
>>> Thank you. Nathalie
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> Thank you, Willi
>> Sent from my mail client Thunderbird portable with PortableApps
>>

From steve at openmedia.ca  Fri Jan 30 14:16:11 2015
From: steve at openmedia.ca (Steve Anderson)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 11:16:11 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Blame Canada: Big win as Net Neutrality is
 preserved on mobile networks above the 49th parallel
In-Reply-To: <CAEiPw9YHddb_Rz+q-LQC-y95m_y9UpWEy84y-0pn4eJ_XEwVuA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEiPw9YHddb_Rz+q-LQC-y95m_y9UpWEy84y-0pn4eJ_XEwVuA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJOr_J7z4Qx4sKLPR7GxVK97_qxZK8SSEd-dpAY6Ha0380YOLg@mail.gmail.com>

Just wanted to share some good news.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Josh Tabish" <josh at openmedia.ca>
Date: 30 Jan 2015 11:09
Subject: Blame Canada: Big win as Net Neutrality is preserved on mobile
networks

> Hi all – Big news coming out of Canada yesterday. Our federal regulator,
the CRTC, made a landmark decision to ensure that content is treated
equally across mobile Internet networks. The ruling sets a precedent for
mobile providers across Canada.
>
> Over a year ago, a handful of mobile providers in Canada were caught
exempting their own services from monthly data caps, and were marking up
competing services by 800%. OpenMedia intervened and tried to stop this
alongside a coalition of other public interest groups in Canada, and,
yesterday, our regulator directed the telecom giants to cease this unlawful
activity.
>
> Back around 2009, Canadians and OpenMedia fought for and won open
Internet rules to prevent Big Telecom restricting our access to online
services. Today’s announcement shows our regulator upholding the spirit of
the net neutrality rules Canadians worked so hard for.
>
> Just wanted to share with everyone in the fight, as this be useful
context as we march towards a final decision in the U.S., and the question
of mobile parity remains a rather fraught one. If other jurisdictions are
taking positive steps forward, why can't others? Could be useful leverage
in press outreach.
>
> Keep up the good work everyone. We're doing awesome together :)
>
> You can see our full release here (and copy/pasted below):
>
>
https://openmedia.ca/news/big-win-internet-users-crtc-finds-bell-mobility-unlawfully-made-competing-mobile-video-apps-and-serv
>
> Globe & Mail overview here:
>
>
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/net-neutrality-crtc-bans-bell-from-subsidizing-data-usage-for-mobile-tv-app/article22696253/
>
>
> For Immediate Release
>
> In big win for Internet users, CRTC finds Bell Mobility unlawfully made
competing mobile video apps and services more expensive
>
> Following case taken by concerned Canadians and public interest groups,
CRTC says mobile providers cannot markup independent services like Netflix
to give their own content an unfair advantage
>
> January 29, 2015 – A landmark decision from the CRTC today has determined
that Bell Mobility unlawfully made competing mobile apps and services more
expensive for Canadians by unfairly exempting their own services from
monthly data caps. The CRTC directed Bell to stop their unlawful practice
in the next 90 days. The ruling sets a precedent for mobile providers
across Canada.
>
> This morning’s decision comes just over a year after then Manitoba
resident Ben Klass filed a complaint with the CRTC accusing Bell Mobility
of discriminating against independent services like Netflix. Mr. Klass’
complaint revealed that Bell was marking up access to competing video
services by up to 800%. Thousands spoke out to support Mr Klass through the
Save Our Net campaign organized by OpenMedia.ca.
>
> Ben Klass, telecom researcher and filer of the original complaint, had
this to say: “Ensuring that all content is treated equally is crucial to
ensuring that the Internet remains a level playing field for innovators,
entrepreneurs, and everyday Internet users. In a world where Bell could
charge 800% more for competing services it seemed unlikely that innovation
could thrive. It’s heartening to see the CRTC side with Canadians and
strike down this unfair practice.”
>
> Responding to the news, Campaigns Manager Josh Tabish of OpenMedia.ca
said: “This is a big win for wireless users across Canada. We’re very happy
to see the CRTC taking steps to stop Big Telecom unfairly charging people
more to access alternative content and services. Let’s be clear on one
thing: the telecom companies were fighting for new tools to squeeze even
more money out of mobile users in Canada – but today, they lost that power.”
>
> Tabish continued: “In 2009, Canadians fought for and won open Internet
rules to prevent Big Telecom restricting our access to online services.
Today’s announcement shows the CRTC is upholding the net neutrality rules
Canadians worked so hard for. However, with telecom giants controlling over
90 per cent of the market, Canadians will continue to be mistreated and pay
some of the highest prices in the industrialized world. The CRTC now needs
to remain vigilant in ensuring that all content flowing across our networks
is treated equally.”
>
> In January 2014, OpenMedia and legal experts at The Samuelson-Glushko
Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) supported Mr.
Klass’ complaint by filing an official intervention into the proceeding.
>
>
> Canadians can tell the CRTC that Canada’s mobile phone and Internet
providers giants should have to treat all apps and services equally, and
not be allowed to unfairly push people to use content and services they own
at https://UnblockCanada.ca
>
> About OpenMedia.ca
>
> OpenMedia.ca is an award-winning community-based organization that
safeguards the possibilities of the open Internet. We work toward informed
and participatory digital policy by engaging hundreds of thousands of
people in protecting our online rights.
>
> Through campaigns such as StopTheMeter.ca and StopSpying.ca, OpenMedia.ca
has engaged over half-a-million Canadians, and has influenced public policy
and federal law.
>
> -30-
>
> Contact
>
> Josh Tabish
>
> Campaigns Manager, OpenMedia.ca
>
> 1-778-990-1218
>
> josh at openmedia.ca
>
> --
> --
> Josh Tabish
> Campaigns Manager, OpenMedia
> 778-990-1218
> http://openmedia.ca
> josh at openmedia.ca
>
> Follow me on Twitter
> Friend me on Facebook
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Big Telecom vs The World" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to big-telecom-vs-the-world+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to
big-telecom-vs-the-world at googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/big-telecom-vs-the-world/CAEiPw9YHddb_Rz%2Bq-LQC-y95m_y9UpWEy84y-0pn4eJ_XEwVuA%40mail.gmail.com
.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150130/4e600a72/attachment.htm>

From jochai at accessnow.org  Fri Jan 30 14:17:57 2015
From: jochai at accessnow.org (Jochai Ben-Avie)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 14:17:57 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] job opening - policy director at Access
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAcdE7DRC0SoWG9xpaGkas+xemLsizBSCT-Q6a8ibhW8Dw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK-FJAcdE7DRC0SoWG9xpaGkas+xemLsizBSCT-Q6a8ibhW8Dw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAONLXrMz5PJ0iX3_B1hqXS9TyHFWvjqqDxRS61LnbAMkRH+bSA@mail.gmail.com>

Looks like Carolina beat me to it, but I wanted to let you all know that
after nearly five incredible years at Access, today will be my last day. On
February 9th, I'll  be starting as Mozilla's new Internet Policy Manager,
and my new email address will likely be jochai at mozilla.com.

As you can imagine, I’m both excited to start working with the awesome team
at Mozilla, and at the same time, I will sorely miss being a part of the
great policy, advocacy, and tech work Access does in this space. But I
won’t be going too far! Indeed, I will remain involved in many of the same
issues and I look forward to continuing to work with many of you in my new
position.

This also means that my former job is now open for the right person. As
Policy Director, you will craft the policy direction of the organization,
work alongside some of the smartest and most dedicated wonks, lawyers,
advocates, hackers, and technologists in the world, and join the leadership
of a fast-growing global organization.

The full job description can be found here: https://www.accessnow.org/
about/jobs#Policy_Director

I encourage you to share with your networks, or reach out if you have any
questions!

Cheers,
Jochai

-- 

Jochai Ben-Avie
Policy Director
Access | accessnow.org

tel: +1-347-806-9531
PGP: 0xB70FB59C
Fingerprint: D13F C6BD 5C31 3D9B 870E 0563 386B CBEB B70F B59C


On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Carolina Rossini <
carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> https://www.accessnow.org/about/jobs#Policy_Director
>
> --
> --
> *Carolina Rossini *
> *Vice President, International Policy*
> *Public Knowledge*
> *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
> + 1 6176979389 | 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150130/10826626/attachment.htm>

From iullman9 at gmail.com  Fri Jan 30 16:33:57 2015
From: iullman9 at gmail.com (Ilana Ullman)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 16:33:57 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: FW: Call for Submissions for 2015 Local IGF
 Showcase - Please Circulate
In-Reply-To: <D0F15E3D.20E3D%ullman@freedomhouse.org>
References: <D0F15E3D.20E3D%ullman@freedomhouse.org>
Message-ID: <54CBF8C5.6050501@gmail.com>

Dear all,

In case of interest, please see below for information about Freedom
House's 2015 Local IGF Essay Showcase, which will be used to select at
least three individuals to receive funding to attend their national or
regional IGF. Please feel free to share with your networks.

Best,
Ilana

From: Ilana Ullman <ullman at freedomhouse.org
<mailto:ullman at freedomhouse.org>>
Date: Friday, January 30, 2015 3:33 PM
To: "Netfreedom at lists.cymru.com <mailto:Netfreedom at lists.cymru.com>"
<Netfreedom at lists.cymru.com <mailto:Netfreedom at lists.cymru.com>>
Subject: Call for Submissions for 2015 Local IGF Showcase - Please Circulate

Dear colleagues,

Freedom House's Internet Freedom team has funding to support at least
three human rights advocates, activists, or academics to attend
their *_national or regional_* Internet Governance Forum (IGF). We are
asking that you circulate this call with local partners and any others
who you believe may be interested, especially those who have
demonstrated an interest in and capacity to engage in internet
governance processes and issues.

To help the team solicit applications from individuals who are
interested in participating in this activity and to ensure a fun and
fair selection process, Freedom House is conducting the *“2015 Local IGF
Essay Showcase”. * See attached and below for full details.

As noted above, _at least three individuals will be selected to receive
funding to engage in their national or regional IGF. In addition, up to
20 essays will be selected to be published in an online gallery._ The
purpose of the gallery is to showcase the essays that best help to raise
awareness about whether and how much civil society members and human
rights perspectives are included in discussions about internet
governance in various countries and regions.

For more information and detailed instructions, please see the official
call for submissions attached and below. If you have questions, don’t
hesitate to email internetfreedom at freedomhouse.org
<mailto:internetfreedom at freedomhouse.org>. We will endeavor to respond
to your inquiries in a timely manner. 

Warm regards,

The Internet Freedom team
Freedom House



*_Request for Submissions:_*

*National and Regional 
Internet Governance Forums*

*Travel Stipends*

*
*

*- 2015 Local IGF Essay Showcase -*

 

 

*/Issue date/*:                                 January 27, 2015

*/Deadline date/*:             February 27, 2015, 23:59 EST (GMT –5:00)

*/Announcement date/*:          March 20, 2015

 

*What:* Freedom House is seeking essay submissions on the topic of the
challenges and opportunities for human rights online and internet
governance in various countries and regions. Details about the essay
specifications are below.

An internal committee will select up to three entries to award the
author/creator a small travel stipends of no more than US$3,000 for
participation in their local Internet Governance Forums (IGFs) in 2015.
Details about expectations for travel stipend recipients are below.

Furthermore, up to 20 submissions will also be featured in Freedom
House’s online gallery, to be titled “Reflections on the State of Net
Governance and Human Rights Online Around the World”, which will display
other top-rated essays. Details about usage permissions are included below.

 

*Why:* The aim of this initiative is to amplify civil society
contributions within multistakeholder dialogues in key regions and
countries on issues related to governing an open, global, secure, and
resilient internet.

 

*How:* With the aid of financial and material support to attend and
engage in local internet governance meetings, selected participants will
more persuasively advocate to other stakeholders for greater freedom
online and greater inclusion for civil society in the multistakeholder
process of governing the internet.

 

*Who:  *Individuals will be deemed eligible applicants if they meet the
following criteria:

1.     Submit their essays according to the rules and instructions below.

2.     Demonstrate a commitment to promoting human rights online and
civil society engagement in multistakeholder internet governance processes.

3.     Qualify as a non-governmental activist, academic, citizen
journalist, human rights defender, or representative of a non-profit
human rights organization.

 

*Where:* The geographic scope of this initiative is global, and thus
essay submissions are not limited to local IGFs in a particular country
or region. However, local IGFs at which civil society perspectives have
been underrepresented will be given priority consideration. Applicants
are invited to explain in their essays or in a cover letter addressed to
the selection committee why the IGF in their country or region should be
a priority, and what they believe they will contribute if they attend.

 

*When:* The submission period will open on January 27, 2015 and will
close on February 27, 2015 at 23:59 EST (GMT -5:00). Contest winners
will be announced by March 20, 2015. This award may be used to attend
any national or regional IGF between April 1, 2015 and November 15, 2015.

 

*Rules, instructions, and specifications for submission:*

 

·       Interested applicants are invited to submit a written essay
(option #1) or photo essay (option #2) describing the threats to net
freedom in their country or region and explaining how diverse
stakeholders are or should be working together to preserve an internet
that protects and promotes human rights, such as freedom of expression,
privacy, and access to information.

·       See below for specifications on options #1 and #2

·       Submission should be sent as an email attachment
to internetfreedom at freedomhouse.org
<mailto:internetfreedom at freedomhouse.org>

·       The subject of the email should be: “Local IGF Essay Challenge –
[YOUR NAME], [YOUR COUNTRY]”

·       The body of the email should list the following:

o   Full name of applicant

o   Country of representation

o   Organization or employer

o   Position title or type of affiliation

o   Email address

o   Phone number

o   Information about the national or regional IGF the applicant hopes
to attend, including planned dates and venue, website, organizers,
agenda, panelists, key participants, etc.

·       Submissions are limited to one essay per person.

·       Essays must be original work; any plagiarizing will result in
disqualification.

·       No submissions past the deadline, February 27, 2015 at 23:59 EST 
(GMT -5:00), will be accepted.

 

*Option #1: Written narrative essay.* Written essay submissions should
be between 600 to 1000 words. Essays should be non-fiction, in English,
and edited for grammar and punctuation. They may be written in either
first-person or third-person point of view on the topic of key
challenges and opportunities for human rights online in your country or
region, as well as the state of civil society engagement in local
internet governance processes.

 

*Option #2: Photo essay. *Photo essay submissions should be between five
and ten photos with brief captions. Use your creativity, but please keep
the focus of the photos related to the subject of human rights online
and internet governance in your country or region. Photos will be
evaluated based on their subject-matter relevance and artistry. Captions
should be non-fiction, in English, and edited for grammar and
punctuation. They may be written in either first-person or third-person
point of view. Prior to submission, please obtain informed consent of
any individuals pictured and identified in the photos, and be sure to
note this in the body of your submission email.

 

*Usage permissions: *By submitting an entry, applicants grant Freedom
House license to use their essays or portions of their essays (with
attribution) in the Local IGF Essay Challenge gallery online
under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/>.Freedom House will make
every effort to notify individuals prior to publication. In some cases,
essays or portions of the essays (with attribution) may appear in
private reports to funders. Freedom House will consult with the original
content creator before pursuing any other use.

 

*Note on privacy:* Freedom House will consider applicants’ requests to
remain anonymous or to withhold publication of their essay for safety
reasons on a case-by-case basis. Please inform us of such requests when
submitting your essay.

 

*Expectations for IGF travel stipend recipients*

 

Up to three essayists will be selected to receive funding to attend an
IGF meeting in their country or region. Freedom House will cover
round-trip flight, accommodation during the IGF, conference registration
fees, a per diem stipend, and necessary visa costs. Applicants are
reminded that funding will be contingent on:

 

1.)   Being selected according to the review committee criteria.

2.)   Providing receipts and documentation for reimbursement of
financial expenses that qualify as allowable costs. (A list will be
provided by Freedom House to selected participants, who will have the
responsibility to ensure an expenditure meets the specifications before
incurring the expense.)

3.)   Participating in the full IGF and reporting out on the
proceedings. (Freedom House is open to creative ideas for the format of
the report, which could take the shape of a blog post, op-ed, or
incorporate multimedia elements – such as Storify or audiovisual clips –
into a narrative internal report.)

4.)   Though not required, selected applicants are encouraged to submit
or co-submit an official workshop proposal and/or participate in an
official workshop panel during the IGF.

 

Funding for this program is provided to Freedom House through a grant
from the U.S. Department of State.

 

*_About the Organization_*

 

For more than 70 years, *Freedom House* has supported the global
expansion of freedom through advocacy activities, in-depth research on
the state of freedom country-by-country, and through direct support of
democratic reformers throughout the world. The *Global Internet Freedom
Program* seeks to coun­teract the rising trend of government censorship
and surveillance and to expand efforts to challenge restrictions on net
freedom around the world. 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150130/c3abb348/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: FH 2015 Local IGF Essay Showcase - Call for Sumissions[1].pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 100433 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150130/c3abb348/attachment.pdf>

From dave at difference.com.au  Sat Jan 31 04:15:48 2015
From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2015 17:15:48 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] FW: [discuss] Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxi9SGyC+D-A8EuPpQsPyi1hN0PH6MH+y119JeYP_Jq+rA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20150122144714.2bf24d0b@quill> <54C240EB.9090908@cafonso.ca> <0ab001d03710$ece501e0$c6af05a0$@gmail.com> <CACAaNxi9SGyC+D-A8EuPpQsPyi1hN0PH6MH+y119JeYP_Jq+rA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B5DAA22C-9B59-4C50-A9D7-78558905A945@difference.com.au>

Indeed. 
MG, if you are upset that Jeremy has said you are unnecessarily insulting to your colleagues, the way to refute it is not by being unnecessarily insulting to your colleagues.

Regards

David

On 23 Jan 2015, at 10:21 pm, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear MG,
> 
> Your post just provided further proof everything that Jeremy wrote was true.
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 7:31 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> FWIW... Flouting normal academic/journalistic etiquette Jeremy omitted to reference my comments quoted in his blog which for anyone who hasn't been following can be found with context and elaboration in my blog http://gurstein.wordpress.com (key word searches on "multi-stakeholder" and "civil society" should turn these up--and with a bit of digging one might find even more fearsomely critical comments including about CS's unholy partnerships with and financial support from the global Internet elites.
> 
> BTW, I'm looking forward to seeing the invitation from Jeremy and the other NMI-nik's inviting global Civil Society to their next 1% err WEF, ICANN, cgi Internet Governance lovefest -- perhaps it could be called the I(%) SF ...
> 
> M
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso
> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 4:39 AM
> To: discuss at 1net.org
> Subject: Re: [discuss] Internet Social Forum
> 
> Dear people,
> 
> Below is an excellent response from Jeremy Malcolm (Best Bits, EFF) regarding the proposal to create a "world social forum" of the Internet.
> I am really puzzled: the call from JNC to join ISF is for governments to occupy the Internet??
> 
> fraternal regards
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> ====
> 
> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/who-are-the-just-net-coalition-and-what-can-we-expect-from-the-internet-social-forum
> 
> Who are the Just Net Coalition and what can we expect from the Internet Social Forum?
> 
> Jeremy Malcolm
> 
> Date: 23/1/2015 3:52 pm
> 
> Today, the Just Net Coalition (JNC) [1] has broadcast (on seven mailing lists alone that I subscribe to) its plans for an Internet Social Forum, modeled on the World Social Forum, the well-known anti-globalisation summit. Just as the World Social Forum is held in opposition to the annual Davos meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF), so the Internet Social Forum is framed as an alternative to the NETmundial Initiative [2], which JNC describes (inaccurately) as a project of the WEF.
> 
> Before saying anything more, I should clarify that I too have been critical [3] of the NETmundial Initiative, I too believe that the Internet governance status quo is overdue for reform [4], I also share concerns about a concentration of market power [5] in the hands of US-based Internet companies, and I do believe that governments have an important role to play [6] in future Internet governance arrangements.
> However, I won't be supporting the Internet Social Forum, because the Just Net Coalition's objectives are misguided, and its mode of engagement with the rest of civil society has been profoundly dysfunctional.
> 
> History
> 
> Who are the Just Net Coalition? I briefly mentioned them in my last post [7], but today's announcement has raised further questions among some of my contacts, and led others to express support the proposal despite not knowing much of the history of those proposing it. This post is to provide some of that necessary background, so that those who choose to endorse the Internet Social Forum will not be taken by surprise when its proposed “People's Internet Manifesto” takes a course with which they may profoundly disagree.
> 
> The founding meeting of what became the Just Net Coalition February 2014 was invitation-only, and invitations were issued, in the first instance, only to those known to by sympathetic to the views of the organisers. (A few key individuals excluded from the first round of invitations were, at the urging of the meeting's funder, subsequently approached with late invitations to attend; speaking for myself as one of these, the approach came far too late for me to make the necessary arrangements even to obtain a visa.) Consequently, the content of that meeting's outcome document, the Delhi Declaration for a Just and Equitable Internet [8], was largely predetermined.
> 
> The political programme of that document (more on this below) has a long history in a disagreement between a few individuals who were members of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) [9], that has frequently threatened to tear that group apart. On some accounts, indeed, it has already done so – opinions vary on when or whether the IGC “jumped the shark”, but many count it as the day at an IGC meeting in 2013 when a prominent JNC member almost came to blows with a female attendee in an argument, ironically, over his own overbearing behaviour.
> 
> The formation of Best Bits [10] in 2012 was (at least on my part, as one of its founders), partly in response to the decline of the IGC and the need for a more action-oriented, globally-inclusive civil society community that could speak on Internet governance and human rights issues, without requiring a full consensus which (for the IGC, at least) had become completely unachievable. Those who now lead JNC, at the time, also held hopes (as did we) that they too could make effective use of Best Bits as a platform for actions and statements on which a broad consensus could be reached, which for a time they did, but what ultimately transpired will be recounted later.
> 
> So who are these individuals to whom I am obliquely referring? Although I don't wish to unduly personalise this post, it is relevant that they be identified in order to give context to the following section of this post; and equally, it is quite proper that as spokespersons for the group, they should be held accountable for their public behaviour and statements. (I should also add before going further that I have had a long record of working fruitfully with the individuals named both online and in person, dating back to 2004. I have even retained one of them as a paid consultant on a project I managed.)
> 
> Amongst the key individuals who have spoken publicly for JNC and who sit on its steering committee are Parminder Jeet Singh who leads Indian NGO IT for Change, Michael Gurstein who is a Canadian academic and edits the Journal of Community Informatics, Norbert Bollow who is a Swiss systems analyst and FOSS developer, and Richard Hill, former senior staff member of the ITU, who continues to advocate for an expanded role for the ITU on Internet-related public policy issues [11]. Many of the groups shown as supporting the Internet Social Forum in today's announcement are vanity or hobby projects of these founding individuals. For example Centre for Community Informatics Research, Development and Training is Gurstein, GodlyGlobal.org is Bollow, and Association for Proper Internet Governance is Hill.
> 
> (You might note that the majority JNC's most vocal key figures, including others not mentioned above such as Louis Pouzin and Jean-Christophe Nothias, are white men from industrialised countries.
> Now as a white man myself I'm certainly not one to point fingers at them, but as an organisation that purports to be “globally concerned with…social justice”, as JNC does [12], this lack of diversity perhaps bears mentioning.)
> 
> Objectives
> 
> The positioning of the Just Net Coalition against multi-stakeholder Internet governance [13], and in favour of a state-centric model, although now quite overt, became evident gradually. The Delhi Declaration covers this obliquely, stating “The right to make Internet-related public policies lies exclusively with those who legitimately and directly represent people” (ie. states). Another coded phrase the JNC has used to call for the centralisation of Internet governance authority in states it its call for “legitimate political authority” [14].
> 
> A turning point came at the meeting of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation on Public Policy Issues Pertaining to the Internet (WGEC) of the UN Commission for Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) in April 2014. To the surprise of other civil society and technical community delegates at that meeting, Parminder Jeet Singh insisted that support for paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda [15] be retained in working group's report, as the representatives from Saudi Arabia and Iran also forcefully argued. Up until then, indeed for an unbroken decade, opposition to paragraph 35 had been a unanimous civil society position.
> 
> Paragraph 35 states (my emphasis):
> 
> We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both technical and public policy issues and should involve all stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international organizations. In this respect it is recognized that:
> 
> a. *Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of States*. They have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues.
> 
> b. The private sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role in the development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic fields.
> 
> c. *Civil society has also played an important role on Internet matters, especially *at community level*, and should continue to play such a role.
> 
> d. Intergovernmental organizations have had, and should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of Internet-related public policy issues.
> 
> e. International organizations have also had and should continue to have an important role in the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies.
> 
> In supporting this paragraph that constricts civil society's role in Internet governance, Parminder said:
> 
> "I have clarity about what is the role of different stakeholders being quite different to one another and I don't appreciate that non-governmental actors would have the same role in decision-making than governmental actors. That should not be acceptable at a global level."
> 
> This, translated into JNC policy and the agenda for its Internet Social Forum, marks a profound shift away from the decentralised and horizontal model of Internet governance that civil society had heretofore supported, towards an hierarchical, state-led model.
> 
> For a time, JNC attempted to explain away this change by drawing a straw man distinction between “democratic multi-stakeholderism” (which JNC
> supports) and “equal footing multi-stakeholderism” (which it doesn't, mischaracterising it as “governance by self-selected elites”) [16]. But it has since mostly abandoned that pretense and become more overt in promoting an intergovernmental model of Internet governance [17], stating for example in a more recent statement, “We invite all countries to call for a Framework Convention on the Internet and to take up leadership in developing global Internet-related policies,” and averring that “[w]ithout governmental support, it is difficult, perhaps impossible to combat the dominance of global Internet monopolies” [18].
> 
> Now, I have argued elsewhere why governments ought not to have a monopoly on the development of Internet-related public policies, but why a model of multi-stakeholderism that includes governments as a key, but not dominant stakeholder can still be counted as democratic [19]. You can accept those arguments or not. If you don't, then you might come down on JNC's side on this issue, and that would be perfectly legitimate.
> 
> But that's only half of the problem with JNC. The other half is the toxic relationship that its representatives have cultivated with the rest of civil society.
> 
> Relationship with civil society
> 
> At the first Best Bits meeting in 2012, much time and many pains were taken to accommodate the demands of those future JNC committee members who attended, and this effort did successfully result in a consensus text to which they were willing to put their names [20]. But from this point, their participation in Best Bits became less productive and more divisive, largely over two issues, which were intertwined.
> 
> The first has already been mentioned: the fundamental ideological disagreement over the legitimacy of multi-stakeholder Internet governance, which was accepted by a majority of Best Bits participants, but not by those who were later to split off into JNC. This disagreement took on greater currency when the NETmundial meeting was announced and Best Bits participants began to coordinate the development of several joint inputs [21]. When the future JNC leaders found themselves unable to influence the drafting of these statements to sufficiently accord with their view that governments should have an outsized role in Internet governance, the next best option became to disrupt the development of those statements by hectoring, intimidating and disparaging participants who expressed pro-multistakeholder views.
> 
> As good an example as any, and a more recent one, is Gurstein's reaction in November 2014 to the qualified support of the Association for Progressive Communications (APC) for the NETmundial Initiative, to which he wrote to Anriette Esterhuysen, APC's Executive Director, “I’m taking from your argument that because the NMI offers some possibility, however remote for the advancement of human rights, you are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the pursuit of social justice.” To anyone who knows of the many years of devotion that Anriette and APC have given in the cause of social justice (and Gurstein certainly does), this is a farcical insult.
> 
> The second issue to which the disruptive behaviour of JNC representatives has been directed, which probably arose from the first, were criticisms of various processes that they found themselves unable to influence, including not only those of Best Bits, 1net [22], and the Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) [23]. In a rising tide of authoritarian behaviour, those who became JNC's leaders would demand appointment to a position of authority or that these fledgling groups hold elections immediately, insist that other participants in those groups disclose of their sources of funding, and cause a commotion about any strategic discussions that took place off-list or in closed groups.
> 
> The response of a relative outsider, Milton Mueller, to Gurstein's demands for inclusion in 1net aptly record the frustration that many others felt:
> 
> "Stop pretending that CI [Community Informatics] is some massive grassroots movement related to Internet governance that deserves special representation; and stop pretending that  your frustration with not being selected by CS means that their procedures were illegitimate. You [and] your group are free to contribute position papers to the process and to attend, as far as we know. Why don’t you see how far you can get on persuasion and education, if that’s really your mission?"
> 
> To give another example, Bollow, who had earlier demanded a full accounting of the funding sources of Best Bits participants, wrote in November 2013, “I hereby request the members of the BestBits steering committee, the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and the coordinators of the IGC to disclose any direct or indirect financial relationship to any 'capacity building' or similar kind of project where a US government agency is among the funders.”
> 
> Then again he wrote in October 2014 to the moderators of a closed strategy list formed for the recent ITU Plenipotentiary meeting – a list that he had not joined – demanding the right to “inspect” its archives on behalf of JNC. As for the CSCG, even after it acceded to JNC's requests and added Bollow as a representative, JNC betrayed that trust by publishing an account of its private deliberations which criticised other CSCG members [24], falsely stating that they had decided to support the NETmundial Initiative.
> 
> Although some of JNC's demands of other civil society groups and networks may have been reasonable in themselves – Best Bits, for example, always intended to hold steering committee elections and did hold them within a year of its formation – these demands were delivered with such hubris and entitlement that the effect has been to isolate JNC from other civil society groups and networks and to sow seeds of discord that will have lasting effects.
> 
> Ironically the result has been exactly the opposite of what JNC intended. Discussions have retreated from public, open lists into private, closed lists – or private cc groups that are not list-managed at all – precisely to avoid unproductive exchanges with JNC members.
> 
> Even more ironically, JNC does not hold itself to the same standards of transparency and accountability that it demands of others; it has never been publicly disclosed, for example, receiving funding from ThoughtWorks, and even the list of signatories of the Delhi Declaration, which formed the JNC's first membership list, was not made public for months after its supposed founding, even while further statements continued to be issued. Neither does JNC operate an open mailing list, despite vociferous demands that other civil society networks, such as Best Bits, should do so.
> 
> It might be countered that as pernicious as the behaviour of key JNC members may have been, they are only individuals, and this should not be attributed to the organisation as a whole. Whilst none of the other JNC members has ever “broken ranks” and spoken up against even the founders, this may not be because they are condoning their behaviour, but because they are unaware of it, since it takes place on other civil society mailing lists. Might a change of leadership of JNC be all that is required? This is hard to say, and at present a moot question since no such change is on the horizon.
> 
> Conclusion
> 
> What, then, can we expect from JNC's Internet Social Forum? Sadly, we can expect that any participants who support a distributed, multi-stakeholder model for Internet governance will be required to check those convictions at the door, and to embrace instead a UN-based model that places governments firmly in control of Internet public policy development. We can expect those who deviate from this line to be interrogated mercilessly, and accused of being props for neoliberal hegemony and corporate domination. May JNC's “take no prisoners”
> approach serve them well.
> 
> This is a shame, because a well-reasoned leftist critique of Internet governance arrangements and reforms that directs its ire at powerful incumbents, rather than at those who seek to forge a middle path of inclusive multi-stakeholder governance, would actually be very valuable.
> To date, JNC has exhibited no desire to provide such a sober, productive critique, instead preferring to focus its destructive anger on easier, weaker targets – its own civil society colleagues.
> 
> -----------------------------
> 
> Notes:
> 
> [1] http://justnetcoalition.org
> 
> [2] https://www.netmundial.org
> 
> [3]
> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles
> 
> [4]
> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-2014-submission-on-evolution-of-the-internet-governance-ecosystem
> 
> [5]
> http://www.digitalnewsasia.com/insights/digital-consumers-breaking-through-the-cloud
> 
> [6]
> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/three-false-assumptions-internet-freedom-in-a-world-of-states-part-1
> 
> [7]
> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/civil-society-talks-tough-to-the-netmundial-initiative-but-holds-back-on-a-boycott
> 
> [8] http://justnetcoalition.org/delhi-declaration
> 
> [9] http://igcaucus.org
> 
> [10] http://bestbits.net
> 
> [11]
> http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/roadmaps-for-further-evolution-of-internet-governance/65
> 
> [12]
> http://justnetcoalition.org/sites/default/files/Delhi_Declaration_leaflet_0.pdf
> 
> [13]
> http://blog.justnetcoalition.org/democracy-or-multi-stakeholderism-competing-models-of-governance-by-michael-gurstein
> 
> [14] http://justnetcoalition.org/sites/default/files/NewModel_r2.pdf
> 
> [15] http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html
> 
> [16] http://justnetcoalition.org/sites/default/files/ITU_PP_2014_Stmt2.pdf
> 
> [17]
> http://blog.justnetcoalition.org/democracy-or-multi-stakeholderism-competing-models-of-governance-by-michael-gurstein
> 
> [18] http://justnetcoalition.org/sites/default/files/NewModel_r2.pdf
> 
> [19]
> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/a-civil-society-agenda-for-internet-governance-in-2013-internet-freedom-in-a-world-of-states-part-3
> 
> [20] http://bestbits.net/statement
> 
> [21] http://bestbits.net/netmundial-principles,
> http://bestbits.net/netmundial-roadmap, and http://bestbits.net/netmundial-icann
> 
> [22] http://1net.org/
> 
> [23] http://lists.bestbits.net/info/cs-coord
> 
> [24] http://justnetcoalition.org/NMI-neoliberal-caravan
> 
> ====
> 
> On 01/22/2015 11:47 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> > Global Civil Society launches the Internet Social Forum – With a call
> > to occupy the Internet
> >
> > PRESS RELEASE. Geneva, Switzerland, 22st January, 2015.
> >
> > A group of civil society organisations from around the world has
> > announced the Internet Social Forum, to bring together and articulate
> > bottom-up perspectives on the 'Internet we want'. Taking inspiration
> > from the World Social Forum, and its clarion call, 'Another World is
> > possible', the group seeks to draw urgent attention to the increasing
> > centralization of the Internet for extraction of monopoly rents and
> > for socio-political control, asserting that 'Another Internet is possible'!
> >
> > The Internet Social Forum will inter alia offer an alternative to the
> > recently-launched World Economic Forum's 'Net Mundial Initiative' on
> > global Internet governance. While the World Economic Forum (WEF) and
> > the 'Net Mundial Initiative' convene global elites, the Internet
> > Social Forum will be a participatory and bottom-up space for all those
> > who believe that the global Internet must evolve in the public
> > interest; a direct parallel to the launch of the World Social Forum in
> > 2001 as a counter initiative to the WEF.
> >
> > The Internet Social Forum will reach out to grassroots groups and
> > social movements across the world, catalysing a groundswell that
> > challenges the entrenched elite interests that currently control how
> > the Internet is managed. The Internet Social Forum's preparatory
> > process will kick off during the World Social Forum to take place in
> > Tunis, March 24th to 28th, 2015. The Internet Social Forum itself is
> > planned to be held either late 2015 or early 2016.
> >
> > “While the world's biggest companies have every right to debate the
> > future of the Internet, we are concerned that their perspectives
> > should not drown out those of ordinary people who have no access to
> > the privileged terrain WEF occupies – in the end it is this wider
> > public interest that must be paramount in governing the Internet. We
> > are organising the Internet Social Forum to make sure their voices
> > can't be ignored in the corridors of power,” said Norbert Bollow,
> > Co-Convenor of the Just Net Coalition, which is one of the groups
> > involved in the initiative.
> >
> > The Internet Social Forum, and its preparatory process, is intended as
> > a space to vision and build the 'Internet we want'. It will be
> > underpinned by values of democracy, human rights and social justice.
> > It will stand for participatory policy making and promote community media.
> > It will seek an Internet that is truly decentralized in its
> > architecture and based on people's full rights to data, information,
> > knowledge and other 'commons' that the Internet has enabled the world
> > community to generate and share.
> >
> > Somewhat similar to Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee’s call for a ‘Magna
> > Carta for the Internet', the Internet Social Forum proposes to develop
> > a People's Internet Manifesto, through a bottom-up process involving
> > all concerned social groups and movements, in different areas, from
> > techies and ICT-for-development actors to media reform groups,
> > democracy movements and social justice activists.
> >
> > This year will also see the 10 year high-level review of the World
> > Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), to be held in New York in
> > December. As a full-scale review of a major UN summit, this will be a
> > critical global political event. Since the WSIS, held in 2003 and
> > 2005, the Internet, and what it means socially, has undergone a
> > paradigm shift. The WSIS witnessed active engagement of civil society
> > and technical groups as well as of business. However, currently, there
> > seems to be an deliberate attempt to sideline this UN-led initiative
> > on governance issues of the information society and Internet in favour
> > of private, big-business-dominated initiatives like the WEF's Net
> > Mundial Initiative. The Internet Social Forum, while remaining
> > primarily a people's forum, will also seek to channel global civil
> > society's engagement towards the WSIS +10 review.
> >
> > The following organisations form the initial group that is proposing
> > the Internet Social Forum, and many more are expected to join in the
> > immediate future. This is an open call to progressive groups from all
> > over the world to join this initiative, and participate in developing
> > a People's Internet Manifesto.
> >
> > Just Net Coalition, Global
> > P2P Foundation, Global
> > Transnational Institute, Global
> > Forum on Communication for Integration of our America, Regional (Latin
> > America) Arab NGO Network for Development, Regional Agencia
> > Latinoamericana de Información, Regional Alternative Informatics
> > Association, Turkey Knowledge Commons, India Open-Root/EUROLINC,
> > France SLFC.in, India CODE-IP Trust, Kenya GodlyGlobal.org,
> > Switzerland Centre for Community Informatics Research, Development and
> > Training, Canada IT for Change, India Association for Proper Internet
> > Governance, Switzerland Computer Professionals Union, Philippines Free
> > Press, USA Advocates of Science and Technology for the People,
> > Philippines Other News, Italy Free Software Movement of India
> > Global_Geneva, Switzerland Solidarius (Solidarity Economy Network),
> > Italy All India Peoples Science Network, India Institute for Local
> > Self-Reliance - Community Broadband Networks, USA
> >
> > Please contact us at secretariat at InternetSocialForum.net for further
> > information or clarification.
> >
> > Or the following regional contacts:
> >
> > Africa:        Alex Gakaru <AlexG at InternetSocialForum.net>
> > Asia:          Rishab Bailey <RishabB at InternetSocialForum.net>
> > Europe:        Norbert Bollow <NorbertB at InternetSocialForum.net>
> > North America: Micheal Gurstein <MichealG at InternetSocialForum.net>
> > South America: Sally Burch <SallyB at InternetSocialForum.net>
> >
> >
> > This press release is also available online, e.g. at
> > http://justnetcoalition.org/ISF
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > discuss mailing list
> > discuss at 1net.org
> > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150131/230be3e4/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150131/230be3e4/attachment.sig>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Jan 31 05:51:46 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2015 16:21:46 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] [discuss] FW: [governance] FW: Towards an Internet
 Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com>	<54BFBF0D.3000504@itforchange.net>	<EBD518CE-0A41-4F63-8AB4-E68F33E602FB@globalgeneva.net>	<20150121172634.0fbbd8b5@quill>	<54BFE3E9.8080005@itforchange.net>	<1421862025.163813248@apps.rackspace.com>	<54BFE647.50205@itforchange.net>	<20150121190917.3066b781@quill>	<54BFEF3A.6080307@alainet.org>	<20150121194828.1ce2f9ef@quill>	<b6bf4820c07c5c5367db7cfe2f2c89c1.squirrel@webmail.tni.org>	<54C0BF75.9030809@itforchange.net>	<207E590CDEB1344EB16A3D3424E8D74202304FE5AB3B@EXVMBX016-2.exch016.msoutlookonline.net>	<54C0DFD4.6070202@itforchange.net>	<54C111D0.2050809@itforchange.net>	<54C12314.2060407@alainet.org>	<54C236DE.3050903@itforchange.net>	<54C2E1A8.9040703@itforchange.net>	<001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com>	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>	<007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com>	<009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com> <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org>
Message-ID: <54CCB3C2.30808@itforchange.net>


On Sunday 25 January 2015 11:31 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There have been a lot of criticisms of NMI based on its lack of 
> transparency and top down decsion making. It appears to be trying to 
> fix itself, but does not seem to having great success at this point.  
> How will the ISF distinguish itself in this respect.

Avri

ISF (Internet Social Forum) submits to WSF thinking and processes - 
which one must say are quite demanding inter alia with regard to 
openness and transparency, since  right now I am responding to a 
question on these points. At the same time, as has happened with regard 
to many WSF linked initiatives, that may produce document outcomes etc, 
like the intended People's Internet Manifesto, the ISF process would 
also go beyond what is 'WSF proper' which is clearly not an outcome 
producing forum. How this will be done would, I understand, be figured 
out collectively by the actors who join in this initiative, but 
obviously it cannot do anything that goes against WSF thinking and its 
extreme accent on openness and transparency. ISF would build on similar 
initiatives that have earlier formed under the umbrella of the WSF - of 
which there happen to be a considerable number. We are already in touch 
with a number of such groups/ initiatives.

As to the key operative phrase above, about 'the actors who join in the 
initiative' ,  ISF will be working under WSF rules and criteria, which 
are listed on the WSF 2015 website on the unambiguously titled page 
'criteria of participation 
<https://fsm2015.org/en/criteria-participation>'. . As you will see, one 
of the criterion is adherence to the original Charter of Principles 
<http://www.forumsocialmundial.org.br/main.php?id_menu=4&cd_language=2> 
of the WSF.

Now, if some people consider these criteria too exclusionary well that 
is what the WSF is, and ISF is working under the WSF umbrella . It is 
possible, just to give an example and no offence intended, that some 
anti abortionists may find some women's rights groups too exclusionary, 
but that is how it is. In my experiences any serious political work 
requires some boundary laying.

>
> Also, I do hope the ISF takes more pains than the NMI has in terms of 
> appearing to challenge the existence of the IGF.

I responded on this to Wolfgang (whose response BTW I still await). 
Unlike NMI, the ISF has no claim to be multistakeholder. It is 
out-and-out a civil society initiative (Please see WSF criteria above) . 
In the circumstances, I do not understand what conflict it presents with 
the IGF, In fact I asked Wolfgang and I ask you Avri, why and how does a 
civil society initiative present questions about 'challenge to the 
existence of the IGF'?

And again, we welcome all progressive groups and individuals who 
subscribe to the WSF thinking to join us in the ISF initiative. And this 
is a public pledge that the group working on this initiative will always 
holds itself highly accountable to the public, and will always respond 
to questions that are posed to the group.

If this response is not found satisfactory with respect to the original 
question, please do not hesitate to ask again or if needed re-frame the 
question or get more specific. If we do not have an answer right now, 
that too we will tell you.

parminder

Disclaimer: Above are just my views about what the ISF should and is 
likely to , and there is still no definitive articulation of the issues 
and processes discussed above by the collectivity behind the ISF initiative.

>
> avri
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150131/45493423/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Jan 31 05:54:55 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2015 16:24:55 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] [discuss] FW: [governance] FW: Towards an Internet
 Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <54CCB3C2.30808@itforchange.net>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com>	<EBD518CE-0A41-4F63-8AB4-E68F33E602FB@globalgeneva.net>	<20150121172634.0fbbd8b5@quill>	<54BFE3E9.8080005@itforchange.net>	<1421862025.163813248@apps.rackspace.com>	<54BFE647.50205@itforchange.net>	<20150121190917.3066b781@quill>	<54BFEF3A.6080307@alainet.org>	<20150121194828.1ce2f9ef@quill>	<b6bf4820c07c5c5367db7cfe2f2c89c1.squirrel@webmail.tni.org>	<54C0BF75.9030809@itforchange.net>	<207E590CDEB1344EB16A3D3424E8D74202304FE5AB3B@EXVMBX016-2.exch016.msoutlookonline.net>	<54C0DFD4.6070202@itforchange.net>	<54C111D0.2050809@itforchange.net>	<54C12314.2060407@alainet.org>	<54C236DE.3050903@itforchange.net>	<54C2E1A8.9040703@itforchange.net>	<001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com>	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>	<007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com>	<009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com> <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org> <54CCB3C2.30808@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <54CCB47F.2030708@itforchange.net>


On Saturday 31 January 2015 04:21 PM, parminder wrote:
>
> On Sunday 25 January 2015 11:31 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> There have been a lot of criticisms of NMI based on its lack of 
>> transparency and top down decsion making. It appears to be trying to 
>> fix itself, but does not seem to having great success at this point.  
>> How will the ISF distinguish itself in this respect.
>
> Avri
>
> ISF (Internet Social Forum) submits to WSF 

Should have made clear -- WSF is the World Social Forum ...

> thinking and processes - which one must say are quite demanding inter 
> alia with regard to openness and transparency, since  right now I am 
> responding to a question on these points. At the same time, as has 
> happened with regard to many WSF linked initiatives, that may produce 
> document outcomes etc, like the intended People's Internet Manifesto, 
> the ISF process would also go beyond what is 'WSF proper' which is 
> clearly not an outcome producing forum. How this will be done would, I 
> understand, be figured out collectively by the actors who join in this 
> initiative, but obviously it cannot do anything that goes against WSF 
> thinking and its extreme accent on openness and transparency. ISF 
> would build on similar initiatives that have earlier formed under the 
> umbrella of the WSF - of which there happen to be a considerable 
> number. We are already in touch with a number of such groups/ 
> initiatives.
>
> As to the key operative phrase above, about 'the actors who join in 
> the initiative' ,  ISF will be working under WSF rules and criteria, 
> which are listed on the WSF 2015 website on the unambiguously titled 
> page 'criteria of participation 
> <https://fsm2015.org/en/criteria-participation>'. . As you will see, 
> one of the criterion is adherence to the original Charter of 
> Principles 
> <http://www.forumsocialmundial.org.br/main.php?id_menu=4&cd_language=2> of 
> the WSF.
>
> Now, if some people consider these criteria too exclusionary well that 
> is what the WSF is, and ISF is working under the WSF umbrella . It is 
> possible, just to give an example and no offence intended, that some 
> anti abortionists may find some women's rights groups too 
> exclusionary, but that is how it is. In my experiences any serious 
> political work requires some boundary laying.
>
>>
>> Also, I do hope the ISF takes more pains than the NMI has in terms of 
>> appearing to challenge the existence of the IGF.
>
> I responded on this to Wolfgang (whose response BTW I still await). 
> Unlike NMI, the ISF has no claim to be multistakeholder. It is 
> out-and-out a civil society initiative (Please see WSF criteria above) 
> . In the circumstances, I do not understand what conflict it presents 
> with the IGF, In fact I asked Wolfgang and I ask you Avri, why and how 
> does a civil society initiative present questions about 'challenge to 
> the existence of the IGF'?
>
> And again, we welcome all progressive groups and individuals who 
> subscribe to the WSF thinking to join us in the ISF initiative. And 
> this is a public pledge that the group working on this initiative will 
> always holds itself highly accountable to the public, and will always 
> respond to questions that are posed to the group.
>
> If this response is not found satisfactory with respect to the 
> original question, please do not hesitate to ask again or if needed 
> re-frame the question or get more specific. If we do not have an 
> answer right now, that too we will tell you.
>
> parminder
>
> Disclaimer: Above are just my views about what the ISF should and is 
> likely to , and there is still no definitive articulation of the 
> issues and processes discussed above by the collectivity behind the 
> ISF initiative.
>
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150131/7c552155/attachment.htm>

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Sat Jan 31 06:34:41 2015
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2015 12:34:41 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] [discuss] from confusion to clarification
In-Reply-To: <F3AE17F1-F412-4C18-A152-53E0E10BFC09@gmail.com>
References: <54C97D34.1060106@gmail.com>
 <54C75205-014A-4AE1-8372-263F5389FC5F@yahoo.com>
 <54CA4854.9040804@gmail.com>
 <F3AE17F1-F412-4C18-A152-53E0E10BFC09@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <mailman.147.1642081890.12520.bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org>

At 16:04 29/01/2015, Eduardo Villanueva wrote:
>Hi Willi
>
>For what I understand of your argument, you believe that “internet 
>governance” is irrelevant because there is only need for a number 
>(perhaps a limited number) of technical decisions to guarantee that 
>the Internet continues to work as such. While I think there’s a 
>lot more there to discuss than just the technical issues of the 
>interconnection of networks as they stand today, may I ask you how 
>do you think the institutional arrangements necessary to reach the 
>technical solutions should be? Just maintain the IETF? Or something different?

Dear Eduardo,

Digital networking is conceptually a singularity in human thinking, 
before becoming one in technology (I understand a singularity here as 
when human society extends by way of something that it must retain to 
remain human).

It is embodied in the mathematical, physical, cosmological, and 
biological scientific evolution of the last 125 years (since the 
Raymond Poincaré non-resolution of the "n-body" problem, i.e. the end 
of the Ptolemaic, Copernican, and Newtonian [a very long time] area 
where we thought that :

* space and time were absolute and continuous,
* understanding could be logic (dialectic and linear),
* the principle of an excluded third was correct,
* and the cause always came before the effect.

Since then, we know better, in that things, thoughts, influences, 
interests, etc. are not hierarchical but rather meshed and 
non-simultaneous. In particular, we know that the universe is 
multiple at least because everything is the center of its/his/her own 
universe, and probably because the meshing is complex.

This is why there is no such thing as an "internet governance": there 
are billions of individual governances, on individual men and 
machines digitalities, that include (or not) the use of one of the 
various main data network transport technologies (the number and 
power is enlarging: internet(s), NDN, SDN, ethernet, etc.).

Open-Stand
---------------
Pragmatically, the heads of IEEE, IETF, IAB, ISOC, and W3C have 
agreed that they have observed this paradigmatic change 
(<http://open-stand.org/>http://open-stand.org or RFC 6852). This 
results in a coopetitive innovation between global communities 
fostered by their market economies.

In an attempt to keep things under control, there are at least four 
complete/consistent doctrines that emerge:

- structured multilateral vision by governments. It is "ported" by 
the ITU and the International Telecommunication Treaty.
- industrial leadership, pushed by the NTIA which disengages partly 
from its internet exclusive involvement in order to be able to 
politically invest in the new ones.
- commercial leadership, ported by ICANN which asks the WEF to read 
the economic demand for them.
- Libre's cosmological (everyone is the center of his/her network) 
vision as chosen by the WSIS (an information society that is to be 
"people centered, à caractère humain, centrada en la persona").

An unproductive buzz is maintained by some claiming to be "the Civil Society".

The IETF/IAB acknowledgment
---------------------------------------
In a network, technological cohesion must come before innovation 
(there's no use in having a better yet fragmented network). This put 
the IAB at the core of the system stability, as the master of the 
IANA. However, this time is over. IAB is consistent with the general 
change and does not want to assume the responsibility anymore. This 
disengagement:

- was implied in RFC 6852 (I appealed it for that reason: for ISOC to 
clarify, but the NTIA's statement came before, after the IAB layer).
- this is documented in the WG/IANAPLAN IESG approved Draft (to be 
published as an RFC) 
<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response/>http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response/ 

- I am going to appeal it - not to oppose it, but to force ISOC to 
give more exposure  to their decision, in order to leave no doubt in 
anyone's mind and avoid miscomprehension conflicts.

As a result, the IETF Chair has officially transferred the ultimate 
IETF guidance and decision to the NTIA: 
<http://www.ietf.org/blog/2015/01/taking-a-step-towards-iana-transition/>http://www.ietf.org/blog/2015/01/taking-a-step-towards-iana-transition/

Consequences
------------------
This is a great clarification: it transforms the IETF into an USIETF, 
the same as ICANN was the AmerICANN.

However, it leaves us in front of a fragmented multitechnology 
situation. This only means that we have accomplished the Internet 
Project's (IEN 48 http://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien48.txt) first 
motivation and now we are switching to its second one, i.e. its 
inter-technology phase. In this second phase, the network continuity 
does not result mainly from the middle layers: the catenet (the 
network of networks, the concatenation of all the local and virtual 
networks) is completed and is pervasive. So, we can trust and rely on 
the lower layers' stability, and differentiate our middle layers' 
choices depending on our different needs and communities' best 
interests: e.g. ICANN/Rosettanet, Google/Internet, Netflix/NDN, 
Cloud/SDN, smart cities/meshed networks, etc.

The political and economic hysteresis is in favor of ITU, NTIA (ISOC 
and ICANN probably apart), but the Libre is freed as a community and 
can focus on an upper layer (intelligent use) of the lower layers of 
the Catenet, whatever the middle layer (transport) being used.

This is why we have initiated the CCC Free/Libre project of a Catenet 
Cooperative Company, for an  intelligent use (IUse) of our 
collectively built and shared network of our networks. The advantage 
of the Cooperative concept (one man/corporate/institution = one vote) 
is that our polycratic multitude (no societal agreement with a 
specific sovereign power) can organize on structured a democratic 
basis. This permits an "omnishareholder" intergovernance that may be 
less conflict prone than the current forms of coopted/biased 
"multistakeholderism" and/or fuzzy forums, lose coalitions or fluid 
communities.

Required common technical work
------------------------------------------
This is to be technically ported by a standalone digital capacity for 
everyone in our anthropobotic (men + bots) society. A "post-human" 
capacity, even more than a "human right".

This calls for a catenetbox virtual machine/plug-ins and for a common 
metadata registry system. Users will need to load an intelligent use 
interface (IUI) plug-in, hosting the different communication network 
technologies to be used, and coordinating with upper layers in names 
(DNS CLASSes), numbers (everyone has already a digital network 
address: his/her/its telephone number), parameters (for/by each 
technology), and documentation areas.

Coopetitively developing/testing this Libre catenetbox, its various 
functions, and its netix interapplication system is now to be one of 
our priorities.

However, there are others, such as building a technically lasting 
shareholder database (everyone has a "diginame"), a wiki 3.0, and an 
IANA protocol to permit mutual documentation and information, etc. 
This is networking. Then, we need to advance in the direction we are 
really interested in: inter-comprehension facilitation. The Intersem, 
i.e. the intersemiotic layers of datacommunications.

>This particular issue is at the center of many debates about 
>Internet governance, but i gather you may think that there is a 
>better, simpler solution that will resolve the issue without all the 
>hoopla around the IGF, NMI, ISF and everything else.

They will remain as the wake of the new course we will have set.

Best.
jfc



>Thanks for your time.
>
>
>Eduardo Villanueva-Mansilla
>Associate Professor, Dept. Communications
>Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
><mailto:evillan at pucp.pe>evillan at pucp.pe
>www.eduardovillanueva.com
>
>
>
>>El 29/1/2015, a las 9:48, willi uebelherr 
>><<mailto:willi.uebelherr at gmail.com>willi.uebelherr at gmail.com> escribió:
>>
>>Dear Nathalie.
>>
>>Am 28/01/2015 um 09:26 p.m. schrieb Nathalie Coupet:
>>>Could you explain what kind of decentralized architecture would be 
>>>necessary to eliminate the retention of virtual address spaces?
>>
>>In general, addresses are geografical position. Then the transport 
>>is very easy. If you destroy this principle, then you need 
>>administration to create the necessary information about the 
>>geografical location from you virtual address.
>>
>>For me, the "decentralized architecture" is the reality of 
>>distributed local communities, where we live. The reality self is 
>>the "architecture of decentralization".
>>
>>The "Internet Governance" is a useless and cheap theater. For that, 
>>they need this virtualisation of addresses.
>>
>>>What process would need to be in place to assign address space 
>>>according to the geographical position in the network?
>>
>>We have to create a open discussion about a useful world coordinate 
>>system. Our WC84, what we mostly use, is not really optimal. The 
>>distances between 2 degrees is on the pol 0 and on the equator max. 
>>We use triangles.
>>
>>Also we have to discuss our transform algorithm from WC (world 
>>coordinate) to 64 bit global IP-address and back. The local 64 bit 
>>IP-address is independent of that. The people decide the address mechanism.
>>
>>And we have to discuss our decentralized DNS-System. The roots are 
>>always the local networks. You can ask this roots and save for 
>>later. Or forget and ask later the same. But because all people 
>>need it, we organize it as a common task in the locality.
>>
>>>Thank you. Nathalie
>>>Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>Thank you, Willi
>>Sent from my mail client Thunderbird portable with PortableApps
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>discuss mailing list
>><mailto:discuss at 1net.org>discuss at 1net.org
>>http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>_______________________________________________
>discuss mailing list
>discuss at 1net.org
>http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150131/b7e1851d/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Sat Jan 31 11:49:36 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2015 08:49:36 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] [discuss] FW: FW: Towards an Internet
 Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com>
 <54BFBF0D.3000504@itforchange.net> <EBD518CE-0A41-4F63-8AB4-E68F33E602FB@globalgeneva.net>
 <20150121172634.0fbbd8b5@quill> <54BFE3E9.8080005@itforchange.net>
 <1421862025.163813248@apps.rackspace.com> <54BFE647.50205@itforchange.net>
 <20150121190917.3066b781@quill> <54BFEF3A.6080307@alainet.org>
 <20150121194828.1ce2f9ef@quill> <b6bf4820c07c5c5367db7cfe2f2c89c1.squirrel@webmail.tni.org>
 <54C0BF75.9030809@itforchange.net> <207E590CDEB1344EB16A3D3424E8D74202304FE5AB3B@EXVMBX016-2.exch016.msoutlookonline.net>
 <54C0DFD4.6070202@itforchange.net> <54C111D0.2050809@itforchange.net>
 <54C12314.2060407@alainet.org> <54C236DE.3050903@itforchange.net>
 <54C2E1A8.9040703@itforchange.net> <001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com> <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com>
 <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org> <"54CCB3C2.30 808"@itforch ange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <014b01d03d75$e5ef5640$b1ce02c0$@gmail.com>

Wolfgang,

A few comments inline...

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter,
Wolfgang"
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 5:03 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder; Avri Doria; discuss at 1net.org;
bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: AW: [governance] [discuss] FW: FW: Towards an Internet Social Forum

Parminder:
I responded on this to Wolfgang (whose response BTW I still await). 

Wolfgang:
Sorry for the late reply. And thanks Parminder (and Norbert) for the
clarification with regard to the new ISF. Here are some comments:

1. The multistakeholder approach is a two layer approach where each
stakholder has (on the lower layer) its own mechanisms to develop positions
to various issues and where on the higher layer the various stakeholders
communicate, coordinate and collaborate together to find solutions to common
problems on the basis of what in the Internet world is called "rough
consensus". If one stakeholder group disagrees there is no rough consensus.
Insofar, I see no basic conflicts between the idea of an ISF and the IGF.
ISF is one-stakeholder. IGF is multi-stakeholder. Welcome. 

[MG>] I'm never sure in these types of discussions whether MSism is a
technical mechanism or a normative position or both and whether it is meant
to be simply a part of the preparatory process for decision making or meant
to be the decision making mechanism itself.  Could you clarify? 

The ISF to my mind is not meant to re/present one stakeholder but is
concerned with ensuring that decision making in the Internet sphere is based
on democratic values and mechanisms. There would seem to be a fundamental
incompatibility between decision making undertaken by self-selected
stakeholder elites and democratic decision making.  Could you clarify?

2. For civil society - probably the weakest partner in a full
multistakeholder mechanism - it would be good to speak with one voice. This
enhances to chances not only to be heard but also to participate in decision
making. We learned this lesson during WSIS I. The Geneva CS WSIS declaration
opened the door for participation of CS (on equal footing) both in the WGIG
and later in the IGF. This was an achievement and neither a "natural"
development nor a present by the other stakeholders. A key role played the
Interrnet Governance Caucus (IGC), established in June 2003. The IGC played
a primary role in globale IG policy making until 2007 or 2008. Over the last
couple of years the IGC became - unfortunately - a platform where
disagreemet dominated and the readiness to find internal "rough consensus"
among the various wings within the CS stakeholder groups became nearly
impossible. This resulted in a dramtic declining of the influence of the IGC
into multistakeholder processes and the ermegence of other CS IG Networks -
from Best Bits to the Just Net Coalition. The diversity is not a bad thing.
But if such a diversity ends in "infighting" (remember the unbelievable
shouting during the IGC Meeting in Bali) the risk is high, that the CS as a
whole looses a lot of credibility and weakens its opportunities to
participate meaningful at the higher multistakeholder level. All (limited)
energies and resources are wasted in fighting each other, nothing remains to
made a construtive input into the broader processes of the higher level of
multistakehoder policy development.  

[MG>] There has been for some time in the IGC an unresolved ambiguity as to
what is meant by "civil society"... I clearly remember discussions with many
of those currently bewailing the development of the ISF where I and others
attempted to assert that civil society represented particular
normative/value positions (such as those represented by the WSF) while
others -- notably those identified by Jeremy i.e. Avri, McTim, Milton,
Suresh etc. argued vociferously that no, CS was a "category", not a movement
i.e. "CS is all those not otherwise associated with government or the
private sector (sometimes the technical community was included here and
sometimes not)".  The argument went so far as to have some assert that even
those otherwise employed by government or the private sector could in their
off days be classified as civil society if they chose to self-identify as
such whether or not the position that they espoused as CS was directly
consistent with the presumed interests of their employer.
       
To my mind this represents (and represented) a fundamental division within
the IGC between those who saw CS as being based on a common agreement on
certain values and norms (as for example those espoused by the WSF) and
those who simply saw CS as a convenient collection of self-identified actors
organized to promote certain interests within multistakeholder processes.
The ISF is a direct linear outgrowth of that division and the affiliations
with and opposition to the ISF would appear to be also directly associated
with how individuals aligned themselves in that debate.

3. In my eyes the CSCG - which did build an umbrella above six CS IG
Networks - was the best what could happen after the split (which started
already in Nairobi and continued in Baku). It allowed the various wings to
stick to their - sometimes excentric - positions, but it also allowed the
start of processes - on a case by case basis - where the various competing
groups did find common language around concrete issues. But even this
collapsed in the preparatory discussion for the NMI. 

[MG>] To my mind the CSCG simply papered over that division for convenience
sake.

4. To have the WSF as an umbrella organisation for the planned ISF is not a
bad idea (do you have a charter or an MoU about the formalities of the
relationship?). The objectives of the WSF are core objectives of the global
civil society and they are relevant also for the Internet which includes
efforts to bridge the digital divide, to promote human rights, to reduce and
overcome social and economic injustice and to promote access to the
Internet. If the ISF can make here a meaningful contribution, this is
welcome. However as it looks at this moment, the ISF does not build bridges
among the various wings of CS IG Groups, it deepends the split. This weakens
CS and is not needed.

[MG>] My expectation is that the ISF will be very welcoming of those who
look on and are willing to commit by their statements and actions to the
role of CS in IG as being the promotion of certain broadly agreed upon
normative positions (the ones you have pointed to above among others) and
will be not welcoming to those who are not. Whether this promotes
divisions/bridges in CS is neither here nor there since the division is a
already a fundamental and irreconcilable one and not obviously bridgeable
except on occasion on specific issues/campaigns.

5. I do not see that the ISF is the counterinitiative to the NMI. ISF is
one-stakeholder, NMI is multi-stakeholder. Two different shoes. The NMI
brings together all four stakeholder groups on equal footing and a high
level. Based on the Sao Paulo Declaration this is a stumbling step forward
into a new territory of a multistakeholder policy development which offers
new opportunities which has to be tested out. It is a challenge for civil
society to bring its key positions to this process. 

[MG>] I think you misunderstand the ISF which is meant to be the beginnings
of a popular movement to ensure that the Internet is "governed" is a way
which is consistent with and supportive of democracy, social and economic
justice, and human rights.  The feeling of many currently in the ISF is that
the NMI is in direct opposition to this;  rather it is supportive of an
Internet that is governed by and in the interests of economic and political
elites. The inclusion of token CS representation in the NMI is hardly a
substitute for democratic governance and certainly no protection against the
overwhelming power and resources of elites as working within the framework
of the NMI/WEF or elsewhere.

Mike


Wolfgang






From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Wed Jan  7 22:06:06 2015
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 22:06:06 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] great reading
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAexamp4_TcEFP7H9fTk=Z_09r0W7xcQ=KmVrM=gNTgK7Q@mail.gmail.com>

http://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/files/2014/12/xvii-18_Tufekci_Article.pdf


"SOCIAL MOVEMENTS AND GOVERNMENTS IN THE DIGITAL AGE: EVALUATING A COMPLEX
LANDSCAPE”

Happy 2015!

-- 
*Carolina Rossini *
*Vice President, International Policy*
*Public Knowledge*
*http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150107/70c3c9b5/attachment.htm>

From wisdom.dk at gmail.com  Thu Jan  8 06:01:34 2015
From: wisdom.dk at gmail.com (Wisdom Donkor)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 11:01:34 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] great reading
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAexamp4_TcEFP7H9fTk=Z_09r0W7xcQ=KmVrM=gNTgK7Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK-FJAexamp4_TcEFP7H9fTk=Z_09r0W7xcQ=KmVrM=gNTgK7Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAU+vPG4dVNQ4aruUTwCg5p=Ef56+W16KHr=BEfzRoOA317XnQ@mail.gmail.com>

Grate articles.

WISDOM DONKOR
Sosftware / Network Engineer
Web/Open Government Platform Portal Specialist
National Information Technology Agency (NITA)
Post Office Box CT. 2439, Cantonments, Accra, Ghana
Tel; +233 20 812881
Email: wisdom_dk at hotmail.com
wisdom.donkor at data.gov.gh
wisdom.dk at gmail.com
Skype: wisdom_dk
facebook: facebook at wisdom_dk
Website: www.nita.gov.gh / www.data.gov.gh
www.isoc.gh / www.itag.org.gh


On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 3:06 AM, Carolina Rossini <carolina.rossini at gmail.com
> wrote:

> http://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/files/2014/12/xvii-18_Tufekci_Article.pdf
>
>
> "SOCIAL MOVEMENTS AND GOVERNMENTS IN THE DIGITAL AGE: EVALUATING A COMPLEX
> LANDSCAPE”
>
> Happy 2015!
>
> --
> *Carolina Rossini *
> *Vice President, International Policy*
> *Public Knowledge*
> *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
> + 1 6176979389 | 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150108/d8eb7fda/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Jan  8 08:04:44 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 18:34:44 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] A BR view of multistkaholder processes...
In-Reply-To: <54AD47FF.1000803@cafonso.ca>
References: <54AD47FF.1000803@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <54AE806C.3090703@itforchange.net>

Dear Carlos,

Thanks for the very useful article, and for posting it here. (For those 
who would like to read it, i recommend downloading the full magazine and 
then reading the article. It is very difficult to read it online.)

I am happy that finally multistakeholderism (MSism) is being openly 
discussed and argued for, in formal write ups.

I will like to make the following points about your article, and the 
comparison it makes between the evolution of MSism in other areas of 
global governance, largely within the UN system, and the MSism of the IG 
world, of which the Net Mundial Initiative is the latest version.

My main point here is that MS models hitherto, including all historical 
examples that you have discussed, have always developed in relation to a 
larger and clearly more formal and authoritative decision making 
structure - and in all cases you discuss, such a structure has been a UN 
body. In fact your article clearly speaks of the relationship of MS 
structures to decision making bodies.

(quote beings)
*Connection to Decision-Makers*

Multistakeholder bodies can interact in different ways with official 
decision-making processes at the international, regional, or national 
levels. Some MSM bodies are purely informative. Others can develop best 
practices concerning a particular issue and present them to governments. 
Multistakeholder bodies can also conduct participatory monitoring of 
issues that affect society, such as a deforestation index or the quality 
of Internet access provided by telecommunications operators.

(ends)

Here, you lay our three functions of an MS system - providing 
information and best practices (together, inputs) to decision makers, 
and monitoring and assessments to hold policy makers accountable.

All this is very well, and is what is generally called as participatory 
democracy. In fact the Agenda 21  that you quote as being the " first UN 
document to include different stakeholders’ roles in a global agreement 
" is an excellent documenton participatory democracy. (Incidentally, it 
neither speaks of MSism, nor even the word 'stakeholder'.)  Please see 
what kind of different roles it gives to different groups (which you may 
like to call 'stakeholders'). Especially see how NGOs and business are 
seen so differently, and how the civil society group consists of so many 
different parts and business/ industry is just one. And also of course 
all the roles of all these groups stand is a specific relationship to 
policy makers.

These are the values and principles that civil society has long fought 
for - call it participatory democracy, or stakeholder consultations.. 
However, and this is my principal point, the MSism that we see in the IG 
space is not at all this kind of participatory democracy/ stakeholder 
involvement . I of course speak of the *equal footing MS model* that is 
we hear spoken of everywhere, and which is now meant to be embodied in 
the NetMundial Initiative.

This new post-democracy model cannot be derived from the growth of 
participatory democracy in global governance that your papers tries to 
derive it from... In this regard, I judge as inadequate, if not a bit 
misleading, the premise - conclusion logic of your paper.

The new equal footing (EF-MS) MS model, rather than work in relation to 
a legitimate policy making structure, seeks to anticipate and subvert 
it. We know that almost all NMI enthusiasts are firmly against 
development of an Internet policy venue inside the UN, or in any other 
democratic/ legitimate manner. It - the EF-MS model - seeks to itself be 
the policy giver to the world in this area, which is the real problem 
with equal footing MSism and with the NetMundial Initiative. In the 
circumstances, it is quite inappropriate to connect its evolution to 
that of participatory democracy in UN institutions, including that for 
sustainable development.

Now, you may say that neither is the equal footing MS model (nor the 
NMI) into anticipating and preventing legitimate policy work at the UN, 
nor is it even at all about policy work. Lets listen to the main 
flag-bearer of the NMI idea, Fadi Chehade, defending the need for the NMI.

"We need to make sure that next June we don't have delegation after 
delegation going to UNGA [the United Nations General Assembly] saying 
there are no solutions to these issues. "
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/12/im_begging_you_to_join_netmundial_initiative_gets_desperate/?page=2

Clear attempt to anticipate and prevent UN based policy development, or 
do we need even clearer proof! And since UN bodies develop policy, the 
proposed 'existing solutions', in the form of NMI's work, will in effect 
be policy stuff - there is a saying , you cannot compare apples to oranges.

Of course, there is considerable verbal acrobatics going on to hide and 
whitewash the (policy) intentions of the NMI. This is what another NMI 
champion Wolfgang says (on the NMI website):

"The NetMundial Initiative will bring solutions to the broad range of 
Internet related policy problems."

Again, an apples and oranges problem... If you bring solutions to policy 
problems, then they must be come kinds of policies, right! (One should 
be more considerate to ordinary language, but this is the new age PR.)

(One good thing about the NMI is that it is *equal footing MSism* in 
flesh and blood and so one can effectively critique it, unless the 
earlier slippery non-theories and non-substance of equal footing MSism, 
other than employing it as an self-evident and self-justifying creed).

In sum, I am unable to agree with your connecting the current versions 
of equal footing MSism, intending policy work, as a continuation of the 
evolution of some tendencies in the global governance system, beginning 
prominently with the Rio Summit on sustainable development. In fact, I 
believe that they go in exactly the opposite directions - one as 
deepening democracy and other as subverting it (equal footing MSism). I 
have above pointed to the chief structural difference between the two 
which can be observed empirically - that, one is based an a specific 
relationship to legitimate policy making systems and other seeks to 
anticipate and prevent them.

best regards

parminder



On Wednesday 07 January 2015 08:21 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
> Just published in the IEEE Internet Computing journal:
>
> http://online.qmags.com/IC0115?sessionID=BD7A2B7CBEF89C57D8F47874E&cid=3193795&eid=19210#pg76&mode2
>
> The Origin and Evolution of Multistakeholder Models
>
> Virgilio Almeida - Federal University of Minas Gerais
> Demi Getschko - Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo
> Carlos Afonso - Instituto Nupef, Rio de Janeiro
>
> Abstract: Various domains have adopted multistakeholder models (MSMs) to
> address and deal with global challenges, such as sustainability,
> environment, climate, and Internet governance. Here, the authors examine
> the use of MSMs and their historical evolution, fundamentals, and
> characteristics. They also present examples of how such models are used
> in the global Internet governance ecosystem. Finally, the article
> presents a series of research questions that can be tackled to improve
> the efficiency of multistakeholder processes.
>
> frt rgds
>
> --c.a.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150108/c9c38bfe/attachment.htm>