From JimFleming at ameritech.net Sun Jan 1 04:06:50 2006 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 01:06:50 -0800 Subject: [governance] Welcome to IPv2006 and Virtualization Message-ID: <000501c60eb2$bb363fa0$640aa8c0@vaio> Welcome to IPv2006 and Virtualization Every so often technologists (you know, those strange people that actually understand computers), are provided a 1 second Maintenance Window to upgrade the version of the software that shapes your packets and brings you more address bits, higher speed and more reliable transport. That one second does not really exist. During that time, your software can be rolled forward, tested, rolled back, tested and rolled forward again. With object technology and virtualization, you always have two versions available, the one you are running on and the previous version you can fall back to in case of a failure. If you have a modern packet transport system and architecture, you also have two modules in series between you and the global commons. Some call those firewalls. The outer firewall is rarely upgraded and only small changes are made. The inner firewall can be more easily upgraded. Both units can consult during the leap second to decide on what version to prefer. If you are under the control of THE Big Lie Society you of course get no new versions and you get no new TLDs and you see no new content. You get to repeat 2005 again in 2006. Happy Last Year. "The Earth is constantly undergoing a deceleration caused by the braking action of the tides. Through the use of ancient observations of eclipses, it is possible to determine the average deceleration of the Earth to be roughly 1.4 milliseconds per day per century. This deceleration causes the Earth's rotational time to slow with respect to the atomic clock time. Thus, the definition of the ephemeris second embodied in Newcomb's motion of the Sun was implicitly equal to the average mean solar second over the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Modern studies have indicated that the epoch at which the mean solar day was exactly 86,400 SI seconds was approximately 1820. This is also the approximate mean epoch of the observations analyzed by Newcomb, ranging in date from 1750 to 1892, that resulted in the definition of the mean solar day on the scale of Ephemeris Time. Before then, the mean solar day was shorter than 86,400 seconds and since then it has been longer than 86,400 seconds. The length of the mean solar day has increased by roughly 2 milliseconds since it was exactly 86,400 seconds of atomic time about 1.79 centuries ago (i.e. the 179 year difference between 1999 and 1820). That is, the length of the mean solar day is at present about 86,400.002 seconds instead of exactly 86,400 seconds. Over the course of one year, the difference accumulates to almost one second, which is compensated by the insertion of a leap second into the scale of UTC with a current regularity of a little less than once per year. Other factors also affect the Earth, some in unpredictable ways, so that it is necessary to monitor the Earth's rotation continuously. In order to keep the cumulative difference in UT1-UTC less than 0.9 seconds, a leap second is added to the atomic time to decrease the difference between the two. This leap second can be either positive or negative depending on the Earth's rotation. Since the first leap second in 1972, all leap seconds have been positive and there were 22 leap seconds in the 27 years to January, 1999. This pattern reflects the general slowing trend of the Earth due to tidal braking." Source - http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/leapsec.html _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Jan 11 06:51:45 2006 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:51:45 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [Wgig-news] Consultations on the convening of the Internet Governance Forum Message-ID: The forum cannot be open to all if meetings are announced with just over one month's notice. There are always scheduling problems, but this is most definitely not in the spirt of an "open and inclusive process" (para 72, Tunis Agenda.) Thanks, Adam >Delivered-To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp >From: WGIG at unog.ch >To: wgig-news at wgig.org >Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 12:37:43 +0100 >Subject: [Wgig-news] Consultations on the convening of the Internet > Governance Forum >X-BeenThere: Wgig-news at wgig.org >List-Id: >List-Unsubscribe: , > >List-Archive: >List-Post: >List-Help: >List-Subscribe: , > >Sender: Wgig-news-bounces at wgig.org >X-Virus-Status: No >X-Virus-Checker-Version: clamassassin 1.2.2 with clamdscan / ClamAV >0.87.1/1179/Sat Nov 19 02:33:40 2005 > > >Consultations on the convning of the Internet Governance Forum will take >place in Geneva on 16 and 17 February 2006. > >More details on the consultations, including a draft agenda, are available >on this website, which is still under construction: >http://www.IntGovForum.org. > > >_______________________________________________ >Wgig-news mailing list >Wgig-news at wgig.org >http://wgig.org/mailman/listinfo/wgig-news_wgig.org _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Wed Jan 11 08:26:42 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 14:26:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [Wgig-news] Consultations on the convening of the Internet Governance Forum In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1136986003.4884.31.camel@croce.dyf.it> Il giorno mer, 11-01-2006 alle 20:51 +0900, Adam Peake ha scritto: > The forum cannot be open to all if meetings are announced with just > over one month's notice. > > There are always scheduling problems, but this is most definitely not > in the spirt of an "open and inclusive process" (para 72, Tunis > Agenda.) What I've heard (this morning, when asking) is that this was originally scheduled for February 27-28, but then they realized that on those dates the Geneva Motor Show is on, so the town was already fully booked. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Jan 11 08:51:39 2006 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 22:51:39 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [Wgig-news] Consultations on the convening of the Internet Governance Forum In-Reply-To: <1136986003.4884.31.camel@croce.dyf.it> References: <1136986003.4884.31.camel@croce.dyf.it> Message-ID: >Il giorno mer, 11-01-2006 alle 20:51 +0900, Adam Peake ha scritto: >> The forum cannot be open to all if meetings are announced with just >> over one month's notice. >> >> There are always scheduling problems, but this is most definitely not > > in the spirt of an "open and inclusive process" (para 72, Tunis >> Agenda.) > >What I've heard (this morning, when asking) is that this was originally >scheduled for February 27-28, but then they realized that on those dates >the Geneva Motor Show is on, so the town was already fully booked. That's what it says on the website too . So we'll have another "north" oriented talk shop, can stay on for a bit of skiing and then choose a shiny new car :-) I understand the problem they must have in scheduling, just that it's a bad start. Adam >-- >vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- >http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Wed Jan 11 08:56:12 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 08:56:12 -0500 Subject: [governance] Consultations on the convening of the IGF Message-ID: Further to my earlier message, i've been able to find what seems to be an official notice regarding "Consultations on the convening of the IGF" if you look at the webpage, it seems that the Business sector already has submitted a "contribution" .... Did they get advance notice? if the official notice of the meeting was sent today, how can a contribution have been sent in mid december..Sigh! I thought WSIS was about a culture of sharing and collaboration between all stakeholders and not just ITU sector members. Oh well, now we have just under a month to mobilize and respond. regards Robert -- http://www.intgovforum.org/meeting.htm Participation Participants who represent governments and entities which are accredited to the WSIS or ECOSOC are admitted to attend the meeting. They may be requested to provide proof of their accreditation. Other participants who can demonstrate proven interest and/or expertise in Internet related issues will also be admitted. Participants will include representatives from the Permanent Missions to the United Nations in Geneva, officials from government offices responsible for information technology strategy as well as representatives from the private sector, civil society as well as the academic and technical communities. In addition, participants from international and regional organizations dealing with Internet Governance issues are also expected to attend. Other specialized agencies and intergovernmental bodies as well as non-governmental organizations will also take part in the meeting. Click here to download registration form in French or English. They should be filled in and submitted to the Secretariat by Fax (+41 22 917 00 92) or by e-mail (wgig at unog.ch) preferably by 4 February, but no later than 11 February 2006. Logistics The meeting will take place at the United Nations Office of Geneva, Palais des Nations, Conference Room XVIII. Simultaneous interpretation will be provided in the six official languages of the United Nations. Upon arrival, participants are requested, before entering the Palais des Nations, to collect their badge at the UN Security Service, Villa Les Feuillantines, 13 Avenue de la Paix (close to the main entrance to the Palais on the Place des Nations, on the opposite side of the road). The Security Service is open from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. (non-stop). Due to the existing security measures in force, participants are strongly advised to arrive before 8.30 a.m. in order to complete procedures and reach the Meeting in good time. Walking from Villa Les Feuillantines to the E-Building (Bâtiment E) of the Palais, where Conference Room XVIII is located, takes about 10 minutes. Participants are requested to carry a passport or similar national photo identity card with them. There is a general interdiction on the entry of taxis to the grounds of the Palais des Nations. Visitors will be dropped off at the requested entrance gates. Further, luggage is not authorized inside the buildings unless the Security Service grants special clearance. Further information and contact details All communications concerning representation at the meeting and written contributions should be sent to the Secretariat, preferably by e-mail, addressed to :wgig at unog.ch. Any other substantive enquiries should be addressed to Mr. Chengetai Masango, Tel: +41 22 917 57 59, email: cmasango at unog.ch. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Registration_Form_eng.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 81529 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- Robert Guerra Director, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) Tel +1 416 893 0377 Fax +1 416 893 0374 -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Wed Jan 11 08:56:17 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 08:56:17 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [Wgig-news] Consultations on the convening of the Internet Governance Forum In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11-Jan-06, at 6:51 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > The forum cannot be open to all if meetings are announced with just > over one month's notice. > Adam: I very much agree. let's check the ITU page and see if there's anything there... http://www.itu.int/home/index.html - there are a couple of mentions of WSIS.... http://www.itu.int/itu-wsis/2005/ http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/newslog/First+Consultations+On +Establishment+Of+Internet+Governance+Forum.aspx At the second phase of WSIS in Tunis, the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society called for the establishment of an Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in paragraphs 72 - 79. The first meeting of the IGF will take place in Greece in 2006. The first consultations on the convening of the IGF will take place in Geneva, Switzerland on 16 and 17 February 2006. The meeting will take place at the United Nations and be chaired by Mr Nitin Desai, the UN Secretary-General's Special Adviser for WSIS, who will assist the Secretary-General in preparing the convening of the IGF. Additonal information can be found at www.intgovforum.org. http://www.intgovforum.org/ Mr. Nitin Desai, the Secretary-General's Special Advisor for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) will hold consultations on the convening of the IGF in Geneva on 16-17 February. All stakeholders are invited to attend the meeting which will take place in Room XVIII in the Palais des Nations. Meeting times are 10:00 - 13:00 and 15:00 - 18:00 hours. The aim of the consultations is to develop a common understanding among all stakeholders on the nature and character of the IGF. The meeting will address the IGF's scope of work and substantive priorities as well as aspects related to its structure and functioning. It will also discuss the convening of the inaugural meeting including agenda and programme. Click here to view the official notification of the meeting sent out to all stakeholders. (seems the mailing list wasn't notified as in the past - sigh!) DRAFT AGENDA 1. Adoption of the Agenda 2. Nature, character and structure of the IGF 3. Substantive priorities 4. The first meeting of the IGF 5. Any other business _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Jan 11 09:03:51 2006 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 23:03:51 +0900 Subject: [governance] Consultations on the convening of the IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >Further to my earlier message, i've been able to find what seems to >be an official notice regarding "Consultations on the convening of >the IGF" > >if you look at the webpage, it seems that the Business sector >already has submitted a "contribution" .... Did they get advance >notice? if the official notice of the meeting was sent today, how >can a contribution have been sent in mid december..Sigh! I thought >WSIS was about a culture of sharing and collaboration between all >stakeholders and not just ITU sector members. Robert, please be sensible. Nothing so sinister. We all knew a forum was going to be set up, only common sense (and a bit of initiative) to write comments about it. Just as civil society has started a new working group about the forum. It's initiative. That's all. Adam >Oh well, now we have just under a month to mobilize and respond. > > >regards > >Robert > > >-- > >http://www.intgovforum.org/meeting.htm > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Wed Jan 11 09:18:05 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 09:18:05 -0500 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Consultations on the convening of the IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, I don't think anyone needs to have had advanced notification. We all sort of knew that there would be consultations and that would be in the first quarter of this year. We just did not know exactly when. So while there may be some difficulty in coming up with funding in time or in getting hotel rooms, we all knew that we would need to get contributions in some time around now. We just did not do too much about it. So yeah, it is now crunch time again. However, by and large, we seem to mostly work when it is crunch time. a. On 11 jan 2006, at 08.56, Robert Guerra wrote: > Further to my earlier message, i've been able to find what seems to > be an official notice regarding "Consultations on the convening of > the IGF" > > if you look at the webpage, it seems that the Business sector > already has submitted a "contribution" .... Did they get advance > notice? if the official notice of the meeting was sent today, how > can a contribution have been sent in mid december..Sigh! I thought > WSIS was about a culture of sharing and collaboration between all > stakeholders and not just ITU sector members. > > Oh well, now we have just under a month to mobilize and respond. > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Wed Jan 11 09:23:20 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 09:23:20 -0500 Subject: [governance] Consultations on the convening of the IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A6BBDD1-FBE1-4E06-9753-F50F5E46B275@lists.privaterra.org> I think i just should have waited before posting my message. As after I did, i read through some new messages from the governance caucus and noticed the note from Karen where she relays a message from Kummer. So, in the end - just a bit upset that not enough notice has been given. Fundraising to attend meeting is always a challenge. the more advance notice the better. Just about a month's notice doesn't make it easy at all. February does seem to be "internet governance" month, well at least 3 meetings that I can think of are being organized.... 1. Ninth meeting of the ITU Council WG on WSIS ITU Headquarters Geneva, 2-3 February 2006 http://www.itu.int/council/wsis/wsis_WG.html (open to All ITU Member States and Sector Members) 2. Internet Governance: The Way Forward Organized by: Diplofoundation - http://www.diplomacy.edu/Conferences/IG/ Malta, February 10-12, 2006 3. Internet Governance Forum (IGF) - 1st consultation Geneva, 16-17 February, 2006 http://www.intgovforum.org/ regards Robert On 11-Jan-06, at 9:03 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> Further to my earlier message, i've been able to find what seems >> to be an official notice regarding "Consultations on the convening >> of the IGF" >> >> if you look at the webpage, it seems that the Business sector >> already has submitted a "contribution" .... Did they get advance >> notice? if the official notice of the meeting was sent today, how >> can a contribution have been sent in mid december..Sigh! I thought >> WSIS was about a culture of sharing and collaboration between all >> stakeholders and not just ITU sector members. > > > Robert, please be sensible. > > Nothing so sinister. We all knew a forum was going to be set up, > only common sense (and a bit of initiative) to write comments about > it. Just as civil society has started a new working group about the > forum. > > It's initiative. That's all. > > Adam > > > >> Oh well, now we have just under a month to mobilize and respond. >> >> >> regards >> >> Robert >> >> >> -- >> >> http://www.intgovforum.org/meeting.htm >> _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Wed Jan 11 10:25:32 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 16:25:32 +0100 Subject: [governance] Consultations on the convening of the IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1136993132.4884.51.camel@croce.dyf.it> Il giorno mer, 11-01-2006 alle 23:03 +0900, Adam Peake ha scritto: > Just as civil society has started a new working group about the forum. Uhm... did we? o_O I think the matter was still open, right? -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Wed Jan 11 11:10:22 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 11:10:22 -0500 Subject: [governance] Consultations on the convening of the IGF In-Reply-To: <1136993132.4884.51.camel@croce.dyf.it> References: <1136993132.4884.51.camel@croce.dyf.it> Message-ID: <9F4499F5-4DF5-428F-8DFE-15D58CA21B20@lists.privaterra.org> I've seen several lists created to follow-up on the matter. However, I don't recall a decision - only that a discussion was going to take place. I think Christmas and the new year's holidays had us all take a break. I good thing, IMHO. However, with the new year here - nothing like the present to get back on track... regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra On 11-Jan-06, at 10:25 AM, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Il giorno mer, 11-01-2006 alle 23:03 +0900, Adam Peake ha scritto: >> Just as civil society has started a new working group about the >> forum. > > Uhm... did we? o_O > I think the matter was still open, right? > -- > vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org] > <----- > http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at acm.org Wed Jan 11 11:13:25 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 11:13:25 -0500 Subject: [governance] Consultations on the convening of the IGF In-Reply-To: <1136993132.4884.51.camel@croce.dyf.it> References: <1136993132.4884.51.camel@croce.dyf.it> Message-ID: <6DB07434-75FC-4746-B633-8AB29483AB9F@acm.org> Hi, A working group, Multistakeholder Modalities WG, was formed - the charter is at: http://www.nomadicity.net/mmwg-charter-latest.html. Whether it is part of organized civil society is still an open issue as we do not know how post-WSIS civil society is organized. The group, however, has not gotten far beyond forming and has not yet formulated any statements. any statement the group did form, in my opinion, would only be statements of the working group unless other groups endorsed them. and of course the MMWG is open to anyone who subscribes to its charter and is open for discussions and work on the issues invovled in forming IGF and the other post-WSIS follow on efforts. a. On 11 jan 2006, at 10.25, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Il giorno mer, 11-01-2006 alle 23:03 +0900, Adam Peake ha scritto: >> Just as civil society has started a new working group about the >> forum. > > Uhm... did we? o_O > I think the matter was still open, right? > -- > vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org] > <----- > http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Jan 11 11:21:31 2006 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:21:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: Consultations on the convening of the IGF Message-ID: Dear all, while I was aware on the MMWG, I have no idea whether it works already, who are the co.-chairs and whoe has been the ten members. I am certainlky interested to join and contribute. BTW, the date for the Tampere IGF Brainstorming has changed to Saturday, March 4, 2006 (it follows an academic WSIS Symposium on Friday, March 3, 2006, mainly for the Finnish WSIS community). But it is not yet fixed. I will let you know the details as soon as we have cleared ther situation with the Unviersity of Tampere. Best wolfgang ________________________________ Von: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria Gesendet: Mi 11.01.2006 17:13 An: Vittorio Bertola Cc: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus; WSIS Plenary Betreff: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [governance] Consultations on the convening of the IGF [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific people] Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic translation of this message! _______________________________________ Hi, A working group, Multistakeholder Modalities WG, was formed - the charter is at: http://www.nomadicity.net/mmwg-charter-latest.html. Whether it is part of organized civil society is still an open issue as we do not know how post-WSIS civil society is organized. The group, however, has not gotten far beyond forming and has not yet formulated any statements. any statement the group did form, in my opinion, would only be statements of the working group unless other groups endorsed them. and of course the MMWG is open to anyone who subscribes to its charter and is open for discussions and work on the issues invovled in forming IGF and the other post-WSIS follow on efforts. a. On 11 jan 2006, at 10.25, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Il giorno mer, 11-01-2006 alle 23:03 +0900, Adam Peake ha scritto: >> Just as civil society has started a new working group about the >> forum. > > Uhm... did we? o_O > I think the matter was still open, right? > -- > vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org] > <----- > http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ Plenary mailing list Plenary at wsis-cs.org http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at acm.org Wed Jan 11 12:25:13 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 12:25:13 -0500 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: Consultations on the convening of the IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <107A1CC5-08AC-4B4A-9267-EBB62F2EC1B0@acm.org> hi, On 11 jan 2006, at 11.21, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: > while I was aware on the MMWG, I have no idea whether it works > already, who are the co.-chairs and whoe has been the ten members. > I am certainlky interested to join and contribute. > Once there were 10 people subscribed, the group was automatically started. this happend on 14 December. There are currently 20 members. The group has an initial wiki set up: http://mmwg.wikicities.com/wiki/ Main_Page and 12 of the 20 members have chosen to list themselves publicly, though there was _not_ a group decision that all must list themselves, i.e listing oneself as a member is voluntary. i am still acting as the coordinator of the WG, but am hoping that the WG will select chairs ASAP (i have disqualified myself from that role). a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Sat Jan 14 18:33:46 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 18:33:46 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Mechanism proposition References: Message-ID: <0F233A2D-91C3-4744-909B-271AE27F49C7@lists.privaterra.org> Thought this list would might appreciate copy of my latest msg to the MMWG regards, Robert Begin forwarded message: > From: Robert Guerra > Date: January 14, 2006 6:31:41 PM EST (CA) > To: Luc Faubert > Cc: > Subject: Re: [Mmwg] Mechanism proposition > > > > On 13-Jan-06, at 10:39 AM, Luc Faubert wrote: > >> >> >> NOTES >> >> Inidividual representation >> No individuals representing themselves are allowed in the forum. >> The forum is a place for communities of interest to negociate and >> decide on issues. Individuals wishing to be heard will have to >> either lobby a party or create their own organization and seek >> accreditation. The requirement of 1000 members is intended to >> prevent fly-by-nighters and puts an emphasis on the need to >> organize in order to participate in fora. >> > > Luc: > > I will send more comments later this weekend. > > However, at this point I want to say that I strongly disagree with > your point that a min. # of 1000 members is needed. Many of the > NGOs that participated in the WSIS process did not meet the > threshold you mention, yet they were active and caused a > significant and positive impact. > > Another example is WGIG - the CS members that were selected didn't > come from large organizations, but small ones. WGIG was seen to > work well, and as such is an example worth building on. > > In summary, The forum should be as open as possible and allowing > groups of all size - large and small - should be a core value put > forward by CS. > > regards > > Robert > > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Mon Jan 16 13:44:27 2006 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 19:44:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] questionnaire on the IGF available In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43CBE98B.7030706@zedat.fu-berlin.de> http://www.intgovforum.org/questionnaire.rtf _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Tue Jan 17 10:22:55 2006 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 16:22:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] Preparation of Athens meeting - IGF Message-ID: <43CD0BCF.5050903@zedat.fu-berlin.de> I can't understand why they don't do this in connection with the February consultations. Sigh. R. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Preparation of Athens meeting - IGF Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 15:59:36 +0100 From: CONGO - Philippe Dam Reply-To: plenary at wsis-cs.org Organization: CONGO To: , CC: , ENGLISH / FRENCH Dear all, Mr George Papadatos, Tunis Summit Rapporteur, just informed us that he will come to Geneva on 30-31 January to consult with stakeholders, including regional government coordinators, and inform them on the preparations for the official launch of the Internet Governance Forum to be held later in the year in Athens/Greece. A meeting is scheduled on Tuesday, 31 January, 15:00-18:00 for a small number of Civil Society who can make it to Geneva and the Private Sector. This Meeting will be held at the European Commission, 66, Rue du Grand Pré, Geneva, not far from the ITU Tower. Please let us know who will be able to attend to facilitate room requirements. It goes without saying that CONGO will report comprehensively on the proceedings. For further information, please contact wsis at ngocongo.org. Best Renata _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Tue Jan 17 10:29:52 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 10:29:52 -0500 Subject: [governance] Preparation of Athens meeting - IGF In-Reply-To: <43CD0BCF.5050903@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <43CD0BCF.5050903@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: divide & conquer ? or just lack of co-ordination...? Ralf, you are right. It would only make sense that the Athens meeting consultation follow and/proceed that of the IGF consultation. Sigh. regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra On 17-Jan-06, at 10:22 AM, Ralf Bendrath wrote: > I can't understand why they don't do this in connection with the > February > consultations. Sigh. > R. > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Preparation of Athens meeting - IGF > Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 15:59:36 +0100 > From: CONGO - Philippe Dam > Reply-To: plenary at wsis-cs.org > Organization: CONGO > To: , > CC: , > > > ENGLISH / FRENCH > > Dear all, > > Mr George Papadatos, Tunis Summit Rapporteur, just informed us that he > will come to Geneva on 30-31 January to consult with stakeholders, > including regional government coordinators, and inform them on the > preparations for the official launch of the Internet Governance > Forum to > be held later in the year in Athens/Greece. A meeting is scheduled on > Tuesday, 31 January, 15:00-18:00 for a small number of Civil > Society who > can make it to Geneva and the Private Sector. This Meeting will be > held at > the European Commission, 66, Rue du Grand Pré, Geneva, not far from > the > ITU Tower. > > Please let us know who will be able to attend to facilitate room > requirements. It goes without saying that CONGO will report > comprehensively on the proceedings. > > For further information, please contact wsis at ngocongo.org. > > Best > Renata > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Tue Jan 17 10:54:33 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 16:54:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] Preparation of Athens meeting - IGF In-Reply-To: References: <43CD0BCF.5050903@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <1137513274.8523.62.camel@localhost.localdomain> Il giorno mar, 17/01/2006 alle 10.29 -0500, Robert Guerra ha scritto: > divide & conquer ? or just lack of co-ordination...? > > Ralf, you are right. > > It would only make sense that the Athens meeting consultation follow > and/proceed that of the IGF consultation. Sigh. Sighing as well, but why don't we simply write to Renata and raise the issue? I think it's clear to everyone that it doesn't make sense to start discussing practicalities for Athens before the IGF consultations are held. Ciao, -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Tue Jan 17 11:26:32 2006 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 16:26:32 +0000 Subject: [governance] Preparation of Athens meeting - IGF In-Reply-To: <43CD0BCF.5050903@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <43CD0BCF.5050903@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.0.20060117162528.03e51a18@gn.apc.org> hi i agree - frankly, it's ridiculous and will only get people's backs up.. i'm assuming it's an 'open' meeting, meaning anyone who can make it is welcome, but who on earth will have the resources to get to two meetings in geneva within such a short period of time very annoying indeed karen At 15:22 17/01/2006, Ralf Bendrath wrote: >I can't understand why they don't do this in connection with the February >consultations. Sigh. >R. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Tue Jan 17 11:27:33 2006 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 16:27:33 +0000 Subject: [governance] Preparation of Athens meeting - IGF In-Reply-To: <1137513274.8523.62.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <43CD0BCF.5050903@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <1137513274.8523.62.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.0.20060117162655.0348c400@gn.apc.org> hi vittorio i agree maybe it would be good for adam and jeanette to do so if they feel so inspired? a good time to re-activate karen At 15:54 17/01/2006, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >Il giorno mar, 17/01/2006 alle 10.29 -0500, Robert Guerra ha scritto: > > divide & conquer ? or just lack of co-ordination...? > > > > Ralf, you are right. > > > > It would only make sense that the Athens meeting consultation follow > > and/proceed that of the IGF consultation. Sigh. > >Sighing as well, but why don't we simply write to Renata and raise the >issue? I think it's clear to everyone that it doesn't make sense to >start discussing practicalities for Athens before the IGF consultations >are held. >Ciao, >-- >vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- >http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Tue Jan 17 11:35:40 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 11:35:40 -0500 Subject: [governance] Preparation of Athens meeting - IGF In-Reply-To: <7.0.0.16.0.20060117162528.03e51a18@gn.apc.org> References: <43CD0BCF.5050903@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <7.0.0.16.0.20060117162528.03e51a18@gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <3D3A667E-8974-4E9F-9554-C0091E73A65D@lists.privaterra.org> I do have the Greek ambassador's email .... perhaps the governance caucus should send him a note asap? regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra On 17-Jan-06, at 11:26 AM, karen banks wrote: > hi > > i agree - frankly, it's ridiculous and will only get people's backs > up.. > > i'm assuming it's an 'open' meeting, meaning anyone who can make it > is welcome, but who on earth will have the resources to get to two > meetings in geneva within such a short period of time > > very annoying indeed > > karen > > At 15:22 17/01/2006, Ralf Bendrath wrote: >> I can't understand why they don't do this in connection with the >> February >> consultations. Sigh. >> R. > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Tue Jan 17 13:17:44 2006 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 19:17:44 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Preparation of Athens meeting - IGF Message-ID: <65008.195.186.163.227.1137521864.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Hi, I spoke today with both IGF and ITU people on other matters and mentioned the invitation; neither had received it, at least as of yet. Nice attention to diplomatic detail here. As evident at PrepCom-3, the Greek representative appears to have ambitions. It would be interesting to know whether they are actively supported by the EC and other member states. One suspects that all politics are local here. I think it would be very helpful if the caucus were to send a letter urging that this meeting be delayed until just after the open consultation, so that more people could participate, and that Greece coordinate fully with the UN secretariat on the IGF going forward. I would guess that the private sector will also express concerns. In light of prior contacts etc, perhaps it should go to the Minister, not just the Ambassador. Best, Bill > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of karen banks > Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 5:27 PM > To: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de; WSIS Internet Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: [governance] Preparation of Athens meeting - IGF > > > hi > > i agree - frankly, it's ridiculous and will only get people's backs up.. > > i'm assuming it's an 'open' meeting, meaning anyone who can make it > is welcome, but who on earth will have the resources to get to two > meetings in geneva within such a short period of time > > very annoying indeed > > karen > > At 15:22 17/01/2006, Ralf Bendrath wrote: > >I can't understand why they don't do this in connection with the February > >consultations. Sigh. > >R. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Tue Jan 17 13:41:25 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 13:41:25 -0500 Subject: [governance] Preparation of Athens meeting - IGF In-Reply-To: <65008.195.186.163.227.1137521864.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> References: <65008.195.186.163.227.1137521864.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <7DA86ED8-F0A2-4489-936E-6ADFB6DABF18@lists.privaterra.org> The Greek Ambassador was at the recent ICANN meeting in Vancouver. He seems like a quite open fellow, one who - might i add - is very civil society friendly. There is no need to burn bridges.. Before things get escalated - perhaps someone can get in touch with George. I am happy to do so should no one else volunteer. regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra On 17-Jan-06, at 1:17 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi, > > I spoke today with both IGF and ITU people on other matters and > mentioned > the invitation; neither had received it, at least as of yet. Nice > attention to diplomatic detail here. > > As evident at PrepCom-3, the Greek representative appears to have > ambitions. It would be interesting to know whether they are actively > supported by the EC and other member states. One suspects that all > politics are local here. > > I think it would be very helpful if the caucus were to send a letter > urging that this meeting be delayed until just after the open > consultation, so that more people could participate, and that Greece > coordinate fully with the UN secretariat on the IGF going forward. I > would guess that the private sector will also express concerns. In > light > of prior contacts etc, perhaps it should go to the Minister, not > just the > Ambassador. > > Best, > > Bill > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org >> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of karen banks >> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 5:27 PM >> To: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de; WSIS Internet Governance Caucus >> Subject: Re: [governance] Preparation of Athens meeting - IGF >> >> >> hi >> >> i agree - frankly, it's ridiculous and will only get people's >> backs up.. >> >> i'm assuming it's an 'open' meeting, meaning anyone who can make it >> is welcome, but who on earth will have the resources to get to two >> meetings in geneva within such a short period of time >> >> very annoying indeed >> >> karen >> >> At 15:22 17/01/2006, Ralf Bendrath wrote: >>> I can't understand why they don't do this in connection with the >>> February >>> consultations. Sigh. >>> R. > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rbloem at ngocongo.org Tue Jan 17 13:58:01 2006 From: rbloem at ngocongo.org (Renata Bloem) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 19:58:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] Preparation of Athens meeting - IGF In-Reply-To: <7DA86ED8-F0A2-4489-936E-6ADFB6DABF18@lists.privaterra.org> Message-ID: <200601171858.k0HIw22u013820@homer2.tic.ch> Robert, I agree I am already in touch with him and will tell you tomorrow morning. Best Renata -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Robert Guerra Sent: mardi, 17. janvier 2006 19:41 To: Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] Preparation of Athens meeting - IGF The Greek Ambassador was at the recent ICANN meeting in Vancouver. He seems like a quite open fellow, one who - might i add - is very civil society friendly. There is no need to burn bridges.. Before things get escalated - perhaps someone can get in touch with George. I am happy to do so should no one else volunteer. regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra On 17-Jan-06, at 1:17 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi, > > I spoke today with both IGF and ITU people on other matters and > mentioned > the invitation; neither had received it, at least as of yet. Nice > attention to diplomatic detail here. > > As evident at PrepCom-3, the Greek representative appears to have > ambitions. It would be interesting to know whether they are actively > supported by the EC and other member states. One suspects that all > politics are local here. > > I think it would be very helpful if the caucus were to send a letter > urging that this meeting be delayed until just after the open > consultation, so that more people could participate, and that Greece > coordinate fully with the UN secretariat on the IGF going forward. I > would guess that the private sector will also express concerns. In > light > of prior contacts etc, perhaps it should go to the Minister, not > just the > Ambassador. > > Best, > > Bill > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org >> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of karen banks >> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 5:27 PM >> To: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de; WSIS Internet Governance Caucus >> Subject: Re: [governance] Preparation of Athens meeting - IGF >> >> >> hi >> >> i agree - frankly, it's ridiculous and will only get people's >> backs up.. >> >> i'm assuming it's an 'open' meeting, meaning anyone who can make it >> is welcome, but who on earth will have the resources to get to two >> meetings in geneva within such a short period of time >> >> very annoying indeed >> >> karen >> >> At 15:22 17/01/2006, Ralf Bendrath wrote: >>> I can't understand why they don't do this in connection with the >>> February >>> consultations. Sigh. >>> R. > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at acm.org Tue Jan 17 14:26:22 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 14:26:22 -0500 Subject: [governance] new gTLDs Message-ID: hi, just wanted to send a reminder that the consultations in the ICANN constituencies are ongoing on the introduction of new gTLDs. i figured that this caucus might want to have some dialogue on this and may even want to make a statement. both Danny Younger and i sent this list notification messages about the consultations a while back, and i just wanted to send you all a reminder that this opportunity for participation still exists. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Tue Jan 17 14:34:11 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 20:34:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] new gTLDs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43CD46B3.2040707@bertola.eu.org> Avri Doria ha scritto: > hi, > > just wanted to send a reminder that the consultations in the ICANN > constituencies are ongoing on the introduction of new gTLDs. i > figured that this caucus might want to have some dialogue on this and > may even want to make a statement. both Danny Younger and i sent > this list notification messages about the consultations a while back, > and i just wanted to send you all a reminder that this opportunity > for participation still exists. Also, those who like that kind of medium might use the ICANN wiki to contribute to the statement of the ALAC: http://www.icannwiki.org/ALAC_on_New_TLDs -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Tue Jan 17 14:47:26 2006 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 11:47:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] new gTLDs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060117194726.54764.qmail@web53514.mail.yahoo.com> Avri, A new discussion list has also been created for the GNSO Council -- see http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-council/msg00000.html Also, a reminder for NCUC & ISPCP members -- please designate a representative to solicit the constituency's views on the issues; the other constituencies have already appointed their representatives. The General Assembly's contribution has already been posted to the public forum -- for those interested, see http://forum.icann.org/lists/new-gtlds-pdp-comments/msg00018.html --- Avri Doria wrote: > hi, > > just wanted to send a reminder that the > consultations in the ICANN > constituencies are ongoing on the introduction of > new gTLDs. i > figured that this caucus might want to have some > dialogue on this and > may even want to make a statement. both Danny > Younger and i sent > this list notification messages about the > consultations a while back, > and i just wanted to send you all a reminder that > this opportunity > for participation still exists. > > a. > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Tue Jan 17 14:56:28 2006 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 20:56:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] tasks In-Reply-To: <7.0.0.16.0.20060117162655.0348c400@gn.apc.org> References: <43CD0BCF.5050903@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <1137513274.8523.62.camel@localhost.localdomain> <7.0.0.16.0.20060117162655.0348c400@gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <43CD4BEC.80305@wz-berlin.de> karen banks wrote: > hi vittorio > > i agree > > maybe it would be good for adam and jeanette to do so if they feel so > inspired? a good time to re-activate Hi everyone, there are actually lots of things to do: I. assuming the caucus wants to present a statement in Geneva, we need to discuss the central messages we want to convey: 1. We welcome the creation of a forum on Internet Governance on the basis of the Geneva principles 2. We insist that the forum is open for everyone 3. The forum must deal with cross cutting issues reflecting existing expertise in the various areas 4. Then what? Can we be more specific than that? II. We need to resume our discussion on the future structure of the caucus. Do we want to remain an open platform or is there a need to build more formal decision making structures? Just one hint: It might be necessary to delegate civil society people to a bureau kind of body set up in the context of the forum. We have at present no procedure in place to select anybody for any position. III Chairs: We need new chairs for the caucus! Can we please decide on a procedure for selecting new chairs? I really want to quit now. jeanette > > karen > > At 15:54 17/01/2006, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > >>Il giorno mar, 17/01/2006 alle 10.29 -0500, Robert Guerra ha scritto: >> >>>divide & conquer ? or just lack of co-ordination...? >>> >>>Ralf, you are right. >>> >>>It would only make sense that the Athens meeting consultation follow >>>and/proceed that of the IGF consultation. Sigh. >> >>Sighing as well, but why don't we simply write to Renata and raise the >>issue? I think it's clear to everyone that it doesn't make sense to >>start discussing practicalities for Athens before the IGF consultations >>are held. >>Ciao, >>-- >>vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- >>http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... >> >>_______________________________________________ >>governance mailing list >>governance at lists.cpsr.org >>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Wed Jan 18 10:59:10 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 16:59:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Preparations for meeting in Athens In-Reply-To: <200601181546.k0IFkACw020503@homer2.tic.ch> References: <200601181546.k0IFkACw020503@homer2.tic.ch> Message-ID: <1137599951.9840.164.camel@localhost.localdomain> Il giorno mer, 18/01/2006 alle 16.46 +0100, CONGO - Philippe Dam ha scritto: > Dear all, > > > > After our interventions the proposed consultation on preparations for > the Athens’ meeting has been tentatively rescheduled for the 15th. > More details will follow. This is good, but I'm wondering whether it wouldn't be more logic to hold these consultations *after* the official IGF Consultations scheduled on Feb 16-17, rather than before. How can you discuss preparation of the first meeting if you haven't discussed the structure of the forum yet? Also, aren't three entire days in Geneva a bit too much? Isn't it possible to discuss the issue in the two days already allocated to this purpose? I imagine that's what's going to happen anyway. Thanks, -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Wed Jan 18 11:11:44 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 11:11:44 -0500 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Preparations for meeting in Athens In-Reply-To: <1137599951.9840.164.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <200601181546.k0IFkACw020503@homer2.tic.ch> <1137599951.9840.164.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <5B66C7AB-6D57-4F7C-97BA-39C371B68BAE@lists.privaterra.org> Seems there's a bit of a disconnect between the governance caucus and those in Geneva (ie. CONGO) . I would have hoped that consultation between the two groups would take place BEFORE government and UN officials are contacted. regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Wed Jan 18 11:25:18 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 11:25:18 -0500 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Preparations for meeting in Athens In-Reply-To: <1137599951.9840.164.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <200601181546.k0IFkACw020503@homer2.tic.ch> <1137599951.9840.164.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: Hi, This makes sense to me as well. consultations on organizing the IGF should come first. then the topic of meeting logistics should be discussed. a. On 18 jan 2006, at 10.59, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > > Il giorno mer, 18/01/2006 alle 16.46 +0100, CONGO - Philippe Dam ha > scritto: >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> After our interventions the proposed consultation on preparations for >> the Athens’ meeting has been tentatively rescheduled for the 15th. >> More details will follow. > > This is good, but I'm wondering whether it wouldn't be more logic to > hold these consultations *after* the official IGF Consultations > scheduled on Feb 16-17, rather than before. How can you discuss > preparation of the first meeting if you haven't discussed the > structure > of the forum yet? > Also, aren't three entire days in Geneva a bit too much? Isn't it > possible to discuss the issue in the two days already allocated to > this > purpose? I imagine that's what's going to happen anyway. > Thanks, > -- > vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org] > <----- > http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... > > _______________________________________________ > Plenary mailing list > Plenary at wsis-cs.org > http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From raul at lacnic.net Wed Jan 18 15:25:08 2006 From: raul at lacnic.net (Raul Echeberria) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 17:25:08 -0300 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Preparations for meeting in Athens In-Reply-To: References: <200601181546.k0IFkACw020503@homer2.tic.ch> <1137599951.9840.164.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.0.20060118172404.042bc658@lacnic.net> Vittorio: I also agree with you. There is no reasons to have a separated meeting for discussing logistic issues for Athens. In fact there is not any confirmation yet about the Athens' meeting. Raúl At 01:25 p.m. 18/01/2006, Avri Doria wrote: >Hi, > >This makes sense to me as well. consultations on organizing the IGF >should come first. then the topic of meeting logistics should be >discussed. > >a. > >On 18 jan 2006, at 10.59, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > > > > > > Il giorno mer, 18/01/2006 alle 16.46 +0100, CONGO - Philippe Dam ha > > scritto: > >> Dear all, > >> > >> > >> > >> After our interventions the proposed consultation on preparations for > >> the Athens’ meeting has been tentatively rescheduled for the 15th. > >> More details will follow. > > > > This is good, but I'm wondering whether it wouldn't be more logic to > > hold these consultations *after* the official IGF Consultations > > scheduled on Feb 16-17, rather than before. How can you discuss > > preparation of the first meeting if you haven't discussed the > > structure > > of the forum yet? > > Also, aren't three entire days in Geneva a bit too much? Isn't it > > possible to discuss the issue in the two days already allocated to > > this > > purpose? I imagine that's what's going to happen anyway. > > Thanks, > > -- > > vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org] > > <----- > > http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Plenary mailing list > > Plenary at wsis-cs.org > > http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary > > > > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > >-- >Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/227 - Release Date: 11/01/2006 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Thu Jan 19 12:56:21 2006 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 18:56:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] new coordinators for the IG caucus Message-ID: <43CFD2C5.8030207@wz-berlin.de> Hi, following the overwhelming response to my last mail, I'd like to inform you that Adam and I have decided to step down after the Geneva meeting in February. It would be good if we found volunteers who are willing to take over. Otherwise we also might find out that we don't need any coordinators, who knows... jeanette _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jovank at diplomacy.edu Thu Jan 19 17:00:08 2006 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 23:00:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] Malta Conference on Internet Governance (10-12 February 2006) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, Various IG initiatives have been gaining momentum. This will not be a boring year! Let me report briefly on the Malta Conference (10-12 February). The preliminary conference programme is available at http://www.diplomacy.edu/Conferences/IG/program.asp (invited speakers to be confirmed). The conference has been conceptualised as an analogy to the SimCity computer game. Instead of a city, the conference will aim to "construct" an Internet Governance Forum "building", with the conference participants acting as designers. The conference will comprise truly multistakeholder participation, with each feature of the IGF building being addressed from as many different perspectives as possible. The first meeting of the Internet Governance Capacity Building Initiative (IGCBI) will also be hosted during the conference, including the planning of training and research activities for 2006. The IGCBI meeting will be attended both by institutions who expressed an interest in participating in the Initiative as well as the donor agencies. More information about the conference and other ancillary events can be received from Yasmeen Arif, the IG Coordinator (yasmeen at diplomacy.edu). Hope to see you in Malta! Regards, Jovan P.S. About Venue It is probably not widely known that Malta is a "high-tech island," with the world's highest Internet penetration (% population) of 78.3%. The top 10 Internet usage nations are: 1. Malta (78.3%); 2. New Zealand (77.6%); 3. Iceland (76.5%); 4. Sweden (75.3%); 5. Hong Kong (70.7%); 6. Denmark (69.5%); 7. the United States (68.7%); 8. Singapore (68.3%); 9. Norway (68.2%); and 10. Australia (68.2%). The EU has a penetration rate of 49.3% and a user growth rate of 143% (source: InternetWorldStats.com). High-tech goods and services accounted for 55.9% of Malta's exports in 2004. Malta's high-tech aspect is beguilingly blended with its rich history (e.g. the capital city Valletta, the medieval capital Mdina, Neolithic temples, etc.). _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Fri Jan 20 17:18:20 2006 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 17:18:20 -0500 Subject: [governance] Geneva schedule In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As we all know, airline tickets come at better prices when bought earlier. Nor may they be changed, or if so only dearly. If there is more solid information on the mid-February schedule in Geneva, that would be particularly helpful. The last I saw, Feb 15 had been added to Feb 16-17. But there was sentiment that the order needed to reverse, so after not before - Monday? There was also mooted the possibility for all in two days. Resolution was to be forthcoming. If I have missed a message, please excuse me - will appreciate being updated. Otherwise, this is late Friday; if there could be some word Monday, that would be a good next step. David _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From correia.rui at gmail.com Sat Jan 21 03:03:19 2006 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 10:03:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] US Obtains Internet Users' Search Records Message-ID: <002401c61e61$2719efb0$0500000a@Laptop> First internet governance, then phone tapping now this. What next? Next will be their bully tactics to make it conditional to a whole range of activities involving other states, with insistences that the other side to as they do - whether in veiled threat over trade issues; political horse-trading in the name of the fight against terrorism or just plain American style "send in Condi and the marines!!!! Anybody been doing internet searches on "Iranian nuclear programme" lately??? Better stick to "apple pie and patriot act motherhood". US Obtains Internet Users' Search Records http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012006D.shtml Federal investigators have obtained potentially billions of Internet search requests made by users of major websites run by Yahoo Inc., Microsoft Corp. and America Online Inc., raising concerns about how the massive data trove will be used. Feds After Google Data http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011906R.shtml In court papers filed in US District Court in San Jose, Justice Department lawyers revealed that Google has refused to comply with a subpoena issued last year for records, which include a request for one million random web addresses and records of all Google searches from any one-week period. Rui -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Sat Jan 21 06:23:02 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 12:23:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] Establishment of the European Regional At-Large Organizaton Message-ID: <43D21996.2080802@bertola.eu.org> All, as this might be of interest to the people from Europe that follow this list, I'd like to communicate that ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee has started a consultation on the establishment of the European Regional At Large Organization, a new umbrella entity that is meant to coordinate European user organizations and active individuals and to select their representatives in ICANN. The consultation is aimed not only at the organizations that have been accredited by ICANN as European At-Large Structures, but also to any interested party (especially those groups who might be thinking about applying for accreditation). You can participate by going at the following URL: http://www.isoc.be/euralo/ (kindly hosted by ISOC Belgium) and use the web forum to read the proposed structure of the new organization and post comments, by 15 February. Please feel free to share this invitation with any person or organization in Europe that might be interested. Also feel free to contact me for questions or clarifications. Regards, -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Sat Jan 21 09:33:16 2006 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 06:33:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Establishment of the European Regional At-Large Organizaton In-Reply-To: <43D21996.2080802@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <20060121143316.82619.qmail@web53510.mail.yahoo.com> Vittorio, This European Regional At-Large Organization that you are building needs a better name... perhaps you can call it EU ISOC & Friends as it is completely captured by ISOC (with seven out of its eight structures being ISOC chapters). Why do you continue to support and promote this "capture"? Why are you foisting this perversion upon us? This is not the "At-Large"; this is just you and your ISOC friends pretending to be the at-large. We don't need even more dishonesty within ICANN. --- Vittorio Bertola wrote: > All, > > as this might be of interest to the people from > Europe that follow this > list, I'd like to communicate that ICANN's At-Large > Advisory Committee > has started a consultation on the establishment of > the European Regional > At Large Organization, a new umbrella entity that is > meant to coordinate > European user organizations and active individuals > and to select their > representatives in ICANN. > > The consultation is aimed not only at the > organizations that have been > accredited by ICANN as European At-Large Structures, > but also to any > interested party (especially those groups who might > be thinking about > applying for accreditation). > > You can participate by going at the following URL: > > http://www.isoc.be/euralo/ > > (kindly hosted by ISOC Belgium) and use the web > forum to read the > proposed structure of the new organization and post > comments, by 15 > February. > > Please feel free to share this invitation with any > person or > organization in Europe that might be interested. > Also feel free to > contact me for questions or clarifications. > > Regards, > -- > vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] > bertola.eu.org]<----- > http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Sat Jan 21 09:54:24 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 15:54:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] [ga] Re: Establishment of the European Regional At-Large Organizaton In-Reply-To: <20060121143316.82619.qmail@web53510.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060121143316.82619.qmail@web53510.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <43D24B20.7020403@bertola.eu.org> Danny Younger ha scritto: > Vittorio, > > This European Regional At-Large Organization that you > are building needs a better name... perhaps you can > call it EU ISOC & Friends as it is completely captured > by ISOC (with seven out of its eight structures being > ISOC chapters). The funny thing is that, more or less at the same time, I've received a message from an officer of an ISOC chapter, saying "why is ICANN doing this - we don't need the At Large, it should be the European council of ISOC chapters to do this". The truth is that we are trying to create an open mechanism where everyone - ISOC chapters, other organizations, and individuals - can participate. If only certain kinds of organizations use it, then of course they will dominate the mechanism; but, once the gates are open, the fault of this only lies with those who don't bother to participate. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From patrick at isoc.lu Sat Jan 21 10:00:58 2006 From: patrick at isoc.lu (Patrick Vande Walle) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 16:00:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] Establishment of the European Regional At-Large Organizaton In-Reply-To: <20060121143316.82619.qmail@web53510.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060121143316.82619.qmail@web53510.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <43D24CAA.6070204@isoc.lu> Danny Younger said the following on 21/01/2006 15:33: > This European Regional At-Large Organization that you > are building needs a better name... perhaps you can > call it EU ISOC & Friends as it is completely captured > by ISOC (with seven out of its eight structures being > ISOC chapters). Danny, The sad truth is that there are few organizations interested in ICANN processes in Europe, outside the ISOC chapters. If you can suggest additional structures, I am convinced ALAC would be interested, but short of FITUG and ISOC chapters, none applied AFAIK. Best, Patrick Vande Walle ISOC Luxembourg _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Sat Jan 21 10:25:14 2006 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 07:25:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] [ga] Re: Establishment of the European Regional At-Large Organizaton In-Reply-To: <43D24B20.7020403@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <20060121152514.94294.qmail@web53509.mail.yahoo.com> Vittorio, We have a proactive obligation to prevent capture. You may wish to recall the words of the White Paper: "Governance. The organizing documents (Charter, Bylaws, etc.) should provide that the new corporation is governed on the basis of a sound and transparent decision-making process, which protects against capture by a self-interested faction, and which provides for robust, professional management of the new corporation." You have chosen to acquiesce to capture because it serves your interests -- sorry, but I find this to be repugnant. As an ISOC chapter member, I support initiatives that promote our common stake in maintaining the viability and global scaling of the Internet, but I do not support fraud. ISOC chapters have a place within ICANN as constituent members of the non-commercial constituency (NCUC) -- they are not, and have never claimed to be, voices that speak for the broader at-large community. When ICANN staff negotiated a 7% annual increase in .com fees did we hear an expression of rage from the ISOC chapters? No. We heard nothing. Not a peep. They are not the At-Large -- They don't represent the At-Large nor are they motivated by the same set of concerns that impact the real At-Large community -- they are a different body with a different set of interests and concerns. In fact, in the last three and a half years not one single ISOC chapter functioning as one your At-Large "structures" has ever sent even one single comment to the ICANN Board on any at-large topic whatsoever. Vittorio, this fraud must end. --- Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Danny Younger ha scritto: > > Vittorio, > > > > This European Regional At-Large Organization that > you > > are building needs a better name... perhaps you > can > > call it EU ISOC & Friends as it is completely > captured > > by ISOC (with seven out of its eight structures > being > > ISOC chapters). > > The funny thing is that, more or less at the same > time, I've received a > message from an officer of an ISOC chapter, saying > "why is ICANN doing > this - we don't need the At Large, it should be the > European council of > ISOC chapters to do this". > > The truth is that we are trying to create an open > mechanism where > everyone - ISOC chapters, other organizations, and > individuals - can > participate. If only certain kinds of organizations > use it, then of > course they will dominate the mechanism; but, once > the gates are open, > the fault of this only lies with those who don't > bother to participate. > -- > vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] > bertola.eu.org]<----- > http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From roessler at does-not-exist.org Sat Jan 21 10:33:13 2006 From: roessler at does-not-exist.org (Thomas Roessler) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 16:33:13 +0100 Subject: [governance] Establishment of the European Regional At-Large Organizaton In-Reply-To: <43D24CAA.6070204@isoc.lu> References: <20060121143316.82619.qmail@web53510.mail.yahoo.com> <43D24CAA.6070204@isoc.lu> Message-ID: <20060121153313.GS3857@lavazza.does-not-exist.org> On 2006-01-21 16:00:58 +0100, Patrick Vande Walle wrote: > The sad truth is that there are few organizations interested > in ICANN processes in Europe, outside the ISOC chapters. If > you can suggest additional structures, I am convinced ALAC > would be interested, but short of FITUG and ISOC chapters, > none applied AFAIK. Well, that's not a reason for restricting the process to ISOC chapters in the first place, right? Regards, -- Thomas Roessler · Personal soap box at . _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Sat Jan 21 11:09:58 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 11:09:58 -0500 Subject: [governance] Establishment of the European Regional At-Large Organizaton In-Reply-To: <20060121143316.82619.qmail@web53510.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060121143316.82619.qmail@web53510.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Vittorio: Danny raises an interesting point - should existing (although limited) opportunities for engagement and participation in ICANN be utilized at all by "civil society" ? If we want to prevent capture, then why don't we make sure that "no one organization" be allowed to control, nor monopolize new "At- Large Structures" such as the "European" one now being announced. A few questions & comments : - Knowing the issues with ISOC, I am curious as to why on earth an ISOC space was chosen to host the discussions about the new structure. Could another space not have been chosen? - Being an EU (spanish) citizen, I'd like to ask the question of "language" and how that issue will be handled ? The French and Spanish internet users will no doubt make a very strong point that linguistic diversity is one that should be accommodated. - Again, with my "spanish" hat on, I'd like to be constructive and recommend some leading organizations in Spain that should be contacted and hopefully engage. Their contact information is as follows: (1) Asociacion de Internautas http://www.internautas.org/ Addtess: C/ Télemaco 12,1º 9º - - 28027 Madrid Web: http://www.internautas.org email: asociacion at internautas.org (2) Fundacion Cibervoluntarios - Phone: +34 902 998 417 E-mail: info at cibervoluntarios.es Address: Cibervoluntarios, Apartado de Correos 8.239, C.P. 28080 Madrid, Spain Yolanda Rueda Fdez was at WSIS and would be a good person to engage. A suggestion - Yolanda is organizing a conference on ICTs and Social action this coming May in Seville. The conference is still being planned, and as such an idea might be to organize something at the event (a panel, or perhaps even an information booth). This would allow people to know more about ICANN, specifically how they could engage in the European at large structures. Perhaps we can get PIR & ICANN interested in sponsoring something - I know Yolanda would be VERY keen to get their support! (I am cc'ing Yolanda...) (3) CPSR Spain Yes, CPSR has a chapter in Spain. It's not as active as it could be - but there are people there who could very well be interested in participating in the discussions related to a new European At Large Structure. I am cc'ing David Casacuberta, a good friend and collegue who could pass you additional names of organizations who could be interested in Spain. In terms of others: European - EDRI is the first organization that comes to mind. Personally, I am of the opinion that much would be gained by consulting the many member organizations that make up EDRI. The issue of digital rights should not, must not be ignored... France - you might want to get in touch with Divina Meigs from Paris. As you know she was very much involved in the Education Family. As she's not ISOC, well, she might be able to give you suggestions on who else to contact in France... Malta - I would definitely suggest getting in touch with Jovan and the folks @ the Diplofoundation. Should they be interested, it would be great to harness the analytical and consultation skills they have - and bringing to the new structure. I hope you find my comments and suggestions useful. kindest regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 Fax +1 416 893 0374 > > --- Vittorio Bertola wrote: > >> All, >> >> as this might be of interest to the people from Europe that follow >> this list, I'd like to communicate that ICANN's At-Large Advisory >> Committee has started a consultation on the establishment of the >> European Regional At Large Organization, a new umbrella entity >> that is meant to coordinate European user organizations and active >> individuals and to select their representatives in ICANN. >> >> The consultation is aimed not only at the organizations that have >> been accredited by ICANN as European At-Large Structures, but also >> to any interested party (especially those groups who might be >> thinking about applying for accreditation). >> >> You can participate by going at the following URL: >> >> http://www.isoc.be/euralo/ >> >> (kindly hosted by ISOC Belgium) and use the web forum to read the >> proposed structure of the new organization and post comments, by >> 15 February. >> >> Please feel free to share this invitation with any person or >> organization in Europe that might be interested. Also feel free to >> contact me for questions or clarifications. >> >> Regards, >> -- >> vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] >> bertola.eu.org]<----- >> http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... >> _______________________________________________ >> governance mailing list >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance >> > > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Sat Jan 21 11:23:26 2006 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 08:23:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Establishment of the European Regional At-Large Organizaton In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060121162326.40138.qmail@web53512.mail.yahoo.com> Robert, There already exists a home for non-commercial organizations within ICANN -- the Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC). The organizations that you have cited are encouraged to join this appropriate body (which is not captured by any one group). I have posted their current roster of member organizations below: Alfa-Redi (NGO) Africa Civil Society for the Information Society American Civil Liberties Union American Library Association Association for Progressive Communications Audience Act for Good TV programs Boulder Community Network bridges.org Center for Democracy and Technology Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility EDUCAUSE Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Estonian Educational and Research Network (EENet) Free Press French Parents Fundacion Escuela Latinoamericana de Redes GIP Renater GLOCOM Information Network for the Third Sector- RITS Internet Association of Korea (IAK) Information and Communications University Internet Society of Mauritius Internews International IP Justice IPLeft (Intellectual Property Left) Jamaica Sustainable Development Network Ltd. Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology Korean Progressive Network Jinbonet Labor News Production Media Access Project Open Forum of Cambodia PeaceNet Korea Philippine Network Foundation, Inc. (PHNET) Phillipine Sustainable Development Network SDNP Bangladesh Stichting A.G. van Hamel voor Keltische Studies The Convergence Center The Thing (Inc.) Comitê para Democratização da Informática de Pernambuco Virtueller Ortsverein der SPD (VOV) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Sat Jan 21 11:46:34 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 11:46:34 -0500 Subject: [governance] Establishment of the European Regional At-Large Organizaton In-Reply-To: <20060121162326.40138.qmail@web53512.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060121162326.40138.qmail@web53512.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3956518A-3C2E-4C76-8935-2B53A4DAC678@lists.privaterra.org> Danny: A quick reply... 1. I know about NCUC. CPSR is a member, and i'm on the board of directors of CPSR... 2. A quick review of the organizations you list reveals some interesting statistics: - Of the 41 organizations listed, a majority seem to be in the US. - There are a few European organizations - There are NO organizations from Canada (neither are there any Canadian organizations in ALAC may I add) 3. Why aren't the ALAC or NCUC lists more active. If in fact they are representing "internet users" in some way, then i'd expect a far more engaged and lively discussion. 4. I've had the opportunity to meet and work with Vittorio in the WSIS process. He's been open and transparent, and I do want to give his open open call for engagement a chance. Let's see how it develops. Will it be ISOC only, or much broader in scope ? 5. What's my opinion on this - well, first want to see how the thread develops on this thread in the coming days... regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 Fax +1 416 893 0374 On 21-Jan-06, at 11:23 AM, Danny Younger wrote: > Robert, > > There already exists a home for non-commercial > organizations within ICANN -- the Non-Commercial Users > Constituency (NCUC). The organizations that you have > cited are encouraged to join this appropriate body > (which is not captured by any one group). I have > posted their current roster of member organizations > below: > > Alfa-Redi (NGO) > Africa Civil Society for the Information Society > American Civil Liberties Union > American Library Association > Association for Progressive Communications > Audience Act for Good TV programs > Boulder Community Network > bridges.org > Center for Democracy and Technology > Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility > EDUCAUSE > Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) > Estonian Educational and Research Network (EENet) > Free Press > French Parents > Fundacion Escuela Latinoamericana de Redes > GIP Renater > GLOCOM > Information Network for the Third Sector- RITS > Internet Association of Korea (IAK) > Information and Communications University > Internet Society of Mauritius > Internews International > IP Justice > IPLeft (Intellectual Property Left) > Jamaica Sustainable Development Network Ltd. > Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology > Korean Progressive Network Jinbonet > Labor News Production > Media Access Project > Open Forum of Cambodia > PeaceNet Korea > Philippine Network Foundation, Inc. (PHNET) > Phillipine Sustainable Development Network > SDNP Bangladesh > Stichting A.G. van Hamel voor Keltische Studies > The Convergence Center > The Thing (Inc.) > Comitê para Democratização da Informática de > Pernambuco > Virtueller Ortsverein der SPD (VOV) > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Jan 21 12:00:13 2006 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 18:00:13 +0100 Subject: [governance] Establishment of the European Regional At-Large Organizaton Message-ID: Dear list, When we undertook the first effort to build an EU-RALO in 2003 ( the so-called Milano-Process) we proposed a tripartite structure for the EU-RALO, based an the new bylaws which excluded more or less individuals. The proposed scheme for the EU-RALO at this time was * one third should from European ISOC Chapters, coordinated by ISOC Europe (which never was established due to conflicts between different European ISOC Chapters), * one third from CECUA, a recognized European Organisation für Computer Users * and the other third from individuals. The proposed statues would have allowed that one third of members from a EU-RALO Board would have come from individuals, which play in the Internet world very often a greater role than organisations. And if you look into some of the accredited ALS, very often it is not the organisation which has become an ALS, it is the single person who represents this organisation. And if this person disappears again, the organisation disappears and there is no sustainability. When the results of the Milano Process were tabled in the ICANN meeting in Tunis, the members of the ALAC did not show any interest in the proposed approach. The timetable of the Milan Process was to have a first constitutional meeting for an EU-RALO during the ICANN meeting in Roma, March 2004. But nothing happened. Neither in 2004 nor in 2005. While I understand, why in 2002 the ICANN reformers produced the buerocratic ALAC system - I never shared this policy - I still believe, that there has to be a channel for involvment of un-organized individuals. Existing organisations with a representative leadership are important players, but they should not be the only bands in town. The challenge, as I see it, is to have also a critical mass of engaged individuals. If you have enough individuals the disappearance of one or two or three of them will not lead to the disapperance of the process. I know this is difficult to organize, I know this needs time, I know this is not covered by the existing bylaws, but in my understanding, that is the way forward. We have entered new territory of governance and bottom up policy development and we have to invent new forms of representation. You can not settle tomorrows problems with yesterdays organisational structures :-(((. best wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Patrick Vande Walle Gesendet: Sa 21.01.2006 16:00 An: Danny Younger; governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: ga at gnso.icann.org Betreff: Re: [governance] Establishment of the European Regional At-Large Organizaton Danny Younger said the following on 21/01/2006 15:33: > This European Regional At-Large Organization that you > are building needs a better name... perhaps you can > call it EU ISOC & Friends as it is completely captured > by ISOC (with seven out of its eight structures being > ISOC chapters). Danny, The sad truth is that there are few organizations interested in ICANN processes in Europe, outside the ISOC chapters. If you can suggest additional structures, I am convinced ALAC would be interested, but short of FITUG and ISOC chapters, none applied AFAIK. Best, Patrick Vande Walle ISOC Luxembourg _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Sat Jan 21 12:05:05 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 12:05:05 -0500 Subject: [governance] Establishment of the European Regional At-Large Organizaton In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7098C1C7-DE7A-4D9D-8AFA-EA51698BBE6D@lists.privaterra.org> Wolfang: agree with your comments 100% regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 Fax +1 416 893 0374 On 21-Jan-06, at 12:00 PM, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: > Dear list, > > When we undertook the first effort to build an EU-RALO in 2003 > ( the so-called Milano-Process) we proposed a tripartite structure > for the EU-RALO, based an the new bylaws which excluded more or > less individuals. The proposed scheme for the EU-RALO at this time was > * one third should from European ISOC Chapters, coordinated by ISOC > Europe (which never was established due to conflicts between > different European ISOC Chapters), > * one third from CECUA, a recognized European Organisation für > Computer Users > * and the other third from individuals. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Sat Jan 21 12:10:26 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 12:10:26 -0500 Subject: [governance] [ga] Re: Establishment of the European Regional At-Large Organizaton In-Reply-To: <20060121152514.94294.qmail@web53509.mail.yahoo.com> References: <43D24B20.7020403@bertola.eu.org> <20060121152514.94294.qmail@web53509.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060121120934.044489c8@veni.com> At 07:25 21-01-06 -0800, Danny Younger wrote: >interests and concerns. In fact, in the last three >and a half years not one single ISOC chapter >functioning as one your At-Large "structures" has ever >sent even one single comment to the ICANN Board on any >at-large topic whatsoever. On what grounds you make such a statment? That is, where do you take the facts from? veni _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Sat Jan 21 12:11:22 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 12:11:22 -0500 Subject: [governance] Establishment of the European Regional At-Large Organizaton In-Reply-To: <20060121153313.GS3857@lavazza.does-not-exist.org> References: <20060121143316.82619.qmail@web53510.mail.yahoo.com> <43D24CAA.6070204@isoc.lu> <20060121153313.GS3857@lavazza.does-not-exist.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060121121038.0445c910@veni.com> At 16:33 21-01-06 +0100, Thomas Roessler wrote: >On 2006-01-21 16:00:58 +0100, Patrick Vande Walle wrote: > > > The sad truth is that there are few organizations interested > > in ICANN processes in Europe, outside the ISOC chapters. If > > you can suggest additional structures, I am convinced ALAC > > would be interested, but short of FITUG and ISOC chapters, > > none applied AFAIK. > >Well, that's not a reason for restricting the process to ISOC >chapters in the first place, right? Is it restricted to ISOC chapters only? Or am I misunderstanding you - I believ the ALAC is open to everyone. veni _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Sat Jan 21 12:13:34 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 12:13:34 -0500 Subject: [governance] Establishment of the European Regional At-Large Organizaton In-Reply-To: References: <20060121143316.82619.qmail@web53510.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060121121148.0445e4d0@veni.com> At 11:09 21-01-06 -0500, Robert Guerra wrote: >- Knowing the issues with ISOC, I am curious as to why on earth an >ISOC space was chosen to host the discussions about the new >structure. Could another space not have been chosen? what's wrong with ISOC.be (belgium)? They have the skills, the time, and I asume they've proposed to help. Did someone say anything about the CPSR taking care of this list? >- Being an EU (spanish) citizen, I'd like to ask the question of >"language" and how that issue will be handled ? The French and >Spanish internet users will no doubt make a very strong point that >linguistic diversity is one that should be accommodated. So, to speak, the Bulgarian, Macedonian, Serbian and Russian. veni _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Jan 21 12:22:47 2006 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 20:22:47 +0300 Subject: [governance] Establishment of the European Regional At-Large Organizaton In-Reply-To: <20060121153313.GS3857@lavazza.does-not-exist.org> References: <20060121143316.82619.qmail@web53510.mail.yahoo.com> <43D24CAA.6070204@isoc.lu> <20060121153313.GS3857@lavazza.does-not-exist.org> Message-ID: On 1/21/06, Thomas Roessler wrote: > On 2006-01-21 16:00:58 +0100, Patrick Vande Walle wrote: > > > The sad truth is that there are few organizations interested > > in ICANN processes in Europe, outside the ISOC chapters. If > > you can suggest additional structures, I am convinced ALAC > > would be interested, but short of FITUG and ISOC chapters, > > none applied AFAIK. > > Well, that's not a reason for restricting the process to ISOC > chapters in the first place, right? It's patently not. Did you not read the relevant bit of the message you replied to?? > > none applied." -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From roessler at does-not-exist.org Sat Jan 21 12:23:09 2006 From: roessler at does-not-exist.org (Thomas Roessler) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 18:23:09 +0100 Subject: [governance] Establishment of the European Regional At-Large Organizaton In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060121121038.0445c910@veni.com> References: <20060121143316.82619.qmail@web53510.mail.yahoo.com> <43D24CAA.6070204@isoc.lu> <20060121153313.GS3857@lavazza.does-not-exist.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20060121121038.0445c910@veni.com> Message-ID: <20060121172309.GW3857@lavazza.does-not-exist.org> On 2006-01-21 12:11:22 -0500, Veni Markovski wrote: >>> The sad truth is that there are few organizations >>> interested in ICANN processes in Europe, outside the >>> ISOC chapters. If you can suggest additional structures, >>> I am convinced ALAC would be interested, but short of >>> FITUG and ISOC chapters, none applied AFAIK. >>Well, that's not a reason for restricting the process to >>ISOC chapters in the first place, right? > Is it restricted to ISOC chapters only? Or am I > misunderstanding you - I believ the ALAC is open to > everyone. FITUG is not an ISOC chapter, and the process is open to everyone at this point. I had (mis?) read Patrick's note as suggesting that a restriction to ISOC chapters would be ok given the actual structure of the prospective EURALO membership. -- Thomas Roessler · Personal soap box at . _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Sat Jan 21 12:26:33 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 12:26:33 -0500 Subject: [governance] Establishment of the European Regional At-Large Organizaton In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060121121148.0445e4d0@veni.com> References: <20060121143316.82619.qmail@web53510.mail.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060121121148.0445e4d0@veni.com> Message-ID: On 21-Jan-06, at 12:13 PM, Veni Markovski wrote: > At 11:09 21-01-06 -0500, Robert Guerra wrote: >> - Knowing the issues with ISOC, I am curious as to why on earth an >> ISOC space was chosen to host the discussions about the new >> structure. Could another space not have been chosen? > > what's wrong with ISOC.be (belgium)? They have the skills, the > time, and I asume they've proposed to help. Did someone say > anything about the CPSR taking care of this list? > CPSR must be seen as a nice host, as to my knowledge there hasn't been any criticism directed to the organization. We seem to be playing the role of a neutral facilitator :) ISOC seems to evoke reactions from far more people than CPSR does. As for the hosting for the european new structure - well, i didn't see an open call anywhere . perhaps a first step would have been to make a call to see who might be able to host the site >> - Being an EU (spanish) citizen, I'd like to ask the question of >> "language" and how that issue will be handled ? The French and >> Spanish internet users will no doubt make a very strong point that >> linguistic diversity is one that should be accommodated. > > So, to speak, the Bulgarian, Macedonian, Serbian and Russian. > Well another question, will the new "european" structure speak for just EU members or all "europeans" ? If it's just the EU, then the languages you mention aren't (yet) official in the EU ;) regards Robert _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Sat Jan 21 12:25:16 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 12:25:16 -0500 Subject: [governance] [ga] Re: Establishment of the European Regional At-Large Organizaton In-Reply-To: <43D24B20.7020403@bertola.eu.org> References: <20060121143316.82619.qmail@web53510.mail.yahoo.com> <43D24B20.7020403@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060121122250.03ad2e38@veni.com> Vitorio - why do you bother to respond? Are you subscribed for the ga at gnso.icann.org? If not, your mail will not reach that mailing list. Danny has this habit of sending mail to lists to which only he's subscribed, so that when others respond, their responses don't show there. Danny keeps on working with some criticism, which would have been really proper, if he has suggested some alternative. Robert made a better proposal. veni At 15:54 21-01-06 +0100, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >Danny Younger ha scritto: > > Vittorio, > > > > This European Regional At-Large Organization that you > > are building needs a better name... perhaps you can > > call it EU ISOC & Friends as it is completely captured > > by ISOC (with seven out of its eight structures being > > ISOC chapters). > >The funny thing is that, more or less at the same time, I've received a >message from an officer of an ISOC chapter, saying "why is ICANN doing >this - we don't need the At Large, it should be the European council of >ISOC chapters to do this". > >The truth is that we are trying to create an open mechanism where >everyone - ISOC chapters, other organizations, and individuals - can >participate. If only certain kinds of organizations use it, then of >course they will dominate the mechanism; but, once the gates are open, >the fault of this only lies with those who don't bother to participate. >-- >vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- >http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Sat Jan 21 12:40:26 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 18:40:26 +0100 Subject: [governance] Establishment of the European Regional At-Large Organizaton In-Reply-To: References: <20060121143316.82619.qmail@web53510.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <43D2720A.1030906@bertola.eu.org> Robert Guerra ha scritto: > A few questions & comments : > > - Knowing the issues with ISOC, I am curious as to why on earth an > ISOC space was chosen to host the discussions about the new structure. > Could another space not have been chosen? Well, they are one of the already accredited At Large Structures, they had a phpBB installation already up and running and they offered me to host the consultation while we were chatting of other issues on IM. I do not see any reason why to turn down the offer... then, you see, for example the download of the "principles document" is hosted on my personal site. > - Being an EU (spanish) citizen, I'd like to ask the question of > "language" and how that issue will be handled ? The French and Spanish > internet users will no doubt make a very strong point that linguistic > diversity is one that should be accommodated. The organizations we currently have are from Belgium, The Netherlands, Luxembourg, Italy, Germany, Bulgaria, Spain and Finland. I think there's already a reasonable set of diversity. The working practices of the new group are totally to be defined, so it will mostly depend on those who participate. > (1) Asociacion de Internautas They are already accredited as At Large Structure, but they applied for Latin America rather than for Europe. But you are right, we'll try to involve them in the European consultation as well. > A suggestion - Yolanda is organizing a conference on ICTs and Social > action this coming May in Seville. The conference is still being > planned, and as such an idea might be to organize something at the > event (a panel, or perhaps even an information booth). This would allow > people to know more about ICANN, specifically how they could engage in > the European at large structures. This would be good, but please realize that it's just three people doing this in their spare time, so we cannot be everywhere. We have been asking ICANN to hire a part-time person in Brussels that can do some outreach, as well as clerical work, but we've never got ICANN to actually do it. > (2) Fundacion Cibervoluntarios > (3) CPSR Spain We would be glad to accredit them if they want to participate. > In terms of others: > > European - EDRI is the first organization that > comes to mind. Personally, I am of the opinion that much would be > gained by consulting the many member organizations that make up EDRI. > The issue of digital rights should not, must not be ignored... We already contacted EDRI at least a couple of times in the last three years, but apparently their members (except FITUG) are not interested in participating. (As per ICANN Bylaws, it must be the actual membership organizations that get accredited, not organizations of organizations.) > I hope you find my comments and suggestions useful. Sure, thanks. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Sat Jan 21 12:44:36 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 18:44:36 +0100 Subject: [governance] [ga] Re: Establishment of the European Regional At-Large Organizaton In-Reply-To: <20060121152514.94294.qmail@web53509.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060121152514.94294.qmail@web53509.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <43D27304.6010707@bertola.eu.org> Danny Younger ha scritto: > You have chosen to acquiesce to capture because it > serves your interests -- sorry, but I find this to be > repugnant. Could you please specify 1) which "interests" I would have, that would be served by the present situation, and, 2) how did I "acquiesce to capture", and what could I have done instead? Thanks, -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Sat Jan 21 12:45:37 2006 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 09:45:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] [ga] Re: Establishment of the European Regional At-Large Organizaton In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060121120934.044489c8@veni.com> Message-ID: <20060121174537.47479.qmail@web53511.mail.yahoo.com> Dear Veni, As you are on the ICANN Board, you are positioned to refute my assertion. If in fact the ICANN Board has received correspondence from ISOC chapters on at-large issues, then where are these documents posted? I assume that you still respect the concept of transparency, and I further assume that no ISOC chapter has requested that the ICANN Board refrain from publicly making evident their concerns. Where is such correspondence to be found? --- Veni Markovski wrote: > At 07:25 21-01-06 -0800, Danny Younger wrote: > > >interests and concerns. In fact, in the last three > >and a half years not one single ISOC chapter > >functioning as one your At-Large "structures" has > ever > >sent even one single comment to the ICANN Board on > any > >at-large topic whatsoever. > > On what grounds you make such a statment? That is, > where do you take > the facts from? > > veni > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rudi.vansnick at isoc.be Sat Jan 21 12:50:31 2006 From: rudi.vansnick at isoc.be (Vansnick Rudi) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 18:50:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] [ga] Re: Establishment of the European RegionalAt-Large Organizaton In-Reply-To: <20060121152514.94294.qmail@web53509.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <017801c61eb3$3076a920$4f00a8c0@cmsrudi> Why do I read so many negative reactions ? It is not the first time we (ISOC Belgium) are critized for our efforts. In some cases we even experience destructive reactions. We support people (and organisations) keeping in mind the basics of the ISOC community ("Internet for everyone"), which can only be done through lots of volunteering efforts. Proposing solutions after the basic work is done is quite easy. Taking the lead, as Vittorio has done, and moving forward in difficult situations, with no funding, is an action we should all applaud in stead of debating on how it could be done better. If someone wants to host the forum, just do it, we are not against. Except that nobody has responded to the unforced request from Vittorio to start the Euralo before this has been brought up in this list. Best regards, Rudi Vansnick ISOC Belgium |-----Original Message----- |From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org |[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger |Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 4:25 PM |To: Vittorio Bertola |Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; ga at gnso.icann.org |Subject: Re: [governance] [ga] Re: Establishment of the |European RegionalAt-Large Organizaton | | |Vittorio, | |We have a proactive obligation to prevent capture. |You may wish to recall the words of the White Paper: | |"Governance. The organizing documents (Charter, |Bylaws, etc.) should provide that the new corporation |is governed on the basis of a sound and transparent |decision-making process, which protects against |capture by a self-interested faction, and which |provides for robust, professional management of the |new corporation." | |You have chosen to acquiesce to capture because it |serves your interests -- sorry, but I find this to be |repugnant. | |As an ISOC chapter member, I support initiatives that |promote our common stake in maintaining the viability |and global scaling of the Internet, but I do not |support fraud. ISOC chapters have a place within |ICANN as constituent members of the non-commercial |constituency (NCUC) -- they are not, and have never |claimed to be, voices that speak for the broader |at-large community. | |When ICANN staff negotiated a 7% annual increase in |.com fees did we hear an expression of rage from the |ISOC chapters? No. We heard nothing. Not a peep. | |They are not the At-Large -- They don't represent the |At-Large nor are they motivated by the same set of |concerns that impact the real At-Large community -- |they are a different body with a different set of |interests and concerns. In fact, in the last three |and a half years not one single ISOC chapter |functioning as one your At-Large "structures" has ever |sent even one single comment to the ICANN Board on any |at-large topic whatsoever. | |Vittorio, this fraud must end. | | | | |--- Vittorio Bertola wrote: | |> Danny Younger ha scritto: |> > Vittorio, |> > |> > This European Regional At-Large Organization that |> you |> > are building needs a better name... perhaps you |> can |> > call it EU ISOC & Friends as it is completely |> captured |> > by ISOC (with seven out of its eight structures |> being |> > ISOC chapters). |> |> The funny thing is that, more or less at the same |> time, I've received a |> message from an officer of an ISOC chapter, saying |> "why is ICANN doing |> this - we don't need the At Large, it should be the |> European council of |> ISOC chapters to do this". |> |> The truth is that we are trying to create an open |> mechanism where |> everyone - ISOC chapters, other organizations, and |> individuals - can |> participate. If only certain kinds of organizations |> use it, then of |> course they will dominate the mechanism; but, once |> the gates are open, |> the fault of this only lies with those who don't |> bother to participate. |> -- |> vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] |> bertola.eu.org]<----- |> http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... |> | | |__________________________________________________ |Do You Yahoo!? |Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around |http://mail.yahoo.com |_______________________________________________ |governance mailing list |governance at lists.cpsr.org |https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance | _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Jan 21 12:52:07 2006 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 18:52:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] Establishment of the European Regional At-LargeOrganizaton Message-ID: Vittorio: The organizations we currently have are from Belgium, The Netherlands Luxembourg, Italy, Germany, Bulgaria, Spain and Finland. Wolfgang: So nobody from UK, France, Denmark, Sweden, East Europe? And from Germany, is it only FITUG? Vittorio: I think there's already a reasonable set of diversity. Wolfgang: This is like having the Champions League without Manchester United, Bavaria Munich and Real Madrid :-((( _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Sat Jan 21 12:55:25 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 18:55:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] Establishment of the European Regional At-Large Organizaton In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43D2758D.5000702@bertola.eu.org> Wolfgang Kleinwächter ha scritto: > The proposed statues would have allowed that one third of members > from a EU-RALO Board would have come from individuals, Just to let you know that we are in agreement, if you read the proposed structure for the EURALO, you will discover that up to half of its council will be composed by representatives of individual members. That is even more than what was being discussed in Milan, and reflects the common understanding that there must be a role for active individuals. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Jan 21 13:03:46 2006 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 19:03:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] Establishment of the European Regional At-Large Organizaton Message-ID: wolfgang Kleinwächter ha scritto: The proposed statues would have allowed that one third of members from a EU-RALO Board would have come from individuals, Vittoria: Just to let you know that we are in agreement, if you read the proposed structure for the EURALO, you will discover that up to half of its council will be composed by representatives of individual members. That is even more than what was being discussed in Milan, and reflects the common understanding that there must be a role for active individuals. Wolfgang: Yes, I see this as a progress and I support it. My intervention was only to make the historical process a little bit more transparent. The question of individual membership, as you remember, was controversial for nearly three years. Insofar I congratulate you and the other ALAC members that you made this step in a direction which I believe is the rigth one. Not easy, but necessary! _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Sat Jan 21 13:11:57 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 13:11:57 -0500 Subject: [governance] [ga] Re: Establishment of the European Regional At-Large Organizaton In-Reply-To: <20060121174537.47479.qmail@web53511.mail.yahoo.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060121120934.044489c8@veni.com> <20060121174537.47479.qmail@web53511.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060121131009.038cd7e8@veni.com> Dear Danny, as you stated that there has never been one single comment to the Board, I didn't realize you are talking about "correspondence" and "documents" that need to be posted. In my understanding comments can be send also in oral form. So - my mistake - based on your previous mail - was to asume you mean any kind of communications. veni At 09:45 21-01-06 -0800, Danny Younger wrote: >Dear Veni, > >As you are on the ICANN Board, you are positioned to >refute my assertion. If in fact the ICANN Board has >received correspondence from ISOC chapters on at-large >issues, then where are these documents posted? I >assume that you still respect the concept of >transparency, and I further assume that no ISOC >chapter has requested that the ICANN Board refrain >from publicly making evident their concerns. Where is >such correspondence to be found? > > > >--- Veni Markovski wrote: > > > At 07:25 21-01-06 -0800, Danny Younger wrote: > > > > >interests and concerns. In fact, in the last three > > >and a half years not one single ISOC chapter > > >functioning as one your At-Large "structures" has > > ever > > >sent even one single comment to the ICANN Board on > > any > > >at-large topic whatsoever. > > > > On what grounds you make such a statment? That is, > > where do you take > > the facts from? > > > > veni > > > > > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Sat Jan 21 13:19:25 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 13:19:25 -0500 Subject: [governance] Establishment of the European Regional At-LargeOrganizaton In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060121131302.03f5d2d0@veni.com> Well, I didn't know that Bulgaria is considered as part of the Champions league, but Wolfgang, could you send that note to the Bundestag - there's a vote on EU accession of Bulgaria, and it will be quite helpful ;-) veni At 18:52 21-01-06 +0100, Wolfgang KleinwДchter wrote: >Vittorio: >The organizations we currently have are from >Belgium, The Netherlands Luxembourg, Italy, >Germany, Bulgaria, Spain and Finland. > >Wolfgang: >So nobody from UK, France, Denmark, Sweden, East >Europe? And from Germany, is it only FITUG? > >Vittorio: >I think there's already a reasonable set of diversity. > >Wolfgang: >This is like having the Champions League without >Manchester United, Bavaria Munich and Real Madrid :-((( > > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Jan 21 13:25:16 2006 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 19:25:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] Establishment of the European Regional At-LargeOrganizaton Message-ID: Veni: Well, I didn't know that Bulgaria is considered as part of the Champions league, but Wolfgang, could you send that note to the Bundestag - there's a vote on EU accession of Bulgaria, and it will be quite helpful ;-) Wolfgang: Yes, Veni, I will do that. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From faia at amauta.rcp.net.pe Sat Jan 21 13:28:26 2006 From: faia at amauta.rcp.net.pe (Erick Iriarte Ahon) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 13:28:26 -0500 Subject: [governance] Establishment of the European Regional At-LargeOrganizaton2 Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.0.20060121132824.02d12170@amauta.rcp.net.pe> Well... if yo talk about soccer (remember "mar del plata soccer tournament" and "luxemburgo soccer tournament"), the first step is: be in the league. So, for all regions (not only for europe), if you have contacts with at-large organizations please suggest them to incorporate in the "regional league" to participate in the "tournaments". More clearly? be part of the movement, and participate. How? http://alac.icann.org/applications/ We need your passion for development a better Information Society for have a real and active at-large movement in all the regions. Thanks for your help. I hope in the future see a lot of your organizations not only around ALAC, is important a participation in NCUC and another dialogue spaces. Erick Iriarte Ahon Alfa-Redi http://www.alfa-redi.org At 12:52 p.m. 21/01/2006, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: >Vittorio: >The organizations we currently have are from >Belgium, The Netherlands Luxembourg, Italy, >Germany, Bulgaria, Spain and Finland. > >Wolfgang: >So nobody from UK, France, Denmark, Sweden, East >Europe? And from Germany, is it only FITUG? > >Vittorio: >I think there's already a reasonable set of diversity. > >Wolfgang: >This is like having the Champions League without >Manchester United, Bavaria Munich and Real Madrid :-((( > > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Sat Jan 21 13:30:45 2006 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 10:30:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] [ga] Re: Establishment of the European Regional At-Large Organizaton In-Reply-To: <43D27304.6010707@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <20060121183045.50083.qmail@web53508.mail.yahoo.com> Vittorio, Frankly, your interest is in continuing to promote a construct that replaces a host of At-Large directors with a single non-elected liaison to the ICANN Board. Your agenda, and those of many of your associates on the ALAC, calls for taking advantage of ICANN-sponsored travel perks while refusing to have your Committee discuss critical at-large matters (such as representation) with the balance of the at-large community that stand in fierce opposition to your initiatives. Your option was to support the conclusions of the At-Large Study Committee that called for the establishment of a Supporting Organization for the At-Large and which called for seating five At-Large directors on the Board. Instead, you elected to support a set of bylaws written by those that had just expelled the At-Large directors in a Palace Coup d'Etat. You don't represent the At-Large. You actions serve to continue thwarting our right as the largest stakeholder group to Board-level representation. best regards, Danny --- Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Danny Younger ha scritto: > > You have chosen to acquiesce to capture because it > > serves your interests -- sorry, but I find this to > be > > repugnant. > > Could you please specify > 1) which "interests" I would have, that would be > served by the present > situation, and, > 2) how did I "acquiesce to capture", and what could > I have done instead? > > Thanks, > -- > vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] > bertola.eu.org]<----- > http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From faia at amauta.rcp.net.pe Sat Jan 21 15:31:52 2006 From: faia at amauta.rcp.net.pe (Erick Iriarte Ahon) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 15:31:52 -0500 Subject: [governance] [ga] Re: Establishment of the European Regional At-Large Organizaton In-Reply-To: References: <20060121143316.82619.qmail@web53510.mail.yahoo.com> <43D24B20.7020403@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.0.20060121152231.02d13170@amauta.rcp.net.pe> A ver.. entonces no solamente la hacemos de juguetes del Board del ICANN, sino que nos engañamos a nosotros mismos (digo por los que andamos dentro del ALAC), sino que tambien de paso andamos complicados con nuestras organizaciones de base. Hay desde hace mucho caminos para intentar cambiar las cosas: a. patear el tablero y volver a empezar. b. cambiar desde adentro (al menos intentarlo con corazon y razon), c. criticar y no hacer nada, d. la toma del poder estrategicamente, e. la anarquia total a ver que sale del caos (tal como los antiguos decian que "algo" salio del "caos" inicial). Por mi parte he optado por el camino (b). Si dicho camino es incorrecto para otros, respeto su decision de tener otras posturas, al igual que respeto las discrepancias de vision, y mas aun respeto y mataria por su derecho a expresarse libremente, pero lo que no entiendo, es que a aquellos que pensemos distinto a otros nos traten de suerte de "idiotas/ignorantes/incautos" y peor aun que nos traten de "acomedidos/amarrados/maniatados/manipulados/conculcados", por el ICANN. Que no se puede hacer tanto como se desea? eso es cierto, negarlo seria tonto. Pero negar que se lucha con ahinco porque las cosas sean distintas, de ganar esos espacios que fueron negados o no se pensaron desde un inicio, de tratar de convocar al resto para tener una participacion real, negar todo lo que se esta haciendo es tambien mezquino. el ALAC no solo puede fallar, las personas dentro del ALAC pueden fallar, pero al menos se intentan las cosas, nada sale de las elucubraciones mentales desde afuera, solo no entender lo de adentro, y que se generen guerras intestintas entre los que defienden que si hacen cosas y los de afuera que dicen que no se hace nada, y peor aun que se es titere de otros. Por que defiendo el ALAC? porque a lo mejor he visto cosas que el resto no quiere ver, o no quiere percatarse. Y algo mas, hay tambien razon en muchos puntos que se expresan, el Board debe dar mayor espacio de dialogo al ALAC, debe generar una labor mas proactiva de integracion internacional, lo dije explicitamente en Tunez, el documento de la WSIS (parte II), lo que hace es darle una oportunidad historica al ICANN de demostrar que es ese espacio que se necesita para temas de administracion de recursos de internet, de una manera transparente, multi-stakeholder, democratica, participativa, la pelota esta en cancha del ICANN. Y el ALAC debe jugar un papel clave en este proceso. Erick At 03:09 p.m. 21/01/2006, Karl Auerbach wrote: >>.. but, once the gates are open, the fault of >>this only lies with those who don't bother to participate. > >Those who are given a toy steering wheel are not >driving the automobile even if they do participate. > >The ALAC is a toy. > >And the ALAC is not merely a toy, it is also a >badge of subordination and inferiority. While >selected industrial actors get access to the >real steering wheel of ICANN, the ALAC seems >happy to accept a powerless third class status. > >No, I will not bother to cooperate with the >ALAC. Indeed it is my feeling that the ALAC >should be recognized for what it was intended to >be: a childrens' playpen to keep "individuals" quiet. > >I know that some are trying your best to make >good of a bad situation. And for that they deserve credit for having hope. > >I, however, am not going to eat ICANN's ALAC >garbage and pretend that it is tasty and nutritious. > > --karl-- > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Sat Jan 21 17:44:26 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 17:44:26 -0500 Subject: [governance] [ga] Re: Establishment of the European Regional At-Large Organizaton In-Reply-To: <20060121183045.50083.qmail@web53508.mail.yahoo.com> References: <43D27304.6010707@bertola.eu.org> <20060121183045.50083.qmail@web53508.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060121174227.036165a0@veni.com> Vittorio, please, do not get upset by such postings. They aim at that, and nothing else. You're trying to do something good - please, keep on trying, and don't give up! Now, after we have heard what are your "interests" according to Danny, perhaps we can hear what are also Danny's interestes, so that the game is fair. Veni At 10:30 21-01-06 -0800, Danny Younger wrote: >Vittorio, > >Frankly, your interest is in continuing to promote a >construct that replaces a host of At-Large directors >with a single non-elected liaison to the ICANN Board. >Your agenda, and those of many of your associates on >the ALAC, calls for taking advantage of >ICANN-sponsored travel perks while refusing to have >your Committee discuss critical at-large matters (such >as representation) with the balance of the at-large _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From peter at echnaton.serveftp.com Sat Jan 21 18:01:04 2006 From: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com (Peter Dambier) Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 00:01:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] [ga] Re: Establishment of the European Regional At-Large Organizaton In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.0.20060121152231.02d13170@amauta.rcp.net.pe> References: <20060121143316.82619.qmail@web53510.mail.yahoo.com> <43D24B20.7020403@bertola.eu.org> <6.2.5.6.0.20060121152231.02d13170@amauta.rcp.net.pe> Message-ID: <43D2BD30.9050002@echnaton.serveftp.com> Erick Iriarte Ahon wrote: > A ver.. > > entonces no solamente la hacemos de juguetes del > Board del ICANN, sino que nos engañamos a > nosotros mismos (digo por los que andamos dentro > del ALAC), sino que tambien de paso andamos > complicados con nuestras organizaciones de base. Puedo utilisar mes juguetes mios ou solo los juguetes del ICANN? Tengo http://root.5wc.ch/ http://www.opennic.unrated.net/ y mes juguetes especiales http://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ otros juguetes? > > Hay desde hace mucho caminos para intentar > cambiar las cosas: a. patear el tablero y volver > a empezar. b. cambiar desde adentro (al menos > intentarlo con corazon y razon), c. criticar y no > hacer nada, d. la toma del poder > estrategicamente, e. la anarquia total a ver que > sale del caos (tal como los antiguos decian que > "algo" salio del "caos" inicial). > > Por mi parte he optado por el camino (b). (e) me gusta mucho penso que juegos como http://www.kokoom.com/iason/bifurcation.html son muy divertido. Pero, si para jugar con vos tengo (b). Hoy tenomos (b) pero manana (e) ? > > Si dicho camino es incorrecto para otros, respeto > su decision de tener otras posturas, al igual que > respeto las discrepancias de vision, y mas aun > respeto y mataria por su derecho a expresarse > libremente, pero lo que no entiendo, es que a > aquellos que pensemos distinto a otros nos traten > de suerte de "idiotas/ignorantes/incautos" y peor > aun que nos traten de > "acomedidos/amarrados/maniatados/manipulados/conculcados", por el ICANN. Solo es un juego. Hoy tenemos (b) manana tenemos (e) una semana mas tarde sabemos mas. No tenemos discrepancias de vision, penso que non. Ni de lengua ni de vision, es cierto. > > Que no se puede hacer tanto como se desea? eso es > cierto, negarlo seria tonto. Pero negar que se > lucha con ahinco porque las cosas sean distintas, > de ganar esos espacios que fueron negados o no se > pensaron desde un inicio, de tratar de convocar > al resto para tener una participacion real, negar > todo lo que se esta haciendo es tambien mezquino. > > el ALAC no solo puede fallar, las personas dentro > del ALAC pueden fallar, pero al menos se intentan > las cosas, nada sale de las elucubraciones > mentales desde afuera, solo no entender lo de > adentro, y que se generen guerras intestintas > entre los que defienden que si hacen cosas y los > de afuera que dicen que no se hace nada, y peor aun que se es titere de otros. > > Por que defiendo el ALAC? porque a lo mejor he > visto cosas que el resto no quiere ver, o no quiere percatarse. > > Y algo mas, hay tambien razon en muchos puntos > que se expresan, el Board debe dar mayor espacio > de dialogo al ALAC, debe generar una labor mas > proactiva de integracion internacional, lo dije > explicitamente en Tunez, el documento de la WSIS > (parte II), lo que hace es darle una oportunidad > historica al ICANN de demostrar que es ese > espacio que se necesita para temas de > administracion de recursos de internet, de una > manera transparente, multi-stakeholder, > democratica, participativa, la pelota esta en > cancha del ICANN. Y el ALAC debe jugar un papel clave en este proceso. > > Erick Peter > > > At 03:09 p.m. 21/01/2006, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > >>>.. but, once the gates are open, the fault of >>>this only lies with those who don't bother to participate. >> >>Those who are given a toy steering wheel are not >>driving the automobile even if they do participate. >> >>The ALAC is a toy. >> >>And the ALAC is not merely a toy, it is also a >>badge of subordination and inferiority. While >>selected industrial actors get access to the >>real steering wheel of ICANN, the ALAC seems >>happy to accept a powerless third class status. >> >>No, I will not bother to cooperate with the >>ALAC. Indeed it is my feeling that the ALAC >>should be recognized for what it was intended to >>be: a childrens' playpen to keep "individuals" quiet. >> >>I know that some are trying your best to make >>good of a bad situation. And for that they deserve credit for having hope. >> >>I, however, am not going to eat ICANN's ALAC >>garbage and pretend that it is tasty and nutritious. >> >> --karl-- >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > -- Peter and Karin Dambier The Public-Root Consortium Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49(6252)671-788 (Telekom) +49(179)108-3978 (O2 Genion) +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com mail: peter at peter-dambier.de http://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Sat Jan 21 18:28:09 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 18:28:09 -0500 Subject: [governance] [ga] Re: Establishment of the European Regional At-Large Organizaton In-Reply-To: <43D2BD30.9050002@echnaton.serveftp.com> References: <20060121143316.82619.qmail@web53510.mail.yahoo.com> <43D24B20.7020403@bertola.eu.org> <6.2.5.6.0.20060121152231.02d13170@amauta.rcp.net.pe> <43D2BD30.9050002@echnaton.serveftp.com> Message-ID: <14789091-2574-4AFA-BF8E-45DCF47F884D@lists.privaterra.org> je ne suis pas sur si tous les gens ici comprends la langue de cervantes. Alors, je pense que ça será mieux que on reste en l'anglais, comme ça la majorité des gens peut comprende et repondre. I don't think all the people on here understand the language of Cervantes. So, I think it might be best to stay in english, that way not only everyone can understand (what's being said) - but reply as well. Creo que no toda la gente aqui comprende el indioma de Cervantes. Por tanto creo que sería mejor quedar al ingles, asi no solo todos entienden - sino que todos tambien pueden responder. Linguistic diversity is important, but if you are going to post - do try to translate for others who might not understand your language. regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 Fax +1 416 893 0374 On 21-Jan-06, at 6:01 PM, Peter Dambier wrote: > Erick Iriarte Ahon wrote: >> A ver.. >> >> entonces no solamente la hacemos de juguetes del >> Board del ICANN, sino que nos engañamos a >> nosotros mismos (digo por los que andamos dentro >> del ALAC), sino que tambien de paso andamos >> complicados con nuestras organizaciones de base. > > Puedo utilisar mes juguetes mios ou solo los > juguetes del ICANN? > > Tengo > > http://root.5wc.ch/ > http://www.opennic.unrated.net/ > > y mes juguetes especiales > > http://iason.site.voila.fr/ > https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ > > otros juguetes? > >> >> Hay desde hace mucho caminos para intentar >> cambiar las cosas: a. patear el tablero y volver >> a empezar. b. cambiar desde adentro (al menos >> intentarlo con corazon y razon), c. criticar y no >> hacer nada, d. la toma del poder >> estrategicamente, e. la anarquia total a ver que >> sale del caos (tal como los antiguos decian que >> "algo" salio del "caos" inicial). >> >> Por mi parte he optado por el camino (b). > > (e) me gusta mucho penso que juegos como > > http://www.kokoom.com/iason/bifurcation.html > > son muy divertido. > > Pero, si para jugar con vos tengo (b). Hoy tenomos (b) > pero manana (e) ? > >> >> Si dicho camino es incorrecto para otros, respeto >> su decision de tener otras posturas, al igual que >> respeto las discrepancias de vision, y mas aun >> respeto y mataria por su derecho a expresarse >> libremente, pero lo que no entiendo, es que a >> aquellos que pensemos distinto a otros nos traten >> de suerte de "idiotas/ignorantes/incautos" y peor >> aun que nos traten de >> "acomedidos/amarrados/maniatados/manipulados/conculcados", por el >> ICANN. > > Solo es un juego. Hoy tenemos (b) manana tenemos (e) > una semana mas tarde sabemos mas. No tenemos > discrepancias de vision, penso que non. > > Ni de lengua ni de vision, es cierto. > >> >> Que no se puede hacer tanto como se desea? eso es >> cierto, negarlo seria tonto. Pero negar que se >> lucha con ahinco porque las cosas sean distintas, >> de ganar esos espacios que fueron negados o no se >> pensaron desde un inicio, de tratar de convocar >> al resto para tener una participacion real, negar >> todo lo que se esta haciendo es tambien mezquino. >> >> el ALAC no solo puede fallar, las personas dentro >> del ALAC pueden fallar, pero al menos se intentan >> las cosas, nada sale de las elucubraciones >> mentales desde afuera, solo no entender lo de >> adentro, y que se generen guerras intestintas >> entre los que defienden que si hacen cosas y los >> de afuera que dicen que no se hace nada, y peor aun que se es >> titere de otros. >> >> Por que defiendo el ALAC? porque a lo mejor he >> visto cosas que el resto no quiere ver, o no quiere percatarse. >> >> Y algo mas, hay tambien razon en muchos puntos >> que se expresan, el Board debe dar mayor espacio >> de dialogo al ALAC, debe generar una labor mas >> proactiva de integracion internacional, lo dije >> explicitamente en Tunez, el documento de la WSIS >> (parte II), lo que hace es darle una oportunidad >> historica al ICANN de demostrar que es ese >> espacio que se necesita para temas de >> administracion de recursos de internet, de una >> manera transparente, multi-stakeholder, >> democratica, participativa, la pelota esta en >> cancha del ICANN. Y el ALAC debe jugar un papel clave en este >> proceso. >> >> Erick > > > Peter > > >> >> >> At 03:09 p.m. 21/01/2006, Karl Auerbach wrote: >> >> >>>> .. but, once the gates are open, the fault of >>>> this only lies with those who don't bother to participate. >>> >>> Those who are given a toy steering wheel are not >>> driving the automobile even if they do participate. >>> >>> The ALAC is a toy. >>> >>> And the ALAC is not merely a toy, it is also a >>> badge of subordination and inferiority. While >>> selected industrial actors get access to the >>> real steering wheel of ICANN, the ALAC seems >>> happy to accept a powerless third class status. >>> >>> No, I will not bother to cooperate with the >>> ALAC. Indeed it is my feeling that the ALAC >>> should be recognized for what it was intended to >>> be: a childrens' playpen to keep "individuals" quiet. >>> >>> I know that some are trying your best to make >>> good of a bad situation. And for that they deserve credit for >>> having hope. >>> >>> I, however, am not going to eat ICANN's ALAC >>> garbage and pretend that it is tasty and nutritious. >>> >>> --karl-- >>> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> governance mailing list >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance >> > > > -- > Peter and Karin Dambier > The Public-Root Consortium > Graeffstrasse 14 > D-64646 Heppenheim > +49(6252)671-788 (Telekom) > +49(179)108-3978 (O2 Genion) > +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) > mail: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com > mail: peter at peter-dambier.de > http://iason.site.voila.fr/ > https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Sat Jan 21 18:31:45 2006 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 15:31:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] [ga] Re: Establishment of the European Regional At-Large Organizaton In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060121174227.036165a0@veni.com> Message-ID: <20060121233145.96097.qmail@web53502.mail.yahoo.com> Veni, One of the four principles put forth in the White Paper was "representation". This guiding document also stated: "The new corporation's charter should provide a mechanism whereby its governing body will evolve to reflect changes in the constituency of Internet stakeholders. The new corporation could, for example, establish an open process for the presentation of petitions to expand board representation." Instead of expanding board representation, you and your fellow Board members have reduced board representation by eliminating an entire category of stakeholders from the Board -- the at-large community. My interest is in repairing the damage that you and your associates on the Board have caused, and restoring representation to the Internet's end-user community. As this list is devoted to governance issues, perhaps you might share with us your own views on board-level representation for the At-Large. Danny --- Veni Markovski wrote: > Vittorio, > please, do not get upset by such postings. They aim > at that, and nothing else. > You're trying to do something good - please, keep on > trying, and > don't give up! > > Now, after we have heard what are your "interests" > according to > Danny, perhaps we can hear what are also Danny's > interestes, so that > the game is fair. > > > Veni > > At 10:30 21-01-06 -0800, Danny Younger wrote: > >Vittorio, > > > >Frankly, your interest is in continuing to promote > a > >construct that replaces a host of At-Large > directors > >with a single non-elected liaison to the ICANN > Board. > >Your agenda, and those of many of your associates > on > >the ALAC, calls for taking advantage of > >ICANN-sponsored travel perks while refusing to have > >your Committee discuss critical at-large matters > (such > >as representation) with the balance of the at-large > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From faia at amauta.rcp.net.pe Sat Jan 21 18:37:55 2006 From: faia at amauta.rcp.net.pe (Erick Iriarte Ahon) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 18:37:55 -0500 Subject: [governance] [ga] Re: Establishment of the European Regional At-Large Organizaton In-Reply-To: <43D2BD30.9050002@echnaton.serveftp.com> References: <20060121143316.82619.qmail@web53510.mail.yahoo.com> <43D24B20.7020403@bertola.eu.org> <6.2.5.6.0.20060121152231.02d13170@amauta.rcp.net.pe> <43D2BD30.9050002@echnaton.serveftp.com> Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.0.20060121183420.0585b8d0@amauta.rcp.net.pe> Hola Pete Primero que nada, gracias por la respuesta en español, creo que es util el que podamos dialogar en diversas lenguas, y desde diferentes realidades. Segundo, entiendo que su analisis parte de que todo es un "juego politico", que es una extension del analisis de la vida politica como parte de un complejo "ajedrez", de ser asi, hay que comprender que en este "juego politico" los diferentes actores estan buscando acercarse a un logro especifico, por un lado el mantenimiento de un sistema abierto, democratico, participativo, y de otro lado intereses que buscan que no ocurra. La vision de este fenomeno, desde diferentes perspectivas, nos puede confundir sobre "who is who" en este proceso, cuando en ambos bandos (y pudiendo haber un tercer bando, que son los de "no importa que pase, mientras funcione todo"), hay personas con intereses sociales, personales, colectivos, particulares, y todos mezclados. Hay mucho por dialogar aun. Saludos Erick At 06:01 p.m. 21/01/2006, Peter Dambier wrote: >Erick Iriarte Ahon wrote: >>A ver.. >>entonces no solamente la hacemos de juguetes >>del Board del ICANN, sino que nos engañamos a >>nosotros mismos (digo por los que andamos >>dentro del ALAC), sino que tambien de paso >>andamos complicados con nuestras organizaciones de base. > >Puedo utilisar mes juguetes mios ou solo los >juguetes del ICANN? > >Tengo > >http://root.5wc.ch/ >http://www.opennic.unrated.net/ > >y mes juguetes especiales > >http://iason.site.voila.fr/ >https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ > >otros juguetes? > >>Hay desde hace mucho caminos para intentar >>cambiar las cosas: a. patear el tablero y >>volver a empezar. b. cambiar desde adentro (al >>menos intentarlo con corazon y razon), c. >>criticar y no hacer nada, d. la toma del poder >>estrategicamente, e. la anarquia total a ver >>que sale del caos (tal como los antiguos decian >>que "algo" salio del "caos" inicial). >>Por mi parte he optado por el camino (b). > >(e) me gusta mucho penso que juegos como > >http://www.kokoom.com/iason/bifurcation.html > >son muy divertido. > >Pero, si para jugar con vos tengo (b). Hoy tenomos (b) >pero manana (e) ? > >>Si dicho camino es incorrecto para otros, >>respeto su decision de tener otras posturas, al >>igual que respeto las discrepancias de vision, >>y mas aun respeto y mataria por su derecho a >>expresarse libremente, pero lo que no entiendo, >>es que a aquellos que pensemos distinto a otros >>nos traten de suerte de >>"idiotas/ignorantes/incautos" y peor aun que >>nos traten de >>"acomedidos/amarrados/maniatados/manipulados/conculcados", por el ICANN. > >Solo es un juego. Hoy tenemos (b) manana tenemos (e) >una semana mas tarde sabemos mas. No tenemos >discrepancias de vision, penso que non. > >Ni de lengua ni de vision, es cierto. > >>Que no se puede hacer tanto como se desea? eso >>es cierto, negarlo seria tonto. Pero negar que >>se lucha con ahinco porque las cosas sean >>distintas, de ganar esos espacios que fueron >>negados o no se pensaron desde un inicio, de >>tratar de convocar al resto para tener una >>participacion real, negar todo lo que se esta haciendo es tambien mezquino. >>el ALAC no solo puede fallar, las personas >>dentro del ALAC pueden fallar, pero al menos se >>intentan las cosas, nada sale de las >>elucubraciones mentales desde afuera, solo no >>entender lo de adentro, y que se generen >>guerras intestintas entre los que defienden que >>si hacen cosas y los de afuera que dicen que no >>se hace nada, y peor aun que se es titere de otros. >>Por que defiendo el ALAC? porque a lo mejor he >>visto cosas que el resto no quiere ver, o no quiere percatarse. >>Y algo mas, hay tambien razon en muchos puntos >>que se expresan, el Board debe dar mayor >>espacio de dialogo al ALAC, debe generar una >>labor mas proactiva de integracion >>internacional, lo dije explicitamente en Tunez, >>el documento de la WSIS (parte II), lo que hace >>es darle una oportunidad historica al ICANN de >>demostrar que es ese espacio que se necesita >>para temas de administracion de recursos de >>internet, de una manera transparente, >>multi-stakeholder, democratica, participativa, >>la pelota esta en cancha del ICANN. Y el ALAC >>debe jugar un papel clave en este proceso. >>Erick > > >Peter > > >> >>At 03:09 p.m. 21/01/2006, Karl Auerbach wrote: >> >>>>.. but, once the gates are open, the fault of >>>>this only lies with those who don't bother to participate. >>> >>>Those who are given a toy steering wheel are >>>not driving the automobile even if they do participate. >>> >>>The ALAC is a toy. >>> >>>And the ALAC is not merely a toy, it is also a >>>badge of subordination and inferiority. While >>>selected industrial actors get access to the >>>real steering wheel of ICANN, the ALAC seems >>>happy to accept a powerless third class status. >>> >>>No, I will not bother to cooperate with the >>>ALAC. Indeed it is my feeling that the ALAC >>>should be recognized for what it was intended >>>to be: a childrens' playpen to keep "individuals" quiet. >>> >>>I know that some are trying your best to make >>>good of a bad situation. And for that they deserve credit for having hope. >>> >>>I, however, am not going to eat ICANN's ALAC >>>garbage and pretend that it is tasty and nutritious. >>> >>> --karl-- >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>governance mailing list >>governance at lists.cpsr.org >>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > >-- >Peter and Karin Dambier >The Public-Root Consortium >Graeffstrasse 14 >D-64646 Heppenheim >+49(6252)671-788 (Telekom) >+49(179)108-3978 (O2 Genion) >+49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) >mail: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com >mail: peter at peter-dambier.de >http://iason.site.voila.fr/ >https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From faia at amauta.rcp.net.pe Sat Jan 21 18:43:26 2006 From: faia at amauta.rcp.net.pe (Erick Iriarte Ahon) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 18:43:26 -0500 Subject: [governance] [ga] Re: Establishment of the European Regional At-Large Organizaton In-Reply-To: <002601c61edc$2c3447e0$0201a8c0@kidsearch4> References: <20060121143316.82619.qmail@web53510.mail.yahoo.com> <43D24B20.7020403@bertola.eu.org> <6.2.5.6.0.20060121152231.02d13170@amauta.rcp.net.pe> <002601c61edc$2c3447e0$0201a8c0@kidsearch4> Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.0.20060121183909.058532a0@amauta.rcp.net.pe> Estimado Chris el babelfish creo que ha mejorado mucho desde sus primeras versiones. Si la respuesta al problema de la participacion de los usuarios es una nueva organizacion, tenemos que considerar el como debe ser dicha organizacion, y se debe luchar por establecerla como tal. El problema basico es que se requerira entonces de una tercera instancia (fuera del icann y de dicha nueva organizacion), que permita un dialogo entre ambas (aunque dicha tercera instancia pudiera estar basada en la presion). Sin embargo creo que se puede desde el ALAC generar el dialogo para mejorar los niveles de representatividad, concuerdo que debe mejorarse quizas los mecanismos no solo de dialogo por parte del ICANN sino por parte del ALAC mismo, es importanta tambien reconocer que la participacion del ALAC debe ser no solo de delegatura en el NonCom sino de activa participacion en dicho espacio, o de mayor influencia o incidencia en los procesos electorales; pero seamos sinceros no solo se trata de poner o no poner gente en el board, se trata de control permanente, de ser veedores de los procesos y de las decisiones, es mision del ALAC en transformarse en ese espacio que sea reconocido por todos para ello, pero eso se logra solo con trabajo. Erick At 05:44 p.m. 21/01/2006, kidsearch wrote: >No convengo que ALAC debe ser parte del proceso. Una nueva organización es >quizá la respuesta. Uno que toma una acción más seria a nombre de los >usuarios individuales del Internet por todo el mundo. Debe haber por lo >menos 5 miembros del Consejo que representan directamente a individuos en >ICANN. El ALAC está parado de la manera de eso acordando actuar como >representantes de individuos mientras que él no intenta conseguir a gente en >el tablero de ICANN. > >excuse mi babelfish español > >Chris McElroy > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Erick Iriarte Ahon" >To: "Karl Auerbach" ; >Cc: "Danny Younger" ; >Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 3:31 PM >Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [governance] Establishment of the European Regional >At-Large Organizaton > > > > A ver.. > > > > entonces no solamente la hacemos de juguetes del > > Board del ICANN, sino que nos engañamos a > > nosotros mismos (digo por los que andamos dentro > > del ALAC), sino que tambien de paso andamos > > complicados con nuestras organizaciones de base. > > > > Hay desde hace mucho caminos para intentar > > cambiar las cosas: a. patear el tablero y volver > > a empezar. b. cambiar desde adentro (al menos > > intentarlo con corazon y razon), c. criticar y no > > hacer nada, d. la toma del poder > > estrategicamente, e. la anarquia total a ver que > > sale del caos (tal como los antiguos decian que > > "algo" salio del "caos" inicial). > > > > Por mi parte he optado por el camino (b). > > > > Si dicho camino es incorrecto para otros, respeto > > su decision de tener otras posturas, al igual que > > respeto las discrepancias de vision, y mas aun > > respeto y mataria por su derecho a expresarse > > libremente, pero lo que no entiendo, es que a > > aquellos que pensemos distinto a otros nos traten > > de suerte de "idiotas/ignorantes/incautos" y peor > > aun que nos traten de > > "acomedidos/amarrados/maniatados/manipulados/conculcados", por el ICANN. > > > > Que no se puede hacer tanto como se desea? eso es > > cierto, negarlo seria tonto. Pero negar que se > > lucha con ahinco porque las cosas sean distintas, > > de ganar esos espacios que fueron negados o no se > > pensaron desde un inicio, de tratar de convocar > > al resto para tener una participacion real, negar > > todo lo que se esta haciendo es tambien mezquino. > > > > el ALAC no solo puede fallar, las personas dentro > > del ALAC pueden fallar, pero al menos se intentan > > las cosas, nada sale de las elucubraciones > > mentales desde afuera, solo no entender lo de > > adentro, y que se generen guerras intestintas > > entre los que defienden que si hacen cosas y los > > de afuera que dicen que no se hace nada, y peor aun que se es titere de >otros. > > > > Por que defiendo el ALAC? porque a lo mejor he > > visto cosas que el resto no quiere ver, o no quiere percatarse. > > > > Y algo mas, hay tambien razon en muchos puntos > > que se expresan, el Board debe dar mayor espacio > > de dialogo al ALAC, debe generar una labor mas > > proactiva de integracion internacional, lo dije > > explicitamente en Tunez, el documento de la WSIS > > (parte II), lo que hace es darle una oportunidad > > historica al ICANN de demostrar que es ese > > espacio que se necesita para temas de > > administracion de recursos de internet, de una > > manera transparente, multi-stakeholder, > > democratica, participativa, la pelota esta en > > cancha del ICANN. Y el ALAC debe jugar un papel clave en este proceso. > > > > Erick > > > > > > At 03:09 p.m. 21/01/2006, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > > > >>.. but, once the gates are open, the fault of > > >>this only lies with those who don't bother to participate. > > > > > >Those who are given a toy steering wheel are not > > >driving the automobile even if they do participate. > > > > > >The ALAC is a toy. > > > > > >And the ALAC is not merely a toy, it is also a > > >badge of subordination and inferiority. While > > >selected industrial actors get access to the > > >real steering wheel of ICANN, the ALAC seems > > >happy to accept a powerless third class status. > > > > > >No, I will not bother to cooperate with the > > >ALAC. Indeed it is my feeling that the ALAC > > >should be recognized for what it was intended to > > >be: a childrens' playpen to keep "individuals" quiet. > > > > > >I know that some are trying your best to make > > >good of a bad situation. And for that they deserve credit for having >hope. > > > > > >I, however, am not going to eat ICANN's ALAC > > >garbage and pretend that it is tasty and nutritious. > > > > > > --karl-- > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From peter at echnaton.serveftp.com Sat Jan 21 19:27:18 2006 From: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com (Peter Dambier) Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 01:27:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] [ga] Re: Establishment of the European Regional At-Large Organizaton In-Reply-To: <14789091-2574-4AFA-BF8E-45DCF47F884D@lists.privaterra.org> References: <20060121143316.82619.qmail@web53510.mail.yahoo.com> <43D24B20.7020403@bertola.eu.org> <6.2.5.6.0.20060121152231.02d13170@amauta.rcp.net.pe> <43D2BD30.9050002@echnaton.serveftp.com> <14789091-2574-4AFA-BF8E-45DCF47F884D@lists.privaterra.org> Message-ID: <43D2D166.60906@echnaton.serveftp.com> Robert your spanish is much better than mine. Thankyou for playing this little game with us. Erick feels like Karl and me that ICANN has presented us a nice little sandbox with nice little toys to play with. So Erik and me started playing. You want the others to join in so it might be a good idea to stay with english. Also we probably might find more spanish readers than english (there are fewer analphabeths :) we might loose the scandinavians and playing without the scandinavian is less fun. I am unshure wether we may bring in our own toys or wether we have to use the toys presented by ICANN. That is why I offered http://root.5wc.ch/ http://www.opennic.unrated.net/ as alternative roots and http://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ for verifying and building. There are 8 ways we might follow. Erich choose (b): Changing with heart and mind to follow a different target. Sorry my spanish is not so good after all. I choose (e): Anarchy, because the threat of anarchy might bring people who have lost all reality back to their senses. Take the root for example. It is a single point of failure. Both Eugene Kashpureff and Joe Baptista showed how easy it is to bring down a root. All you have to do is ... No everybody fluent in DNS knows already. I need not repeat. Only balkanisation can save us from the danger of root corruption. If you want to run your own root-servers please ask me privately wether we could monitor your root-servers with IASON or how you could do it yourself using IASON :) That's for anarchy now let us come back to our senses. Thankyou Peter Robert Guerra wrote: > je ne suis pas sur si tous les gens ici comprends la langue de > cervantes. Alors, je pense que ça será mieux que on reste en l'anglais, > comme ça la majorité des gens peut comprende et repondre. > > I don't think all the people on here understand the language of > Cervantes. So, I think it might be best to stay in english, that way > not only everyone can understand (what's being said) - but reply as well. > > Creo que no toda la gente aqui comprende el indioma de Cervantes. Por > tanto creo que sería mejor quedar al ingles, asi no solo todos > entienden - sino que todos tambien pueden responder. > > Linguistic diversity is important, but if you are going to post - do > try to translate for others who might not understand your language. > > > > regards, > > Robert > > -- > Robert Guerra > Managing Director, Privaterra > Tel +1 416 893 0377 Fax +1 416 893 0374 > > > On 21-Jan-06, at 6:01 PM, Peter Dambier wrote: > >> Erick Iriarte Ahon wrote: >> >>> A ver.. >>> >>> entonces no solamente la hacemos de juguetes del >>> Board del ICANN, sino que nos engañamos a >>> nosotros mismos (digo por los que andamos dentro >>> del ALAC), sino que tambien de paso andamos >>> complicados con nuestras organizaciones de base. >> >> >> Puedo utilisar mes juguetes mios ou solo los >> juguetes del ICANN? >> >> Tengo >> >> http://root.5wc.ch/ >> http://www.opennic.unrated.net/ >> >> y mes juguetes especiales >> >> http://iason.site.voila.fr/ >> https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ >> >> otros juguetes? >> >>> >>> Hay desde hace mucho caminos para intentar >>> cambiar las cosas: a. patear el tablero y volver >>> a empezar. b. cambiar desde adentro (al menos >>> intentarlo con corazon y razon), c. criticar y no >>> hacer nada, d. la toma del poder >>> estrategicamente, e. la anarquia total a ver que >>> sale del caos (tal como los antiguos decian que >>> "algo" salio del "caos" inicial). >>> >>> Por mi parte he optado por el camino (b). >> >> >> (e) me gusta mucho penso que juegos como >> >> http://www.kokoom.com/iason/bifurcation.html >> >> son muy divertido. >> >> Pero, si para jugar con vos tengo (b). Hoy tenomos (b) >> pero manana (e) ? >> >>> >>> Si dicho camino es incorrecto para otros, respeto >>> su decision de tener otras posturas, al igual que >>> respeto las discrepancias de vision, y mas aun >>> respeto y mataria por su derecho a expresarse >>> libremente, pero lo que no entiendo, es que a >>> aquellos que pensemos distinto a otros nos traten >>> de suerte de "idiotas/ignorantes/incautos" y peor >>> aun que nos traten de >>> "acomedidos/amarrados/maniatados/manipulados/conculcados", por el >>> ICANN. >> >> >> Solo es un juego. Hoy tenemos (b) manana tenemos (e) >> una semana mas tarde sabemos mas. No tenemos >> discrepancias de vision, penso que non. >> >> Ni de lengua ni de vision, es cierto. >> >>> >>> Que no se puede hacer tanto como se desea? eso es >>> cierto, negarlo seria tonto. Pero negar que se >>> lucha con ahinco porque las cosas sean distintas, >>> de ganar esos espacios que fueron negados o no se >>> pensaron desde un inicio, de tratar de convocar >>> al resto para tener una participacion real, negar >>> todo lo que se esta haciendo es tambien mezquino. >>> >>> el ALAC no solo puede fallar, las personas dentro >>> del ALAC pueden fallar, pero al menos se intentan >>> las cosas, nada sale de las elucubraciones >>> mentales desde afuera, solo no entender lo de >>> adentro, y que se generen guerras intestintas >>> entre los que defienden que si hacen cosas y los >>> de afuera que dicen que no se hace nada, y peor aun que se es titere >>> de otros. >>> >>> Por que defiendo el ALAC? porque a lo mejor he >>> visto cosas que el resto no quiere ver, o no quiere percatarse. >>> >>> Y algo mas, hay tambien razon en muchos puntos >>> que se expresan, el Board debe dar mayor espacio >>> de dialogo al ALAC, debe generar una labor mas >>> proactiva de integracion internacional, lo dije >>> explicitamente en Tunez, el documento de la WSIS >>> (parte II), lo que hace es darle una oportunidad >>> historica al ICANN de demostrar que es ese >>> espacio que se necesita para temas de >>> administracion de recursos de internet, de una >>> manera transparente, multi-stakeholder, >>> democratica, participativa, la pelota esta en >>> cancha del ICANN. Y el ALAC debe jugar un papel clave en este proceso. >>> >>> Erick >> >> >> >> Peter >> >> >>> >>> >>> At 03:09 p.m. 21/01/2006, Karl Auerbach wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> .. but, once the gates are open, the fault of >>>>> this only lies with those who don't bother to participate. >>>> >>>> >>>> Those who are given a toy steering wheel are not >>>> driving the automobile even if they do participate. >>>> >>>> The ALAC is a toy. >>>> >>>> And the ALAC is not merely a toy, it is also a >>>> badge of subordination and inferiority. While >>>> selected industrial actors get access to the >>>> real steering wheel of ICANN, the ALAC seems >>>> happy to accept a powerless third class status. >>>> >>>> No, I will not bother to cooperate with the >>>> ALAC. Indeed it is my feeling that the ALAC >>>> should be recognized for what it was intended to >>>> be: a childrens' playpen to keep "individuals" quiet. >>>> >>>> I know that some are trying your best to make >>>> good of a bad situation. And for that they deserve credit for >>>> having hope. >>>> >>>> I, however, am not going to eat ICANN's ALAC >>>> garbage and pretend that it is tasty and nutritious. >>>> >>>> --karl-- >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> governance mailing list >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance >>> >> >> >> -- >> Peter and Karin Dambier >> The Public-Root Consortium >> Graeffstrasse 14 >> D-64646 Heppenheim >> +49(6252)671-788 (Telekom) >> +49(179)108-3978 (O2 Genion) >> +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) >> mail: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com >> mail: peter at peter-dambier.de >> http://iason.site.voila.fr/ >> https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> governance mailing list >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > -- Peter and Karin Dambier The Public-Root Consortium Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49(6252)671-788 (Telekom) +49(179)108-3978 (O2 Genion) +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com mail: peter at peter-dambier.de http://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Jan 21 23:52:38 2006 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 05:52:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] [ga] Re: Establishment of the European RegionalAt-Large Organizaton Message-ID: Warum spricht hier niemand deutsch? Konrad Zuse hat den Computer erfunden. Und nichts ist zu schwer für einen deutschen Ingenieur :-))). wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Robert Guerra Gesendet: So 22.01.2006 00:28 An: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Karl Auerbach Betreff: Re: [governance] [ga] Re: Establishment of the European RegionalAt-Large Organizaton je ne suis pas sur si tous les gens ici comprends la langue de cervantes. Alors, je pense que ça será mieux que on reste en l'anglais, comme ça la majorité des gens peut comprende et repondre. I don't think all the people on here understand the language of Cervantes. So, I think it might be best to stay in english, that way not only everyone can understand (what's being said) - but reply as well. Creo que no toda la gente aqui comprende el indioma de Cervantes. Por tanto creo que sería mejor quedar al ingles, asi no solo todos entienden - sino que todos tambien pueden responder. Linguistic diversity is important, but if you are going to post - do try to translate for others who might not understand your language. regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 Fax +1 416 893 0374 On 21-Jan-06, at 6:01 PM, Peter Dambier wrote: > Erick Iriarte Ahon wrote: >> A ver.. >> >> entonces no solamente la hacemos de juguetes del >> Board del ICANN, sino que nos engañamos a >> nosotros mismos (digo por los que andamos dentro >> del ALAC), sino que tambien de paso andamos >> complicados con nuestras organizaciones de base. > > Puedo utilisar mes juguetes mios ou solo los > juguetes del ICANN? > > Tengo > > http://root.5wc.ch/ > http://www.opennic.unrated.net/ > > y mes juguetes especiales > > http://iason.site.voila.fr/ > https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ > > otros juguetes? > >> >> Hay desde hace mucho caminos para intentar >> cambiar las cosas: a. patear el tablero y volver >> a empezar. b. cambiar desde adentro (al menos >> intentarlo con corazon y razon), c. criticar y no >> hacer nada, d. la toma del poder >> estrategicamente, e. la anarquia total a ver que >> sale del caos (tal como los antiguos decian que >> "algo" salio del "caos" inicial). >> >> Por mi parte he optado por el camino (b). > > (e) me gusta mucho penso que juegos como > > http://www.kokoom.com/iason/bifurcation.html > > son muy divertido. > > Pero, si para jugar con vos tengo (b). Hoy tenomos (b) > pero manana (e) ? > >> >> Si dicho camino es incorrecto para otros, respeto >> su decision de tener otras posturas, al igual que >> respeto las discrepancias de vision, y mas aun >> respeto y mataria por su derecho a expresarse >> libremente, pero lo que no entiendo, es que a >> aquellos que pensemos distinto a otros nos traten >> de suerte de "idiotas/ignorantes/incautos" y peor >> aun que nos traten de >> "acomedidos/amarrados/maniatados/manipulados/conculcados", por el >> ICANN. > > Solo es un juego. Hoy tenemos (b) manana tenemos (e) > una semana mas tarde sabemos mas. No tenemos > discrepancias de vision, penso que non. > > Ni de lengua ni de vision, es cierto. > >> >> Que no se puede hacer tanto como se desea? eso es >> cierto, negarlo seria tonto. Pero negar que se >> lucha con ahinco porque las cosas sean distintas, >> de ganar esos espacios que fueron negados o no se >> pensaron desde un inicio, de tratar de convocar >> al resto para tener una participacion real, negar >> todo lo que se esta haciendo es tambien mezquino. >> >> el ALAC no solo puede fallar, las personas dentro >> del ALAC pueden fallar, pero al menos se intentan >> las cosas, nada sale de las elucubraciones >> mentales desde afuera, solo no entender lo de >> adentro, y que se generen guerras intestintas >> entre los que defienden que si hacen cosas y los >> de afuera que dicen que no se hace nada, y peor aun que se es >> titere de otros. >> >> Por que defiendo el ALAC? porque a lo mejor he >> visto cosas que el resto no quiere ver, o no quiere percatarse. >> >> Y algo mas, hay tambien razon en muchos puntos >> que se expresan, el Board debe dar mayor espacio >> de dialogo al ALAC, debe generar una labor mas >> proactiva de integracion internacional, lo dije >> explicitamente en Tunez, el documento de la WSIS >> (parte II), lo que hace es darle una oportunidad >> historica al ICANN de demostrar que es ese >> espacio que se necesita para temas de >> administracion de recursos de internet, de una >> manera transparente, multi-stakeholder, >> democratica, participativa, la pelota esta en >> cancha del ICANN. Y el ALAC debe jugar un papel clave en este >> proceso. >> >> Erick > > > Peter > > >> >> >> At 03:09 p.m. 21/01/2006, Karl Auerbach wrote: >> >> >>>> .. but, once the gates are open, the fault of >>>> this only lies with those who don't bother to participate. >>> >>> Those who are given a toy steering wheel are not >>> driving the automobile even if they do participate. >>> >>> The ALAC is a toy. >>> >>> And the ALAC is not merely a toy, it is also a >>> badge of subordination and inferiority. While >>> selected industrial actors get access to the >>> real steering wheel of ICANN, the ALAC seems >>> happy to accept a powerless third class status. >>> >>> No, I will not bother to cooperate with the >>> ALAC. Indeed it is my feeling that the ALAC >>> should be recognized for what it was intended to >>> be: a childrens' playpen to keep "individuals" quiet. >>> >>> I know that some are trying your best to make >>> good of a bad situation. And for that they deserve credit for >>> having hope. >>> >>> I, however, am not going to eat ICANN's ALAC >>> garbage and pretend that it is tasty and nutritious. >>> >>> --karl-- >>> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> governance mailing list >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance >> > > > -- > Peter and Karin Dambier > The Public-Root Consortium > Graeffstrasse 14 > D-64646 Heppenheim > +49(6252)671-788 (Telekom) > +49(179)108-3978 (O2 Genion) > +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) > mail: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com > mail: peter at peter-dambier.de > http://iason.site.voila.fr/ > https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From faia at amauta.rcp.net.pe Sun Jan 22 01:01:48 2006 From: faia at amauta.rcp.net.pe (Erick Iriarte Ahon) Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 01:01:48 -0500 Subject: [governance] [ga] Re: Establishment of the European RegionalAt-Large Organizaton In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.0.20060122010019.02d21050@amauta.rcp.net.pe> Bueno.. la verdad es que poco hablo el aleman, estimado Wolfgang (aunque es el segundo apellido de mi padre: Iriarte Brenner, asi que algo de sangre germana llevo, pero lo blanquito se lo quedo el, yo me quede con la parte indigena de mi madre). La idea mia de que podamos dialogar en nuestra lengua, es que se puede, solo un poco mas de esfuerzo, quien quiera hablar en ingles que lo haga, el resto podemos intentar responder y plasmar nuestras ideas en nuestras propia lengua. Erick At 11:52 p.m. 21/01/2006, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: >Warum spricht hier niemand deutsch? Konrad Zuse >hat den Computer erfunden. Und nichts ist zu >schwer für einen deutschen Ingenieur :-))). > >wolfgang > > > >________________________________ > >Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Robert Guerra >Gesendet: So 22.01.2006 00:28 >An: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com >Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Karl Auerbach >Betreff: Re: [governance] [ga] Re: Establishment >of the European RegionalAt-Large Organizaton > > > >je ne suis pas sur si tous les gens ici comprends la langue de >cervantes. Alors, je pense que ça será mieux que on reste en >l'anglais, comme ça la majorité des gens peut comprende et repondre. > >I don't think all the people on here understand the language of >Cervantes. So, I think it might be best to stay in english, that way >not only everyone can understand (what's being said) - but reply as >well. > >Creo que no toda la gente aqui comprende el indioma de Cervantes. Por >tanto creo que sería mejor quedar al ingles, asi no solo todos >entienden - sino que todos tambien pueden responder. > >Linguistic diversity is important, but if you are going to post - do >try to translate for others who might not understand your language. > > > >regards, > >Robert > >-- >Robert Guerra >Managing Director, Privaterra >Tel +1 416 893 0377 Fax +1 416 893 0374 > > >On 21-Jan-06, at 6:01 PM, Peter Dambier wrote: > > > Erick Iriarte Ahon wrote: > >> A ver.. > >> > >> entonces no solamente la hacemos de juguetes del > >> Board del ICANN, sino que nos engañamos a > >> nosotros mismos (digo por los que andamos dentro > >> del ALAC), sino que tambien de paso andamos > >> complicados con nuestras organizaciones de base. > > > > Puedo utilisar mes juguetes mios ou solo los > > juguetes del ICANN? > > > > Tengo > > > > http://root.5wc.ch/ > > http://www.opennic.unrated.net/ > > > > y mes juguetes especiales > > > > http://iason.site.voila.fr/ > > https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ > > > > otros juguetes? > > > >> > >> Hay desde hace mucho caminos para intentar > >> cambiar las cosas: a. patear el tablero y volver > >> a empezar. b. cambiar desde adentro (al menos > >> intentarlo con corazon y razon), c. criticar y no > >> hacer nada, d. la toma del poder > >> estrategicamente, e. la anarquia total a ver que > >> sale del caos (tal como los antiguos decian que > >> "algo" salio del "caos" inicial). > >> > >> Por mi parte he optado por el camino (b). > > > > (e) me gusta mucho penso que juegos como > > > > http://www.kokoom.com/iason/bifurcation.html > > > > son muy divertido. > > > > Pero, si para jugar con vos tengo (b). Hoy tenomos (b) > > pero manana (e) ? > > > >> > >> Si dicho camino es incorrecto para otros, respeto > >> su decision de tener otras posturas, al igual que > >> respeto las discrepancias de vision, y mas aun > >> respeto y mataria por su derecho a expresarse > >> libremente, pero lo que no entiendo, es que a > >> aquellos que pensemos distinto a otros nos traten > >> de suerte de "idiotas/ignorantes/incautos" y peor > >> aun que nos traten de > >> "acomedidos/amarrados/maniatados/manipulados/conculcados", por el > >> ICANN. > > > > Solo es un juego. Hoy tenemos (b) manana tenemos (e) > > una semana mas tarde sabemos mas. No tenemos > > discrepancias de vision, penso que non. > > > > Ni de lengua ni de vision, es cierto. > > > >> > >> Que no se puede hacer tanto como se desea? eso es > >> cierto, negarlo seria tonto. Pero negar que se > >> lucha con ahinco porque las cosas sean distintas, > >> de ganar esos espacios que fueron negados o no se > >> pensaron desde un inicio, de tratar de convocar > >> al resto para tener una participacion real, negar > >> todo lo que se esta haciendo es tambien mezquino. > >> > >> el ALAC no solo puede fallar, las personas dentro > >> del ALAC pueden fallar, pero al menos se intentan > >> las cosas, nada sale de las elucubraciones > >> mentales desde afuera, solo no entender lo de > >> adentro, y que se generen guerras intestintas > >> entre los que defienden que si hacen cosas y los > >> de afuera que dicen que no se hace nada, y peor aun que se es > >> titere de otros. > >> > >> Por que defiendo el ALAC? porque a lo mejor he > >> visto cosas que el resto no quiere ver, o no quiere percatarse. > >> > >> Y algo mas, hay tambien razon en muchos puntos > >> que se expresan, el Board debe dar mayor espacio > >> de dialogo al ALAC, debe generar una labor mas > >> proactiva de integracion internacional, lo dije > >> explicitamente en Tunez, el documento de la WSIS > >> (parte II), lo que hace es darle una oportunidad > >> historica al ICANN de demostrar que es ese > >> espacio que se necesita para temas de > >> administracion de recursos de internet, de una > >> manera transparente, multi-stakeholder, > >> democratica, participativa, la pelota esta en > >> cancha del ICANN. Y el ALAC debe jugar un papel clave en este > >> proceso. > >> > >> Erick > > > > > > Peter > > > > > >> > >> > >> At 03:09 p.m. 21/01/2006, Karl Auerbach wrote: > >> > >> > >>>> .. but, once the gates are open, the fault of > >>>> this only lies with those who don't bother to participate. > >>> > >>> Those who are given a toy steering wheel are not > >>> driving the automobile even if they do participate. > >>> > >>> The ALAC is a toy. > >>> > >>> And the ALAC is not merely a toy, it is also a > >>> badge of subordination and inferiority. While > >>> selected industrial actors get access to the > >>> real steering wheel of ICANN, the ALAC seems > >>> happy to accept a powerless third class status. > >>> > >>> No, I will not bother to cooperate with the > >>> ALAC. Indeed it is my feeling that the ALAC > >>> should be recognized for what it was intended to > >>> be: a childrens' playpen to keep "individuals" quiet. > >>> > >>> I know that some are trying your best to make > >>> good of a bad situation. And for that they deserve credit for > >>> having hope. > >>> > >>> I, however, am not going to eat ICANN's ALAC > >>> garbage and pretend that it is tasty and nutritious. > >>> > >>> --karl-- > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> governance mailing list > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > >> > > > > > > -- > > Peter and Karin Dambier > > The Public-Root Consortium > > Graeffstrasse 14 > > D-64646 Heppenheim > > +49(6252)671-788 (Telekom) > > +49(179)108-3978 (O2 Genion) > > +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) > > mail: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com > > mail: peter at peter-dambier.de > > http://iason.site.voila.fr/ > > https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > governance mailing list > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Jan 22 04:50:04 2006 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 12:50:04 +0300 Subject: [governance] IGF mechanism 5.0 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I know I've said this before, but... Whatever is created MUST be better or equal to the best Internet Policy Development Processes that we have now. It was acknowlwdged by many on the governance caucus list that the RIR policies are the "cleanest" of the ICANN processes. Why don't we use these as models to organise ourselves around: * AfriNIC http://www.afrinic.net/policy.htm * APNIC http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/dev/index.html * ARIN http://www.arin.net/policy/index.html * LACNIC http://lacnic.net/en/politicas/index.html * RIPE NCC http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/ IMO, this is the bar we have to clear. Take a look, it won't hurt you (except maybe your preconceptions) ;-P -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Sun Jan 22 07:38:12 2006 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 21:38:12 +0900 Subject: [governance] [ga] Re: Establishment of the EuropeanRegionalAt-Large Organizaton In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20060122213727.07be71e0@anr.org> $B2?$,=q$$$F$"$k$+!"$<$s$<$s$o$+$j$^$;$s!#(B I don't understand what has been written here. izumi At 05:52 06/01/22 +0100, Wolfgang Kleinw$BgD(Bhter wrote: >Warum spricht hier niemand deutsch? Konrad Zuse hat den Computer erfunden. >Und nichts ist zu schwer f$B�S(B einen deutschen Ingenieur :-))). > >wolfgang -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Sun Jan 22 07:45:20 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 07:45:20 -0500 Subject: [governance] [ga] Re: Establishment of the EuropeanRegionalAt-Large Organizaton In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20060122213727.07be71e0@anr.org> References: <6.2.0.14.2.20060122213727.07be71e0@anr.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060122074409.035533d0@veni.com> I also urge people to stop posting in other languages! Please! лНКЪ БХ! (cyrillic) veni http://www.isoc.bg/ig - the resource portal for Internet Governance At 21:38 22-01-06 +0900, Izumi AIZU wrote: >$B2?$,=q$$$F$"$k$+!"$<$s$<$s$o$+$j$^$;$s!#(B > >I don't understand what has been written here. > >izumi > >At 05:52 06/01/22 +0100, Wolfgang Kleinw$BgD(Bhter wrote: >>Warum spricht hier niemand deutsch? Konrad Zuse >>hat den Computer erfunden. Und nichts ist zu >>schwer f$B≈S(B einen deutschen Ingenieur :-))). >> >>wolfgang > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Sun Jan 22 08:26:41 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 08:26:41 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGF mechanism 5.0 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060122082326.03915618@veni.com> Hi! It's also necessary to start the foundation of the Internet Governance Caucus as a non-profit entity. Thus many of the problems that exist now in front of us, will be solved. The question would be: where to register? What would be the statute? Who should we nominate for the Board? Others? Sincerely, Veni Markovski http://www.isoc.bg/ig the Internet Governance Resource Portal _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Sun Jan 22 09:13:48 2006 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 15:13:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] non-profit org In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060122082326.03915618@veni.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060122082326.03915618@veni.com> Message-ID: <43D3931C.8050506@wz-berlin.de> Yes, it would be very good to found a non profit for civil society to self-organize around Internet Governance related topics in a wider sense. I can think of two different models (and some variations in between): 1. An umbrella organization that provides some legal structure and procedures for already existing organizations or networks such as the IG caucus and other WSIS related working groups willing to carry on, but also non WSIS related entities that are interested in building an independent, international civil society organization. Perhaps NCUC, EDRI or even ALAC would be interested in participating. 2. A new NGO as a formalized version of the IG caucus' open structure, which develops a political agenda for the IG forum (and perhaps further IG related processes such as ICANN. Both versions require considerable commitment and some funding. jeanette Veni Markovski wrote: > Hi! > > It's also necessary to start the foundation of the Internet > Governance Caucus as a non-profit entity. Thus many of the problems > that exist now in front of us, will be solved. > > The question would be: where to register? What would be the statute? > Who should we nominate for the Board? Others? > > > > Sincerely, > > Veni Markovski > http://www.isoc.bg/ig > the Internet Governance Resource Portal > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Sun Jan 22 09:20:42 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 09:20:42 -0500 Subject: [governance] non-profit org In-Reply-To: <43D3931C.8050506@wz-berlin.de> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060122082326.03915618@veni.com> <43D3931C.8050506@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060122091625.03988eb0@veni.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From maxsenges at gmail.com Sun Jan 22 09:51:16 2006 From: maxsenges at gmail.com (Max Senges) Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 15:51:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] [ga] Re: Establishment of the EuropeanRegionalAt-Large Organizaton In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20060122213727.07be71e0@anr.org> Message-ID: <43d39bd6.40d6a8ff.2eb5.ffffcfd7@mx.gmail.com> Hello all, I urge the 'people who feel at home here' (because the have done lots of work and have invested time in discourse and getting to know each other) to be a bit more welcoming to newcomers and be constructive when promoting practices. In other lists (foremost the plenary) other languages are welcome and I do not see why we should not be open to input in other language in general. On the other side, I agree, that it is the goal in all exchange of argument to make other people understand your point, thus I would suggest that we ask all non-english posters to facilitate the preparation of common ground by including an english translation (--> and I agree that a babelfish translation should do) Max PS. I post this also to the MMWG as I think that multi-lingual participation is also a point we might want to discuss in the light of multi-stakeholder modalities -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU Sent: domingo, 22 de enero de 2006 13:38 To: Wolfgang Kleinw 臘 hter; Robert Guerra; peter at echnaton.serveftp.com Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Karl Auerbach Subject: Re: [governance] [ga] Re: Establishment of the EuropeanRegionalAt-Large Organizaton 何が書いてあるか、ぜんぜんわかりません。 I don't understand what has been written here. izumi At 05:52 06/01/22 +0100, Wolfgang Kleinw臘hter wrote: >Warum spricht hier niemand deutsch? Konrad Zuse hat den Computer erfunden. >Und nichts ist zu schwer f・ einen deutschen Ingenieur :-))). > >wolfgang _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Sun Jan 22 10:33:30 2006 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 07:33:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] [ga] Re: Establishment of the EuropeanRegionalAt-Large Organizaton In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060122074409.035533d0@veni.com> Message-ID: <20060122153330.43611.qmail@web53513.mail.yahoo.com> Veni, This thread was initiated by an ALAC announcement. As you know, the At-Large Advisory Committee was formally established by way of the ICANN bylaws effective as of 15 December 2002. The bylaws also call for the following: The Board shall cause a periodic review, if feasible no less frequently than every three years, of the performance and operation of each Supporting Organization, each Supporting Organization Council, each Advisory Committee (other than the Governmental Advisory Committee), and the Nominating Committee by an entity or entities independent of the organization under review... The consideration by the Board includes the ability to revise the structure or operation of the parts of ICANN being reviewed by a two-thirds vote of all members of the Board. As we have now exceeded the three-year time span recommended for Advisory Committee Review, and as both operational and structural issues pertaining to this advisory committee remain a source for concern for many in the community, may we ask when ICANN will commence the overdue review required by the bylaws? If this hasn't yet been scheduled, may we ask you to add this item to the agenda of the next ICANN Board meeting so that the public at large through the comment process may at some point be given its opportunity to formally make its sentiment known? Best regards, Danny __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Sun Jan 22 10:55:43 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 10:55:43 -0500 Subject: [governance] [ga] Re: Establishment of the EuropeanRegionalAt-Large Organizaton In-Reply-To: <20060122153330.43611.qmail@web53513.mail.yahoo.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060122074409.035533d0@veni.com> <20060122153330.43611.qmail@web53513.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060122103802.03a11678@veni.com> Danny, as you are quite well aware - since you quote to ga at gnso.icann.org - I will not respond to your mail, which you have sent to mailing lists, where only you have the right to post. Your behaviour is quite unethical, and the alusions you are spreading will not drive me from the main discussion here - and it's not what ICANN does or does not. If you are interested to influence the ICANN processes, you should be well aware how to do that, and it's certainly not via the mailing list of the IG caucus. You keep on insulting people who are trying to do something - take Vittorio for example. Where do you wanna go with this behaviour I don't know, but we all see your actions. veni At 07:33 22-01-06 -0800, Danny Younger wrote: >Veni, > >This thread was initiated by an ALAC announcement. > >As you know, the At-Large Advisory Committee was >formally established by way of the ICANN bylaws >effective as of 15 December 2002. > >The bylaws also call for the following: > >The Board shall cause a periodic review, if feasible >no less frequently than every three years, of the >performance and operation of each Supporting >Organization, each Supporting Organization Council, >each Advisory Committee (other than the Governmental >Advisory Committee), and the Nominating Committee by >an entity or entities independent of the organization >under review... The consideration by the Board >includes the ability to revise the structure or >operation of the parts of ICANN being reviewed by a >two-thirds vote of all members of the Board. > >As we have now exceeded the three-year time span >recommended for Advisory Committee Review, and as both >operational and structural issues pertaining to this >advisory committee remain a source for concern for >many in the community, may we ask when ICANN will >commence the overdue review required by the bylaws? > >If this hasn't yet been scheduled, may we ask you to >add this item to the agenda of the next ICANN Board >meeting so that the public at large through the >comment process may at some point be given its >opportunity to formally make its sentiment known? > >Best regards, >Danny > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.yahoo.com >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Sun Jan 22 15:22:51 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 15:22:51 -0500 Subject: [governance] Upcoming Events & thoughts going forward ... In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060122091625.03988eb0@veni.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060122082326.03915618@veni.com> <43D3931C.8050506@wz-berlin.de> <7.0.1.0.2.20060122091625.03988eb0@veni.com> Message-ID: <800CE9D4-08B0-49C9-9A74-ED525E381041@lists.privaterra.org> On 22-Jan-06, at 9:20 AM, Veni Markovski wrote: > > Btw, we are thinking of organizing a small - one day - workshop in > the beginning of July in Sofia - right after the ICANN meeting in > Morocco. Please, keep it in your calendars, just in case. Most > probably on July 3. > If you are going to mention workshops and/or other events related to internet governance - then I do want to point out one event - the one organized by the Diplo Foundation - that is coming up much sooner. Details are below... On the subject of how to best support the ongoing activities of the Internet Caucus, I would be very cautious. The point should not be lost that organizational capture is a very real possibility. we should start the discussion, but with one proviso - that we proceed in a structured way, one where we respect the many different views that are held by the caucus members. We could start with a brainstorming session , one where we put forward ideas on how a new structure could look like . Ideas should be able to put forward ideas without prejudice. The brainstorming session would , hopefully, be a place where neither existing nor past battles are fought. I recognize that there are fundamental differences of opinion between many of the people here. From what I've read, the majority of the issues are based on - past - events. Though it will be difficult, let's try to bury past issue and start a new. I'm a bit tired of the personal attacks - let's stop it. There's a lot to do, let's get to it. regards Robert International Conference : Internet Governance - The Way forward (from Tunis to Athens via Malta) Organized by: Diplo Foundation Dates: Feb 10-12, 2005 Details @ Provisional Programme* Introduction This conference aims to contribute to the process of establishing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) by facilitating an informed and constructive discussion. The IGF must be different from existing international initiatives and organisations in many respects. For example, it should accommodate specific working methods and approaches practiced over the years by Internet developers. At the same time, the IGF must be linked to existing international policy and legal systems. The conference will involve the participation of all major actors in the IG field, and make use of available knowledge, expertise, and experience as inputs to the policy process. Given Diplo’s mission, specific emphasis will be placed on the developmental aspects. Methodology The methodology of the Malta Conference can be explained through an analogy with the computer game SimCity. While SimCity simulates the building of a city, we will be “building” the Internet Governance Forum. The construction process will be organised through eight panels. Each panel will begin with 3-4 introductory remarks. Like in SimCity, we will not start from scratch: experiences, rules, and principles will be taken into account. Friday, 10th February 2006 09:30 – 10:30 Official Opening and Welcome Address Overview and Introduction Invited Speakers: * Rev. Prof Peter Serracino Inglott, former Rector of the University of Malta * Dr Jovan Kurbalija, Director of DiploFoundation * Dr Alex Sceberras Trigona, former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Malta 11.00 – 12.30 During the first day of the conference, after the official opening, we will set the stage for the building of the IGF. The outlining session will start with a broad range of reflections on networking as an organisational principle, highlighting key elements in the building of network-based decision making processes. IGF background information will then be provided through an elaboration of the sequence of conference panels and how panel discussions fit into the “construction” of the IGF? The session will conclude by outlining the formal IGF requirements, as specified by the WSIS process. With these “requirements” set in place, the conference will explore which constructions/ideas can be borrowed from other initiatives. Lunch Presentation of Research: The Protection of the Public Interest with Regards to the Internet. Panel 1 and 2 Experiences of Various Internet Bodies and other International Initiatives Invited Speakers: * Dr Jeanette Hofmann, Social Science Research Center - Berlin * Mr Paul Wilson, Executive Director of APNIC * Professor Wolfgang Kleinwächter, University of Aarhus, Denmark * Dr Michael Zammit Cutajar, former Executive Director of the Kyoto Process * Dr Roberta Ritson, World Health Organisation, Geneva 14.00 – 15.30 One feature specific to the Internet is its unique system of governance. The creation of the IGF should include governance mechanisms that have proven successful during Internet development. The first panel will focus on the experiences of various internet bodies, including IETF, ICANN, RIRs, and ISOC. Coffee Break 16.00 – 17.30 Speakers in the second panel will discuss the experiences and knowledge that the IGF can borrow from other international initiatives, particularly from fields that require a multistakeholder approach and cover complex issues. The environment and health protection will form the main case studies. Special attention will be paid to the WGIG as one of the most successful examples of a multistakeholder initiative. Internet Governance Capacity Building Initiative 17:30 – 18:00 At the end of the first day, conference attendees will learn more about the Internet Governance Capacity Building Initiative (IGCBI). Members of the initiative team will introduce the most successful participants from the programmes held in 2005. Throughout the conference, special poster sessions will present the results of the research conducted by programme participants during 2005 on the following topics: IP Allocation and IPv6, The Role of Civil Society from Developing Countries in Internet Governance, and The Protection of the Public Interest in Regards to the Internet. Saturday, 11th February 2006 With the background information in place, the second day of the conference will be dedicated to constructing the IGF. Panel 3 Composition and Organisation of the Internet Governance Forum Invited Speakers: * Mr Markus Kummer, the Internet Governance Forum * Professor Ang Peng Hwa, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore * Mr José Marcos Nogueira Viana, Permanent Mission of Brasil in Geneva 9.00 – 10.30 The third panel will focus on the composition and organisation of the Internet Governance Forum, including discussions of such questions as: * How can the structure of the forum appropriately involve various stakeholders and cover a wide range of issues? * How can the forum promote a bottom-up and inclusive nature, while maintaining an efficiently operational organisation? * What will be the most appropriate organisational form for the forum (e.g. open structure, secretariat, bureau)? Coffee Break Panel 4 The Working Methods of the Internet Governance Forum Invited Speakers: * Mr Amr Aljowally, Permanent Mission of Egypt in Geneva * Ms Avri Doria, Research Consultant, Providence, Rhode Island * Dr Claudia Padovani, Univerity of Padova * Mr Adam Peake, GLOCOM - Tokyo 11.00 – 12.30 The fourth panel will focus on the working methods of the IGF. In the past, working methodology has been a stumbling block in many multistakeholder initiatives. The panel will explore various innovative possibilities which could be achieved through a careful blend of UN rules of procedure and practice, used by the wider Internet community including the IETF. Decisions are usually the outcome of processes. What should be the form and status of decisions? Recommendations are one of the most likely forms of decisions. The panel will discuss the possibility of using examples, such as the OECD’s recommendations. Given the innovative nature of the IGF’s organisation, special emphasis will be placed on various monitoring mechanisms, including monitoring the preservation of the multistakeholder nature of the IGF. Lunch Presentation of Research: The Role of Civil Society from Developing Countries in Internet Governance Panel 5 Financial and Logistical Issues Invited Speakers: * Ms Ayesha Hassan, International Chamber of Commerce, Paris * Mr Guido Maccari, OECD, Paris * Ms Karen Banks, Association for Progressive Communication, London * Mr Ken Lohento, Center for International ICT Policies for Central and West Africa 14.00 – 15.30 The fifth panel will move on to financial and logistical issues, which often make or break international initiatives, beginning with discussions on the financial aspects of the IGF (How should it be financed? What should be the role of various stakeholders when it comes to financing?). Next, panellists will discuss the organisation of the IGF’s activities. The IGF must “walk the talk” by utilising the Internet for its operation. This part of the discussion will focus on finding the right balance between traditional (face-to-face) and online interactions. The panel will explore the pros and cons of using various online platforms, applications, and techniques. Main emphasis will be on the full integration of online methods in the work of the IGF, including discussion of questions such as the formal status of online input, the response to online input, and bringing all the stakeholders to a similar level when it comes to the use of online tools. Discussions should facilitate an “out-of-the-box” thinking, including the possibility of utilising the IGF’s online deliberation tools to bypass existing functional barriers to the full participation of developing countries, including the lack of funds to participate in numerous IG related meetings, small diplomatic missions, as well as limited and usually overstretched local expertise for covering IG issues. Coffee Break Panel 6 Positioning the IGF within Existing Structures and Initiatives Related to Internet Governance Invited Speakers: * Professor Milton Mueller, University of Syracuse, New York * Mr Latif Ladid, The New Internet based on IPv6 * Dr William Drake, President of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, Geneva * Mr Joseph Tabone, Chairmain of Malta Telecommunication Authority 16.00 – 17.30 The sixth panel will focus on positioning the IGF within existing structures and initiatives related to Internet Governance. It is clearly stated in the WSIS’s “urban requirements” that the IGF should complement, not replace, existing forums, bodies, and initiatives in the field of Internet Governance. Discussions will focus on the relationship between the IGF and Internet related bodies (e.g. IETF, ISOC, ICANN), regional and international organisations, national governments, and academic/research communities. After 19.30 Tour and Conference Dinner Hopefully, by the end of Saturday, the main IGF building blocks will be in place. The conference dinner will be another opportunity to discuss the two days’ events in a historical setting over an excellent meal. Sunday, 12th February 2006 Panel 7 The Internet Governance Forum and Development Invited Speakers: * Ms Eskedar Nega, UN Economic Commision for Africa * Ms Fuatai Purcell, National ICT Secretariat of Samoa * Mr Waudo Singanga, Computer Society of Kenya 9.00 – 10.30 On Sunday, the third day of the conference, the seventh panel will focus on the Internet Governance Forum and development. The IGF must ensure that developmental aspects are covered in the deliberation of Internet Governance issues. Capacity-building was unanimously supported during the WSIS/WGIG process as an important developmental issue. How can capacity building at various levels be ensured, including immediate (helping participants from developing countries to fully participate in the IGF) and strategic (introducing IG related training in the curricula of academic and training institutions, building research capacities, etc.)? Coffee Break Conclusions 11.00 – 12.30 The last session of the conference will try to bring all the building blocks together in the creation of an IGF "building" (mainly virtual), which is likely to remain under “heavy construction.” Through subsequent iterations, starting with consultations in Geneva immediately after the Malta Conference, the IGF building should attain a functional shape. Conclusion of the Malta Conference. Lunch Presentation of Research: IP Allocation and IPv6 14.00 – 17.00 After the conclusion of the conference on Sunday afternoon, the first meeting of the Internet Governance Capacity Building Initiative will be held, during which plans for training seminars and research activities in 2006 will be discussed. * This is a provisional programme and will be subject to changes in the following weeks. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU Sun Jan 22 16:11:37 2006 From: gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU (Gurstein, Michael) Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 16:11:37 -0500 Subject: [governance] non-profit org Message-ID: Interesting and useful suggestion. I'm wondering what is the anticipated scope of such an org and whether it would useful to include ICT4D and other issues of grassroots/community/practitioner interest within its "mandate"... As some of you know, there are already moves afoot to create a Global Telecenter Alliance (GTA) including the major regional/national telecenter (and very likely the range of other community based ICT) iniitiatives/networks. My colleagues in the GTA aren't completely convinced that there is a sufficient basis of common interest for such a linkage but I can see possible synergies and mutual advantages from such a development if such were to emerge. Particularly, if the overall post-WSIS "action" is focussed on the IGF (and the Global Alliance is, as seems likely, to be a rather bloodless extension of the UN ICT Task Force) then such a move would most certainly be of interest. Best, Mike Gurstein -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Veni Markovski Sent: January 22, 2006 3:21 PM To: Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] non-profit org At 15:13 22-01-06 +0100, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: Yes, it would be very good to found a non profit for civil society to self-organize around Internet Governance related topics in a wider sense. I can think of two different models (and some variations in between): 1. An umbrella organization that provides some legal structure and procedures for already existing organizations or networks such as the IG caucus and other WSIS related working groups willing to carry on, but also non WSIS related entities that are interested in building an independent, international civil society organization. Perhaps NCUC, EDRI or even ALAC would be interested in participating. 2. A new NGO as a formalized version of the IG caucus' open structure, which develops a political agenda for the IG forum (and perhaps further IG related processes such as ICANN. Both versions require considerable commitment and some funding. I agree with you, Jeanette - and it's also worth doing it. ISOC-Bulgaria can help, if necessary - we are running a project on IG anyway. But to think that without funding, the IG Caucus would be able to do substential work - that's not healthy. We'll continue meeting each other all over the world, and will produce documents and papers, but there will be less and less people from developing countries, and less and less fresh ideas. My point is that we need to get organized, and start to involve more people. Btw, we are thinking of organizing a small - one day - workshop in the beginning of July in Sofia - right after the ICANN meeting in Morocco. Please, keep it in your calendars, just in case. Most probably on July 3. Sincerely, Veni Markovski http://www.isoc.bg/ig the Internet Governance Resource Portal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Sun Jan 22 17:06:31 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 17:06:31 -0500 Subject: [governance] non-profit org In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060122170523.03d88e00@veni.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From mueller at syr.edu Mon Jan 23 01:53:45 2006 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 01:53:45 -0500 Subject: [governance] RALOs without halos Message-ID: Danny: I admire your willingness to spend so much time and energy telling people that the ALAC emporer has no clothes. However, they have been parading about naked now for several years, and anyone who pays attention at ICANN meetings can see it. The RALO structure created in ICANN's 2002 "reforms" is a joke. It asks people to invest huge amounts of time and energy to build organizations that have no power. It is predicated on the notion that hundreds of thousands of domain name registrants, to whom a domain name represents a $20/year investment, are going the spend the equivalent of $10,000-$100,000 a year on organizing, traveling and jawboning -- in order to elect people to Councils who elect people to another Council who participate in the process of selecting a minority of ICANN's Board members. The only way to represent users is to give them a vote. The real issue is not ISOC's alleged dominance of the European RALO. It is the failure (or refusal) of Vittorio and other privileged interim ALAC members to recognize the failure of the organizational model for At-Large representation after ICANN's 2002 reforms. The European RALO is a last ditch attempt to maintain the fiction that this model can work. I agree with you, Danny, that it is bad to maintain that pretense. But don't put all the blame on ISOC. Anyone who does not call for major structural reforms in ALAC is guilty at this point. Perhaps ISOC chapters are complicit in this pretense, perhaps they are suckers. ISOC chapters are pretty diverse. I'm not sure it matters. The worst thing that can happen is that ICANN's Board will be given an excuse to continue pretending that there is a place for the public in its structures, and Vittorio and Roberto and the other "interim" ALackeys will get another two or three years of free flights and hotels at ICANN meetings. In other words, not much will change from the way things are now. >>> Danny Younger 1/21/2006 6:31:45 PM >>> Veni, One of the four principles put forth in the White Paper was "representation". This guiding document also stated: "The new corporation's charter should provide a mechanism whereby its governing body will evolve to reflect changes in the constituency of Internet stakeholders. The new corporation could, for example, establish an open process for the presentation of petitions to expand board representation." Instead of expanding board representation, you and your fellow Board members have reduced board representation by eliminating an entire category of stakeholders from the Board -- the at-large community. My interest is in repairing the damage that you and your associates on the Board have caused, and restoring representation to the Internet's end-user community. As this list is devoted to governance issues, perhaps you might share with us your own views on board-level representation for the At-Large. Danny --- Veni Markovski wrote: > Vittorio, > please, do not get upset by such postings. They aim > at that, and nothing else. > You're trying to do something good - please, keep on > trying, and > don't give up! > > Now, after we have heard what are your "interests" > according to > Danny, perhaps we can hear what are also Danny's > interestes, so that > the game is fair. > > > Veni > > At 10:30 21-01-06 -0800, Danny Younger wrote: > >Vittorio, > > > >Frankly, your interest is in continuing to promote > a > >construct that replaces a host of At-Large > directors > >with a single non-elected liaison to the ICANN > Board. > >Your agenda, and those of many of your associates > on > >the ALAC, calls for taking advantage of > >ICANN-sponsored travel perks while refusing to have > >your Committee discuss critical at-large matters > (such > >as representation) with the balance of the at-large > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Mon Jan 23 03:54:25 2006 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 19:54:25 +1100 (EST) Subject: [governance] RALOs without halos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060123085425.7080.qmail@web54110.mail.yahoo.com> I'm not disagreeing with anything Milton says, however Milton says: > The only way to represent users is to give them a > vote. How can this be a solution? What users are referred to? All internet users? Including those who know nothing about how the internet operates? I'd be worried if all internet users were encouraged about the issues being discussed here. That said, I don't have the answers. David ____________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Find a local business fast with Yahoo! Local Search http://au.local.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From patrick at isoc.lu Mon Jan 23 05:08:46 2006 From: patrick at isoc.lu (Patrick Vande Walle) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 11:08:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] RALOs without halos In-Reply-To: <20060123085425.7080.qmail@web54110.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060123085425.7080.qmail@web54110.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <43D4AB2E.1010506@isoc.lu> David, My personal opinion is that Internet users (ie customers and consumers) should somehow have a say in ICANN and other governance processes. Limiting the processes to those with technical/legal expertise is dangerous. This is called a technocracy. It would be a false assumption to consider that registries, registrars, RIRs or ISPs in any way represent their customers interest. They protect their business first and foremost. If we cannot have directly elected board members out of the consumer/customer community, they should be represented by telecom user groups, consumer associations, etc. We need a Ralf Nader of the Internet. This being said, I do not personally think that the At-large process is the way to go.It has proven uneffective and this was by design. I would rather see an end-user constituency made of the above-mentioned groups and designating one or more board members (with voting rights). Best, Patrick Vande Walle ISOC Luxembourg David Goldstein wrote: > I'm not disagreeing with anything Milton says, however > Milton says: > >> The only way to represent users is to give them a >> vote. >> > > How can this be a solution? What users are referred > to? All internet users? Including those who know > nothing about how the internet operates? I'd be > worried if all internet users were encouraged about > the issues being discussed here. > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Mon Jan 23 09:30:44 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:30:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] [ga] Re: Establishment of the European Regional At-Large Organizaton In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20060122142533.02ab99d0@mail.terabytz.co.nz> References: <5.0.2.1.2.20060122142533.02ab99d0@mail.terabytz.co.nz> Message-ID: <1138026644.7276.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> Il giorno dom, 22/01/2006 alle 14.29 +1300, Joop Teernstra ha scritto: > I agree that it reflects a kind of concession. :-/ > The question: is it enough to attract individuals of proud integrity and > independence? > If not, could you raise this percentage to above 50%? First of all, thanks for a constructive question - I really hope that people are interested in building a workable mechanism where everyone can participate, rather than in reopening old issues from six years ago. In any case, this is a very controversial matter, and if you read the messages that were posted in reply to my call, you will find both people blaming the ALAC scheme because only individuals should participate, and people who say that only organizations should be allowed in. Of course a compromise is necessary, and in my opinion the only good compromise is the one that lets all types of participants in, such as the one we are proposing. Now, coming to the question: I think that this would happen naturally, if the number of individuals started to overwhelm the number of organizations participating in the mechanism. However, currently the ICANN Bylaws are still focused on ALSes and the ALSes are the main participants (even if IMHO they don't participate enough yet), and this is why I think it's right to start by 50/50. The actual number of representatives of individuals in the EURALO council would depend on the number of individuals who register, and if you look at the document, you need 351 members to get to 8 individual representatives, which would make it even with the representatives of the 8 currently accredited ALSes in Europe. I think that it is a reasonable number, especially because I imagine that we could defer the once-in-a-lifetime membership fee for the first phase (it will take some time to be able to materially receive the payment). -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Mon Jan 23 09:48:37 2006 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 06:48:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] RALOs without halos In-Reply-To: <43D4AB2E.1010506@isoc.lu> Message-ID: <20060123144837.30634.qmail@web53509.mail.yahoo.com> Patrick, I appreciate your input, but let me discuss for a moment the notion that certain groups should be representating the at-large community. When the at-large was impacted by the inability to readily transfer their domain names, the domain name portability issue was not championed by telecom user groups, by consumer associations or by any other group. The issue was brought to the table only through the persistant efforts of individuals (not groups) that participated in ICANN's General Assembly. When the at-large was threatened with a 50% increase in .com fees over the span of the proposed .com agreement, our interests were not vigorously defended by anyone other than by ourselves. We organized on an ad-hoc basis, sent through letters to the Board, lobbied Board members and wrote repeatedly to the Public Comment Forum. User groups of the type that you describe did not rise to the occasion, but the public did. I trust the public to speak for itself. I trust the public to self-organize where and when required in a fluid manner that gives rise only to ad-hoc temporary unions that address a particular issue of concern. I trust the public to elect its own leaders. Best regards, Danny --- Patrick Vande Walle wrote: > David, > > My personal opinion is that Internet users (ie > customers and consumers) > should somehow have a say in ICANN and other > governance processes. > Limiting the processes to those with technical/legal > expertise is > dangerous. This is called a technocracy. It would be > a false assumption > to consider that registries, registrars, RIRs or > ISPs in any way > represent their customers interest. They protect > their business first > and foremost. > > If we cannot have directly elected board members out > of the > consumer/customer community, they should be > represented by telecom user > groups, consumer associations, etc. We need a Ralf > Nader of the Internet. > > This being said, I do not personally think that the > At-large process is > the way to go.It has proven uneffective and this was > by design. I would > rather see an end-user constituency made of the > above-mentioned groups > and designating one or more board members (with > voting rights). > > Best, > > Patrick Vande Walle > ISOC Luxembourg > > David Goldstein wrote: > > I'm not disagreeing with anything Milton says, > however > > Milton says: > > > >> The only way to represent users is to give them a > >> vote. > >> > > > > How can this be a solution? What users are > referred > > to? All internet users? Including those who know > > nothing about how the internet operates? I'd be > > worried if all internet users were encouraged > about > > the issues being discussed here. > > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Mon Jan 23 09:50:28 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:50:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF mechanism 5.0 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1138027829.7276.47.camel@localhost.localdomain> Il giorno dom, 22/01/2006 alle 12.50 +0300, McTim ha scritto: > I know I've said this before, but... > > Whatever is created MUST be better or equal to the best Internet > Policy Development Processes that we have now. It was acknowlwdged by > many on the governance caucus list that the RIR policies are the > "cleanest" of the ICANN processes. I agree that RIR processes are quite good, but please don't forget that at the IGF we'll not be making technical agreements with policy implications, but policy agreements that need to be compatible with technology. The set of stakeholders, interests and views that will be involved in discussions on, say, privacy, freedom of expression, or e-commerce are likely to be much much broader and diverse (and less technical) than those involved in names and numbers administration. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ca at rits.org.br Mon Jan 23 10:09:33 2006 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 13:09:33 -0200 Subject: [governance] RALOs without halos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43D4F1AD.9020307@rits.org.br> Milton, I agree with your historical view of the issues (leaving aside your view of personal responsibilites), and I have already expressed in ALAC meetings similar concerns -- specifically, that the proposed structure is not going to work and the ALAC problem remains the same -- the idea that there is a well defined category called "user" good enough to have them vote individually on Internet governance issues or to form associations for the same purpose. Unfortunately, non-profit non-business civil society representation within ICANN continues to be very fragile. We have ALAC with the well-known problems and NCUC which is very strict in its (at least "official") scope -- representing non-profit holders of domain names (and its current membership size raises questions regarding effectiveness of this representation). Goldstein envisions the development of new structures with more precise stakeholder representation and which would go well beyond just domain holders. This is of course lacking and we need to think about it. My view thus remains the same I have been defending for quite a while: we need a new form of non-profit, non-business civil society representation within ICANN, which would supersede both ALAC and NCUC (business constituencies are already organized in their own ways, but maybe the same applies to them). The concerned non-profits do not feel represented by ALAC (which by the way says they are not welcome unless they are associations of users) or by the frail structure and scope of NCUC. So, why not propose right now (for the upcoming ICANN meeting) that ALAC and NCUC cease to exist and are replaced by a non-profit non-business constituency of civil society organizations, with no membership restrictions other then being properly registered as such in any country? A sort of World Caucus of NGOs for Internet Governance (WCNIG) or whatever name best represents the idea. Understanding ALAC also encompasses other stakeholders, similar proposals can be presented for other constituencies, of course. Let us get out of this loop which keeps looping and looping since 2001... and remaining in the same place. frt rgds --c.a. Milton Mueller wrote: >Danny: >I admire your willingness to spend so much time and energy telling people that the ALAC emporer has no clothes. However, they have been parading about naked now for several years, and anyone who pays attention at ICANN meetings can see it. > >The RALO structure created in ICANN's 2002 "reforms" is a joke. It asks people to invest huge amounts of time and energy to build organizations that have no power. It is predicated on the notion that hundreds of thousands of domain name registrants, to whom a domain name represents a $20/year investment, are going the spend the equivalent of $10,000-$100,000 a year on organizing, traveling and jawboning -- in order to elect people to Councils who elect people to another Council who participate in the process of selecting a minority of ICANN's Board members. > >The only way to represent users is to give them a vote. > >The real issue is not ISOC's alleged dominance of the European RALO. It is the failure (or refusal) of Vittorio and other privileged interim ALAC members to recognize the failure of the organizational model for At-Large representation after ICANN's 2002 reforms. The European RALO is a last ditch attempt to maintain the fiction that this model can work. I agree with you, Danny, that it is bad to maintain that pretense. But don't put all the blame on ISOC. Anyone who does not call for major structural reforms in ALAC is guilty at this point. > >Perhaps ISOC chapters are complicit in this pretense, perhaps they are suckers. ISOC chapters are pretty diverse. I'm not sure it matters. The worst thing that can happen is that ICANN's Board will be given an excuse to continue pretending that there is a place for the public in its structures, and Vittorio and Roberto and the other "interim" ALackeys will get another two or three years of free flights and hotels at ICANN meetings. In other words, not much will change from the way things are now. > > > >>>>Danny Younger 1/21/2006 6:31:45 PM >>> >>>> >>>> >Veni, > >One of the four principles put forth in the White >Paper was "representation". > >This guiding document also stated: "The new >corporation's charter should provide a mechanism >whereby its governing body will evolve to reflect >changes in the constituency of Internet stakeholders. >The new corporation could, for example, establish an >open process for the presentation of petitions to >expand board representation." > >Instead of expanding board representation, you and >your fellow Board members have reduced board >representation by eliminating an entire category of >stakeholders from the Board -- the at-large community. > My interest is in repairing the damage that you and >your associates on the Board have caused, and >restoring representation to the Internet's end-user >community. > >As this list is devoted to governance issues, perhaps >you might share with us your own views on board-level >representation for the At-Large. > >Danny > >--- Veni Markovski wrote: > > > >>Vittorio, >>please, do not get upset by such postings. They aim >>at that, and nothing else. >>You're trying to do something good - please, keep on >>trying, and >>don't give up! >> >>Now, after we have heard what are your "interests" >>according to >>Danny, perhaps we can hear what are also Danny's >>interestes, so that >>the game is fair. >> >> >>Veni >> >>At 10:30 21-01-06 -0800, Danny Younger wrote: >> >> >>>Vittorio, >>> >>>Frankly, your interest is in continuing to promote >>> >>> >>a >> >> >>>construct that replaces a host of At-Large >>> >>> >>directors >> >> >>>with a single non-elected liaison to the ICANN >>> >>> >>Board. >> >> >>>Your agenda, and those of many of your associates >>> >>> >>on >> >> >>>the ALAC, calls for taking advantage of >>>ICANN-sponsored travel perks while refusing to have >>>your Committee discuss critical at-large matters >>> >>> >>(such >> >> >>>as representation) with the balance of the at-large >>> >>> >> >> > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.yahoo.com >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > > -- Carlos A. Afonso Rits -- http://www.rits.org.br ******************************************** * Sacix -- distribuição Debian CDD Linux * * orientada a projetos de inclusão digital * * com software livre e de código aberto, * * mantida pela Rits em colaboração com o * * Coletivo Digital. * * Saiba mais: http://www.sacix.org.br * ******************************************** _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From plzak at arin.net Mon Jan 23 10:12:44 2006 From: plzak at arin.net (Ray Plzak) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 10:12:44 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGF mechanism 5.0 In-Reply-To: <1138027829.7276.47.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20060123151244.E05F11FF96@mercury.arin.net> > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance- > bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola > Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 9:50 AM > To: McTim > Cc: Governance Caucus; mmwg at wsis-cs.org > Subject: Re: [governance] IGF mechanism 5.0 > > Il giorno dom, 22/01/2006 alle 12.50 +0300, McTim ha scritto: > > I know I've said this before, but... > > > > Whatever is created MUST be better or equal to the best Internet > > Policy Development Processes that we have now. It was acknowlwdged by > > many on the governance caucus list that the RIR policies are the > > "cleanest" of the ICANN processes. > > I agree that RIR processes are quite good, but please don't forget that > at the IGF we'll not be making technical agreements with policy > implications, but policy agreements that need to be compatible with > technology. The set of stakeholders, interests and views that will be > involved in discussions on, say, privacy, freedom of expression, or > e-commerce are likely to be much much broader and diverse (and less > technical) than those involved in names and numbers administration. While I agree with your sentiment, I disagree with your evaluation, all of discussions that have occurred in the ARIN region regarding privacy have never been over "technical" issues. Ray _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Mon Jan 23 10:25:05 2006 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 07:25:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] [ga] Re: Establishment of the European Regional At-Large Organizaton In-Reply-To: <1138026644.7276.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20060123152506.86115.qmail@web53501.mail.yahoo.com> Re: you need 351 members to get to 8 individual representatives, which would make it even with the representatives of the 8 currently accredited ALSes in Europe. Vittorio, Allow me to offer my thoughts on your weighted representation scheme. You and I are both active ISOC members. In your chapter you are the only person that has a passion for ICANN matters. We know this because you had earlier set up an ICANN-related chapter discussion list which had to be shut down by your chapter president owing to "null interest". That's OK. We can't expect everyone to be fascinated by DNS policy issues. In my chapter I am also the only one with a passionate interest in this area. So, If your chapter (the accredited at-large structure) is basically just you when it comes to ICANN issues, why do you warrant an equivalency to 44 other individuals that took the time to sign up and pay a fee (while you through your own organization pay nothing)? --- Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Il giorno dom, 22/01/2006 alle 14.29 +1300, Joop > Teernstra ha scritto: > > I agree that it reflects a kind of concession. > :-/ > > The question: is it enough to attract individuals > of proud integrity and > > independence? > > If not, could you raise this percentage to above > 50%? > > First of all, thanks for a constructive question - I > really hope that > people are interested in building a workable > mechanism where everyone > can participate, rather than in reopening old issues > from six years ago. > In any case, this is a very controversial matter, > and if you read the > messages that were posted in reply to my call, you > will find both people > blaming the ALAC scheme because only individuals > should participate, and > people who say that only organizations should be > allowed in. Of course a > compromise is necessary, and in my opinion the only > good compromise is > the one that lets all types of participants in, such > as the one we are > proposing. > > Now, coming to the question: I think that this would > happen naturally, > if the number of individuals started to overwhelm > the number of > organizations participating in the mechanism. > However, currently the > ICANN Bylaws are still focused on ALSes and the > ALSes are the main > participants (even if IMHO they don't participate > enough yet), and this > is why I think it's right to start by 50/50. > > The actual number of representatives of individuals > in the EURALO > council would depend on the number of individuals > who register, and if > you look at the document, you need 351 members to > get to 8 individual > representatives, which would make it even with the > representatives of > the 8 currently accredited ALSes in Europe. I think > that it is a > reasonable number, especially because I imagine that > we could defer the > once-in-a-lifetime membership fee for the first > phase (it will take some > time to be able to materially receive the payment). > -- > vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] > bertola.eu.org]<----- > http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Mon Jan 23 10:47:30 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 16:47:30 +0100 Subject: [governance] [ga] Re: Establishment of the European Regional At-Large Organizaton In-Reply-To: <20060123152506.86115.qmail@web53501.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060123152506.86115.qmail@web53501.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1138031250.7276.87.camel@localhost.localdomain> Il giorno lun, 23/01/2006 alle 07.25 -0800, Danny Younger ha scritto: > So, If your chapter (the accredited at-large > structure) is basically just you when it comes to > ICANN issues, why do you warrant an equivalency to 44 > other individuals that took the time to sign up and > pay a fee (while you through your own organization pay > nothing)? If I were the representative of ISOC Italy in the EURALO council, I would be representing all individual members of ISOC Italy - 72 at the moment - exactly as the representative of individuals would be representing 44 other individuals that are directly members of the EURALO (the ratio varies with the total number of members). Actually, the representation ratio is averagely more favourable if you are an individual EURALO member than if you try to be the rep of an organization, and that's exactly to reward direct participation in EURALO. I expect (reasonably, I think) that most individual members of the EURALO would just sign up and delegate activity to their elected representatives, much like (as you point out) most individual members of ISOC Italy delegate activity in the ICANN field to me. It's false that I don't pay nothing, I pay 50 euros a year as membership fee to my organization, which in turn sometimes subsidizes my participation to IG-related events. In any case, the EURALO membership fee is expected to be a one-time-only (not yearly) very low (10 euros?) amount of money, mostly meant to screen out fakes and make capture more difficult. - And, on another matter, just to get your facts straight: it is not true that you were the only registrant getting angry and loud about the "Verisign settlement" agreements and, specifically, the proposed price increase in the .com registry fee. For what regards the ALAC, you might read the statement we gave in Vancouver: http://alac.icann.org/announcements/announcement-02dec05.htm Regards, -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Jan 23 10:47:48 2006 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 18:47:48 +0300 Subject: [governance] IGF mechanism 5.0 In-Reply-To: <1138027829.7276.47.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1138027829.7276.47.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On 1/23/06, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Il giorno dom, 22/01/2006 alle 12.50 +0300, McTim ha scritto: >The set of stakeholders, interests and views that will be > involved in discussions on, say, privacy, freedom of expression, or > e-commerce are likely to be much much broader and diverse (and less > technical) than those involved in names and numbers administration. And how exactly does this invalidate the RIR processes as models for us to use?? -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Mon Jan 23 11:11:18 2006 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 08:11:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] [ga] Re: Establishment of the European Regional At-Large Organizaton In-Reply-To: <1138031250.7276.87.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20060123161118.45053.qmail@web53515.mail.yahoo.com> Vittorio, To be clear... while you would be representing all individual members of ISOC Italy - 72 at the moment - (71 which probably have almost no interest in DNS issues and 1 who does), you claim this puts you on a par with another representative who represents 44 individuals (all of whom have a strong interest in DNS issues). Wouldn't it make more sense to put you in a room with these other 44 individuals and have all 45 of you vote on an equal basis? Or are you more equal than they are? --- Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Il giorno lun, 23/01/2006 alle 07.25 -0800, Danny > Younger ha scritto: > > So, If your chapter (the accredited at-large > > structure) is basically just you when it comes to > > ICANN issues, why do you warrant an equivalency to > 44 > > other individuals that took the time to sign up > and > > pay a fee (while you through your own organization > pay > > nothing)? > > If I were the representative of ISOC Italy in the > EURALO council, I > would be representing all individual members of ISOC > Italy - 72 at the > moment - exactly as the representative of > individuals would be > representing 44 other individuals that are directly > members of the > EURALO (the ratio varies with the total number of > members). Actually, > the representation ratio is averagely more > favourable if you are an > individual EURALO member than if you try to be the > rep of an > organization, and that's exactly to reward direct > participation in > EURALO. > > I expect (reasonably, I think) that most individual > members of the > EURALO would just sign up and delegate activity to > their elected > representatives, much like (as you point out) most > individual members of > ISOC Italy delegate activity in the ICANN field to > me. > > It's false that I don't pay nothing, I pay 50 euros > a year as membership > fee to my organization, which in turn sometimes > subsidizes my > participation to IG-related events. In any case, the > EURALO membership > fee is expected to be a one-time-only (not yearly) > very low (10 euros?) > amount of money, mostly meant to screen out fakes > and make capture more > difficult. > > - And, on another matter, just to get your facts > straight: it is not > true that you were the only registrant getting angry > and loud about the > "Verisign settlement" agreements and, specifically, > the proposed price > increase in the .com registry fee. For what regards > the ALAC, you might > read the statement we gave in Vancouver: > http://alac.icann.org/announcements/announcement-02dec05.htm > > Regards, > -- > vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] > bertola.eu.org]<----- > http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Mon Jan 23 14:35:50 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 14:35:50 -0500 Subject: [governance] [ga] Re: Establishment of the EuropeanRegionalAt-Large Organization In-Reply-To: <20060122161433.4876.qmail@web53501.mail.yahoo.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060122103802.03a11678@veni.com> <20060122161433.4876.qmail@web53501.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060122112509.03e2b290@veni.com> Danny, At 08:14 22-01-06 -0800, you wrote: >Veni, > >You are a member of the Board. You are well aware that >anyone may subscribe to the GA list, including >yourself, and you are also aware that other Board >members have participated on the GA list. The content >of my message was appropriate for consideration by >members of the GA. Interesting - when you write to people you don't even tell them you are CC a mailing list, and you don't explain they can subscribe. Further, whether someone will or will not subscribe to a mailing list, should be his/her desire, not being driven by accusations. It's quite funny that you find your message of interest for the members of the GA, but you don't believe mine, Vittorio, or anyone else who responded there (in the Internet Governance mailing list) messages are of interest for the GA. I still believe your actions are not proper, and I don't know what made you do them. You can continue to blame me for whatever you want; but keep in mind I am not a politician, and I don't fight for my ratings. In the meantime, though, I can't stand and watch you attacking =people, whose only fault is they are trying to do something - including trying to make ICANN better. A quick view of the GA archives shows that none of the comments from Wolfgang, Patrick, Rudi, etc. have made it to the GA list. That's certainly not fair. I will not be writing to the GA list more, as this is not my intent, but I wanted people there to know there's a discussion, and you are quoting only portions of it. veni _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Mon Jan 23 15:06:35 2006 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 12:06:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] [ga] Re: Establishment of the EuropeanRegionalAt-Large Organization In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060122112509.03e2b290@veni.com> Message-ID: <20060123200635.11545.qmail@web53504.mail.yahoo.com> Veni, Thank you for your persistent attacks. I'm sure that they serve your purpose of disrupting discussions on the topic of At-Large and/or Civil Society representation within ICANN. Perhaps one day you will choose to actually share your views on the topic... but I won't hold my breath. Danny --- Veni Markovski wrote: > Danny, > > At 08:14 22-01-06 -0800, you wrote: > >Veni, > > > >You are a member of the Board. You are well aware > that > >anyone may subscribe to the GA list, including > >yourself, and you are also aware that other Board > >members have participated on the GA list. The > content > >of my message was appropriate for consideration by > >members of the GA. > > Interesting - when you write to people you don't > even tell them you > are CC a mailing list, and you don't explain they > can subscribe. > Further, whether someone will or will not subscribe > to a mailing > list, should be his/her desire, not being driven by > accusations. > > It's quite funny that you find your message of > interest for the > members of the GA, but you don't believe mine, > Vittorio, or anyone > else who responded there (in the Internet Governance > mailing list) > messages are of interest for the GA. > > I still believe your actions are not proper, and I > don't know what > made you do them. > > You can continue to blame me for whatever you want; > but keep in mind > I am not a politician, and I don't fight for my > ratings. In the > meantime, though, I can't stand and watch you > attacking =people, > whose only fault is they are trying to do something > - including > trying to make ICANN better. > > A quick view of the GA archives shows that none of > the comments from > Wolfgang, Patrick, Rudi, etc. have made it to the GA > list. That's > certainly not fair. I will not be writing to the GA > list more, as > this is not my intent, but I wanted people there to > know there's a > discussion, and you are quoting only portions of it. > > veni > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Mon Jan 23 15:15:23 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:15:23 -0500 Subject: [governance] [ga] Re: Establishment of the EuropeanRegionalAt-Large Organization In-Reply-To: <20060123200635.11545.qmail@web53504.mail.yahoo.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060122112509.03e2b290@veni.com> <20060123200635.11545.qmail@web53504.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060123150959.03dc1df8@veni.com> Danny, if you feel attacked, that was not my intention. I regret that you feel the way you do. Although I don't see an attack towards you in my words, just defense, perhaps the fact you feel that way, could also show you how people like Vittorio feel when you are attacking them. The difference, I guess, is that I appologize, even for non-intentional words, which you have accepted as attacks. I'd like also to use the opportunity, and tell you that - with all the respect I owe - it's clear now you have no idea whatsoever of what my purpose is, therefore I suggest you stop telling other people what I think, and what is my motivation. If someone is interested, she or he has my email, and they can ask me. To asume, based on your own experience, and on the cross-cultural difference there are between an American and a Bulgarian, what my moitves are, is quite a challenging task. If you read carefully what I wrote you, you may see that unlike you, I don't asume that I know what are your motives to attack Vittorio. Hope this makes things clearer, and - as you've probably noted - I am not CC: the GA. They have more important issues to deal with, rather than to listen to an argument at the IG list. To eliminate spam, I will also stop responding to you in this forum, on that subject. For me all is clear. veni At 12:06 23-01-06 -0800, Danny Younger wrote: >Veni, > >Thank you for your persistent attacks. I'm sure that >they serve your purpose of disrupting discussions on >the topic of At-Large and/or Civil Society >representation within ICANN. Perhaps one day you will >choose to actually share your views on the topic... >but I won't hold my breath. > >Danny > > > >--- Veni Markovski wrote: > > > Danny, > > > > At 08:14 22-01-06 -0800, you wrote: > > >Veni, > > > > > >You are a member of the Board. You are well aware > > that > > >anyone may subscribe to the GA list, including > > >yourself, and you are also aware that other Board > > >members have participated on the GA list. The > > content > > >of my message was appropriate for consideration by > > >members of the GA. > > > > Interesting - when you write to people you don't > > even tell them you > > are CC a mailing list, and you don't explain they > > can subscribe. > > Further, whether someone will or will not subscribe > > to a mailing > > list, should be his/her desire, not being driven by > > accusations. > > > > It's quite funny that you find your message of > > interest for the > > members of the GA, but you don't believe mine, > > Vittorio, or anyone > > else who responded there (in the Internet Governance > > mailing list) > > messages are of interest for the GA. > > > > I still believe your actions are not proper, and I > > don't know what > > made you do them. > > > > You can continue to blame me for whatever you want; > > but keep in mind > > I am not a politician, and I don't fight for my > > ratings. In the > > meantime, though, I can't stand and watch you > > attacking =people, > > whose only fault is they are trying to do something > > - including > > trying to make ICANN better. > > > > A quick view of the GA archives shows that none of > > the comments from > > Wolfgang, Patrick, Rudi, etc. have made it to the GA > > list. That's > > certainly not fair. I will not be writing to the GA > > list more, as > > this is not my intent, but I wanted people there to > > know there's a > > discussion, and you are quoting only portions of it. > > > > veni > > > > > > > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From fausett at lextext.com Mon Jan 23 15:54:55 2006 From: fausett at lextext.com (Bret Fausett) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 12:54:55 -0800 Subject: [governance] RALOs without halos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43D5429F.7060001@lextext.com> Another way to think of the At Large structures -- ALS > RALO > ALAC -- is simply as a series of relationships designed to share information. The thought was to build on existing structures, and create loose relationships among them (a la Linked In or Friendster or Orkut), so that information from ICANN could be distributed quickly to people interested in receiving it, and then, so that information could be collected and forwarded to ICANN. The only real responsibility of the RALOs is to be a conduit for information and place people on the ALAC. There's absolutely no expectation that they spend money or travel. E-mail is sufficient. It was designed to be light-weight and inexpensive, and its power was to come not from any bylaw guarantee but from the power of its ideas and input. This model, a shell of the original At Large concept, is what the ICANN Board decided in Ghana, rejecting the proposals of its own blue-ribbon Bildt Committee and the independent NAIS. http://www.newarchitectmag.com/documents/s=2442/new1020218289998/index.html Many of those working within the ALAC were involved in the various At Large Studies and once were deeply committed to ICANN's original idea of empowering Internet end-users and electing half of the Board. I don't think the belief that ICANN should have a stronger, more empowered At Large has been abandoned by any of us working within the ALAC. We are simply working within the limited structure given to us by ICANN. After Ghana, the only alternative was to abandon ICANN altogether or attack it from the outside. I fully understand and appreciate the view that complete rejection of the ALAC concept might have been preferable as a symbol to ICANN of the At Large community's significant dissatisfaction with the Board's vote in Ghana. I also fully understand and appreciate the other view that it was better to work within the very limited role given to us by the Board than to leave ICANN without any At Large involvement at all. What I do *not* understand is why the people who want a more empowered At Large are directing their criticism at the members of the At Large Advisory Committee, as though we're apologists for ICANN's damnable actions in Ghana. When we want to achieve the same objective, but have differing views on how to best achieve it, we should see ourselves as allies, albeit working on different fronts. Bret Milton Mueller wrote: >The RALO structure created in ICANN's 2002 "reforms" is a joke. It asks people to invest huge amounts of time and energy to build organizations that have no power. It is predicated on the notion that hundreds of thousands of domain name registrants, to whom a domain name represents a $20/year investment, are going the spend the equivalent of $10,000-$100,000 a year on organizing, traveling and jawboning -- in order to elect people to Councils who elect people to another Council who participate in the process of selecting a minority of ICANN's Board members. > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Mon Jan 23 18:07:58 2006 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 18:07:58 -0500 Subject: [governance] RALOs without halos Message-ID: >>> Carlos Afonso 1/23/2006 10:09 AM >>> >My view thus remains the same I have been defending for quite a while: >we need a new form of non-profit, non-business civil society >representation within ICANN, which would supersede both ALAC and NCUC As you know, I agree. >So, why not propose right now (for the upcoming ICANN meeting) that ALAC >and NCUC cease to exist and are replaced by a non-profit non-business >constituency of civil society organizations, with no membership >restrictions other then being properly registered as such in any >country? A sort of World Caucus of NGOs for Internet Governance (WCNIG) ALAC and NCUC should establish an integrated council/organization that serves as the umbrella for coordinating and developing positions within ICANN. But it would be disastrous to eliminate them and give up structural representation within ICANN. That would simply throw away real leverage we have. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From seiiti at gmail.com Mon Jan 23 21:22:07 2006 From: seiiti at gmail.com (Seiiti Arata) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 00:22:07 -0200 Subject: [governance] Losing focus: IGF and "technical discussions" Message-ID: <874fe2180601231822q7dd5fd5bve5628da355e9d975@mail.gmail.com> Vittorio, friends, Now that the time to hurry up and finish our drafts for the WSIS process has passed and we have recovered from New Year celebrations (including Chinese and Orthodox Russian calendars), I think this is an appropriate time to raise a controversial point with less risk of "losing focus" (and I think that as Diplo's event is coming just before the open consultations, this is actually to get more theorical once again): I do agree with you that the IGF tends (happily) to take IG discussions beyond the narrow names-and-numbers level. But we must also take into account that other technical decisions have high policy impact, such as protocols and standards setting (de facto and also formal official ones). Some of these are still developed by the IETF (which may now need to receive extra visibility and a higher governance level), but others are also being imposed by cable broadband ISPs, which limit many freedoms of the users (see, e.g. Michael Geist article Towards a Two-Tier Internet - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4552138.stm). Some of these ISPs are privileging transport of certain packets of data, contrary to the neutrality principle. Parallel to this, more and more the discussions of security tend to change the end-to-end architecture. But even focusing on the architecture of the network may seem too naïve. Maybe Internet governance issues should also encompass a certain general ICT governance, by including computer design for example as one important issue to consider. Jonathan Zittrain has published a paper of fundamental importance on this line of thought, arguing that by insisting in having an end-to-end network will lead to power-seeking actors targeting efforts to place limitations in the computers in the ends. (see Zittrain on The Generative Internet - http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=847124) The new paradigm of software as a service and not as a product also tends to have regulatory impact by constant live updates changing the software code enabling or prohibiting certain uses. The trusted computing initiative similarly tends to change the wide range of applications of computing power. A disclaimer: Here, I am not defending neither the rise of the intelligent network nor calling for support of the end-to-end principle. They all have benefits and negative impacts. I just propose that the IGF shall play a role in enhancing a wider awareness of the policy implications of these changes (which by now is still geek-oriented but more and more incumbent-industry-oriented). A better governance is needed in the regulation by code. And leaving the market to "self-regulate" may tend to empower those capable to shift the architecture of the Internet towards private interests (not necessarily in harmony with the international public interest). I will be very happy to share some ideas with you on this list or, if such discussion may shift focus from the original purpose of this list, by private email conversations, or even better personally in Malta and/or Geneva next month. Fraternal regards (Carlos, did you "patent" this?) Seiiti On 1/23/06, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Il giorno dom, 22/01/2006 alle 12.50 +0300, McTim ha scritto: > > I know I've said this before, but... > > > > Whatever is created MUST be better or equal to the best Internet > > Policy Development Processes that we have now. It was acknowlwdged by > > many on the governance caucus list that the RIR policies are the > > "cleanest" of the ICANN processes. > > I agree that RIR processes are quite good, but please don't forget that > at the IGF we'll not be making technical agreements with policy > implications, but policy agreements that need to be compatible with > technology. The set of stakeholders, interests and views that will be > involved in discussions on, say, privacy, freedom of expression, or > e-commerce are likely to be much much broader and diverse (and less > technical) than those involved in names and numbers administration. > -- > vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- > http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Mon Jan 23 22:04:51 2006 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:04:51 +0900 Subject: [governance] RALOs without halos In-Reply-To: <43D5429F.7060001@lextext.com> References: <43D5429F.7060001@lextext.com> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20060124115938.0aa39b50@anr.org> Bret, thanks for putting the clear idea and direction. I fully share the views you put below. To me, ALS > RALO > ALAC was "better" alternative than just abandoning the whole AtLarge/ICANN when ICANN Board decided to go with "reform" without AtLarge at all. That's why we kind of "lobbied" them to put AtLarge back into ICANN structure, ended up with the current structure. Even though there are shortcomings, and after three years of effort we know more about the shortcomings than before, simply giving up does not seem to make sense. We can discuss how to improve, how to make change, but I think just finger-pointing at the "wrong" target is less constructive, more harmful. In that regard, I share the following Bret put. "When we want to achieve the same objective, but have differing views on how to best achieve it, we should see ourselves as allies, albeit working on different fronts." thanks, izumi At 12:54 06/01/23 -0800, Bret Fausett wrote: >Another way to think of the At Large structures -- ALS > RALO > ALAC -- >is simply as a series of relationships designed to share information. >The thought was to build on existing structures, and create loose >relationships among them (a la Linked In or Friendster or Orkut), so >that information from ICANN could be distributed quickly to people >interested in receiving it, and then, so that information could be >collected and forwarded to ICANN. The only real responsibility of the >RALOs is to be a conduit for information and place people on the ALAC. >There's absolutely no expectation that they spend money or travel. >E-mail is sufficient. It was designed to be light-weight and >inexpensive, and its power was to come not from any bylaw guarantee but >from the power of its ideas and input. This model, a shell of the >original At Large concept, is what the ICANN Board decided in Ghana, >rejecting the proposals of its own blue-ribbon Bildt Committee and the >independent NAIS. > >http://www.newarchitectmag.com/documents/s=2442/new1020218289998/index.html > >Many of those working within the ALAC were involved in the various At >Large Studies and once were deeply committed to ICANN's original idea of >empowering Internet end-users and electing half of the Board. I don't >think the belief that ICANN should have a stronger, more empowered At >Large has been abandoned by any of us working within the ALAC. We are >simply working within the limited structure given to us by ICANN. After >Ghana, the only alternative was to abandon ICANN altogether or attack it >from the outside. > >I fully understand and appreciate the view that complete rejection of >the ALAC concept might have been preferable as a symbol to ICANN of the >At Large community's significant dissatisfaction with the Board's vote >in Ghana. I also fully understand and appreciate the other view that it >was better to work within the very limited role given to us by the Board >than to leave ICANN without any At Large involvement at all. What I do >*not* understand is why the people who want a more empowered At Large >are directing their criticism at the members of the At Large Advisory >Committee, as though we're apologists for ICANN's damnable actions in >Ghana. When we want to achieve the same objective, but have differing >views on how to best achieve it, we should see ourselves as allies, >albeit working on different fronts. > > Bret _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Tue Jan 24 03:48:20 2006 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 09:48:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] Conference in Copenhagen Message-ID: Hi, Forwarding for Jane, who's not here. Could be of interest to any caucus people in the neighborhood. Karen Banks and I will do a workshop on WSIS follow-up and implementation, including re: IGF. Program at the URL below. Best, Bill -----Original Message----- From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org]On Behalf Of Jane Johnsen Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 4:20 PM To: plenary at wsis-cs.org Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Conference in Copenhagen Dear all It was hard for some to read the previous invitation for the WSIS follow-up conference in Copenhagen. I therefore resend it in a different format (see below). Sincerely Jane Johnsen UNA-Denmark ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The WFUNA Task Force on WSIS and the Danish Network on WSIS cordially invites you to attend the international conference on Where to go from Tunis? - Implementation of and follow-up to the World Summit on the Information Society and the role of Civil Society in this process Date: February 21st –22nd, 2006 Venue: The National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen On November 18th 2005 the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) concluded with an agreement among world leaders on ambitious objectives and promises for the future Information Society. Now that the Summit has ended and world leaders have returned home, we are wondering – will these objectives and promises be fulfilled and kept? Time has come to evaluate the results and take stock of what impact the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society will have on global development in general, and more specifically on the future of the Information Society How do we go on from here, how do we ensure that ICTs truly become tools for development, and what will be the role of civil society in the implementation of the Tunis results? These issues will be addressed at the international conference on Where to go from Tunis. More specifically, the conference will present keynote speeches and workshops focusing on: ¨ National ICT strategies ¨ Local access to ICT ¨ Human Rights and ICT ¨ International follow-up mechanisms to the WSIS process – with special focus on the Internet Governance Forum and the ECOSOC Commission on Science and Technology Participation in the conference is free of charge. Lunch and refreshments are included. For more information about the conference and how to register, please visit our website www.una.dk/wsis or contact Project Coordinator Ms. Jane Johnsen at jane at una.dk. Please note that remote participation to the conference will be available through advanced collaboratory tools. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Tue Jan 24 04:46:56 2006 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:46:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] Losing focus: IGF and "technical discussions" In-Reply-To: <874fe2180601231822q7dd5fd5bve5628da355e9d975@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi, I've deleted MMWG from the cc here, cross-posting filling my box. I strongly agree with the thrust of Seiiti's message. While this list was the first place to seriously discuss the case for a broad definition of IG, as was eventually embraced in the Tunis Agenda, the conversation usually defaults back to deconstructing the internal machinations of ICANN, and everything else slips from view. Given the unresolved oversight fight in WSIS and the Tunis call for a new globally applicable policy principles and enhanced cooperation on core resources, one imagines the IGF will end up focusing on this as well in the near-term. This is unquestionably key, but at the same time, there is a lot going on in other issue-areas and cooperative mechanisms that we're not talking about, but that is really important to the future evolution of the net. Just to note one example, there is an enormous amount of work going on among governments, telcos, manufacturers and others, most notably but not only in the ITU, under the rubric of 'Next Generation Networks' that is designed to promote shared rules and programs on surveillance (oops, sorry, security and trust) and differentiated levels of service in a convergent environment. This mirrors major developments happening at the national level across the OECD region and probably beyond. In the US context, in addition what the FCC's been doing in its IP-enabled services proceeding, there's been some potentially important legislative action. For example, to strengthen cyberstalking prosecution tools, the recently passed reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act amends the Communications Act of America by expanding the definition of a telecommunications device to cover any device or software that uses the Internet, including VOIP. This could place a big chunk of the net environment under US telecom 'oversight' and strengthen the drive in the International Law Enforcement Telecom Seminar and elsewhere to mandate the build-in of forensics capabilities, etc. Companies like Verisign are very much at the center of all this, but we only talk about the DNS side of their houses. The IGF is supposed to focus inter alia on cross-cutting issues that don't fall neatly within the scope of other bodies, and to promote the application of the Geneva principles (multilateral, multistakeholder, transparent, democratic) in such bodies. If CS doesn't bother to promote these core parts of the mandate, probably they will fall off the table. That'd be unfortunate, and we could all pay for it in spades down the line. Best, Bill > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Seiiti Arata > Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 3:22 AM > To: Vittorio Bertola > Cc: Governance Caucus; mmwg at wsis-cs.org > Subject: [governance] Losing focus: IGF and "technical discussions" > > > Vittorio, friends, > > Now that the time to hurry up and finish our drafts for the WSIS > process has passed and we have recovered from New Year celebrations > (including Chinese and Orthodox Russian calendars), I think this is an > appropriate time to raise a controversial point with less risk of > "losing focus" (and I think that as Diplo's event is coming just > before the open consultations, this is actually to get more theorical > once again): > > I do agree with you that the IGF tends (happily) to take IG > discussions beyond the narrow names-and-numbers level. But we must > also take into account that other technical decisions have high policy > impact, such as protocols and standards setting (de facto and also > formal official ones). > > Some of these are still developed by the IETF (which may now need to > receive extra visibility and a higher governance level), but others > are also being imposed by cable broadband ISPs, which limit many > freedoms of the users (see, e.g. Michael Geist article Towards a > Two-Tier Internet - > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4552138.stm). Some of these ISPs > are privileging transport of certain packets of data, contrary to the > neutrality principle. Parallel to this, more and more the discussions > of security tend to change the end-to-end architecture. > > But even focusing on the architecture of the network may seem too > naïve. Maybe Internet governance issues should also encompass a > certain general ICT governance, by including computer design for > example as one important issue to consider. Jonathan Zittrain has > published a paper of fundamental importance on this line of thought, > arguing that by insisting in having an end-to-end network will lead to > power-seeking actors targeting efforts to place limitations in the > computers in the ends. (see Zittrain on The Generative Internet - > http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=847124) > > The new paradigm of software as a service and not as a product also > tends to have regulatory impact by constant live updates changing the > software code enabling or prohibiting certain uses. The trusted > computing initiative similarly tends to change the wide range of > applications of computing power. > > A disclaimer: Here, I am not defending neither the rise of the > intelligent network nor calling for support of the end-to-end > principle. They all have benefits and negative impacts. I just propose > that the IGF shall play a role in enhancing a wider awareness of the > policy implications of these changes (which by now is still > geek-oriented but more and more incumbent-industry-oriented). A better > governance is needed in the regulation by code. And leaving the market > to "self-regulate" may tend to empower those capable to shift the > architecture of the Internet towards private interests (not > necessarily in harmony with the international public interest). > > I will be very happy to share some ideas with you on this list or, if > such discussion may shift focus from the original purpose of this > list, by private email conversations, or even better personally in > Malta and/or Geneva next month. > > Fraternal regards (Carlos, did you "patent" this?) > Seiiti > > On 1/23/06, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > Il giorno dom, 22/01/2006 alle 12.50 +0300, McTim ha scritto: > > > I know I've said this before, but... > > > > > > Whatever is created MUST be better or equal to the best Internet > > > Policy Development Processes that we have now. It was acknowlwdged by > > > many on the governance caucus list that the RIR policies are the > > > "cleanest" of the ICANN processes. > > > > I agree that RIR processes are quite good, but please don't forget that > > at the IGF we'll not be making technical agreements with policy > > implications, but policy agreements that need to be compatible with > > technology. The set of stakeholders, interests and views that will be > > involved in discussions on, say, privacy, freedom of expression, or > > e-commerce are likely to be much much broader and diverse (and less > > technical) than those involved in names and numbers administration. > > -- > > vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- > > http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... > > > > _______________________________________________ > > governance mailing list > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Jan 24 05:20:12 2006 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 21:20:12 +1100 Subject: [governance] Losing focus: IGF and "technical discussions" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200601241020.k0OAKAG4048313@squirrel.dmpriest.net.uk> Agree with Bill. Here is my brief analysis (from a recent newsletter) of some other issues that need to be looked at in IGF context. To the section on Googleisation I would add the recent USG attempt to subpoena Google search results (in order to analyse effectiveness of content filtering software). The precedent here has enormous ramifications. EMERGING ISSUES But in many ways, the debates at WSIS missed the big issues that we expect will dominate our thinking in 2006. VOIP VS TRADITIONAL TELCO MODELS For instance, the battle between VOIP (voice over IP) and traditional telephony systems, which will begin to dominate discussions in national regulatory regimes of countries with high broadband penetration, hardly got a mention. Yet there is hardly an issue where the importance of understanding the potential of the Internet is more important. Traditional telco business models are very threatened by Internet growth, and telco lobbying power will undoubtedly lead to some draconian attempts to stop Internet growth by regulatory restrictions based on content type. Model legislation therefore becomes important in allowing the emergence of a regime in which voice connections are no different to any other Internet connections. We envisage a future regime where bandwidth is about as basic as water or electricity supply, distance does not matter, time doesn't matter, volume doesn't really matter - more a flat annual cost Internet. That's the one that can help this planet and global communications most. We want to see the Internet as a place you visit, not some highly regulated network facility broken up into different regulatory regimes according to the types of traffic being transmitted. GOOGLEISATION 2005 was also the year in which the power of Google became apparent. Moving from a simple base as a very good Internet search engine, Google, using excessive market capitalisation that had some people talking of a second 'dotcom" era, proceeded to " Make available Google Maps, raising ire among some countries at the easy availability of satellite imagery of military facilities " Became evidence in a criminal court case in USA, where Google searches on the words "neck" and "snap" became part of criminal evidence, raising substantial privacy issues " Released Google desktop, with cookies allowing customization of news alerts and further raising privacy concerns " Released Google Print, a plan to make available on line literary works, raising copyright concerns " Began rolling out city wide free wireless networks in towns such as Mountain View, California, posing enormous challenges for those who would regulate telephony and broadcast facilities and support the economic viability of legacy broadcast and telephony models. And much more. This was the year that Google posed new challenges for regulators. We have yet to see responses, particularly at an international level. OTHER ISSUES WE BELIEVE IGF SHOULD LOOK AT These are issues we would like to see discussed in an Internet Governance Forum - and they have precious little to do with ICANN, which is a good thing. We would also add to the agenda Widespread spectrum availability to support global communications (even at the expense of legacy systems such as free to air TV) Digital rights management US Broadcast Flag Legislation Network Neutrality Where is the model legislation here? Where are the best practice approaches? We call on the Internet community to take this opportunity to engage with governments and help forge satisfactory regulatory regimes for the growth of the Internet. Ian Peter Senior Partner Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd P.O Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel +614 1966 7772 Email ian.peter at ianpeter.com www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info (Winner, Top100 Sites Award, PCMagazine Spring 2005) > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake > Sent: Tuesday, 24 January 2006 8:47 PM > To: Seiiti Arata; Vittorio Bertola > Cc: Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: [governance] Losing focus: IGF and "technical > discussions" > > Hi, > > I've deleted MMWG from the cc here, cross-posting filling my box. > > I strongly agree with the thrust of Seiiti's message. While > this list was the first place to seriously discuss the case > for a broad definition of IG, as was eventually embraced in > the Tunis Agenda, the conversation usually defaults back to > deconstructing the internal machinations of ICANN, and > everything else slips from view. Given the unresolved > oversight fight in WSIS and the Tunis call for a new globally > applicable policy principles and enhanced cooperation on core > resources, one imagines the IGF will end up focusing on this > as well in the near-term. This is unquestionably key, but at > the same time, there is a lot going on in other issue-areas > and cooperative mechanisms that we're not talking about, but > that is really important to the future evolution of the net. > > Just to note one example, there is an enormous amount of work > going on among governments, telcos, manufacturers and others, > most notably but not only in the ITU, under the rubric of > 'Next Generation Networks' that is designed to promote shared > rules and programs on surveillance (oops, sorry, security and > trust) and differentiated levels of service in a convergent > environment. > This mirrors major developments happening at the national > level across the OECD region and probably beyond. In the US > context, in addition what the FCC's been doing in its > IP-enabled services proceeding, there's been some potentially > important legislative action. For example, to strengthen > cyberstalking prosecution tools, the recently passed > reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act amends the > Communications Act of America by expanding the definition of > a telecommunications device to cover any device or software > that uses the Internet, including VOIP. This could place a > big chunk of the net environment under US telecom 'oversight' > and strengthen the drive in the International Law Enforcement > Telecom Seminar and elsewhere to mandate the build-in of > forensics capabilities, etc. Companies like Verisign are > very much at the center of all this, but we only talk about > the DNS side of their houses. > > The IGF is supposed to focus inter alia on cross-cutting > issues that don't fall neatly within the scope of other > bodies, and to promote the application of the Geneva > principles (multilateral, multistakeholder, transparent, > democratic) in such bodies. If CS doesn't bother to promote > these core parts of the mandate, probably they will fall off > the table. That'd be unfortunate, and we could all pay for > it in spades down the line. > > Best, > > Bill > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Seiiti Arata > > Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 3:22 AM > > To: Vittorio Bertola > > Cc: Governance Caucus; mmwg at wsis-cs.org > > Subject: [governance] Losing focus: IGF and "technical discussions" > > > > > > Vittorio, friends, > > > > Now that the time to hurry up and finish our drafts for the WSIS > > process has passed and we have recovered from New Year celebrations > > (including Chinese and Orthodox Russian calendars), I think > this is an > > appropriate time to raise a controversial point with less risk of > > "losing focus" (and I think that as Diplo's event is coming just > > before the open consultations, this is actually to get more > theorical > > once again): > > > > I do agree with you that the IGF tends (happily) to take IG > > discussions beyond the narrow names-and-numbers level. But we must > > also take into account that other technical decisions have > high policy > > impact, such as protocols and standards setting (de facto and also > > formal official ones). > > > > Some of these are still developed by the IETF (which may > now need to > > receive extra visibility and a higher governance level), but others > > are also being imposed by cable broadband ISPs, which limit many > > freedoms of the users (see, e.g. Michael Geist article Towards a > > Two-Tier Internet - > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4552138.stm). Some of > these ISPs > > are privileging transport of certain packets of data, > contrary to the > > neutrality principle. Parallel to this, more and more the > discussions > > of security tend to change the end-to-end architecture. > > > > But even focusing on the architecture of the network may seem too > > naïve. Maybe Internet governance issues should also encompass a > > certain general ICT governance, by including computer design for > > example as one important issue to consider. Jonathan Zittrain has > > published a paper of fundamental importance on this line of > thought, > > arguing that by insisting in having an end-to-end network > will lead to > > power-seeking actors targeting efforts to place limitations in the > > computers in the ends. (see Zittrain on The Generative Internet - > > http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=847124) > > > > The new paradigm of software as a service and not as a product also > > tends to have regulatory impact by constant live updates > changing the > > software code enabling or prohibiting certain uses. The trusted > > computing initiative similarly tends to change the wide range of > > applications of computing power. > > > > A disclaimer: Here, I am not defending neither the rise of the > > intelligent network nor calling for support of the end-to-end > > principle. They all have benefits and negative impacts. I > just propose > > that the IGF shall play a role in enhancing a wider > awareness of the > > policy implications of these changes (which by now is still > > geek-oriented but more and more > incumbent-industry-oriented). A better > > governance is needed in the regulation by code. And leaving > the market > > to "self-regulate" may tend to empower those capable to shift the > > architecture of the Internet towards private interests (not > > necessarily in harmony with the international public interest). > > > > I will be very happy to share some ideas with you on this > list or, if > > such discussion may shift focus from the original purpose of this > > list, by private email conversations, or even better personally in > > Malta and/or Geneva next month. > > > > Fraternal regards (Carlos, did you "patent" this?) Seiiti > > > > On 1/23/06, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > > Il giorno dom, 22/01/2006 alle 12.50 +0300, McTim ha scritto: > > > > I know I've said this before, but... > > > > > > > > Whatever is created MUST be better or equal to the best > Internet > > > > Policy Development Processes that we have now. It was > > > > acknowlwdged by many on the governance caucus list that the RIR > > > > policies are the "cleanest" of the ICANN processes. > > > > > > I agree that RIR processes are quite good, but please > don't forget > > > that at the IGF we'll not be making technical agreements > with policy > > > implications, but policy agreements that need to be > compatible with > > > technology. The set of stakeholders, interests and views > that will > > > be involved in discussions on, say, privacy, freedom of > expression, > > > or e-commerce are likely to be much much broader and diverse (and > > > less > > > technical) than those involved in names and numbers > administration. > > > -- > > > vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] > bertola.eu.org]<----- > > > http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > governance mailing list > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > governance mailing list > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.21/236 - Release > Date: 20/01/2006 > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.21/236 - Release Date: 20/01/2006 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Tue Jan 24 05:28:29 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 11:28:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] RALOs without halos In-Reply-To: <43D5429F.7060001@lextext.com> References: <43D5429F.7060001@lextext.com> Message-ID: <1138098510.8589.22.camel@localhost.localdomain> Il giorno lun, 23/01/2006 alle 12.56 -0800, Bret Fausett ha scritto: > from the power of its ideas and input. This model, a shell of the > original At Large concept, is what the ICANN Board decided in Ghana, > rejecting the proposals of its own blue-ribbon Bildt Committee and > the independent NAIS. Actually, just for the sake of history preservation, in Ghana (March 2002) ICANN decided to eliminate any kind of At Large participation. It was only in Bucharest (June 2002) that a group of good-willing people (traveling on their own money...) met the Evolution and Reform Committee and convinced them to reinstate the At Large under the form of the ALAC. Then an "assistance group" was formed to work out how to implement it, and by the end of 2002 the concept of the RALOs was developed. Actually, if I remember well, the original proposal that was initially put forward in the group did not have the regional subdivision, but some members (Latin Americans in particular) proposed the change to a regional model in one of the conference calls. So, at the end of the year, ICANN approved the ALAC/RALO model and in January 2003 the initial interim members of the ALAC were chosen by the Board. Initially, it was very hard for us to work: we had almost no budget and support, and ICANN flew us to Rio (March 2003) with the agreement that that would be the only ICANN meeting the Committee would attend in the year. It took us the entire year just to obtain the budget to attend the meetings and actually do our job, and also, to let the other constituencies to actually know who we were and what we were doing (I remember that in Rio some of our requests to meet other constituencies were turned down or met with almost empty rooms...). I think that the work of the Committee has been valuable both in quality and in quantity. Sure, if you compare the ALAC with the utopian expectation that thousands of people would be willing to attend ICANN meetings and discuss DNS-related matters, you'll be disappointed; but if you compare the ALAC with the other ICANN constituencies and committees, then you'll discover that we're one of the most active. Eventually, I share your final consideration: if all these energies that, year after year, are being spent in name calling at every occasion and in dwelling again and again over battles that were fought and lost four or six years ago, were rather spent in collaborating to build an even stronger and more numerous At Large constituency, then the At Large would be even more important; and it would then be able to credibly claim Board seats or other ways to have a strongest influence on the actual decisions. I am sure that those who oppose the At Large idea altogether - mostly to preserve their power over ICANN - are extremely happy to see a divided constituency where most efforts are spent in endless structural quarrels, rather than a united group that can exploit fully its immense potential. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue Jan 24 05:57:13 2006 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 11:57:13 +0100 Subject: [governance] RALO Message-ID: Thanks Vittorio for sending me the draft principles for the EU-RALO. Below you see my comments. I wanted to post my comments on the RALO list, hosted by ISOC Belgium, but always when i wanted to register, it was rejected. The text on the website says that after reading the basic statement I have to click "agree". I did agree but nothing happend. No registration from poped up. http://www.isoc.be/euralo/policy.asp I informed yesterday Rudi Vansnick from IOC Belgium, but also today, it does not work. Best regards wolfgang Here is the Statement Comments from Wolfgang Kleinwächter to the "Principles Paper towards a European Regional At Large Organisation", released by former and current European ALAC Members on January, 17th, 2006 1. I do not understand why some (former and current) European members of ALAC have started the initiative for an EU-RALO now. The call for an EU-RALO is on the table since three years. The arguments in 2003, 2004 and 2005 not to start with the EU-RALO have been that the number of ALS was seen as too small and not representative enough. "Give us more time for outreach" was the answer when I raised this issue in AL meetings in Capetown (December 2004) and Mar del Plata (March 2005). In September 2004 there were seven accredited ALS in Europe. Now, after another 17 months, we have eight members plus one pending application from a rather unknown Italian group "tldworld.info". I can not see that this is a new quality, more representative than it was two years ago. In contrary, it is a big shame that within the last 17 months the European ALAC members have been unable to attract more European Internet user groups and organisations. 2. With regard to the accredited eight ALS, I have no problems that these groups are mainly ISOC chapters. The problem is that the big European ISOC chapters - like UK, France or Germany - are not accredited members. Also other big European consumer and user organisations, representing national organisations with much more members than some of the accredited ISOC Chapters, have ignored so far the ALAC invitation. As I said in an earlier mail, to establish an EU-RALO under this circumstances is like organising the Champions League without the Champions. The risk here is that governments will take this as a joke when EU-RALO will speak "on behalf of the Internet users in Europe". You feed arguments by governmental representatives that the governments represent the interests of the European Internet users and not the user groups themselves. To be frank, I like FITUG, but Michael Leibrand, the German GAC member, will not be impressed by statements coming from this group. Why FITUG was unable to attract ISOC Germany, CCC and all the other Internet User groups with thousands of members, coming together to dozens of meetings every year? Why FITUG as the only German User groups so far, does not come to the Domain Pulse meetings, organized by the German speaking ccTLD Registries (where the majority of Internet end users in Germany, Austria and Switzerland have their registration) and is advertising the At Large idea? 3. What I miss totally in the proposed draft is a chapter which defines the aims and principles of an European RALO. Para. 3 in Chapter II says only that the purpose of the EU-RALO is to provide a "channel for participation by the European individual Internet users into the activities of ICANN". This is only a formal and procedural point. Why you did not define some content and value related criteria which would make Internet user involvement different from the involvement of other stakeholders? I think there is a need to describe more in details the special role and responsibility of Internet users and their organisations in the ICANN context from a European perspective. 4. While I fully support to have two categories of members - institutional and individual - I do not see a right balance between the two categories in the proposed draft. As it stands now, individuals are rather marginalized in the proposed "Executive Board" (EC). What will be the outcome if the EU-RALO would be established now? We have now 8 (or 9) ALS that means each would get one seat in the EC. With the low level of outreach so far I would be surprised to see more than 20 or 30 individual members within the next three months. With other words, the EC would have ten members, nine from the accredited ALS. This looks like a closed club which does not like "foreign members" but want to give the impression that they are "open". Such a structure is exclusive, not inclusive. It keeps people out and decourages individuals to join. 5. My counter proposal is to establish a Council with ten seats, five filled by the institutional members, five filled by the individual members, based an the principle of geographical diversity, that would mean two members (one individual and one institutional) form Western Europe, two from Northern Europe, two from Eastern Europe, two from Southern Europe and two from Central Europe. 6. I strongly disagree that the officers of the EU-RALO (including the ALAC members) are selected by the Executive Council. This opens the door for a "friend of my friends network" and allows all tricky games behind closed doors. Civil society and At Large stands for bottom up, open and transparent processes. But this is closed, intransparent and top down. This is totally unacceptable. And it is the result of the failure of Chapter II of the proposed draft, where the mission is defined in "technical terms" only and excludes all values and content related orientation. 7. I support in Chapter VI - Funding Mechanism - that the EU-RALO should be in the first 24 months supported by the ICANN budget. But as it stands now, it looks like the former and current ALAC members are asking for money for a half day job for one person in Brussels (selected by the EC) and to guarantee financing of Travel and Accommodation for EC selected people for two years. There is no paragraph which says, that money should be used for local seminars and workshops for further outreach or human capacity building. If money comes from ICANN it should not be spent in five star hotels but to help people on the ground to understand better the challenges of Internet governance from a user perspective. 8. The dateline for Comments - February 15, 2006 - is totally unacceptable. Giving the low level of outreach and publicity, the call for comments has got so far, this can not be taken seriously. The authors of the draft should use the forthcoming IGF consultations in Geneva, February 16 - 17, 2006, to inform about the efforts to build a EU-RALO and to get feedback from the different constituencies, which will come to Geneva. It looks like a coup to create facts before the IGF consultations. 9. So my final recommendation is that the paper should be immediately withdrawn and the former and current members of the ALAC should present a clear and workable plan for outreach and capacity building, based on defined aims, values and principles which serve the interest of the Internet end-users in Europe. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Tue Jan 24 06:04:33 2006 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 03:04:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] RALOs without halos In-Reply-To: <1138098510.8589.22.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20060124110433.63416.qmail@web53513.mail.yahoo.com> Vittorio, For an incredibly long time I have been asking your Committee to open up a mailing/discussion list so that everyone in the At-Large may participate in joint talks with your Committee. This request has been repeatedly denied. The request was formally put to you and to the ALAC once again within the last two weeks. Your Committee still hasn't acted on the request. If you truly believe that a "united group that can exploit fully its immense potential", then you have nothing to fear from open discussion between the parties. ... and as allies don't act to formalize arrangements to permanently deny representation to their peers, I'm sure that you will postpone your RALO-building exercises accordingly while talks are in progress. Danny --- Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Il giorno lun, 23/01/2006 alle 12.56 -0800, Bret > Fausett ha scritto: > > from the power of its ideas and input. This model, > a shell of the > > original At Large concept, is what the ICANN Board > decided in Ghana, > > rejecting the proposals of its own blue-ribbon > Bildt Committee and > > the independent NAIS. > > Actually, just for the sake of history preservation, > in Ghana (March > 2002) ICANN decided to eliminate any kind of At > Large participation. It > was only in Bucharest (June 2002) that a group of > good-willing people > (traveling on their own money...) met the Evolution > and Reform Committee > and convinced them to reinstate the At Large under > the form of the ALAC. > Then an "assistance group" was formed to work out > how to implement it, > and by the end of 2002 the concept of the RALOs was > developed. Actually, > if I remember well, the original proposal that was > initially put forward > in the group did not have the regional subdivision, > but some members > (Latin Americans in particular) proposed the change > to a regional model > in one of the conference calls. So, at the end of > the year, ICANN > approved the ALAC/RALO model and in January 2003 the > initial interim > members of the ALAC were chosen by the Board. > > Initially, it was very hard for us to work: we had > almost no budget and > support, and ICANN flew us to Rio (March 2003) with > the agreement that > that would be the only ICANN meeting the Committee > would attend in the > year. It took us the entire year just to obtain the > budget to attend the > meetings and actually do our job, and also, to let > the other > constituencies to actually know who we were and what > we were doing (I > remember that in Rio some of our requests to meet > other constituencies > were turned down or met with almost empty rooms...). > > I think that the work of the Committee has been > valuable both in quality > and in quantity. Sure, if you compare the ALAC with > the utopian > expectation that thousands of people would be > willing to attend ICANN > meetings and discuss DNS-related matters, you'll be > disappointed; but if > you compare the ALAC with the other ICANN > constituencies and committees, > then you'll discover that we're one of the most > active. > > Eventually, I share your final consideration: if all > these energies > that, year after year, are being spent in name > calling at every occasion > and in dwelling again and again over battles that > were fought and lost > four or six years ago, were rather spent in > collaborating to build an > even stronger and more numerous At Large > constituency, then the At Large > would be even more important; and it would then be > able to credibly > claim Board seats or other ways to have a strongest > influence on the > actual decisions. > > I am sure that those who oppose the At Large idea > altogether - mostly to > preserve their power over ICANN - are extremely > happy to see a divided > constituency where most efforts are spent in endless > structural > quarrels, rather than a united group that can > exploit fully its immense > potential. > -- > vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] > bertola.eu.org]<----- > http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Tue Jan 24 06:16:02 2006 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:16:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] Proposal: WSIS Principles => ITU Reform Message-ID: Hi, Further to my last post on NGNs etc: According to the Tunis Agenda, the IGF is supposed to "promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance process." These of course hold that "the international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations." Hence, all public and private sector international organizations/networks involved in developing shared international regimes and programs pertaining to the development and use of the Internet are supposed to be evaluated in terms of their conformity with these principles, and where necessary, reforms are to be encouraged to bring them into conformity. This is an essential mandate, and potentially one of the most important outcomes of the entire WSIS process. There are a wide variety of mechanisms involved in developing shared frameworks for different pieces of the Internet environment, and in many cases they do not conform, or conform fully, with basic principles of good governance. When the WGIG did a little exercise beginning this sort of horizontal evaluation (we unfortunately didn't work it through to completion), a couple of things became clear. While the private sector bodies were not multilateral, in the sense of intergovernmental (hence the oversight battle), some---e.g. IETF, RIRs, even ICANN in the views of many---looked pretty good according to the other criteria; other industry-only bodies involved in setting rules for e-commerce, privacy and security, etc., less so. Conversely, the intergovernmental bodies had other weaknesses, most notably with respect to the 'full involvement of,' especially civil society. An obvious example of the latter, which was much discussed both on the caucus list and in the WGIG, is the ITU. While ITU's ambitions vis the 'oversight' issue have been side-lined by the WSIS/WGIG processes, it is increasingly involved in other bits of the IG environment, and is emerging as a if not the premier place for the work on NGN and security/trust issues. But there is effectively no real CS participation in any of this, and there is only full transparency for paid members. In the WSIS era, some of ITU's leadership, most notably Houlin Zhao of ITU-T, professed their willingness to promote an opening to CS, which would involve convincing member governments and firms and in some cases, changing the governing treaties. At the CONGO debriefing on WSIS December, SG Utsumi went on quite a bit about how ITU supposedly loves CS and was responsible for getting us into WSIS. We talked previously on the caucus list about taking ITU up on such statements, but never acted. Now ITU is having one of its periodic reform discussions (these have been going on since 1865). Philippe Dam of CONGO sent a message to the plenary list noting that ITU is inviting external input on reform priorities; the message is below. It would be really useful if the caucus could make a brief collective input on the website encouraging ITU to open its doors to CS. It needn't be elaborate, just a paragraph, but we'd have to do it quickly; Philippe's message says 25 January, but since the consultation isn't until Feb. 1, I would assume we could still submit something. I'd also encourage ISOC to do the same. At a minimum, I'd think we could say that special seminars and workshops, such as the upcoming event on policy frameworks for NGNs http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/ngn/ (which could be important) or the meetings they did previously on spam and security should be open. I don't think this would require constitutional changes, as would CS participation in the sectors, Council, or diplomatic Plenipotentiary Conference. Pushing the latter would require a more concerted effort. Inclusive process demands have always been the one area on which the caucus could agree quickly. If we can't get it together to say let us in, probably discussions about becoming a non-profit org etc are wildly premature. Any interest? Best, Bill -----Original Message----- From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org]On Behalf Of CONGO - Philippe Dam Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 5:31 PM To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; bureau at wsis-cs.org Cc: rbloem at ngocongo.org; wsis at ngocongo.org Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] On-line Consultation on ITU Reform Dear all, Just for your information, I'd like to draw your attention to the on-line consultation organised on the ITU website, on the issue of the ITU reform in the perspective of WSIS follow-up. NGOs, including non-ITU members, and academicians can participate. ITU mentioned that deadline for on-line input is 25 January. This on-line consultation is intended to provide ground for the ITU Reform Meeting (convened by the ITU Council WG on WSIS) to be held on the 1st February 2006. More information at: http://www.itu.int/reform/index.html ITU Council Resolution 1244: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/background/resolutions/itu2005/1244.doc Best regards, Philippe Dam 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: wsis at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org The Conference of NGOs (CONGO) is an international, membership association that facilitates the participation of NGOs in United Nations debates and decisions. Founded in 1948, CONGO's major objective is to ensure the presence of NGOs in exchanges among the world's governments and United Nations agencies on issues of global concern. For more information see our website at www.ngocongo.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue Jan 24 06:50:43 2006 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:50:43 +0100 Subject: [governance] Proposal: WSIS Principles => ITU Reform Message-ID: Thanks Bill for pushing comments to the ITU meeting. My propüosal is to concentrate on the key issues and the key issues with ITU are formal and procedural issues, that is equal participation of CS groups and individuals in ITU meetings. We should work on a formulation which can be further developed into a draft resolution for the forthcoming ITU Plenipotentiary conference later this year in Antalaya. There are two options: 1. the ITU Plenipotentiary agrees on a new paragraph in its constitution which would introduce a third category of membership (next to governments and sector mebers) and which would clarify the conditions under which CS groups can become a "member" and what the rights and duties would be. 2. the ITU Pleniptentiary would adopt a resolution and establish a WG or Committee which would study the options for CS inclusion into ITU policies and would make receommednations to the next Plenipotantierry in 2010 (reporting annually about the progress to the ITU Council). We would need a friendly government or a sector member which could table such a resolution in Anatalaya. Next to this procedural issues we should discuss what we want to see the ITU should do in the follow up. I think ECOSOC and CEB are the main places where ITU is challenged. Whazt I expect from ITU is initiatives towards infrastructure development and human capacity building. I am not sure which role ITU should play in NGN develoment and further standardization. The ITU-report "The Internet of Things" has numerous implications. A great challenge. How this will be linked to IG and the IGF has to be seen. It is also unclear which role the ITU will play in the process of "enhanced cooperation". But for the moment, for formal reason, CS should insists that its status (against the background of the WSIS principle of multistakeholderism) has to be cleared and recognized within ITU´s constitutional framework. Best wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von William Drake Gesendet: Di 24.01.2006 12:16 An: Governance Betreff: [governance] Proposal: WSIS Principles => ITU Reform Hi, Further to my last post on NGNs etc: According to the Tunis Agenda, the IGF is supposed to "promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance process." These of course hold that "the international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations." Hence, all public and private sector international organizations/networks involved in developing shared international regimes and programs pertaining to the development and use of the Internet are supposed to be evaluated in terms of their conformity with these principles, and where necessary, reforms are to be encouraged to bring them into conformity. This is an essential mandate, and potentially one of the most important outcomes of the entire WSIS process. There are a wide variety of mechanisms involved in developing shared frameworks for different pieces of the Internet environment, and in many cases they do not conform, or conform fully, with basic principles of good governance. When the WGIG did a little exercise beginning this sort of horizontal evaluation (we unfortunately didn't work it through to completion), a couple of things became clear. While the private sector bodies were not multilateral, in the sense of intergovernmental (hence the oversight battle), some---e.g. IETF, RIRs, even ICANN in the views of many---looked pretty good according to the other criteria; other industry-only bodies involved in setting rules for e-commerce, privacy and security, etc., less so. Conversely, the intergovernmental bodies had other weaknesses, most notably with respect to the 'full involvement of,' especially civil society. An obvious example of the latter, which was much discussed both on the caucus list and in the WGIG, is the ITU. While ITU's ambitions vis the 'oversight' issue have been side-lined by the WSIS/WGIG processes, it is increasingly involved in other bits of the IG environment, and is emerging as a if not the premier place for the work on NGN and security/trust issues. But there is effectively no real CS participation in any of this, and there is only full transparency for paid members. In the WSIS era, some of ITU's leadership, most notably Houlin Zhao of ITU-T, professed their willingness to promote an opening to CS, which would involve convincing member governments and firms and in some cases, changing the governing treaties. At the CONGO debriefing on WSIS December, SG Utsumi went on quite a bit about how ITU supposedly loves CS and was responsible for getting us into WSIS. We talked previously on the caucus list about taking ITU up on such statements, but never acted. Now ITU is having one of its periodic reform discussions (these have been going on since 1865). Philippe Dam of CONGO sent a message to the plenary list noting that ITU is inviting external input on reform priorities; the message is below. It would be really useful if the caucus could make a brief collective input on the website encouraging ITU to open its doors to CS. It needn't be elaborate, just a paragraph, but we'd have to do it quickly; Philippe's message says 25 January, but since the consultation isn't until Feb. 1, I would assume we could still submit something. I'd also encourage ISOC to do the same. At a minimum, I'd think we could say that special seminars and workshops, such as the upcoming event on policy frameworks for NGNs http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/ngn/ (which could be important) or the meetings they did previously on spam and security should be open. I don't think this would require constitutional changes, as would CS participation in the sectors, Council, or diplomatic Plenipotentiary Conference. Pushing the latter would require a more concerted effort. Inclusive process demands have always been the one area on which the caucus could agree quickly. If we can't get it together to say let us in, probably discussions about becoming a non-profit org etc are wildly premature. Any interest? Best, Bill -----Original Message----- From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org]On Behalf Of CONGO - Philippe Dam Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 5:31 PM To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; bureau at wsis-cs.org Cc: rbloem at ngocongo.org; wsis at ngocongo.org Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] On-line Consultation on ITU Reform Dear all, Just for your information, I'd like to draw your attention to the on-line consultation organised on the ITU website, on the issue of the ITU reform in the perspective of WSIS follow-up. NGOs, including non-ITU members, and academicians can participate. ITU mentioned that deadline for on-line input is 25 January. This on-line consultation is intended to provide ground for the ITU Reform Meeting (convened by the ITU Council WG on WSIS) to be held on the 1st February 2006. More information at: http://www.itu.int/reform/index.html ITU Council Resolution 1244: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/background/resolutions/itu2005/1244.doc Best regards, Philippe Dam 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: wsis at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org The Conference of NGOs (CONGO) is an international, membership association that facilitates the participation of NGOs in United Nations debates and decisions. Founded in 1948, CONGO's major objective is to ensure the presence of NGOs in exchanges among the world's governments and United Nations agencies on issues of global concern. For more information see our website at www.ngocongo.org _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Tue Jan 24 07:19:04 2006 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 13:19:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] Proposal: WSIS Principles => ITU Reform In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Wolfgang, The fact that even an IG maven like you would say that he is not sure what the ITU is doing with respect to NGNs and other IG-related topics speaks precisely to the need for transparency and inclusion, no? There's serious stuff happening on these fronts, but because of the prevailing attitudes toward ITU's failed power grabs regarding ICANN etc., CS people tend to dismiss it entirely and not pay attention. I think this is a big mistake. All the major governments and many of the major firms in our space are driving more and more work into this forum, subject to no CS 'oversight.' I'm all for promoting broad change in the ITU constitution etc. If we could have a proposal ready by the Council meeting in 19-26 April, that would be the place to introduce it via some friendly governments. If the 46 governments in Council were to agree, that would greatly strengthen the prospects of the fall Plenipotentiary following suit. However, I cannot imagine us making serious progress on that in the near-term. It really would take some work, we'd have to look closely at the ITU's governing agreements and make very specific proposals in order to not get dismissed out of hand. When I raised this issue last year on the caucus list I think like ten people wrote back saying they'd be willing to work on it, but then the flow of WSIS carried us away in other directions. If some of those folks were prepared to re-up, we could plan a serious attempt. What I'm proposing right now, though, is something far less ambitious: simply putting down an initial marker with a one paragraph statement saying that a) as a general matter, ITU should conform with the WSIS principles and open to CS, and b) while larger reforms would take more time, one easy step we'd ask them to take would be to open up, now, all special events organized under the auspices of the SG, which should not be bound by the restrictive rules of the diplomatic meetings etc. Best, Bill > -----Original Message----- > From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter > [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 12:51 PM > To: William Drake; Governance > Subject: AW: [governance] Proposal: WSIS Principles => ITU Reform > > > Thanks Bill for pushing comments to the ITU meeting. > > My propüosal is to concentrate on the key issues and the key > issues with ITU are formal and procedural issues, that is equal > participation of CS groups and individuals in ITU meetings. > > We should work on a formulation which can be further developed > into a draft resolution for the forthcoming ITU Plenipotentiary > conference later this year in Antalaya. > > There are two options: > 1. the ITU Plenipotentiary agrees on a new paragraph in its > constitution which would introduce a third category of membership > (next to governments and sector mebers) and which would clarify > the conditions under which CS groups can become a "member" and > what the rights and duties would be. > 2. the ITU Pleniptentiary would adopt a resolution and establish > a WG or Committee which would study the options for CS inclusion > into ITU policies and would make receommednations to the next > Plenipotantierry in 2010 (reporting annually about the progress > to the ITU Council). > > We would need a friendly government or a sector member which > could table such a resolution in Anatalaya. > > Next to this procedural issues we should discuss what we want to > see the ITU should do in the follow up. I think ECOSOC and CEB > are the main places where ITU is challenged. Whazt I expect from > ITU is initiatives towards infrastructure development and human > capacity building. > I am not sure which role ITU should play in NGN develoment and > further standardization. The ITU-report "The Internet of Things" > has numerous implications. A great challenge. How this will be > linked to IG and the IGF has to be seen. It is also unclear which > role the ITU will play in the process of "enhanced cooperation". > > But for the moment, for formal reason, CS should insists that its > status (against the background of the WSIS principle of > multistakeholderism) has to be cleared and recognized within > ITU´s constitutional framework. > > Best > > wolfgang > > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von William Drake > Gesendet: Di 24.01.2006 12:16 > An: Governance > Betreff: [governance] Proposal: WSIS Principles => ITU Reform > > > Hi, > > Further to my last post on NGNs etc: According to the Tunis > Agenda, the IGF is supposed to "promote and assess, on an ongoing > basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance > process." These of course hold that "the international > management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent > and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the > private sector, civil society and international organizations." > Hence, all public and private sector international > organizations/networks involved in developing shared > international regimes and programs pertaining to the development > and use of the Internet are supposed to be evaluated in terms of > their conformity with these principles, and where necessary, > reforms are to be encouraged to bring them into conformity. > > This is an essential mandate, and potentially one of the most > important outcomes of the entire WSIS process. There are a wide > variety of mechanisms involved in developing shared frameworks > for different pieces of the Internet environment, and in many > cases they do not conform, or conform fully, with basic > principles of good governance. When the WGIG did a little > exercise beginning this sort of horizontal evaluation (we > unfortunately didn't work it through to completion), a couple of > things became clear. While the private sector bodies were not > multilateral, in the sense of intergovernmental (hence the > oversight battle), some---e.g. IETF, RIRs, even ICANN in the > views of many---looked pretty good according to the other > criteria; other industry-only bodies involved in setting rules > for e-commerce, privacy and security, etc., less so. Conversely, > the intergovernmental bodies had other weaknesses, most notably > with respect to the 'full involvement of,' especially civil society. > > An obvious example of the latter, which was much discussed both > on the caucus list and in the WGIG, is the ITU. While ITU's > ambitions vis the 'oversight' issue have been side-lined by the > WSIS/WGIG processes, it is increasingly involved in other bits of > the IG environment, and is emerging as a if not the premier place > for the work on NGN and security/trust issues. But there is > effectively no real CS participation in any of this, and there is > only full transparency for paid members. In the WSIS era, some > of ITU's leadership, most notably Houlin Zhao of ITU-T, professed > their willingness to promote an opening to CS, which would > involve convincing member governments and firms and in some > cases, changing the governing treaties. At the CONGO debriefing > on WSIS December, SG Utsumi went on quite a bit about how ITU > supposedly loves CS and was responsible for getting us into WSIS. > We talked previously on the caucus list about taking ITU up on > such statements, but never acted. > > Now ITU is having one of its periodic reform discussions (these > have been going on since 1865). Philippe Dam of CONGO sent a > message to the plenary list noting that ITU is inviting external > input on reform priorities; the message is below. It would be > really useful if the caucus could make a brief collective input > on the website encouraging ITU to open its doors to CS. It > needn't be elaborate, just a paragraph, but we'd have to do it > quickly; Philippe's message says 25 January, but since the > consultation isn't until Feb. 1, I would assume we could still > submit something. I'd also encourage ISOC to do the same. > > At a minimum, I'd think we could say that special seminars and > workshops, such as the upcoming event on policy frameworks for > NGNs http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/ngn/ (which could be important) > or the meetings they did previously on spam and security should > be open. I don't think this would require constitutional > changes, as would CS participation in the sectors, Council, or > diplomatic Plenipotentiary Conference. Pushing the latter would > require a more concerted effort. > > Inclusive process demands have always been the one area on which > the caucus could agree quickly. If we can't get it together to > say let us in, probably discussions about becoming a non-profit > org etc are wildly premature. > > Any interest? > > Best, > > Bill > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org]On Behalf Of CONGO - Philippe Dam Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 5:31 PM To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; bureau at wsis-cs.org Cc: rbloem at ngocongo.org; wsis at ngocongo.org Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] On-line Consultation on ITU Reform Dear all, Just for your information, I'd like to draw your attention to the on-line consultation organised on the ITU website, on the issue of the ITU reform in the perspective of WSIS follow-up. NGOs, including non-ITU members, and academicians can participate. ITU mentioned that deadline for on-line input is 25 January. This on-line consultation is intended to provide ground for the ITU Reform Meeting (convened by the ITU Council WG on WSIS) to be held on the 1st February 2006. More information at: http://www.itu.int/reform/index.html ITU Council Resolution 1244: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/background/resolutions/itu2005/1244.doc Best regards, Philippe Dam 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: wsis at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org The Conference of NGOs (CONGO) is an international, membership association that facilitates the participation of NGOs in United Nations debates and decisions. Founded in 1948, CONGO's major objective is to ensure the presence of NGOs in exchanges among the world's governments and United Nations agencies on issues of global concern. For more information see our website at www.ngocongo.org _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rudi.vansnick at isoc.be Tue Jan 24 07:35:53 2006 From: rudi.vansnick at isoc.be (Vansnick Rudi) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 13:35:53 +0100 Subject: [governance] RALO In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <00e101c620e2$bad66bb0$4f00a8c0@cmsrudi> Dear all, The account for Wolfgang Kleinwächter has been created. He received the necessary information for the logon process. If anyone else has problems with the registration at the forum or has comments, please just send me an email. Best regards, Rudi Vansnick |-----Original Message----- |From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org |[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of |Wolfgang Kleinwächter |Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 11:57 AM |To: Vittorio Bertola; Danny Younger |Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; ga at gnso.icann.org |Subject: [governance] RALO | | |Thanks Vittorio for sending me the draft principles for the EU-RALO. | |Below you see my comments. I wanted to post my comments on the |RALO list, hosted by ISOC Belgium, but always when i wanted to |register, it was rejected. The text on the website says that |after reading the basic statement I have to click "agree". I |did agree but nothing happend. No registration from poped up. |http://www.isoc.be/euralo/policy.asp |I informed yesterday Rudi Vansnick from IOC Belgium, but also |today, it does not work. | |Best regards | |wolfgang | |Here is the Statement | | | |Comments from Wolfgang Kleinwächter | |to the "Principles Paper towards a European Regional At Large |Organisation", | |released by former and current European ALAC Members on |January, 17th, 2006 | | | | | |1. I do not understand why some (former and current) |European members of ALAC have started the initiative for an |EU-RALO now. The call for an EU-RALO is on the table since |three years. The arguments in 2003, 2004 and 2005 not to start |with the EU-RALO have been that the number of ALS was seen as |too small and not representative enough. "Give us more time |for outreach" was the answer when I raised this issue in AL |meetings in Capetown (December 2004) and Mar del Plata (March |2005). In September 2004 there were seven accredited ALS in |Europe. Now, after another 17 months, we have eight members |plus one pending application from a rather unknown Italian |group "tldworld.info". I can not see that this is a new |quality, more representative than it was two years ago. In |contrary, it is a big shame that within the last 17 months the |European ALAC members have been unable to attract more |European Internet user groups and organisations. | | | |2. With regard to the accredited eight ALS, I have no |problems that these groups are mainly ISOC chapters. The |problem is that the big European ISOC chapters - like UK, |France or Germany - are not accredited members. Also other big |European consumer and user organisations, representing |national organisations with much more members than some of the |accredited ISOC Chapters, have ignored so far the ALAC |invitation. As I said in an earlier mail, to establish an |EU-RALO under this circumstances is like organising the |Champions League without the Champions. The risk here is that |governments will take this as a joke when EU-RALO will speak |"on behalf of the Internet users in Europe". You feed |arguments by governmental representatives that the governments |represent the interests of the European Internet users and not |the user groups themselves. To be frank, I like FITUG, but |Michael Leibrand, the German GAC member, will not be impressed |by statements coming from this group. Why FITUG was unable to |attract ISOC Germany, CCC and all the other Internet User |groups with thousands of members, coming together to dozens of |meetings every year? Why FITUG as the only German User groups |so far, does not come to the Domain Pulse meetings, organized |by the German speaking ccTLD Registries (where the majority of |Internet end users in Germany, Austria and Switzerland have |their registration) and is advertising the At Large idea? | | | |3. What I miss totally in the proposed draft is a chapter |which defines the aims and principles of an European RALO. |Para. 3 in Chapter II says only that the purpose of the |EU-RALO is to provide a "channel for participation by the |European individual Internet users into the activities of |ICANN". This is only a formal and procedural point. Why you |did not define some content and value related criteria which |would make Internet user involvement different from the |involvement of other stakeholders? I think there is a need to |describe more in details the special role and responsibility |of Internet users and their organisations in the ICANN context |from a European perspective. | | | |4. While I fully support to have two categories of members |- institutional and individual - I do not see a right balance |between the two categories in the proposed draft. As it stands |now, individuals are rather marginalized in the proposed |"Executive Board" (EC). What will be the outcome if the |EU-RALO would be established now? We have now 8 (or 9) ALS |that means each would get one seat in the EC. With the low |level of outreach so far I would be surprised to see more than |20 or 30 individual members within the next three months. With |other words, the EC would have ten members, nine from the |accredited ALS. This looks like a closed club which does not |like "foreign members" but want to give the impression that |they are "open". Such a structure is exclusive, not inclusive. |It keeps people out and decourages individuals to join. | | | |5. My counter proposal is to establish a Council with ten |seats, five filled by the institutional members, five filled |by the individual members, based an the principle of |geographical diversity, that would mean two members (one |individual and one institutional) form Western Europe, two |from Northern Europe, two from Eastern Europe, two from |Southern Europe and two from Central Europe. | | | |6. I strongly disagree that the officers of the EU-RALO |(including the ALAC members) are selected by the Executive |Council. This opens the door for a "friend of my friends |network" and allows all tricky games behind closed doors. |Civil society and At Large stands for bottom up, open and |transparent processes. But this is closed, intransparent and |top down. This is totally unacceptable. And it is the result |of the failure of Chapter II of the proposed draft, where the |mission is defined in "technical terms" only and excludes all |values and content related orientation. | | | |7. I support in Chapter VI - Funding Mechanism - that the |EU-RALO should be in the first 24 months supported by the |ICANN budget. But as it stands now, it looks like the former |and current ALAC members are asking for money for a half day |job for one person in Brussels (selected by the EC) and to |guarantee financing of Travel and Accommodation for EC |selected people for two years. There is no paragraph which |says, that money should be used for local seminars and |workshops for further outreach or human capacity building. If |money comes from ICANN it should not be spent in five star |hotels but to help people on the ground to understand better |the challenges of Internet governance from a user perspective. | | | |8. The dateline for Comments - February 15, 2006 - is |totally unacceptable. Giving the low level of outreach and |publicity, the call for comments has got so far, this can not |be taken seriously. The authors of the draft should use the |forthcoming IGF consultations in Geneva, February 16 - 17, |2006, to inform about the efforts to build a EU-RALO and to |get feedback from the different constituencies, which will |come to Geneva. It looks like a coup to create facts before |the IGF consultations. | | | |9. So my final recommendation is that the paper should be |immediately withdrawn and the former and current members of |the ALAC should present a clear and workable plan for outreach |and capacity building, based on defined aims, values and |principles which serve the interest of the Internet end-users |in Europe. | | | | | |_______________________________________________ |governance mailing list |governance at lists.cpsr.org |https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance | _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ca at rits.org.br Tue Jan 24 08:26:05 2006 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 11:26:05 -0200 Subject: [governance] RALOs without halos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43D62AED.3070608@rits.org.br> Milton Mueller wrote: >>>>Carlos Afonso 1/23/2006 10:09 AM >>> >>>> >>>> > > >>So, why not propose right now (for the upcoming ICANN meeting) that ALAC >>and NCUC cease to exist and are replaced by a non-profit non-business >>constituency of civil society organizations, with no membership >>restrictions other then being properly registered as such in any >>country? A sort of World Caucus of NGOs for Internet Governance (WCNIG) >> >> > >ALAC and NCUC should establish an integrated council/organization that serves as the umbrella for coordinating and developing positions within ICANN. But it would be disastrous to eliminate them and give up structural representation within ICANN. That would simply throw away real leverage we have. > > > > Sorry Milton, I guess the way I expressed it made a wrong impression. I understand this would be a process, and of course a joint transition group could be established to carry out this task. We cannot lose this space within Icann -- to the contrary, we have to make it stronger and more consistent/effective. frt rgds --c.a. > >. > > > -- Carlos A. Afonso Rits -- http://www.rits.org.br ******************************************** * Sacix -- distribuição Debian CDD Linux * * orientada a projetos de inclusão digital * * com software livre e de código aberto, * * mantida pela Rits em colaboração com o * * Coletivo Digital. * * Saiba mais: http://www.sacix.org.br * ******************************************** _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Tue Jan 24 10:12:54 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 16:12:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] RALOs without halos In-Reply-To: <20060124110433.63416.qmail@web53513.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060124110433.63416.qmail@web53513.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1138115574.8589.60.camel@localhost.localdomain> Il giorno mar, 24/01/2006 alle 03.04 -0800, Danny Younger ha scritto: > Vittorio, > > For an incredibly long time I have been asking your > Committee to open up a mailing/discussion list so that > everyone in the At-Large may participate in joint > talks with your Committee. This request has been > repeatedly denied. Actually, there already are a number of lists and tools for discussion with the ALAC and inside the At Large: - the committee@ email address - the ALAC Forum - the ALS discussion list (these last two are very silent, by the way) - the GA list - this list About one year ago we tried to establish a sort of "civil society list at ICANN" jointly between us and the NCUC, but it never took off. So I'm not sure that one more list is the answer; I don't see rushes of people willing to exchange correspondence with the ALAC that are not already covered by writing directly to us, or by using this list, or the GA list. I guess that your problem is that *you* - and those few people still active on the GA list - feel unable to discuss with us, but this is a separate issue and I wouldn't make it more general than it is. About yourself, perhaps we should encourage more ALAC members to become active on the GA list, but I must also say that this is more likely to occur if the approach of the current GA subscribers was a little less, er, confrontational towards them. > ... and as allies don't act to formalize arrangements > to permanently deny representation to their peers, I'm > sure that you will postpone your RALO-building > exercises accordingly while talks are in progress. Well, you might imagine that, since we in Europe decided to launch a public consultation through an open web forum, we would be more than happy to have a discussion there. I would encourage active Europeans to submit comments there, it's the purpose of the entire exercise. Separately, as I imagine you are interested in the North American RALO, I would encourage you to discuss the matter with our North American members and find a good way to start open discussions there as well. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Tue Jan 24 10:33:47 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 16:33:47 +0100 Subject: [governance] RALO In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1138116827.8589.78.camel@localhost.localdomain> Il giorno mar, 24/01/2006 alle 11.57 +0100, Wolfgang Kleinwächter ha scritto: > Here is the Statement I think that many of your comments are reasonable, though I'm not sure I would agree. In any case, there are a couple of points I feel the need to clarify: > 1. I do not understand why some (former and current) European members > of ALAC have started the initiative for an EU-RALO now. Because three years have passed, and we do not want to stay in the interim status forever. We think (but the ICANN Board will have to make a judgement on this) that a RALO with ten orgs and some individual members is better than no RALO at all, and, once processes are actually active, more people might be encouraged to participate; it's hard to sign up more participants if, after three years, nothing happens. > 3. What I miss totally in the proposed draft is a chapter which > defines the aims and principles of an European RALO. Para. 3 in > Chapter II says only that the purpose of the EU-RALO is to provide a > "channel for participation by the European individual Internet users > into the activities of ICANN". This is only a formal and procedural > point. That's exactly the point. The EURALO is just an umbrella mechanism to select representatives in ICANN, and create a "network of relationships", as Bret rightfully pointed out. It's not meant to become an "Internet party" - it might release positions on substantive issues, but only if its members agree and want to use the EURALO as a coordinating point. It's not a competitor to coalitions like EDRI or umbrellas like ISOC-ECC, nor it wants to be. > 4. While I fully support to have two categories of members - > institutional and individual - I do not see a right balance between > the two categories in the proposed draft. As it stands now, > individuals are rather marginalized in the proposed "Executive > Board" (EC). What will be the outcome if the EU-RALO would be > established now? We have now 8 (or 9) ALS that means each would get > one seat in the EC. With the low level of outreach so far I would be > surprised to see more than 20 or 30 individual members within the next > three months. With other words, the EC would have ten members, nine > from the accredited ALS. But pardon me, if on one side you have ten organizations with a total of ~1000 members, and on the other you have 20 individuals, why should they have the same weight? I look forward to involving hundreds or thousands of individuals, but no one needs generals without armies. If people believe in direct individual participation and want a channel for it, that's fine, but then it has to actually happen (and I'm confident it will, much more than you seem to be). > This looks like a closed club which does not like "foreign members" > but want to give the impression that they are "open". Such a structure > is exclusive, not inclusive. It keeps people out and decourages > individuals to join. On the contrary: there is a strong incentive to join and bring more people in, because the more people join, the biggest their role becomes. If individuals had (as you propose) five reps no matter how they are, it would be sufficient to have 20 friends sign up and then flame everyone else away, to capture half of the EURALO forever. > 6. I strongly disagree that the officers of the EU-RALO (including the > ALAC members) are selected by the Executive Council. This opens the > door for a "friend of my friends network" and allows all tricky games > behind closed doors. We had some discussion on this, but how can you then weigh organizations and individual members in such appointments? I considered the idea of letting all individual members of the ALSes vote exactly as if they were individual members of the EURALO, but then you enter into every kind of problems of identity verification, double representation, practical feasibility etc. The first objective is to keep it simple (stupid), we're not electing the European Parliament anyway. > 7. I support in Chapter VI - Funding Mechanism - that the EU-RALO > should be in the first 24 months supported by the ICANN budget. But as > it stands now, it looks like the former and current ALAC members are > asking for money for a half day job for one person in Brussels > (selected by the EC) and to guarantee financing of Travel and > Accommodation for EC selected people for two years. There is no > paragraph which says, that money should be used for local seminars and > workshops for further outreach or human capacity building. If money > comes from ICANN it should not be spent in five star hotels but to > help people on the ground to understand better the challenges of > Internet governance from a user perspective. Good suggestion. We hope that the part time ICANN staff person in Brussels could be not a "personal assistant", but rather someone that can also travel and do outreach and education. > 8. The dateline for Comments - February 15, 2006 - is totally > unacceptable. Giving the low level of outreach and publicity, the call > for comments has got so far, this can not be taken seriously. The > authors of the draft should use the forthcoming IGF consultations in > Geneva, February 16 - 17, 2006, to inform about the efforts to build a > EU-RALO and to get feedback from the different constituencies, which > will come to Geneva. It looks like a coup to create facts before the > IGF consultations. But... if nothing has happened for three years, why should anything happen in two more weeks in February 2006? This is not a "no", however: we will think at it. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Tue Jan 24 11:38:31 2006 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 11:38:31 -0500 Subject: [governance] Losing focus: IGF and "technical discussions" Message-ID: Additional perspective: The telco world has been evolving, to incorporate the rise of the net. Bill makes clear how NGN is one model for the emerging, robust 'new telco.' The Internet side has not been sitting still. There are a number of initiatives underway. One, fairly recent is GENI http://www.nsf.gov/cise/geni/ . A just released 'snapshot' shows a third of a billion (US) dollar effort, for first work anyway http://www.geni.net/GENI-10-JAN-06.pdf . A quick browse through some of the graphics in the 122 pages gives a sense of the scope. There are others. Besides the fairly well known Internet2 http://www.internet2.edu/ , Bill St. Arnaud's CANARIE recently linked to some others http://lists.canarie.ca/pipermail/news/2005/000177.html . Engineers on this IG list (perhaps Ian?) can do a better job pointing us to the full picture, for instance to efforts outside the US. These are the same forces (and some of the same people) who unleashed the innovation that became the Internet, from a few decades ago. One of the more interesting questions is what might be the relation between telco NGN and these new visions/versions of a net. The recent history left Bell heads on one side and Net heads on the other. Recent practice at ITU-T, the standardization arm, has reached out to arrange for more coordination among international standards work, including especially with the IETF, on the net side of course. May I suggest? Continuing to enable free-form innovation, which is on display in these initiatives, is one of the bottom-line imperatives ultimately before the IGF. In my sense anyway, this will run in parallel with regulatory efforts that some other concerns may engender (as Bill begins to unveil below). This free-form innovation is IMO just one outcropping of freedom of expression, the touchstone for much of what powered WSIS debate, from both sides. And will continue to be driving in IGF, again IMO. (If we look for it in the 'principles,' 'transparent' comes closest.) David William Drake wrote, Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:46:56 +0100: >Hi, > >I've deleted MMWG from the cc here, cross-posting filling my box. > >I strongly agree with the thrust of Seiiti's message. While this >list was the first place to seriously discuss the case for a broad >definition of IG, as was eventually embraced in the Tunis Agenda, >the conversation usually defaults back to deconstructing the >internal machinations of ICANN, and everything else slips from view. >Given the unresolved oversight fight in WSIS and the Tunis call for >a new globally applicable policy principles and enhanced cooperation >on core resources, one imagines the IGF will end up focusing on this >as well in the near-term. This is unquestionably key, but at the >same time, there is a lot going on in other issue-areas and >cooperative mechanisms that we're not talking about, but that is >really important to the future evolution of the net. > >Just to note one example, there is an enormous amount of work going >on among governments, telcos, manufacturers and others, most notably >but not only in the ITU, under the rubric of 'Next Generation >Networks' that is designed to promote shared rules and programs on >surveillance (oops, sorry, security and trust) and differentiated >levels of service in a convergent environment. This mirrors major >developments happening at the national level across the OECD region >and probably beyond. In the US context, in addition what the FCC's >been doing in its IP-enabled services proceeding, there's been some >potentially important legislative action. For example, to strengthen >cyberstalking prosecution tools, the recently passed reauthorization >of the Violence Against Women Act amends the Communications Act of >America by expanding the definition of a telecommunications device >to cover any device or software that uses the Internet, including >VOIP. This could place a big chunk of the net environment under US >telecom 'oversight' and strengthen the drive in the International >Law Enforcement Telecom Seminar and elsewhere to mandate the >build-in of forensics capabilities, etc. Companies like Verisign are >very much at the center of all this, but we only talk about the DNS >side of their houses. > >The IGF is supposed to focus inter alia on cross-cutting issues that >don't fall neatly within the scope of other bodies, and to promote >the application of the Geneva principles (multilateral, >multistakeholder, transparent, democratic) in such bodies. If CS >doesn't bother to promote these core parts of the mandate, probably >they will fall off the table. That'd be unfortunate, and we could >all pay for it in spades down the line. > >Best, > >Bill _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From annette at nnm-ev.de Tue Jan 24 13:33:14 2006 From: annette at nnm-ev.de (Annette Muehlberg) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 19:33:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] RALOs without halos In-Reply-To: <43D5429F.7060001@lextext.com> References: <43D5429F.7060001@lextext.com> Message-ID: <43D672EA.30507@nnm-ev.de> In ALAC we face the problem of how to attract more Internet user groups, individuals and organisations to participate in At-Large and we all know it is not just a "problem of mediation" but (also) a problem of an organisational structure within ICANN. (What is the impact of participating?) The more I am surprised, as a new EU-ALAC member, that there should be a time limit for discussing an EU-RALO-proposal until the *15th of february!* This does not give us the chance to contact other organisations or individuals whor ane not on AlAC- or IG-mailing lists to discuss the proposal. One of our deepest concerns is, that a RALO just looks as if it gives endusers interest a voice, but instead rather serves clubmanship (it is hard to find the right english word for it) and new forms of bureaucracy. But I also know, it is always hard to come up with a first proposal and it certainly helps to have a fruitful discussion. Therefore I would like to make the following remarks on that EU-RALO proposal: I. The timeline does not help to get good results. II. There is no definition of aims and principles. To say, the "mission ... will be that of constituting a channel for participation by the European individual Internet users into the activities of ICANN..." sounds strange in the age of global internet and even more concerning its very central corporation ICANN. Participation via email has no borders - except for language and access to technical infrastructure, which is a problem we have to face. So, individual user activists rather focus on special issues not on region, but to give endusers interest a voice and say in ICANN and help formulate these interests, regional aspects should be taken into account (eg. problem of many different languages, a different legal system in comparison to the US eg. concerning privacy,...) III. It is good that it is planned to finish the exclusion of individuals and to have both: organizational as well as individual members. IV. Does the structure of one representative per each organisation, one per every 34 individuals (with decreasing ratio as the number of individual member increases...) help to get people involved and participate in endusers/consumer rights issues? And if we go by the logic of numbers, how to deal with a really large organisation of e.g. 2,4 million members (my trade union ;-)) in comparison to organisations with a small amount of members? So to solve that problem, isn't direct participation the more effective and just way? And why do we need representatives electing representatives? Why should an elected "Executive Council" elect a "Chair and a Vice-Chair"? VI. Concerning funding: Yes, we do need money - for specific issues, eg. translations, workshops on internet consumer rights issues etc. So, a little more, than what Bret wrote in his eMail, but still "light-weight and inexpensive". "At-Large structures... as a series designed to share infomation..." eMail is almost sufficient (and speaking the same language makes it easier). I think a wiki on our new upcoming website would help to get the issues sorted. Annette Bret Fausett wrote: > Another way to think of the At Large structures -- ALS > RALO > ALAC -- > is simply as a series of relationships designed to share information. > The thought was to build on existing structures, and create loose > relationships among them (a la Linked In or Friendster or Orkut), so > that information from ICANN could be distributed quickly to people > interested in receiving it, and then, so that information could be > collected and forwarded to ICANN. The only real responsibility of the > RALOs is to be a conduit for information and place people on the ALAC. > There's absolutely no expectation that they spend money or travel. > E-mail is sufficient. It was designed to be light-weight and > inexpensive, and its power was to come not from any bylaw guarantee but > from the power of its ideas and input. This model, a shell of the > original At Large concept, is what the ICANN Board decided in Ghana, > rejecting the proposals of its own blue-ribbon Bildt Committee and the > independent NAIS. ... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Tue Jan 24 14:10:10 2006 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 20:10:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] RALO In-Reply-To: <1138116827.8589.78.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1138116827.8589.78.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <43D67B92.1030809@wz-berlin.de> Hi Vittorio, > >>3. What I miss totally in the proposed draft is a chapter which >>defines the aims and principles of an European RALO. Para. 3 in >>Chapter II says only that the purpose of the EU-RALO is to provide a >>"channel for participation by the European individual Internet users >>into the activities of ICANN". This is only a formal and procedural >>point. > I agree with Wolfgang. The draft deals extensively with all sorts of structural issues but is more or less silent on substantial matters. > > That's exactly the point. The EURALO is just an umbrella mechanism to > select representatives in ICANN, and create a "network of > relationships", as Bret rightfully pointed out. It's not meant to become > an "Internet party" - it might release positions on substantive issues, > but only if its members agree and want to use the EURALO as a > coordinating point. It's not a competitor to coalitions like EDRI or > umbrellas like ISOC-ECC, nor it wants to be. This raises the question why any individual would feel attracted and be tempted to join this umbrella mechanism. While I see reasons why ISOC chapters or other organizations would see a benefit in affiliating, I cannot see any good reason for an individual to do so. If I understand correctly the proposed structure, you are adding just another layer of indirectness. > > >>4. While I fully support to have two categories of members - >>institutional and individual - I do not see a right balance between >>the two categories in the proposed draft. As it stands now, >>individuals are rather marginalized in the proposed "Executive >>Board" (EC). What will be the outcome if the EU-RALO would be >>established now? We have now 8 (or 9) ALS that means each would get >>one seat in the EC. With the low level of outreach so far I would be >>surprised to see more than 20 or 30 individual members within the next >>three months. With other words, the EC would have ten members, nine >>from the accredited ALS. > > > But pardon me, if on one side you have ten organizations with a total of > ~1000 members, and on the other you have 20 individuals, why should they > have the same weight? If you follow this logic, you have to weigh participation rights according to the size of organizations. Are really sure you want to follow this path? I look forward to involving hundreds or thousands > of individuals, but no one needs generals without armies. If people > believe in direct individual participation and want a channel for it, > that's fine, but then it has to actually happen (and I'm confident it > will, much more than you seem to be). > > >>This looks like a closed club which does not like "foreign members" >>but want to give the impression that they are "open". Such a structure >>is exclusive, not inclusive. It keeps people out and decourages >>individuals to join. I agree with Wolfgang. > > > On the contrary: there is a strong incentive to join and bring more > people in, because the more people join, the biggest their role becomes. In what exactly? Electing an executive committee that in turn elects some officers? This is not a democratic procedure. > If individuals had (as you propose) five reps no matter how they are, it > would be sufficient to have 20 friends sign up and then flame everyone > else away, to capture half of the EURALO forever. It seems the EURALO structure is driven by the fear of capture. This is the wrong approach since it prevents meaninful participation. This whole debate reminds me very much of the early discussion about the At Large structure. Read again the papers written by Izumi and others. They gave all the arguments why a structure like the one you are proposing will never fly. I also agree with Wolfgang's last point recommending that you withdraw the draft and start again. In any case, I would not join the EURALO as currently planned. jeanette > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Wed Jan 25 09:12:38 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 15:12:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] Proposal: WSIS Principles => ITU Reform In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1138198358.7348.81.camel@localhost.localdomain> Il giorno mar, 24/01/2006 alle 12.16 +0100, William Drake ha scritto: > Now ITU is having one of its periodic reform discussions (these have > been going on since 1865). Philippe Dam of CONGO sent a message to > the plenary list noting that ITU is inviting external input on reform > priorities; the message is below. It would be really useful if the > caucus could make a brief collective input on the website encouraging > ITU to open its doors to CS. It needn't be elaborate, just a > paragraph, but we'd have to do it quickly; Philippe's message says 25 > January, but since the consultation isn't until Feb. 1, I would assume > we could still submit something. I think this would be a very important thing to do. But I don't have any particular idea on what to say, I'm not familiar enough with the ITU; except perhaps some recall of the way policy is discussed in the Internet style, and so suggestions about using online tools and mailing lists, and allowing everyone (including individuals) in the physical or virtual room at least for the discussion phase (adopting results is of course another matter, in a very formal environment such as a UN agency). Also Wolfgang's suggestions are good. If you and him had the time and willingness to prepare something... please go ahead. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From peter at echnaton.serveftp.com Wed Jan 25 12:03:03 2006 From: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com (Peter Dambier) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 18:03:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] Proposal: WSIS Principles => ITU Reform In-Reply-To: <1138198358.7348.81.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1138198358.7348.81.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <43D7AF47.3040809@echnaton.serveftp.com> Hi Vittorio, sorry if I am terribly off thread, but I dont know where else to put it: http://www.afrac.org/rootrep.txt http://intlnet.org/intlform.txt http://nicso.org/intlroot.txt This looks like there exists a completely unknown, France based root system with its own root-zone data. They publish the same data from 3 different domains. I compared it to the ICANNed root-zone data. It is definitely different and I am missing some ccTLDs like MX and CH :) Interestingly enough they publish information about the chinese character TLDs that are not part of the ICANNed root data. This information should be intersting for the euralo people but again I dont know where to put. Thankyou Peter and Karin Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Il giorno mar, 24/01/2006 alle 12.16 +0100, William Drake ha scritto: > >>Now ITU is having one of its periodic reform discussions (these have >>been going on since 1865). Philippe Dam of CONGO sent a message to >>the plenary list noting that ITU is inviting external input on reform >>priorities; the message is below. It would be really useful if the >>caucus could make a brief collective input on the website encouraging >>ITU to open its doors to CS. It needn't be elaborate, just a >>paragraph, but we'd have to do it quickly; Philippe's message says 25 >>January, but since the consultation isn't until Feb. 1, I would assume >>we could still submit something. > > > I think this would be a very important thing to do. > But I don't have any particular idea on what to say, I'm not familiar > enough with the ITU; except perhaps some recall of the way policy is > discussed in the Internet style, and so suggestions about using online > tools and mailing lists, and allowing everyone (including individuals) > in the physical or virtual room at least for the discussion phase > (adopting results is of course another matter, in a very formal > environment such as a UN agency). > Also Wolfgang's suggestions are good. > If you and him had the time and willingness to prepare something... > please go ahead. > -- Peter and Karin Dambier The Public-Root Consortium Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49(6252)671-788 (Telekom) +49(179)108-3978 (O2 Genion) +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com mail: peter at peter-dambier.de http://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From nick at takingitglobal.org Wed Jan 25 14:08:32 2006 From: nick at takingitglobal.org (Nick Moraitis) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 14:08:32 -0500 Subject: [governance] Amnesty: Internet companies assist censorship Message-ID: <200601251903.k0PJ3QSK060727@trout.cpsr.org> AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL PRESS RELEASE AI Index: ASA 17/002/2006 (Public) News Service No: 022 25 January 2006 China: Internet companies assist censorship (London/ Davos): Google's launch of a self-censoring Chinese search engine is the latest in a string of examples of global Internet companies caving in to pressure from the Chinese government. The service curtails the rights of Chinese Internet users to the freedom of expression and freedom of information enjoyed in other countries. Speaking from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Amnesty International's Secretary General Irene Khan said: "While acknowledging that Google has taken a number of steps to ensure access of Chinese users to the Internet, Amnesty International is nonetheless dismayed at the growing global trend in the IT industry.” "Whether succumbing to demands from Chinese officials or anticipating government concerns, companies that impose restrictions that infringe on human rights are being extremely short-sighted. The agreements the industry enters into with the Chinese government, whether tacit or written, go against the IT industry’s claim that it promotes the right to freedom of information of all people, at all times, everywhere.” Last year, Microsoft launched a portal in China that blocks use of words such as 'freedom' in blog text. The company recently closed down the blog of Zhao Jing, who used the blog name Michael An Ti, after he supported a strike against the politically-motivated sacking of an editor at the Beijing News. Yahoo has admitted revealing email account details of the journalist Shi Tao to the Chinese authorities, who was peacefully exercising his right to impart information, a move that contributed to his prosecution and sentencing to 10 years in prison. "Agreements between global corporations and the Chinese authorities has entrenched Internet censorship as the norm in China," said Irene Khan. "Internet companies justify their actions on the basis of Chinese regulations. In fact, such agreements and the resulting self-censorship, violate both international standards and China's own constitution, which protects freedom of expression." International law guarantees the right to freedom of information and the free flow of ideas across borders. While some restrictions on these have been developed over the years, the manner in which IT companies are freely submitting to opaque Chinese policies, is unacceptable. "The Internet heralded unfettered access to information in a borderless world. Instead, companies are helping governments build borders to prevent their citizens from accessing information," said Irene Khan. **************************************** For more information please call Amnesty International's press office in London, UK, on +44 20 7413 5566 http://www.amnesty.org _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Wed Jan 25 15:02:53 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 15:02:53 -0500 Subject: [governance] on the ligher side... Message-ID: <7B6C8FFA-6EB2-4309-A539-EFAB72D4A147@lists.privaterra.org> Below is a message that was circulating in canada just before the election on monday. btw. for those who don't know, we have a new right of centre - conservative - MINORITY government in Canada. Transition is underway and the new government is expected to take office in about 10-14 days. Expect some changes to come, but not to drastic ones as the minority might be a very fragile one. on to the lighter side of things.... New Element. A major research institution has recently announced the discovery of the heaviest element yet known to science. The new element has been named "Governmentium". Governmentium (Gv) has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert. However, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A minute amount of Governmentium causes one reaction to take over four days to complete, when it would normally take less than a second. Governmentium has a normal half-life of 4 years; it does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each re-organization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity in concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as Critical Morass. When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium- an element which radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons. Time to hold an electron! -- Robert Guerra Director, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) Tel +1 416 893 0377 Fax +1 416 893 0374 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From roessler at does-not-exist.org Thu Jan 26 04:15:10 2006 From: roessler at does-not-exist.org (Thomas Roessler) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 10:15:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] RALOs without halos In-Reply-To: <1138115574.8589.60.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20060124110433.63416.qmail@web53513.mail.yahoo.com> <1138115574.8589.60.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20060126091510.GV3857@lavazza.does-not-exist.org> On 2006-01-24 16:12:54 +0100, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Actually, there already are a number of lists and tools for > discussion with the ALAC and inside the At Large: Well, Danny's criticism has a certain amount of merit: There is no single public mailing list where all ALAC members are expected to be subscribed. That should probably have been one of the first things to do for us, so I'll take part of the blame. The other part of the blame that I have to take is that I helped the GA list to survive the reform process -- it probably should have been shut down, and replaced by something new. > About yourself, perhaps we should encourage more ALAC > members to become active on the GA list, but I must also say > that this is more likely to occur if the approach of the > current GA subscribers was a little less, er, > confrontational towards them. The eternal problem of list etiquette around ICANN, indeed. :-( -- Thomas Roessler · Personal soap box at . _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jan 26 09:35:01 2006 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 20:05:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] ITU reform and WSIS - CS In-Reply-To: <43D6934B.603@ensta.fr> Message-ID: <200601261428.k0QESWpP083137@trout.cpsr.org> Hi Everybody, Philippe, thanks for the information on ITU meeting on possible reform vis-à-vis WSIS. I think this is an important time for WSIS – CS to take up some important post WSIS advocacy work. ITU lobbied hard to be the main body for WSIS implementation, and has been able to get itself named as ‘possible coordinator’ for most of the action lines. ( see Annex to Tunis agenda). So it is important for us to watch now how ITU acts, and reforms. And though its membership policies have been quite exclusionary for CS, by taking up WSIS implementation roles ITU has certainly made itself accountable to the CS associated with the WSIS (and outside). So, I went to the link in your mail for open online consultation and found only one message posted there. Since the physical processes of the ITU meeting will be closed to us, we need to use the online platform to voice our concerns. Yesterday, I posted the following message on the online consultation but I still do not find it listed after 24 hours (the consultation is moderated). So I thought I will share it with the list. (posting begins) I am unable to understand how does ITU reconcile its role in initiating and hosting the WSIS, and also being the 'possible moderator' of the action line on 'access to information and knowledge' (tunis agenda), with complete non-compliance of the WSIS recommendation on 'access to information and knowledge'. The relevant part of Geneva Pan of Action (10 i) reads - 'Encourage initiatives to facilitate access, including free and affordable access to open access journals and books, and open archives for scientific information.' ITU publications which are of great value for organizations like ours that do research on ICT and ICTD issues are not only priced, the prices are exorbitant. Even a download of the WSIS Stock-taking report, prepared from information gathered 'free' from various stakeholders on various WSIS related initiatives is priced. (ends) What is interesting is that the same WSIS stock-taking report is available for free download from the WSIS website. So, the WSIS practices that ITU (temporarily?) adopted with regard to WSIS are clearly quite different from standard ITU processes. The question is – now that WSIS is over, which processes will ITU carry forward. And what influence it will have on WSIS implementation since ITU has maneuvered itself into a driving seat for this purpose. (The fact that 2003 Geneva POA does not seem to be implemented internally by ITU, in terms of open access, and that was the time when the WSIS spot-light was on, does not give us much confidence that ITU will reform according to the WSIS letter and spirit.) And there some other things which are as funny about ITU’s WSIS schizophrenia. While it calls the above to be an open consultations with stakeholders on ITU reform, and also lists ITU resolution 1244 as the main document on ITU reform, when you try to open the link to this doc you reach a page beyond which you need an ITU membership id. So, basically one cannot access this document. But this is supposed to be an open forum for people to give inputs on the forthcoming meeting on ITU reform for which this particular document is a base document . Is this a joke or something !!!! (see http://www.itu.int/reform/index.html ) However, I could read the document by following the link on Philippe’s email – so apparently the same doc is freely accessible on WSIS website – but on the ITU website right on the page that is devoted to ‘open online consultation’ access to this document is restricted. So we have an ITU which has some very bad internal practices which militate against all that WSIS stands for and all that CS fought for at WSIS ( these though are really the very basic things, but if this is how ITU behaves on these basic issues, what confidence do we have on it leading WSIS implementation) And of course there is also the often raised issue of CS membership of ITU. I propose that WSIS-CS, as represented through this list, makes a representation to the 1st Feb meeting raising these serious concerns. And ITU got to listen to us, because it means to reform itself as per WSIS outcomes. It has no excuse not to engage with the WSIS-CS. For this purpose 1. we can submit a short statement to the Feb 1 meeting raising concerns on the issues of ITU membership for CS entities, and on its poor record on ‘open access’ principle recommended by WSIS outcome documents. We can ask for greater CS inclusiveness for ITU activities, and urge ITU to immediately apply open access principle to its documents, as a proof of its intention to implement WSIS in letter and spirit. 2. we can also use the period available till 30th to put a few posting to this effect on the open online forum for the forthcoming ITU meeting which will consider the reform agenda. (at http://www.itu.int/reform/index.html) best regards Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134 www.ITforChange.net -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [CS Bureau] On-line Consultation on ITU Reform Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 17:31:02 +0100 From: CONGO - Philippe Dam Organization: CONGO To: , CC: , Dear all, Just for your information, I’d like to draw your attention to the *on-line consultation* organised on the ITU website, on the issue of the *ITU reform* in the perspective of WSIS follow-up. NGOs, including non-ITU members, and academicians can participate. ITU* *mentioned that* deadline for on-line input is 25 January*. This on-line consultation is intended to provide ground for the ITU Reform Meeting (convened by the ITU Council WG on WSIS) to be held on the 1st February 2006. More information at: http://www.itu.int/reform/index.html ITU Council Resolution 1244: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/background/resolutions/itu2005/1244.doc Best regards, *Philippe Dam ******11, Avenue de **la Paix** CH-1202 **Geneva** Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: **wsis at ngocongo.org* * Website: **www.ngocongo.org ** * * * *The Conference of NGOs (**CONGO) is an international, membership association that facilitates the participation of NGOs in United Nations debates and decisions. Founded in 1948, CONGO's major objective is to ensure the presence of NGOs in exchanges among the world's governments and United Nations agencies on issues of global concern. For more information see our website at www.ngocongo.org *** -- ------------------------------------------------------ Francis F. MUGUET KNIS/ENSTA Pôle de Développement pour l'Information Scientifique "Réseaux de la Connaissance et Société de l'Information" Scientific Information Development Laboratory "Knowledge Networks & Information Society" (KNIS) ENSTA 32 Blvd Victor 75739 PARIS cedex FRANCE Phone: (33)1 45 52 60 19 Fax: (33)1 45 52 52 82 muguet at ensta.fr http://www.ensta.fr/~muguet mirror http://www.muguet.org MDPI Foundation Open Access Journals Associate Publisher http://www.mdpi.org http://www.mdpi.net muguet at mdpi.org muguet at mdpi.net World Summit On the Information Society (WSIS) Civil Society Working Groups Scientific Information : http://www.wsis-si.org chair Patents & Copyrights : http://www.wsis-pct.org co-chair Financing Mechanismns : http://www.wsis-finance.org web UNMSP project : http://www.unmsp.org WTIS initiative: http://www.wtis.org ------------------------------------------------------ Liens Yahoo! Groupes <*> Pour consulter votre groupe en ligne, accédez à : http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/wsis-finance/ <*> Pour vous désincrire de ce groupe, envoyez un mail à : wsis-finance-desabonnement at yahoogroupes.fr <*> L'utilisation de Yahoo! Groupes est soumise à l'acceptation des : http://fr.docs.yahoo.com/info/utos.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Thu Jan 26 10:20:22 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 10:20:22 -0500 Subject: [governance] ITU reform and WSIS - CS In-Reply-To: <200601261428.k0QESWpP083137@trout.cpsr.org> References: <200601261428.k0QESWpP083137@trout.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <3F6231FF-08D1-42FE-ABB8-8773A9139B1A@psg.com> hi, seems like a good idea. i suggest that you, or someone, draft a statement that the rest of us can, hopefully, endorse (perhaps after a bit of discussion). a. On 26 jan 2006, at 09.35, Parminder wrote: > For this purpose > > > > 1. we can submit a short statement to the Feb 1 meeting raising > concerns on the issues of ITU membership for CS entities, and on > its poor record on ‘open access’ principle recommended by WSIS > outcome documents. We can ask for greater CS inclusiveness for ITU > activities, and urge ITU to immediately apply open access principle > to its documents, as a proof of its intention to implement WSIS in > letter and spirit. > > > > 2. we can also use the period available till 30th to put a few > posting to this effect on the open online forum for the forthcoming > ITU meeting which will consider the reform agenda. (at http:// > www.itu.int/reform/index.html) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Thu Jan 26 10:52:24 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 10:52:24 -0500 Subject: [governance] ITU reform and WSIS - CS In-Reply-To: <3F6231FF-08D1-42FE-ABB8-8773A9139B1A@psg.com> References: <200601261428.k0QESWpP083137@trout.cpsr.org> <3F6231FF-08D1-42FE-ABB8-8773A9139B1A@psg.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060126105050.03b20ec0@veni.com> Also agree. Keeping in mind that the WSIS was just an introductory of what we weill be seeing in 2006, and with the PleniPot meeting of the ITY, we need to make sure we have access to everywhere. Sincerely, Veni Markovski http://www.isoc.bg/ig the Internet Governance Resource Portal At 10:20 26-01-06 -0500, Avri Doria wrote: >hi, > >seems like a good idea. >i suggest that you, or someone, draft a statement that the rest of >us can, hopefully, endorse (perhaps after a bit of discussion). > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jan 26 12:06:05 2006 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 22:36:05 +0530 Subject: [governance] ITU reform and WSIS - CS In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060126105050.03b20ec0@veni.com> Message-ID: <200601261659.k0QGxZae086225@trout.cpsr.org> The following is a draft for consideration. We, the undersigned members of civil society, that has been associated with the WSIS, wish to express our appreciation of the intention of ITU to 'adapt itself to the post-WSIS environment' as stated in its 'agenda for change' (http://www.itu.int/reform/Council-Res-244/index.html). We are happy to see ITU note that its 'future actions should help accomplish the goals and objectives articulated in the Declaration of Principles and Plan of Action, as adopted by the Geneva phase of WSIS, and the Tunis Commitment and the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society. These outcomes have important implications for ITU, including its role in the implementation and follow-up process'. As a first step towards fulfilling the above objectives ITU must change its membership structure to include a wide membership of the civil society. And even before that ITU needs to modify its mandate to include civil society as a stakeholder. The present mandate of ITU, as expressed in its various documents, only recognizes governmental and private sector stakeholdership. Such a practice in completely at variance with the exhortations for multi-stakeholder participation, including in WSIS implementation, contained in many places in WSIS outcome documents. It is also unfortunate that despite being the host for WSIS, and the facilitating agency for many action lines including the one on 'access to information and knowledge' (Tunis agenda) ITU has still not adopted the 'open access' principle recommended by the Geneva Plan of Action in 2003. We quote relevant parts of point 10 of the Plan of Action; 10 (a) Develop policy guidelines for the development and promotion of public domain information as an important international instrument promoting public access to information. 10 (b) Governments are encouraged to provide adequate access through various communication resources, notably the Internet, to public official information. Establishing legislation on access to information and the preservation of public data, notably in the area of the new technologies, is encouraged. 10 (i) 'Encourage initiatives to facilitate access, including free and affordable access to open access journals and books, and open archives for scientific information.' Downloads of ITU publications, which among other things contain important information for research in information society issues, are exorbitantly priced. Such a practice severely curtails access to important information, which is publicly funded and should be available in the public domain. It is also directly in contravention of the above quoted recommendations of the Geneva POA. We wish to draw attention to the fact that though apparently open online consultations have been set up for the February 1 meeting for taking inputs for ITU reform from non-members, postings made to this forum did not appear online. We also find that the ITU website restricts access to the ITU Council resolution 1244 which appears to a base document for ITU reform process. Under the circumstances, the process of consultation with non-members do not appears to be a serious effort, and looks like a mere pretence. We urge the ITU to begin the reform process with the following two urgent actions: 1. Change its mandate to include civil society partnership in its activities, and make its civil society membership processes easy and transparent. As a first step towards this, begin a genuine open consultation with civil society. 2. As a proof of its sincerity towards implementing WSIS outcomes, provide immediate open access to all its documents. We will like to have these issues considered at the February 1 meeting, and positive decisions taken on it as soon as possible. ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134 www.ITforChange.net -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Veni Markovski Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 9:22 PM To: Avri Doria; WSIS Internet Governance Caucus Cc: WSIS Plenary Subject: Re: [governance] ITU reform and WSIS - CS Also agree. Keeping in mind that the WSIS was just an introductory of what we weill be seeing in 2006, and with the PleniPot meeting of the ITY, we need to make sure we have access to everywhere. Sincerely, Veni Markovski http://www.isoc.bg/ig the Internet Governance Resource Portal At 10:20 26-01-06 -0500, Avri Doria wrote: >hi, > >seems like a good idea. >i suggest that you, or someone, draft a statement that the rest of >us can, hopefully, endorse (perhaps after a bit of discussion). > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Thu Jan 26 12:11:46 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 12:11:46 -0500 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] ITU reform and WSIS - CS In-Reply-To: <20060126170614.317C232C9D@mail.gn.apc.org> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060126105050.03b20ec0@veni.com> <20060126170614.317C232C9D@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060126120954.06d295d0@veni.com> I will review and respond later, because have to go out for meetings now, but to use the opportunity - this is what I call a constructive, positive contribution. Unlike other people, writing here, only criticizing what other members of the caucuses do, we all see how people could and should work. Thank you! Sincerely, Veni Markovski http://www.isoc.bg/ig the Internet Governance Resource Portal At 22:36 26-01-06 +0530, Parminder wrote: >The following is a draft for consideration. > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Fri Jan 27 05:46:08 2006 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 11:46:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] Proposal: WSIS Principles => ITU Reform In-Reply-To: <43D7AF47.3040809@echnaton.serveftp.com> References: <1138198358.7348.81.camel@localhost.localdomain> <43D7AF47.3040809@echnaton.serveftp.com> Message-ID: <20060127104608.GA23018@nic.fr> On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 06:03:03PM +0100, Peter Dambier wrote a message of 72 lines which said: > This looks like there exists a completely unknown, France based root > system with its own root-zone data. Reality check: it is an isolated lunatic (he uses many fronts like AFRAC, Intlnet, etc), who, from his home office, sends dozens of messages every day to almost every possible mailing list and still has time to manage his own root. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Fri Jan 27 08:14:58 2006 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 05:14:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Proposal: WSIS Principles => ITU Reform In-Reply-To: <20060127104608.GA23018@nic.fr> Message-ID: <20060127131458.14434.qmail@web53506.mail.yahoo.com> Stephane, Re: it is an isolated lunatic. May I ask if you are refering to Jean-François Charles Morfin ("Jefsey"), recently-appointed Board member of the Multilingual Internet Names Consortium, or to someone else? I hate to see individuals that contribute to the evolution of the Internet characterized as lunatics just because their views may not currently be regarded as mainstream. Danny --- Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 06:03:03PM +0100, > Peter Dambier wrote > a message of 72 lines which said: > > > This looks like there exists a completely unknown, > France based root > > system with its own root-zone data. > > Reality check: it is an isolated lunatic (he uses > many fronts like > AFRAC, Intlnet, etc), who, from his home office, > sends dozens of > messages every day to almost every possible mailing > list and still has > time to manage his own root. > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Fri Jan 27 08:46:40 2006 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 14:46:40 +0100 Subject: [governance] Proposal: WSIS Principles => ITU Reform In-Reply-To: <20060127131458.14434.qmail@web53506.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060127104608.GA23018@nic.fr> <20060127131458.14434.qmail@web53506.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060127134640.GA7965@nic.fr> On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 05:14:58AM -0800, Danny Younger wrote a message of 44 lines which said: > recently-appointed Board member of the Multilingual Internet Names > Consortium, Wow! I did not want to believe you but I saw http://www.minc.org/about/board.shtml and you are right. I had a poor opinion of MINC, it will not improve after that :-) > I hate to see individuals that contribute to the evolution of the > Internet Sure, if they contribute, not if they just produce tons of bubblespeak. > characterized as lunatics just because their views may not currently > be regarded as mainstream. If you classify Morfin's messages as "views" and if you do not recognize them as pure white noise, then, I'm afraid further discussion will not be possible. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Fri Jan 27 09:26:50 2006 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 06:26:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Proposal: WSIS Principles => ITU Reform In-Reply-To: <20060127134640.GA7965@nic.fr> Message-ID: <20060127142650.12333.qmail@web53510.mail.yahoo.com> Stephane, I have known Jefsey as a respected contributor to domain name system policy discussions within the DNSO/GNSO General Assembly. He has added value to discussions within the IDNO and within the icannatlarge organization (also serving on its Council/Board), and he now contributes as a Board member at MINC -- I would not describe him as a lunatic. If IETF participants have difficulty integrating the views of this particular contributor while others have no such problems, then perhaps the issue lies within the IETF. Danny --- Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 05:14:58AM -0800, > Danny Younger wrote > a message of 44 lines which said: > > > recently-appointed Board member of the > Multilingual Internet Names > > Consortium, > > Wow! I did not want to believe you but I saw > http://www.minc.org/about/board.shtml and you are > right. I had a poor > opinion of MINC, it will not improve after that :-) > > > I hate to see individuals that contribute to the > evolution of the > > Internet > > Sure, if they contribute, not if they just produce > tons of > bubblespeak. > > > characterized as lunatics just because their views > may not currently > > be regarded as mainstream. > > If you classify Morfin's messages as "views" and if > you do not > recognize them as pure white noise, then, I'm afraid > further > discussion will not be possible. > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Fri Jan 27 09:51:55 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 09:51:55 -0500 Subject: [governance] Proposal: WSIS Principles => ITU Reform In-Reply-To: <20060127142650.12333.qmail@web53510.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060127142650.12333.qmail@web53510.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 27 jan 2006, at 09.26, Danny Younger wrote: > If IETF participants have difficulty > integrating the views of this particular contributor > while others have no such problems, then perhaps the > issue lies within the IETF. Please please please, lets not bring this particular IETF argument to this list. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Fri Jan 27 18:50:15 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 18:50:15 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [ga] REMINDER Call for Papers on Policy Development for the Introduction of New gTLDs. Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060127184957.03dc0c50@veni.com> Talking about contributing... >REMINDER: 31 JANUARY 2006 > >Please note the Call for Papers on the Policy >Development for the Introduction of New gTLDs. >http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-03jan06.htm > >Contributions are due by 31 January 2006 as text >documents at > >In order to inform the recently launched Policy >Development Process on new gTLDs, the GNSO is >inviting organizations and individuals to submit >substantive papers on the issue areas identified >in the Terms of Reference for New gTLDs. > >http://gnso.icann.org/comments-request/ >http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-06dec05.htm >ICANN Announcement and Terms of Reference for New gTLDs > >Submitters of papers should address the topics >or sub-topics related to the above areas and >should provide reasoned background analysis and >references for statements expressed. > >Received papers will be considered for oral >presentations to the GNSO Council during >February 2006, via scheduled conference calls with the GNSO Council. >-- >Glen de Saint GИry >GNSO Secretariat - ICANN >gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org >http://gnso.icann.org Sincerely, Veni Markovski http://www.isoc.bg/ig the Internet Governance Resource Portal _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From seiiti at gmail.com Fri Jan 27 18:54:14 2006 From: seiiti at gmail.com (Seiiti Arata) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 21:54:14 -0200 Subject: [governance] Losing focus: IGF and "technical discussions" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <874fe2180601271554v423ab1f4j2696eea2bead8769@mail.gmail.com> Hi - sorry for this late-post Thanks Bill for the support in discussing these issues related to the future of the net. Indeed, I guess that the scope of Internet governance must become wider: encompass not only the NGNs but also ICT generally - I really think that Zittrain`s argument that if changes to the network are difficult to make, the targets for changing the architecture will be the computing devices at the ends. David wrote: > May I suggest? Continuing to enable free-form innovation, which is > on display in these initiatives, is one of the bottom-line > imperatives ultimately before the IGF. In my sense anyway, this will > run in parallel with regulatory efforts that some other concerns may > engender (as Bill begins to unveil below). David, thanks for sharing your view. I agree with you on giving preference to free-form innovation. This is exactly the reason of my concern. However, a low level of governance in developing ICT architecture may allow the capture of final outcomes by the most powerful and influent actors. These will easily have their models set as the prevailing ones in the market even though in opposition to the public interest in case there is no adequate level of governance. IMO, we shall not force innovation to use a specific standards organization or procedure. What is needed instead is more awareness of the impacts of the technologies under construction. And soft mechanisms, like Recommendations from the IGF, would bring a positive effect and higher level of governance. Two very extreme examples that show how industry (to take one stakeholder for instance) tends from time from time to use technologies to their interests (which is not necessarily harmonious to the public interest): 1) In early 1999, Intel was accused of adding serial numbers into their computer chips. Check http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-513735.html - It was necessary to have civil liberties groups making pressure against the company to block this tendency. If consumers were not organized or strong enough, maybe we would be browsing with ID numbers today. 2) December 2005, another "conspiracy theory" discovered: printers being used to hide tracking dots. See: http://www.eff.org/Privacy/printers/ Once again, a tricky architectural feature with controversial effects was found. And the civil liberties groups will have to use their power to put pressure against companies to refrain from embedding such features into their products. Of course, not every problem related to ICT architecture sounds like an X-files episode like these two examples. DRMs for instance are quite visible to the user: the limitations to the use of the computing power are immediately felt when you can not play a certain file into a certain device or print more than x copies of a doc. When DRMs meet the trusted computing platform, limitations will be even clearer. Will consumers have enough power to make a group made of AMD, HP, IBM, Microsoft etc (https://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/home) change their computing architectures? Will the market self-regulate and new companies offering non-trusted computing rise as disruptors in a market in which trusted computing becomes mainstream? I sincerely do not know the answer. IMO currently the discussion on the governance aspects of development of new technologies (including its following transformation into standards when successful) is important. It is necessary to discuss among stakeholders what certain technologies will bring to the Information Society, to produce greater awareness. Only then the "free market" will be "free". A free decision is only taken when we know what options are available and what the consequences will be. Otherwise, consumers will be supporting "de facto" standards without knowing what they are really about. The IGF has a potential to add valuable contribution in this respect. According to item 72. g. of the Tunis Agenda, the mandate of the IGF is to "Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations;". Further, generally its mandate is related to facilitation of dialogue and enhance decision-making transparency and everything else governance is about. One particular issue I believe can be further discussed in the IGF: end-to-end. Many stakeholders and even the WGIG have made statements during WSIS supporting the maintenance of the "end-to-end" principle. Some were against it -(http://www.wgig.org/docs/CNRInovember.pdf) What should that be really taken into consideration? Does e2e really provide an innovative commons? What if the "rise of the middle" (check RFC 3724 - http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-dist/2004-March/000476.html ) can add greater security and stability? The answer does not matter. What matters, in a good governance perspective, is that the decisions related to the future design of the Internet and surrounding ICTs are made with the full participation of all stakeholders. And for that, more awareness is necessary. Working groups under the IGF umbrella would be welcome, and the IGF itself could be an open repository of papers, opinions etc. perhaps using a wiki or other collaborative tool. Seiiti On 1/24/06, David Allen wrote: > Additional perspective: > > The telco world has been evolving, to incorporate the rise of the > net. Bill makes clear how NGN is one model for the emerging, robust > 'new telco.' > > The Internet side has not been sitting still. There are a number of > initiatives underway. One, fairly recent is GENI > http://www.nsf.gov/cise/geni/ . A just released 'snapshot' shows a > third of a billion (US) dollar effort, for first work anyway > http://www.geni.net/GENI-10-JAN-06.pdf . A quick browse through some > of the graphics in the 122 pages gives a sense of the scope. > > There are others. Besides the fairly well known Internet2 > http://www.internet2.edu/ , Bill St. Arnaud's CANARIE recently linked > to some others > http://lists.canarie.ca/pipermail/news/2005/000177.html . Engineers > on this IG list (perhaps Ian?) can do a better job pointing us to the > full picture, for instance to efforts outside the US. > > These are the same forces (and some of the same people) who unleashed > the innovation that became the Internet, from a few decades ago. > > One of the more interesting questions is what might be the relation > between telco NGN and these new visions/versions of a net. The > recent history left Bell heads on one side and Net heads on the > other. Recent practice at ITU-T, the standardization arm, has > reached out to arrange for more coordination among international > standards work, including especially with the IETF, on the net side > of course. > > May I suggest? Continuing to enable free-form innovation, which is > on display in these initiatives, is one of the bottom-line > imperatives ultimately before the IGF. In my sense anyway, this will > run in parallel with regulatory efforts that some other concerns may > engender (as Bill begins to unveil below). > > This free-form innovation is IMO just one outcropping of freedom of > expression, the touchstone for much of what powered WSIS debate, from > both sides. And will continue to be driving in IGF, again IMO. (If > we look for it in the 'principles,' 'transparent' comes closest.) > > David > > William Drake wrote, Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:46:56 +0100: > >Hi, > > > >I've deleted MMWG from the cc here, cross-posting filling my box. > > > >I strongly agree with the thrust of Seiiti's message. While this > >list was the first place to seriously discuss the case for a broad > >definition of IG, as was eventually embraced in the Tunis Agenda, > >the conversation usually defaults back to deconstructing the > >internal machinations of ICANN, and everything else slips from view. > >Given the unresolved oversight fight in WSIS and the Tunis call for > >a new globally applicable policy principles and enhanced cooperation > >on core resources, one imagines the IGF will end up focusing on this > >as well in the near-term. This is unquestionably key, but at the > >same time, there is a lot going on in other issue-areas and > >cooperative mechanisms that we're not talking about, but that is > >really important to the future evolution of the net. > > > >Just to note one example, there is an enormous amount of work going > >on among governments, telcos, manufacturers and others, most notably > >but not only in the ITU, under the rubric of 'Next Generation > >Networks' that is designed to promote shared rules and programs on > >surveillance (oops, sorry, security and trust) and differentiated > >levels of service in a convergent environment. This mirrors major > >developments happening at the national level across the OECD region > >and probably beyond. In the US context, in addition what the FCC's > >been doing in its IP-enabled services proceeding, there's been some > >potentially important legislative action. For example, to strengthen > >cyberstalking prosecution tools, the recently passed reauthorization > >of the Violence Against Women Act amends the Communications Act of > >America by expanding the definition of a telecommunications device > >to cover any device or software that uses the Internet, including > >VOIP. This could place a big chunk of the net environment under US > >telecom 'oversight' and strengthen the drive in the International > >Law Enforcement Telecom Seminar and elsewhere to mandate the > >build-in of forensics capabilities, etc. Companies like Verisign are > >very much at the center of all this, but we only talk about the DNS > >side of their houses. > > > >The IGF is supposed to focus inter alia on cross-cutting issues that > >don't fall neatly within the scope of other bodies, and to promote > >the application of the Geneva principles (multilateral, > >multistakeholder, transparent, democratic) in such bodies. If CS > >doesn't bother to promote these core parts of the mandate, probably > >they will fall off the table. That'd be unfortunate, and we could > >all pay for it in spades down the line. > > > >Best, > > > >Bill > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Jan 28 04:50:18 2006 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 10:50:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] Annan in Davos on Civil Society Message-ID: Annan in his speech in Davos gave some interesting support for Civil Society in Global Policy Development. See: http://www.weforum.org/site/homepublic.nsf/Content/Kofi+Annan+Address+-+English Here is one part, helpful arguments when talking with the ITU :-))): Kofi Annan: What all these activities have in common is that they involve the United Nations not simply in relations among its member States, but also in the lives of their peoples. To carry out such tasks, we must engage not only with governments but with all the new actors on the international scene. That includes the private sector, but it also includes parliamentarians; voluntary, non-profit organizations; philanthropic foundations; the global media; celebrities from the worlds of sport and entertainment; and in some cases labour unions, mayors and local administrators. And it includes less benign actors such as terrorists, warlords, and traffickers in drugs, illicit weapons or - worst of all - the lives and bodies of human beings. That is why I have repeatedly urged all the organs of the United Nations to be more open to civil society, so that their decisions can fully reflect the contribution made by groups and individuals who devote themselves to studying specific problems, or working in specific areas. It is also why I myself have cultivated contacts with scholars, with parliamentarians, with practitioners of all sorts, and with young people - seeking to learn from their views and also encouraging them, whatever sector they work in, to use their talents for the public good and to keep the global horizon in view. It is one of the reasons why I have worked constantly to make our Organization more transparent and comprehensible to the public, and thereby more genuinely accountable. And, of course, it is why I launched the Global Compact, to which the international business community - including some of you in this audience - has responded with such enthusiasm that it is now the world's leading corporate citizenship initiative, involving more that 2,400 companies, in nearly 90 countries. Wolfgang _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From telecom at 3wan.net Sat Jan 28 05:35:05 2006 From: telecom at 3wan.net (Ewan SUTHERLAND) Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 05:35:05 Subject: [governance] Annan in Davos on Civil Society Message-ID: <20060128133505.367.qmail@host212.ipowerweb.com> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Sat Jan 28 08:47:08 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 08:47:08 -0500 Subject: [governance] Annan in Davos on Civil Society In-Reply-To: <20060128133505.367.qmail@host212.ipowerweb.com> References: <20060128133505.367.qmail@host212.ipowerweb.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060128084549.03898de8@veni.com> At 05:35 28-01-06 +0000, Ewan SUTHERLAND wrote: >Guys > >There are provisions in the ITU legal instruments to admit as members >international and regional associations. It is relatively straightforward to >apply to the ITU Council to be admitted as a member. Provided someone has an >organisation that is willing to be used as a vehicle we could have >some action on >this. True. But it costs a lot of money. by the way, I think that the Internet Society (www.isoc.org) is a member, so it can be used as such a vehicle. Perhaps Matthew Shears can tell us more there? Sincerely, Veni Markovski http://www.isoc.bg/ig the Internet Governance Resource Portal _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From roessler at does-not-exist.org Sat Jan 28 09:06:46 2006 From: roessler at does-not-exist.org (Thomas Roessler) Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 15:06:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] Annan in Davos on Civil Society In-Reply-To: <20060128133505.367.qmail@host212.ipowerweb.com> References: <20060128133505.367.qmail@host212.ipowerweb.com> Message-ID: <20060128140646.GB3857@lavazza.does-not-exist.org> Hi Ewan, on 2006-01-28 05:35:05 +0000, Ewan SUTHERLAND wrote: > There are provisions in the ITU legal instruments to admit > as members international and regional associations. It is > relatively straightforward to apply to the ITU Council to be > admitted as a member. Provided someone has an organisation > that is willing to be used as a vehicle we could have some > action on this. Could you clarify a bit what kind of rights and access this class of ITU membership gives organizations? Thanks, -- Thomas Roessler · Personal soap box at . _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Sat Jan 28 09:36:46 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 09:36:46 -0500 Subject: [governance] Annan in Davos on Civil Society In-Reply-To: <20060128133505.367.qmail@host212.ipowerweb.com> References: <20060128133505.367.qmail@host212.ipowerweb.com> Message-ID: <29087400-6465-416C-8350-67B092408209@lists.privaterra.org> Ewan: If i'm not mistaken the issue with ITU membership for CS groups is the - cost . The prices are set at levels that only seem to be affordable to telecoms. Does a member "category" exist that takes into consideration the limit financial abilities of NGOs and civil society groups? On 28-Jan-06, at 5:35 AM, Ewan SUTHERLAND wrote: > Guys > > There are provisions in the ITU legal instruments to admit as members > international and regional associations. It is relatively > straightforward to > apply to the ITU Council to be admitted as a member. Provided > someone has an > organisation that is willing to be used as a vehicle we could have > some action on > this. > > Ewan > > -- > Ewan Sutherland > http://3wan.net/ > +44 141 416 0666 > > On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 10:50 , Wolfgang_Kleinwächter > sent: > >> Annan in his speech in Davos gave some interesting support for >> Civil Society in > Global Policy Development. >> >> See: http://www.weforum.org/site/homepublic.nsf/Content/Kofi+Annan >> +Address+-+English >> >> Here is one part, helpful arguments when talking with the ITU :-))): >> >> Kofi Annan: >> >> What all these activities have in common is that they involve the >> United Nations > not simply in relations among its member States, but also in the > lives of their > peoples. To carry out such tasks, we must engage not only with > governments but > with all the new actors on the international scene. >> >> That includes the private sector, but it also includes >> parliamentarians; > voluntary, non-profit organizations; philanthropic foundations; the > global media; > celebrities from the worlds of sport and entertainment; and in some > cases labour > unions, mayors and local administrators. And it includes less > benign actors such > as terrorists, warlords, and traffickers in drugs, illicit weapons > or - worst of > all - the lives and bodies of human beings. >> >> That is why I have repeatedly urged all the organs of the United >> Nations to be > more open to civil society, so that their decisions can fully > reflect the > contribution made by groups and individuals who devote themselves > to studying > specific problems, or working in specific areas. >> >> It is also why I myself have cultivated contacts with scholars, with > parliamentarians, with practitioners of all sorts, and with young > people - > seeking to learn from their views and also encouraging them, > whatever sector they > work in, to use their talents for the public good and to keep the > global horizon > in view. >> >> It is one of the reasons why I have worked constantly to make our >> Organization > more transparent and comprehensible to the public, and thereby more > genuinely > accountable. >> >> And, of course, it is why I launched the Global Compact, to which the > international business community - including some of you in this > audience - has > responded with such enthusiasm that it is now the world's leading > corporate > citizenship initiative, involving more that 2,400 companies, in > nearly 90 countries. >> >> >> >> Wolfgang >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> governance mailing list >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Sat Jan 28 09:49:18 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 09:49:18 -0500 Subject: [governance] Annan in Davos on Civil Society In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060128084549.03898de8@veni.com> References: <20060128133505.367.qmail@host212.ipowerweb.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060128084549.03898de8@veni.com> Message-ID: <4B10DA72-615D-4023-8330-B972389F0A4D@lists.privaterra.org> > > True. > But it costs a lot of money. > by the way, I think that the Internet Society (www.isoc.org) is a > member, so it can be used as such a vehicle. > If indeed ISOC is an ITU member, then they do have a privileged position . Have they reached out in the past and tried to serve as a facilitator and liaison with NGOs and civil society in the past? My belief is they didn't do so over the 4 year WSIS process, then they really don't get the point that they are in a new environment, one where they can no longer claim they are the sole voice that needs to be listened to. regards Robert _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Sat Jan 28 10:52:35 2006 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 16:52:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] Annan in Davos on Civil Society In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060128084549.03898de8@veni.com> Message-ID: Hi, As one can see by looking at the list archives, the question of opening ITU to CS has been discussed a number of times here over the past few years. The discussions have never been cumulative or led to action, so the next time it comes up we again go over the same ground and positions. So further to prior responses to Ewan, I would repeat that it is not, in fact, easy. The bar for becoming a sector member or even associate is quite high. Applications have to: be approved by the Council, which always has NGO-unfriendly governments in it; have what they'd deem to be a significant stake--e.g. as a provider, developer, or large user of international telecoms--and technical expertise in the particular sector's area of work; have a capacity to send people to the frequent and long study group, working party, etc. meetings; and normally, pay a hefty fee, which in principle can be waived but then that's a negotiation point too. Smallish progressive advocacy organizations cannot meet these requirements; AMARC, which I understand got admitted, presumably to ITU-R, could, but the overwhelming majority of WSIS-related NGOs could not. Sean O'Siochru et al tried to get admitted to ITU-D and were rejected. The experience of Ewan's organization, which represents large corporate users, is not instructive. Neither is that of ISOC, which also has large corporate members and is home to the IETF, IAB, etc., with which the ITU has to deal in some standards areas. That said, the context may be changing and more receptive due to WSIS. There are people in the secretariat who understand that being closed to CS didn't help build support for their aspirations in IG in particular, and who recognize that it's not like we'd swarm in huge numbers into ITU-R SG3 meeting on spectrum propagation and misbehave. Some governments (Brazil, Syria) and even corporations (see Siemens' contribution for the reform meeting) are making receptive proposals. Now, in the wake of WSIS and with follow-up and implementation efforts on tap, is probably the best opportunity there's ever been to get a decent hearing. But we have to be clear about what we're asking for and could bring to the table, probably in nonconfrontational rhetoric. It would be good to be able to participate in sector work, but I doubt that many NGOs would really participate regularly if given the chance. Maybe 4-6 meetings a year, up to two weeks at a time, in Geneva, would not be cheap for non-locals. I'd be interested in ITU-T SG3, but I'm in Geneva. For others, probably a more attractive near-term request would be that they open up periodically organized special workshops and seminars, the Council working group on WSIS, the big standards and development conferences held every four years, and the plenipotentiary conferences. While still expense, NGOs probably could participate in these infrequent meetings more readily. Of course, the precise terms of participation would be a question that requires consideration; whether we could plausibly ask for the same terms and conditions as private sector entities that have big investments and pay big bucks to participate is a question. ITU is going to be the main multilateral venue in which governments address IG public policy and standards issues, not the GAC or anywhere else, and we should be there. Best, Bill PS: ITU has a very complex relation to UN central, so the potential impact of Kofi Annan's position is very unclear but probably limited. > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Veni Markovski > Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 2:47 PM > To: Ewan SUTHERLAND; Governance Caucus; > "Wolfgang_Kleinwachter"@host212.ipowerweb.com > Subject: Re: [governance] Annan in Davos on Civil Society > > > At 05:35 28-01-06 +0000, Ewan SUTHERLAND wrote: > >Guys > > > >There are provisions in the ITU legal instruments to admit as members > >international and regional associations. It is relatively > straightforward to > >apply to the ITU Council to be admitted as a member. Provided > someone has an > >organisation that is willing to be used as a vehicle we could have > >some action on > >this. > > True. > But it costs a lot of money. > by the way, I think that the Internet Society (www.isoc.org) is a > member, so it can be used as such a vehicle. > > Perhaps Matthew Shears can tell us more there? > > > > Sincerely, > > Veni Markovski > http://www.isoc.bg/ig > the Internet Governance Resource Portal > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Sat Jan 28 10:59:14 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 10:59:14 -0500 Subject: [governance] Annan in Davos on Civil Society In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060128084549.03898de8@veni.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060128105801.03c4cdb8@veni.com> At 16:52 28-01-06 +0100, William Drake wrote: >ITU is going to be the main multilateral venue in which governments address >IG public policy and standards issues, not the GAC or anywhere else, and we >should be there. Bill, I think that the IGF may be this main venue. ITU still has limited scope wrt Internet. But you may be right; I shall see what I can do to contribute there, too. Sincerely, Veni Markovski http://www.isoc.bg/ig the Internet Governance Resource Portal _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Sat Jan 28 12:07:47 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 12:07:47 -0500 Subject: [governance] Annan in Davos on Civil Society In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8176A6DE-1038-4F43-9FB0-2BC31F379212@lists.privaterra.org> On 28-Jan-06, at 10:52 AM, William Drake wrote: > > > ITU is going to be the main multilateral venue in which governments > address > IG public policy and standards issues, not the GAC or anywhere > else, and we > should be there. if i'm not mistaken quite a number of governments made clear statements during the WSIS IG negotiations that they did DID NOT want the ITU to be the venue where IG public policy and standards issues get addressed. If i recall well, Brazil, Russia, Iran and many members of the "like minded" group were in favour of the ITU, but the "common ground group" composed of Singapore, New Zealand, Canada, Uruguay, Australia and others were not keen on the ITU. So, no consensus... Personally, I don't think Tunis quite resolved the situation. It all depends on the what gets decided at the ITU council meeting in early Feb, a well as the structures that get set up in the coming months. Regards Robert _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Sat Jan 28 14:42:16 2006 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 20:42:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] Annan in Davos on Civil Society In-Reply-To: <8176A6DE-1038-4F43-9FB0-2BC31F379212@lists.privaterra.org> Message-ID: Hi, > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Robert Guerra > if i'm not mistaken quite a number of governments made clear > statements during the WSIS IG negotiations that they did DID NOT want > the ITU to be the venue where IG public policy and standards issues > get addressed. > > If i recall well, Brazil, Russia, Iran and many members of the "like > minded" group were in favour of the ITU, but the "common ground > group" composed of Singapore, New Zealand, Canada, Uruguay, Australia > and others were not keen on the ITU. So, no consensus... Beginning in this quarter, there is supposed to be an evolution toward a new, enhanced cooperation model involving the development of globally applicable public policy principles for core resources. Key players apparently don't want to address it in the fledgling IGF, and there's little sign thus far that the developing countries or the Europeans are going to be content to do it just or primarily in GAC. Read the German paper for the ITU reform meeting, which not only states flat out that the ITU is the natural place, but says that the ITU should take over running the GAC (ITU-I!). Absent better alternatives, there will be a big push by many governments to ramp up stuff in the ITU as the 'natural home' with 'proven administrative capacity and expertise', broad multilateral participation, substantial private sector participation, etc. Sure, the mandate and substantive content of dialogue and possible agreements will be heavily contested, but processes with significant institutional mo behind them nevertheless will go forward, just as before but in a changed context. As such, the fall show in Turkey could be at least as important as the one in Greece. And of course, that's just the naming and numbering oversight principles space. ITU is already doing a ton of standards and policy work of relevance with serious intergovernmental and corporate backing, such as the trust/security/surveillance, NGN, and ENUM stuff I mentioned before. And ITU got a mandate in Tunis to continue on interconnection, gets key roles in seven WSIS Action Lines, and so on. Anyway, I didn't say that the ITU necessarily will or should inherit the earth here, but rather just that it will be 'the main multilateral venue in which governments address IG public policy and standards issues.' Multilateral and governments were the key terms in the sentence. If the IGF doesn't get screwed up, it could grow into a useful alternative/catalytic/gadfly space, but who knows how long it will take to really take shape. In the meanwhile, the ITU has well institutionalized processes already underway, and strong support in some quarters. So CS needs to pay attention to and seek a role in ITU, rather than settling for circa 1998 rhetoric about how governments, telcos and manufacturers are all irrelevant dinosaurs and all that matters is how 'the community' manages names in ICANN. > Personally, I don't think Tunis quite resolved the situation. It all > depends on the what gets decided at the ITU council meeting in early > Feb, a well as the structures that get set up in the coming months. The Council's April session presumably will WSIS follow up alongside all the other admin and policy stuff, but it's less than a quarter of the membership. They'll all be in Turkey in November. Right now, we have no right to participate, other than by getting on national dels. Cheers, Bill _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Jan 29 04:27:01 2006 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 10:27:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] Annan in Davos on Civil Society Message-ID: Dear list, Bill has put the finger on the right point. Here are some quatations from the German Paper "ITU and Follow Up: Food for Thought". 1. The Government of Germany continues to believe that new cross-border challenges for governments in the global Information Society should, to the extent possible and in an evolutionary manner, be dealt with by existing international fora. The creation of new initiatives and organizations usually results in unnecessary time delays, co-ordination problems, overlapping competencies, additional funding requests, and duplication of work. Therefore it is a much better choice to adjust existing structures to the rapidly changing global ICT environment. ITU as the longest standing international organization in the field of telecommunications has a strong potential in providing the appropriate platform for the follow-up process to the UN World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Contrary to private sector based initiatives, one of its strong points is the full and fair involvement of developing countries who face the serious risk of being left behind in the Internet world. An! other advantage of the ITU is the participation of the business sector which began long before the multi-stakeholder philosophy became common good in the WSIS discussions. 2. Due to the development orientated nature of the WSIS process, the government of Germany believes that, within the ITU framework, ITU-D should have the leading role in coordinating the organizations effort to contribute to the implementation and follow-up process. Therefore, the coming World Telecommunications Development Conference in Doha will be the adequate occasion to discuss and adopt a first roadmap for the future ITU role regarding necessary action lines to bridge the digital divide caused by the rapid but uneven expansion of information and communication technologies. 3. Baring in mind the proven openness of the ITU, is has to be taken into account that a full realization of the nearly unlimited digital opportunities cannot be achieved by Governments alone. On one hand side, the private sector will continue to play a critical role through ICT investments in developing countries, and one of the core challenges for ITU-D will be the definition and promotion of appropriate national frameworks, respecting the specific circumstances in different countries and regions. On the other hand, it has to be acknowledged that an efficient and successful implementation process also needs appropriate involvement of civil society. Four years of WSIS discussions have established a benchmark regarding the interaction with civil society representatives. Although this inclusive approach has not been without problems, it created expectations regarding the structure and procedures of the WSIS follow-up process, and will therefore influence the extent to which l! egitimacy is ascribed to the ITU efforts. 4. (With regard to Internet Governance) Although the Tunis language leaves room for interpretation, the concept of a far-reaching new co-operation, giving all Governments in their respective roles the adequate opportunity to participate in the global decision making process on Internet Governance issues with significant public policy relevance, should be kept alive. Within the new co-operation framework, the Tunis Agenda defines three main groups of players: Intergovernmental organizations (e. g. ITU, WIPO, UNESCO), international organizations (e. g. ISOC), and organizations responsible for essential tasks associated with the Internet (e. g. ICANN). In all three categories, government have a role to play, and contrary to interpretations who tend to see paragraphs 68-71 of the Tunis Agenda purely as an UN internal coordination challenge, we have to make sure that the upcoming discussions will, in a politically appropriate way, also deal with the two outstanding oversight issu! es: Oversight regarding ICANN, and oversight regarding the Internet root zone file. 5. With regard to the two core Internet Governance outcomes of the WSIS, the PPDP as well as the IGF, the Tunis Agenda ascribes a core function to the UN Secretary-General. Baring in mind the high expectations in all parts of the global Internet community, there is obviously an urgent need for supporting the Secretary-General if these requests should be met in a timely manner. Looking at the necessary level of expertise, it looks obvious to the government of Germany that the ITU will become the "natural" provider of this support. Concerning the PPDP, the Tunis agreement does not ask for discussions and negotiations to take place in just one forum, but leaves enough room for a flexible approach which includes the full range of formal and informal intergovernmental interaction. Taking into account the ongoing efforts of governments in already existing international fora, especially the ITU, it is important to avoid any duplication of work. The role of the UN Secretary-General,! supported by the ITU, will mainly be to kick-off and monitor the public policy development process, including the coordination of stakeholder consultations. The important role of the ITU becomes even more obvious with regard to the IGF. Clearly defined through the Tunis Agenda as an open and transparent multi-stakeholder process, it is not unrealistic to expect IGF meetings with 500+ participants. The huge variety of issues that could be placed under the Internet Governance umbrella might result in the creation of numerous sub-entities (working groups etc.), adding to infrastructure demands. This kind of process does not only need a rock-solid secretariat, but also support from experienced staff which can only be found in specialized agencies like the ITU. 6. With regard to the ICANN GAC, short and long term perspectives should be distinguished. For the time being, the most urgent problem which needs to be solved is the future structure of the GAC secretariat. After being provided first by the government of Australia and today by the EU Commission, GAC members now look for a new model for the time from June 2006 onwards. Germany is not in a position to support concepts regarding the future GAC structure which would give the ICANN GAC a more independent legal structure and/or would result in direct or indirect financial obligations, e. g. by introducing membership or meeting fees, because this would, in the end, mean to establish a new intergovernmental body for Internet Governance issues. If no other cost-neutral solution will be available, it should be carefully considered if and under which conditions the ITU would be in a position to provide the secretariat function for the ICANN GAC. Due to the fact that the ITU has taken ! part in the GAC work as observer from the very beginning, the necessary expertise is already available. Best regards wolfgang Take also into account, that the German Mr. Kurth is one of four candidates for elecetion as the new Secretary General of the ITU in November 2006. ________________________________ Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Robert Guerra Gesendet: Sa 28.01.2006 18:07 An: Governance Caucus Betreff: Re: [governance] Annan in Davos on Civil Society On 28-Jan-06, at 10:52 AM, William Drake wrote: > > > ITU is going to be the main multilateral venue in which governments > address > IG public policy and standards issues, not the GAC or anywhere > else, and we > should be there. if i'm not mistaken quite a number of governments made clear statements during the WSIS IG negotiations that they did DID NOT want the ITU to be the venue where IG public policy and standards issues get addressed. If i recall well, Brazil, Russia, Iran and many members of the "like minded" group were in favour of the ITU, but the "common ground group" composed of Singapore, New Zealand, Canada, Uruguay, Australia and others were not keen on the ITU. So, no consensus... Personally, I don't think Tunis quite resolved the situation. It all depends on the what gets decided at the ITU council meeting in early Feb, a well as the structures that get set up in the coming months. Regards Robert _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Jan 29 10:35:45 2006 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 16:35:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF Message-ID: FYI, this is the timeline for the IGF http://www.intgovforum.org/timeline2.htm Best regards wolfgang _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Sun Jan 29 11:33:33 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 17:33:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43DCEE5D.9050705@bertola.eu.org> Wolfgang Kleinwächter ha scritto: > FYI, this is the timeline for the IGF > > http://www.intgovforum.org/timeline2.htm I find it very interesting that it already mentions a "Bureau or Programme Committee" - it looks like some entity of this type is already foreseen to be on the map. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Sun Jan 29 20:46:58 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 20:46:58 -0500 Subject: [governance] ITU and Follow Up In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9A2B95BF-F3FB-44FB-A140-C10983A2A82F@lists.privaterra.org> Wolfgang: Wolfgang thanks for pointing out that the Kurth is in the running for the position of Secretary General of the ITU. If i'm not mistaken, there is also a swiss candidate. The first thing that comes to mind is how close (or not) the position is to the one the EU will be putting forward. I know there was considerable tension between different EU states in the final WSIS negotiations . Do those tensions still exist? What does Austria say? What's the position of the country that holds the presidency after Austria? Canada, New Zealand, Uruguay and Singapore would be a key counties to consult. regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 Fax +1 416 893 0374 On 29-Jan-06, at 4:27 AM, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: > Dear list, > > Bill has put the finger on the right point. Here are some > quatations from the German Paper "ITU and Follow Up: Food for > Thought". > > > > Take also into account, that the German Mr. Kurth is one of four > candidates for elecetion as the new Secretary General of the ITU in > November 2006. > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Sun Jan 29 22:19:45 2006 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 22:19:45 -0500 Subject: [governance] Losing focus: IGF and "technical discussions" In-Reply-To: <874fe2180601271554v423ab1f4j2696eea2bead8769@mail.gmail.com> References: <874fe2180601271554v423ab1f4j2696eea2bead8769@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: This seems to me to push onto key turf, Seiiti, if we want to get our hands around the prize. The years-long struggle at WSIS is the backdrop, the setting, for me anyway. On one side was the argument that, to preserve free expression, we could not hazard governments to bureaucratize the net. Some might throttle it. On the other side, the argument held that we need just the reverse - we need a little more regularity, and accountability. (Overlaid on this dispute was a more visceral disagreement - linked here is a brief piece, for the final negotiation, that goes a little further on the story). But I believe we will find both arguments, from each side, are right. The only question is how to fit the two opposites together ... How can this be? The story of the rise of the net is one of alternation between innovation where creativity flowers freely, on the one side, and the more orderly deliberations for standards-setting, on the other. All that worked seamlessly, when confined to a group of like-minded engineers, the IETF. As the net took on global significance though - and many assorted actors got into the mix - what had previously been an easy dance between innovation and standardization (even if subtle and complex) became much harder to negotiate. I think it not too much to say, that problem - to expand the scope of participation (and not just among nations, but among the many, many different interests and styles) - directly triggered the struggle underlying WSIS. In a net world, but with many more actors, how can we preserve the fruits of innovation alongside a stable base of regularity, when that orderliness and security are necessary in the first place to take the risks of innovation? That is the thorny question it seems should most vex IGF. You will say, but my goodness, governance is so much more than innovation and standards, however arduous it may be to do both. That is right of course. But the underlying challenge - to maintain order at the same time that we _also_ try to let a thousand flowers bloom - proves, I believe it will turn out, to be the same conundrum we confront in any number of the issue areas calling out from internet governance. This is not the place to make the case, beyond stating it simply, baldly. If correct, it gives both sides in the long WSIS struggle each a core stake in these next discussions ... both for the freedom staked on one side and for the accountability staked on the other. Yours below takes us into some of the thickets such an approach would have to navigate. --Companies that would standardize, for their interests, but perhaps not for broader interests? The classic story of Internet standardization has the engineer shedding personal interests, once an innovation has been trialed in 'running code.' To come up with new code in the first place, the innovation in other words, the engineer tries for personal excellence; this may bring respect and an enhanced reputation among peers. But once it is time to pick just which code will be standard, the welfare of the whole community takes precedence over any individual. That is the sort of template such an approach would hold all actors and companies to. --End-to-end? Now we have stepped back from the incremental innovations, which are only possible when the big architectural innovation and choice - e2e - had already been made. This is the discontinuous jump (call it a 'new paradigm' perhaps) that made so many of the later incremental steps possible. Now today, the big architectural questions are in play again, for instance NGN on one side and the new net design efforts such as GENI on another. Since these choices are of such fundamental importance to future possibilities for later, incremental innovation, presumably we care a great deal about sustaining the environment for these basic innovations. We also care much more which choice is made, since follow-on innovation for whole societies - for all of us, really - is at stake. This is akin to / can be analogized to the choice of dominant desktop OS. Incidentally, if you take a look at work such as GENI, turns out that your pointer to security is one of the mainsprings there. Also perhaps worth noting, the e2e question is not per se whether there will be intelligence in the core as well as the periphery. Routers are intelligent enough. The question is more than that. So for instance, we want to understand how NGN impacts the possibility for innovation at the edges. Are there other advantages or disadvantages? That is just for starters ... --Individual - "full" - participation in governance, such as standards-setting? With 6 billion people on the globe and something like 5 billion still without a connection, we can see there is a perplexing problem, to get everyone to the table ... But in fact, this does go to a core issue with the conceptualization laid out above: That is adequate means of representation, so that a multitude of voices are somehow aggregated. This 'architecture of community' - which in good circumstances succeeds to represent multiple voices - turns out I think to be one pivot for making the dance between order and freedom work. Surely the question of 'good' representation is going to be central to IGF concerns. Well, this has grown a great deal longer than it should ... but perhaps there is something useful. I hope yours may lead us onto some new turf. David At 9:54 PM -0200 1/27/06, Seiiti Arata wrote: >Hi - sorry for this late-post > >Thanks Bill for the support in discussing these issues related to >the future of the net. Indeed, I guess that the scope of Internet >governance must become wider: encompass not only the NGNs but also >ICT generally - I really think that Zittrain`s argument that if >changes to the network are difficult to make, the targets for >changing the architecture will be the computing devices at the ends. > >David wrote: May I suggest? Continuing to enable free-form >innovation, which is on display in these initiatives, is one of the >bottom-line imperatives ultimately before the IGF. In my sense >anyway, this will run in parallel with regulatory efforts that some >other concerns may engender (as Bill begins to unveil below). > >David, thanks for sharing your view. I agree with you on giving >preference to free-form innovation. This is exactly the reason of my >concern. > >However, a low level of governance in developing ICT architecture >may allow the capture of final outcomes by the most powerful and >influent actors. These will easily have their models set as the >prevailing ones in the market even though in opposition to the >public interest in case there is no adequate level of governance. > >IMO, we shall not force innovation to use a specific standards >organization or procedure. What is needed instead is more awareness >of the impacts of the technologies under construction. And soft >mechanisms, like Recommendations from the IGF, would bring a >positive effect and higher level of governance. > >Two very extreme examples that show how industry (to take one >stakeholder for instance) tends from time from time to use >technologies to their interests (which is not necessarily harmonious >to the public interest): > >1) In early 1999, Intel was accused of adding serial numbers into >their computer chips. Check >http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-513735.html - It was necessary to >have civil liberties groups making pressure against the company to >block this tendency. If consumers were not organized or strong >enough, maybe we would be browsing with ID numbers today. > >2) December 2005, another "conspiracy theory" discovered: printers >being used to hide tracking dots. See: >http://www.eff.org/Privacy/printers/ Once again, a tricky >architectural feature with controversial effects was found. And the >civil liberties groups will have to use their power to put pressure >against companies to refrain from embedding such features into their >products. > >Of course, not every problem related to ICT architecture sounds like >an X-files episode like these two examples. DRMs for instance are >quite visible to the user: the limitations to the use of the >computing power are immediately felt when you can not play a certain >file into a certain device or print more than x copies of a doc. >When DRMs meet the trusted computing platform, limitations will be >even clearer. Will consumers have enough power to make a group made >of AMD, HP, IBM, Microsoft etc >(https://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/home) change their computing >architectures? Will the market self-regulate and new companies >offering non-trusted computing rise as disruptors in a market in >which trusted computing becomes mainstream? I sincerely do not know >the answer. > >IMO currently the discussion on the governance aspects of >development of new technologies (including its following >transformation into standards when successful) is important. It is >necessary to discuss among stakeholders what certain technologies >will bring to the Information Society, to produce greater awareness. >Only then the "free market" will be "free". A free decision is only >taken when we know what options are available and what the >consequences will be. Otherwise, consumers will be supporting "de >facto" standards without knowing what they are really about. > >The IGF has a potential to add valuable contribution in this >respect. According to item 72. g. of the Tunis Agenda, the mandate >of the IGF is to "Identify emerging issues, bring them to the >attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where >appropriate, make recommendations;". Further, generally its mandate >is related to facilitation of dialogue and enhance decision-making >transparency and everything else governance is about. > >One particular issue I believe can be further discussed in the IGF: >end-to-end. Many stakeholders and even the WGIG have made statements >during WSIS supporting the maintenance of the "end-to-end" >principle. Some were against it >-(http://www.wgig.org/docs/CNRInovember.pdf) > >What should that be really taken into consideration? Does e2e really >provide an innovative commons? What if the "rise of the middle" >(check RFC 3724 - >http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-dist/2004-March/000476.html >) can add greater security and stability? The answer does not >matter. What matters, in a good governance perspective, is that the >decisions related to the future design of the Internet and >surrounding ICTs are made with the full participation of all >stakeholders. And for that, more awareness is necessary. Working >groups under the IGF umbrella would be welcome, and the IGF itself >could be an open repository of papers, opinions etc. perhaps using a >wiki or other collaborative tool. > >Seiiti > >On 1/24/06, David Allen wrote: >> Additional perspective: >> >> The telco world has been evolving, to incorporate the rise of the >> net. Bill makes clear how NGN is one model for the emerging, robust >> 'new telco.' >> >> The Internet side has not been sitting still. There are a number of >> initiatives underway. One, fairly recent is GENI >> http://www.nsf.gov/cise/geni/ . A just released 'snapshot' shows a >> third of a billion (US) dollar effort, for first work anyway >> http://www.geni.net/GENI-10-JAN-06.pdf . A quick browse through some >> of the graphics in the 122 pages gives a sense of the scope. >> >> There are others. Besides the fairly well known Internet2 >> http://www.internet2.edu/ , Bill St. Arnaud's CANARIE recently linked >> to some others >> http://lists.canarie.ca/pipermail/news/2005/000177.html . Engineers >> on this IG list (perhaps Ian?) can do a better job pointing us to the >> full picture, for instance to efforts outside the US. >> >> These are the same forces (and some of the same people) who unleashed >> the innovation that became the Internet, from a few decades ago. >> >> One of the more interesting questions is what might be the relation >> between telco NGN and these new visions/versions of a net. The >> recent history left Bell heads on one side and Net heads on the >> other. Recent practice at ITU-T, the standardization arm, has >> reached out to arrange for more coordination among international >> standards work, including especially with the IETF, on the net side >> of course. >> >> May I suggest? Continuing to enable free-form innovation, which is >> on display in these initiatives, is one of the bottom-line >> imperatives ultimately before the IGF. In my sense anyway, this will >> run in parallel with regulatory efforts that some other concerns may >> engender (as Bill begins to unveil below). >> >> This free-form innovation is IMO just one outcropping of freedom of >> expression, the touchstone for much of what powered WSIS debate, from >> both sides. And will continue to be driving in IGF, again IMO. (If > > we look for it in the 'principles,' 'transparent' comes closest.) >> >> David >> >> William Drake wrote, Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:46:56 +0100: >> >Hi, >> > >> >I've deleted MMWG from the cc here, cross-posting filling my box. >> > >> >I strongly agree with the thrust of Seiiti's message. While this >> >list was the first place to seriously discuss the case for a broad >> >definition of IG, as was eventually embraced in the Tunis Agenda, >> >the conversation usually defaults back to deconstructing the >> >internal machinations of ICANN, and everything else slips from view. >> >Given the unresolved oversight fight in WSIS and the Tunis call for >> >a new globally applicable policy principles and enhanced cooperation >> >on core resources, one imagines the IGF will end up focusing on this >> >as well in the near-term. This is unquestionably key, but at the >> >same time, there is a lot going on in other issue-areas and >> >cooperative mechanisms that we're not talking about, but that is >> >really important to the future evolution of the net. >> > >> >Just to note one example, there is an enormous amount of work going >> >on among governments, telcos, manufacturers and others, most notably >> >but not only in the ITU, under the rubric of 'Next Generation >> >Networks' that is designed to promote shared rules and programs on >> >surveillance (oops, sorry, security and trust) and differentiated >> >levels of service in a convergent environment. This mirrors major >> >developments happening at the national level across the OECD region >> >and probably beyond. In the US context, in addition what the FCC's >> >been doing in its IP-enabled services proceeding, there's been some >> >potentially important legislative action. For example, to strengthen >> >cyberstalking prosecution tools, the recently passed reauthorization >> >of the Violence Against Women Act amends the Communications Act of >> >America by expanding the definition of a telecommunications device >> >to cover any device or software that uses the Internet, including >> >VOIP. This could place a big chunk of the net environment under US >> >telecom 'oversight' and strengthen the drive in the International >> >Law Enforcement Telecom Seminar and elsewhere to mandate the >> >build-in of forensics capabilities, etc. Companies like Verisign are >> >very much at the center of all this, but we only talk about the DNS >> >side of their houses. >> > >> >The IGF is supposed to focus inter alia on cross-cutting issues that >> >don't fall neatly within the scope of other bodies, and to promote >> >the application of the Geneva principles (multilateral, >> >multistakeholder, transparent, democratic) in such bodies. If CS >> >doesn't bother to promote these core parts of the mandate, probably >> >they will fall off the table. That'd be unfortunate, and we could >> >all pay for it in spades down the line. >> > >> >Best, >> > > > >Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Jan 30 02:53:43 2006 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 08:53:43 +0100 Subject: [governance] ITU and Follow Up Message-ID: Robert: Wolfgang thanks for pointing out that the Kurth is in the running for the position of Secretary General of the ITU. If i'm not mistaken, there is also a swiss candidate. Wolfgang: There are four candidates. Next to the German Kurth (the head of the German FCC), there is Mr. Bois, Deputy Secretary of the ITU from Brazil, Mr. Toure, Director ITU-D from Africa and Mr. Furrer, Secretary of Communication of Switzerland and a key fugure in the WSIS process. Robert: The first thing that comes to mind is how close (or not) the position is to the one the EU will be putting forward. I know there was considerable tension between different EU states in the final WSIS negotiations . Do those tensions still exist? What does Austria say? What's the position of the country that holds the presidency after Austria? Wolfgang: Europe continues to try to speak with one voice, keeping the won differences - which are substantial - under control. The Austrian presidency has not yet show its face. We will havce Mr. Singer, the Austrian GAC member on the podium on the forthcoming Domain Pulse Conference in Berlin. I will report to the list if something is happening. http://www.domainpulse.org/pages/d/programm/index.en.html Robert: Canada, New Zealand, Uruguay and Singapore would be a key counties to consult. Wolfgang: Agree Best w _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Mon Jan 30 04:35:04 2006 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 10:35:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] statement for ITU website Message-ID: Good morning, Since there was no consensus on making a joint caucus or other CS statement on the website for the ITU's Wednesday reform meeting, I decided I might as well type up something short to submit on a personal basis. If anyone would like to sign on you're more than welcome; either way, I will submit this by close of business today, Geneva time. I don't know that we'd have time to do any text tweaking, but if that might make this more attractive to potential signatories, let's communicate. I see that Parminder made a nice submission on the cost of ITU documentation and its nonconformity with the access to knowledge and information principle enunciated in the WSIS Plan of Action. The below text is on a different point and is complementary. ------- The WSIS Principles state that Internet governance should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations. The ITU clearly does not meet the last criteria. For the overwhelming majority of civil society organizations, the barriers to becoming a sector member or even an associate are simply too high. In parallel, there are no options for participating on a more flexible, ad hoc basis in special workshops and seminars, or in the assemblies and conferences. In consequence, and unlike other UN agencies, true NGOs (as opposed to hybrid business/user/technical organizations) are almost entirely absent and alienated from the ITU. That this is not in the ITU’s own interest was amply demonstrated by the WSIS process, in which civil society strongly opposed the ITU playing an expanded, leading role in Internet governance. With WSIS follow-up and implementation efforts forthcoming, now would be a particularly appropriate time to make opening up to civil society a central element of ITU reform. Doing so would not in any way disrupt the work of the Union, and the administrative cost would be negligible (we can print our own documents, etc). The ITU would not face a stampede of hundreds of organizations seeking to participate in ongoing study group work on frequency propagation, signaling requirements and protocols, and other technical matters. A much more likely scenario would be that a manageable number of NGOs would seek to participate in some of the above-mentioned workshops, seminars, assemblies and conferences. Civil society experts contributed significantly to the success of the February 2004 ITU workshop on Internet governance, and there is every reason to believe that same constructive engagement would ensue in other forums. Allowing civil society participation in events like the March 2006 meeting on NGN policies would be a good first step, and would not require changes to the Constitution and Convention. WSIS and/or ECOSOC accreditation would seem sufficient for this purpose. It is unfortunate that the ITU’s February 1 reform meeting is closed to civil society participation. Our exclusion from this and similar events has been debated extensively on civil society Internet listservs in the course of the WSIS process and afterwards. There was little enthusiasm for the website’s cheery invitation to “be part of it” by submitting statements in this “open forum” for a meeting from which we are barred. If however the ITU were to initiate a genuine, open and inclusive dialogue on the matter, the response would be rather different. --------- Best, Bill ******************************************************* William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance Graduate Institute for International Studies Geneva, Switzerland President, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake ******************************************************* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Jan 30 04:52:46 2006 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 12:52:46 +0300 Subject: [governance] statement for ITU website In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 1/30/06, William Drake wrote: > It is unfortunate that the ITU's February 1 reform meeting is closed to > civil society participation. Our exclusion from this and similar events has > been debated extensively on civil society Internet listservs in the course > of the WSIS process and afterwards. There was little enthusiasm for the > website's cheery invitation to "be part of it" by submitting statements in > this "open forum" for a meeting from which we are barred. If however the > ITU were to initiate a genuine, open and inclusive dialogue on the matter, > the response would be rather different. I can sign on to this, thanks Bill! -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Mon Jan 30 06:26:07 2006 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 11:26:07 +0000 Subject: [governance] statement for ITU website In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.0.20060130111108.038beaa0@gn.apc.org> hi bill It's a good statement, can you give me a few hours to consult and i'll get back to you.. karen At 09:35 30/01/2006, William Drake wrote: >Good morning, > >Since there was no consensus on making a joint caucus or other CS >statement on the website for the ITU's Wednesday reform meeting, I >decided I might as well type up something short to submit on a >personal basis. If anyone would like to sign on you're more than >welcome; either way, I will submit this by close of business today, >Geneva time. I don't know that we'd have time to do any text >tweaking, but if that might make this more attractive to potential >signatories, let's communicate. I see that Parminder made a nice >submission on the cost of ITU documentation and its nonconformity >with the access to knowledge and information principle enunciated in >the WSIS Plan of Action. The below text is on a different point and >is complementary. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From LMcKnigh at syr.edu Mon Jan 30 08:04:32 2006 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 08:04:32 -0500 Subject: [governance] statement for ITU website Message-ID: Hi, I'm happy to sign on as well, nice work. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> karen banks 1/30/2006 6:26:07 AM >>> hi bill It's a good statement, can you give me a few hours to consult and i'll get back to you.. karen At 09:35 30/01/2006, William Drake wrote: >Good morning, > >Since there was no consensus on making a joint caucus or other CS >statement on the website for the ITU's Wednesday reform meeting, I >decided I might as well type up something short to submit on a >personal basis. If anyone would like to sign on you're more than >welcome; either way, I will submit this by close of business today, >Geneva time. I don't know that we'd have time to do any text >tweaking, but if that might make this more attractive to potential >signatories, let's communicate. I see that Parminder made a nice >submission on the cost of ITU documentation and its nonconformity >with the access to knowledge and information principle enunciated in >the WSIS Plan of Action. The below text is on a different point and >is complementary. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at acm.org Mon Jan 30 08:15:29 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 08:15:29 -0500 Subject: [governance] statement for ITU website In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <79B5CD8D-042D-439A-93B7-82D665CAE88F@acm.org> Hi, I too think it is a good statement. Though if it is meant to represent civil society you might want to expand it to cover academia as well ass NGOs. In any case I support it. a. On 30 jan 2006, at 04.35, William Drake wrote: > Good morning, > > Since there was no consensus on making a joint caucus or other CS > statement on the website for the ITU's Wednesday reform meeting, I > decided I might as well type up something short to submit on a > personal basis. If anyone would like to sign on you're more than > welcome; either way, I will submit this by close of business today, > Geneva time. I don't know that we'd have time to do any text > tweaking, but if that might make this more attractive to potential > signatories, let's communicate. I see that Parminder made a nice > submission on the cost of ITU documentation and its nonconformity > with the access to knowledge and information principle enunciated > in the WSIS Plan of Action. The below text is on a different point > and is complementary. > > ------- > > The WSIS Principles state that Internet governance should be > multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement > of governments, the private sector, civil society and international > organizations. The ITU clearly does not meet the last criteria. > For the overwhelming majority of civil society organizations, the > barriers to becoming a sector member or even an associate are > simply too high. In parallel, there are no options for > participating on a more flexible, ad hoc basis in special workshops > and seminars, or in the assemblies and conferences. In > consequence, and unlike other UN agencies, true NGOs (as opposed to > hybrid business/user/technical organizations) are almost entirely > absent and alienated from the ITU. That this is not in the ITU’s > own interest was amply demonstrated by the WSIS process, in which > civil society strongly opposed the ITU playing an expanded, leading > role in Internet governance. > > With WSIS follow-up and implementation efforts forthcoming, now > would be a particularly appropriate time to make opening up to > civil society a central element of ITU reform. Doing so would not > in any way disrupt the work of the Union, and the administrative > cost would be negligible (we can print our own documents, etc). > The ITU would not face a stampede of hundreds of organizations > seeking to participate in ongoing study group work on frequency > propagation, signaling requirements and protocols, and other > technical matters. A much more likely scenario would be that a > manageable number of NGOs would seek to participate in some of the > above-mentioned workshops, seminars, assemblies and conferences. > Civil society experts contributed significantly to the success of > the February 2004 ITU workshop on Internet governance, and there is > every reason to believe that same constructive engagement would > ensue in other forums. Allowing civil society participation in > events like the March 2006 meeting on NGN policies would be a good > first step, and would not require changes to the Constitution and > Convention. WSIS and/or ECOSOC accreditation would seem sufficient > for this purpose. > > It is unfortunate that the ITU’s February 1 reform meeting is > closed to civil society participation. Our exclusion from this and > similar events has been debated extensively on civil society > Internet listservs in the course of the WSIS process and > afterwards. There was little enthusiasm for the website’s cheery > invitation to “be part of it” by submitting statements in this > “open forum” for a meeting from which we are barred. If however > the ITU were to initiate a genuine, open and inclusive dialogue on > the matter, the response would be rather different. > > --------- > > Best, > > Bill > > ******************************************************* > William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch > Director, Project on the Information > Revolution and Global Governance > Graduate Institute for International Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > President, Computer Professionals for > Social Responsibility > http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake > ******************************************************* > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Mon Jan 30 09:15:42 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 09:15:42 -0500 Subject: [governance] for events related to the IGF Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060130091509.03bb8ac0@veni.com> Hi. FYI - for events, related to the post-WSIS process, go to www.isoc.bg/ig - click on "events". The site is being updated regularly. best, veni Sincerely, Veni Markovski http://www.isoc.bg/ig the Internet Governance Resource Portal _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jan 30 09:24:34 2006 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 19:54:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] statement for ITU website In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200601301417.k0UEHnVj083464@trout.cpsr.org> Hi Bill Pl add IT for Change's endorsement to it. Thanks. I still find it astonishing that ITU can get away with not incorporating open access principle which is clearly stated in POA, and more clearly so for the kind of work ITU does - technical IS related info.. I am in the middle of something urgent, and not able to draft a separate 'open access' statement' - so well, some other time. Though I also see that there could be some lack of complete consensus on this issue in the CS - it is certainly is a complex issue.. For me making such representations is important not only from a content point of view - which is of course more important - but as much from process point of view. We need to take opportunity at these times when the WSIS-CS mandate, structure and future is uncertain to asset ourselves as the 'WSIS CS' or something. We have gathered some political strength in our collective form, however rudimentary. It needs to be preserved - and it can only be preserved by pushing 'content' or substantive actions like this one.. That was the reason I had used the rather artificial sounding opening for the statement I drafted - 'We, the CS that associated with the WSIS'. See if some acceptable version of such assertion can be used.. It will be politically significant... though we need to figure out how much active the WSIS CS is at present.. More on that later.. Thanks for the effort. Best regards Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134 www.ITforChange.net _____ From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 3:05 PM To: Governance Subject: [governance] statement for ITU website Good morning, Since there was no consensus on making a joint caucus or other CS statement on the website for the ITU's Wednesday reform meeting, I decided I might as well type up something short to submit on a personal basis. If anyone would like to sign on you're more than welcome; either way, I will submit this by close of business today, Geneva time. I don't know that we'd have time to do any text tweaking, but if that might make this more attractive to potential signatories, let's communicate. I see that Parminder made a nice submission on the cost of ITU documentation and its nonconformity with the access to knowledge and information principle enunciated in the WSIS Plan of Action. The below text is on a different point and is complementary. ------- The WSIS Principles state that Internet governance should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations. The ITU clearly does not meet the last criteria. For the overwhelming majority of civil society organizations, the barriers to becoming a sector member or even an associate are simply too high. In parallel, there are no options for participating on a more flexible, ad hoc basis in special workshops and seminars, or in the assemblies and conferences. In consequence, and unlike other UN agencies, true NGOs (as opposed to hybrid business/user/technical organizations) are almost entirely absent and alienated from the ITU. That this is not in the ITU's own interest was amply demonstrated by the WSIS process, in which civil society strongly opposed the ITU playing an expanded, leading role in Internet governance. With WSIS follow-up and implementation efforts forthcoming, now would be a particularly appropriate time to make opening up to civil society a central element of ITU reform. Doing so would not in any way disrupt the work of the Union, and the administrative cost would be negligible (we can print our own documents, etc). The ITU would not face a stampede of hundreds of organizations seeking to participate in ongoing study group work on frequency propagation, signaling requirements and protocols, and other technical matters. A much more likely scenario would be that a manageable number of NGOs would seek to participate in some of the above-mentioned workshops, seminars, assemblies and conferences. Civil society experts contributed significantly to the success of the February 2004 ITU workshop on Internet governance, and there is every reason to believe that same constructive engagement would ensue in other forums. Allowing civil society participation in events like the March 2006 meeting on NGN policies would be a good first step, and would not require changes to the Constitution and Convention. WSIS and/or ECOSOC accreditation would seem sufficient for this purpose. It is unfortunate that the ITU's February 1 reform meeting is closed to civil society participation. Our exclusion from this and similar events has been debated extensively on civil society Internet listservs in the course of the WSIS process and afterwards. There was little enthusiasm for the website's cheery invitation to "be part of it" by submitting statements in this "open forum" for a meeting from which we are barred. If however the ITU were to initiate a genuine, open and inclusive dialogue on the matter, the response would be rather different. --------- Best, Bill ******************************************************* William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance Graduate Institute for International Studies Geneva, Switzerland President, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake ******************************************************* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jan 30 09:32:18 2006 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 20:02:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] statement for ITU website In-Reply-To: <200601301417.k0UEHnVj083464@trout.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <200601301425.k0UEPXYo083583@trout.cpsr.org> >>> opening for the statement I drafted - 'We, the CS that associated with the WSIS'. See if some acceptable version of such assertion can be used..>> Sorry I had meant some thing more like - we the undersigned members of the CS that had associated with the WSIS'......... The WSIS CS pressure is especially significant for ITU which both hosted WSIS - and is probably planning a some kind of a changeover (??) taking some ammunition from WSIS outcomes... ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134 www.ITforChange.net _____ From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Parminder Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 7:55 PM To: 'William Drake'; 'Governance' Subject: Re: [governance] statement for ITU website Hi Bill Pl add IT for Change's endorsement to it. Thanks. I still find it astonishing that ITU can get away with not incorporating open access principle which is clearly stated in POA, and more clearly so for the kind of work ITU does - technical IS related info.. I am in the middle of something urgent, and not able to draft a separate 'open access' statement' - so well, some other time. Though I also see that there could be some lack of complete consensus on this issue in the CS - it is certainly is a complex issue.. For me making such representations is important not only from a content point of view - which is of course more important - but as much from process point of view. We need to take opportunity at these times when the WSIS-CS mandate, structure and future is uncertain to asset ourselves as the 'WSIS CS' or something. We have gathered some political strength in our collective form, however rudimentary. It needs to be preserved - and it can only be preserved by pushing 'content' or substantive actions like this one.. That was the reason I had used the rather artificial sounding opening for the statement I drafted - 'We, the CS that associated with the WSIS'. See if some acceptable version of such assertion can be used.. It will be politically significant... though we need to figure out how much active the WSIS CS is at present.. More on that later.. Thanks for the effort. Best regards Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134 www.ITforChange.net _____ From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 3:05 PM To: Governance Subject: [governance] statement for ITU website Good morning, Since there was no consensus on making a joint caucus or other CS statement on the website for the ITU's Wednesday reform meeting, I decided I might as well type up something short to submit on a personal basis. If anyone would like to sign on you're more than welcome; either way, I will submit this by close of business today, Geneva time. I don't know that we'd have time to do any text tweaking, but if that might make this more attractive to potential signatories, let's communicate. I see that Parminder made a nice submission on the cost of ITU documentation and its nonconformity with the access to knowledge and information principle enunciated in the WSIS Plan of Action. The below text is on a different point and is complementary. ------- The WSIS Principles state that Internet governance should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations. The ITU clearly does not meet the last criteria. For the overwhelming majority of civil society organizations, the barriers to becoming a sector member or even an associate are simply too high. In parallel, there are no options for participating on a more flexible, ad hoc basis in special workshops and seminars, or in the assemblies and conferences. In consequence, and unlike other UN agencies, true NGOs (as opposed to hybrid business/user/technical organizations) are almost entirely absent and alienated from the ITU. That this is not in the ITU's own interest was amply demonstrated by the WSIS process, in which civil society strongly opposed the ITU playing an expanded, leading role in Internet governance. With WSIS follow-up and implementation efforts forthcoming, now would be a particularly appropriate time to make opening up to civil society a central element of ITU reform. Doing so would not in any way disrupt the work of the Union, and the administrative cost would be negligible (we can print our own documents, etc). The ITU would not face a stampede of hundreds of organizations seeking to participate in ongoing study group work on frequency propagation, signaling requirements and protocols, and other technical matters. A much more likely scenario would be that a manageable number of NGOs would seek to participate in some of the above-mentioned workshops, seminars, assemblies and conferences. Civil society experts contributed significantly to the success of the February 2004 ITU workshop on Internet governance, and there is every reason to believe that same constructive engagement would ensue in other forums. Allowing civil society participation in events like the March 2006 meeting on NGN policies would be a good first step, and would not require changes to the Constitution and Convention. WSIS and/or ECOSOC accreditation would seem sufficient for this purpose. It is unfortunate that the ITU's February 1 reform meeting is closed to civil society participation. Our exclusion from this and similar events has been debated extensively on civil society Internet listservs in the course of the WSIS process and afterwards. There was little enthusiasm for the website's cheery invitation to "be part of it" by submitting statements in this "open forum" for a meeting from which we are barred. If however the ITU were to initiate a genuine, open and inclusive dialogue on the matter, the response would be rather different. --------- Best, Bill ******************************************************* William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance Graduate Institute for International Studies Geneva, Switzerland President, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake ******************************************************* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Mon Jan 30 10:06:08 2006 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:06:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] statement for ITU website In-Reply-To: <0ITW00JR3TD2KN@romeo.unige.ch> Message-ID: Hi, So far I have as signatories, William Drake Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility/ Graduate Institute for International Studies Wolfgang Kleinwachter University of Aarhus McTim Internet Infrastructure Consultant Lee McKnight Syracuse University/Internet Governance Project Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change Jeanette Hofmann Social Science Research Center, Berlin Avri Doria Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility/Consultant Questions: 1. Parminder thinks we should have some sort of WSIS-related identification. I'm not much on a lead like 'we the people of WSIS-CS' or whatever since it implies a level of consultation and consensus that isn't there, but I suppose I could label it, Statement by Members of the WSIS-Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. Any problems with that? Of course, I'd rather it was simply a statement of the caucus, full stop, can't imagine that many caucus members are opposed to asking for inclusion, and we've made caucus statements in the past with fewer ayes (an issue in itself, I suppose), but maybe that's pushing it a bit...Anyone have guidance/feelings about this either way? 2. Avri suggested I frame this in terms of "civil society organizations and academics." I view academia as part of CS by definition, but can do this for emphasis, in which case perhaps I should stick Dr. in front of the relevant names. With ITU, where claims of 'expertise' are highly relevant to a claim to participation, this might be desirable. Guidance/feelings...? I guess I can send this later in the evening to give more time in case others want to sign on, I'll just email it directly to relevant staff to make sure it gets seen before the meeting. Best, Bill -----Original Message----- From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 3:25 PM To: 'William Drake'; 'Governance' Subject: RE: [governance] statement for ITU website Hi Bill Pl add IT for Change's endorsement to it. Thanks. I still find it astonishing that ITU can get away with not incorporating open access principle which is clearly stated in POA, and more clearly so for the kind of work ITU does - technical IS related info.. I am in the middle of something urgent, and not able to draft a separate 'open access' statement' - so well, some other time. Though I also see that there could be some lack of complete consensus on this issue in the CS - it is certainly is a complex issue.. For me making such representations is important not only from a content point of view - which is of course more important - but as much from process point of view. We need to take opportunity at these times when the WSIS-CS mandate, structure and future is uncertain to asset ourselves as the 'WSIS CS' or something. We have gathered some political strength in our collective form, however rudimentary. It needs to be preserved - and it can only be preserved by pushing 'content' or substantive actions like this one.. That was the reason I had used the rather artificial sounding opening for the statement I drafted - 'We, the CS that associated with the WSIS'. See if some acceptable version of such assertion can be used.. It will be politically significant... though we need to figure out how much active the WSIS CS is at present.. More on that later.. Thanks for the effort. Best regards Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134 www.ITforChange.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 3:05 PM To: Governance Subject: [governance] statement for ITU website Good morning, Since there was no consensus on making a joint caucus or other CS statement on the website for the ITU's Wednesday reform meeting, I decided I might as well type up something short to submit on a personal basis. If anyone would like to sign on you're more than welcome; either way, I will submit this by close of business today, Geneva time. I don't know that we'd have time to do any text tweaking, but if that might make this more attractive to potential signatories, let's communicate. I see that Parminder made a nice submission on the cost of ITU documentation and its nonconformity with the access to knowledge and information principle enunciated in the WSIS Plan of Action. The below text is on a different point and is complementary. ------- The WSIS Principles state that Internet governance should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations. The ITU clearly does not meet the last criteria. For the overwhelming majority of civil society organizations, the barriers to becoming a sector member or even an associate are simply too high. In parallel, there are no options for participating on a more flexible, ad hoc basis in special workshops and seminars, or in the assemblies and conferences. In consequence, and unlike other UN agencies, true NGOs (as opposed to hybrid business/user/technical organizations) are almost entirely absent and alienated from the ITU. That this is not in the ITU's own interest was amply demonstrated by the WSIS process, in which civil society strongly opposed the ITU playing an expanded, leading role in Internet governance. With WSIS follow-up and implementation efforts forthcoming, now would be a particularly appropriate time to make opening up to civil society a central element of ITU reform. Doing so would not in any way disrupt the work of the Union, and the administrative cost would be negligible (we can print our own documents, etc). The ITU would not face a stampede of hundreds of organizations seeking to participate in ongoing study group work on frequency propagation, signaling requirements and protocols, and other technical matters. A much more likely scenario would be that a manageable number of NGOs would seek to participate in some of the above-mentioned workshops, seminars, assemblies and conferences. Civil society experts contributed significantly to the success of the February 2004 ITU workshop on Internet governance, and there is every reason to believe that same constructive engagement would ensue in other forums. Allowing civil society participation in events like the March 2006 meeting on NGN policies would be a good first step, and would not require changes to the Constitution and Convention. WSIS and/or ECOSOC accreditation would seem sufficient for this purpose. It is unfortunate that the ITU's February 1 reform meeting is closed to civil society participation. Our exclusion from this and similar events has been debated extensively on civil society Internet listservs in the course of the WSIS process and afterwards. There was little enthusiasm for the website's cheery invitation to "be part of it" by submitting statements in this "open forum" for a meeting from which we are barred. If however the ITU were to initiate a genuine, open and inclusive dialogue on the matter, the response would be rather different. --------- Best, Bill ******************************************************* William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance Graduate Institute for International Studies Geneva, Switzerland President, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake ******************************************************* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From maxsenges at gmail.com Mon Jan 30 10:25:17 2006 From: maxsenges at gmail.com (Max Senges) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:25:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] statement for ITU website In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <43de2fe4.5563be1a.1fc2.ffffa568@mx.gmail.com> Hi Bill, I am also supporting the statement. I do not have special preferences neither about how to classify the origin nor about whether or not to highlight academics. Max (Committee for a Democratic UN) _____ From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: lunes, 30 de enero de 2006 16:06 To: 'Governance' Subject: Re: [governance] statement for ITU website Importance: High Hi, So far I have as signatories, William Drake Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility/ Graduate Institute for International Studies Wolfgang Kleinwächter University of Aarhus McTim Internet Infrastructure Consultant Lee McKnight Syracuse University/Internet Governance Project Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change Jeanette Hofmann Social Science Research Center, Berlin Avri Doria Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility/Consultant Questions: 1. Parminder thinks we should have some sort of WSIS-related identification. I'm not much on a lead like 'we the people of WSIS-CS' or whatever since it implies a level of consultation and consensus that isn't there, but I suppose I could label it, Statement by Members of the WSIS-Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. Any problems with that? Of course, I'd rather it was simply a statement of the caucus, full stop, can't imagine that many caucus members are opposed to asking for inclusion, and we've made caucus statements in the past with fewer ayes (an issue in itself, I suppose), but maybe that's pushing it a bit...Anyone have guidance/feelings about this either way? 2. Avri suggested I frame this in terms of "civil society organizations and academics." I view academia as part of CS by definition, but can do this for emphasis, in which case perhaps I should stick Dr. in front of the relevant names. With ITU, where claims of 'expertise' are highly relevant to a claim to participation, this might be desirable. Guidance/feelings...? I guess I can send this later in the evening to give more time in case others want to sign on, I'll just email it directly to relevant staff to make sure it gets seen before the meeting. Best, Bill -----Original Message----- From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 3:25 PM To: 'William Drake'; 'Governance' Subject: RE: [governance] statement for ITU website Hi Bill Pl add IT for Change’s endorsement to it. Thanks. I still find it astonishing that ITU can get away with not incorporating open access principle which is clearly stated in POA, and more clearly so for the kind of work ITU does – technical IS related info . I am in the middle of something urgent, and not able to draft a separate ‘open access’ statement’ – so well, some other time. Though I also see that there could be some lack of complete consensus on this issue in the CS – it is certainly is a complex issue For me making such representations is important not only from a content point of view – which is of course more important – but as much from process point of view. We need to take opportunity at these times when the WSIS-CS mandate, structure and future is uncertain to asset ourselves as the ‘WSIS CS’ or something. We have gathered some political strength in our collective form, however rudimentary. It needs to be preserved – and it can only be preserved by pushing ‘content’ or substantive actions like this one That was the reason I had used the rather artificial sounding opening for the statement I drafted – ‘We, the CS that associated with the WSIS’. See if some acceptable version of such assertion can be used It will be politically significant .. though we need to figure out how much active the WSIS CS is at present . More on that later . Thanks for the effort Best regards Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134 www.ITforChange.net _____ From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 3:05 PM To: Governance Subject: [governance] statement for ITU website Good morning, Since there was no consensus on making a joint caucus or other CS statement on the website for the ITU's Wednesday reform meeting, I decided I might as well type up something short to submit on a personal basis. If anyone would like to sign on you're more than welcome; either way, I will submit this by close of business today, Geneva time. I don't know that we'd have time to do any text tweaking, but if that might make this more attractive to potential signatories, let's communicate. I see that Parminder made a nice submission on the cost of ITU documentation and its nonconformity with the access to knowledge and information principle enunciated in the WSIS Plan of Action. The below text is on a different point and is complementary. ------- The WSIS Principles state that Internet governance should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations. The ITU clearly does not meet the last criteria. For the overwhelming majority of civil society organizations, the barriers to becoming a sector member or even an associate are simply too high. In parallel, there are no options for participating on a more flexible, ad hoc basis in special workshops and seminars, or in the assemblies and conferences. In consequence, and unlike other UN agencies, true NGOs (as opposed to hybrid business/user/technical organizations) are almost entirely absent and alienated from the ITU. That this is not in the ITU’s own interest was amply demonstrated by the WSIS process, in which civil society strongly opposed the ITU playing an expanded, leading role in Internet governance. With WSIS follow-up and implementation efforts forthcoming, now would be a particularly appropriate time to make opening up to civil society a central element of ITU reform. Doing so would not in any way disrupt the work of the Union, and the administrative cost would be negligible (we can print our own documents, etc). The ITU would not face a stampede of hundreds of organizations seeking to participate in ongoing study group work on frequency propagation, signaling requirements and protocols, and other technical matters. A much more likely scenario would be that a manageable number of NGOs would seek to participate in some of the above-mentioned workshops, seminars, assemblies and conferences. Civil society experts contributed significantly to the success of the February 2004 ITU workshop on Internet governance, and there is every reason to believe that same constructive engagement would ensue in other forums. Allowing civil society participation in events like the March 2006 meeting on NGN policies would be a good first step, and would not require changes to the Constitution and Convention. WSIS and/or ECOSOC accreditation would seem sufficient for this purpose. It is unfortunate that the ITU’s February 1 reform meeting is closed to civil society participation. Our exclusion from this and similar events has been debated extensively on civil society Internet listservs in the course of the WSIS process and afterwards. There was little enthusiasm for the website’s cheery invitation to “be part of it” by submitting statements in this “open forum” for a meeting from which we are barred. If however the ITU were to initiate a genuine, open and inclusive dialogue on the matter, the response would be rather different. --------- Best, Bill ******************************************************* William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance Graduate Institute for International Studies Geneva, Switzerland President, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake ******************************************************* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Mon Jan 30 10:31:22 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 10:31:22 -0500 Subject: [governance] statement for ITU website In-Reply-To: References: <0ITW00JR3TD2KN@romeo.unige.ch> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060130103035.04089548@veni.com> Bill Drake, Internet Society - Bulgaria signs. veni www.isoc.bg/ig - the Internet Governance Resource Portal At 16:06 30-01-06 +0100, William Drake wrote: >Hi, > >So far I have as signatories, > >William Drake Computer >Professionals for Social Responsibility/ > >Graduate Institute for International Studies >Wolfgang KleinwДchter University of Aarhus >McTim Internet Infrastructure Consultant >Lee McKnight Syracuse >University/Internet Governance Project >Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change >Jeanette Hofmann Social Science Research Center, Berlin >Avri Doria Computer >Professionals for Social Responsibility/Consultant > >Questions: > >1. Parminder thinks we should have some sort of >WSIS-related identification. I'm not much on a >lead like 'we the people of WSIS-CS' or whatever >since it implies a level of consultation and >consensus that isn't there, but I suppose I >could label it, Statement by Members of the >WSIS-Civil Society Internet Governance >Caucus. Any problems with that? Of course, I'd >rather it was simply a statement of the caucus, >full stop, can't imagine that many caucus >members are opposed to asking for inclusion, and >we've made caucus statements in the past with >fewer ayes (an issue in itself, I suppose), but >maybe that's pushing it a bit...Anyone have >guidance/feelings about this either way? > >2. Avri suggested I frame this in terms of >"civil society organizations and academics." I >view academia as part of CS by definition, but >can do this for emphasis, in which case perhaps >I should stick Dr. in front of the relevant >names. With ITU, where claims of 'expertise' >are highly relevant to a claim to participation, >this might be desirable. Guidance/feelings...? > >I guess I can send this later in the evening to >give more time in case others want to sign on, >I'll just email it directly to relevant staff to >make sure it gets seen before the meeting. > >Best, > >Bill > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 3:25 PM >To: 'William Drake'; 'Governance' >Subject: RE: [governance] statement for ITU website > >Hi Bill > > >Pl add IT for Change▓s endorsement to it. Thanks. > >I still find it astonishing that ITU can get >away with not incorporating open access >principle which is clearly stated in POA, and >more clearly so for the kind of work ITU does √ technical IS related info┘. > >I am in the middle of something urgent, and not >able to draft a separate ▒open access▓ >statement▓ √ so well, some other time. Though I >also see that there could be some lack of >complete consensus on this issue in the CS √ it >is certainly is a complex issue┘┘ > >For me making such representations is important >not only from a content point of view √ which is >of course more important √ but as much from >process point of view. We need to take >opportunity at these times when the WSIS-CS >mandate, structure and future is uncertain to >asset ourselves as the ▒WSIS CS▓ or something. >We have gathered some political strength in our >collective form, however rudimentary. It needs >to be preserved √ and it can only be preserved >by pushing ▒content▓ or substantive actions like this one┘┘ > >That was the reason I had used the rather >artificial sounding opening for the statement I >drafted √ ▒We, the CS that associated with the >WSIS▓. See if some acceptable version of such >assertion can be used┘┘ It will be politically >significant┘.. though we need to figure out how >much active the WSIS CS is at present┘. More on that later┘. > >Thanks for the effort┘ > >Best regards > >Parminder > > >________________________________________________ >Parminder Jeet Singh >IT for Change >Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities >91-80-26654134 >www.ITforChange.net > >---------- >From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org >[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake >Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 3:05 PM >To: Governance >Subject: [governance] statement for ITU website > >Good morning, > >Since there was no consensus on making a joint >caucus or other CS statement on the website for >the ITU's Wednesday reform meeting, I decided I >might as well type up something short to submit >on a personal basis. If anyone would like to >sign on you're more than welcome; either way, I >will submit this by close of business today, >Geneva time. I don't know that we'd have time >to do any text tweaking, but if that might make >this more attractive to potential signatories, >let's communicate. I see that Parminder made a >nice submission on the cost of ITU documentation >and its nonconformity with the access to >knowledge and information principle enunciated >in the WSIS Plan of Action. The below text is >on a different point and is complementary. > >------- > >The WSIS Principles state that Internet >governance should be multilateral, transparent >and democratic, with the full involvement of >governments, the private sector, civil society >and international organizations. The ITU >clearly does not meet the last criteria. For >the overwhelming majority of civil society >organizations, the barriers to becoming a sector >member or even an associate are simply too >high. In parallel, there are no options for >participating on a more flexible, ad hoc basis >in special workshops and seminars, or in the >assemblies and conferences. In consequence, and >unlike other UN agencies, true NGOs (as opposed >to hybrid business/user/technical organizations) >are almost entirely absent and alienated from >the ITU. That this is not in the ITU▓s own >interest was amply demonstrated by the WSIS >process, in which civil society strongly opposed >the ITU playing an expanded, leading role in Internet governance. > >With WSIS follow-up and implementation efforts >forthcoming, now would be a particularly >appropriate time to make opening up to civil >society a central element of ITU reform. Doing >so would not in any way disrupt the work of the >Union, and the administrative cost would be >negligible (we can print our own documents, >etc). The ITU would not face a stampede of >hundreds of organizations seeking to participate >in ongoing study group work on frequency >propagation, signaling requirements and >protocols, and other technical matters. A much >more likely scenario would be that a manageable >number of NGOs would seek to participate in some >of the above-mentioned workshops, seminars, >assemblies and conferences. Civil society >experts contributed significantly to the success >of the February 2004 ITU workshop on Internet >governance, and there is every reason to believe >that same constructive engagement would ensue in >other forums. Allowing civil society >participation in events like the March 2006 >meeting on NGN policies would be a good first >step, and would not require changes to the >Constitution and Convention. WSIS and/or ECOSOC >accreditation would seem sufficient for this purpose. > >It is unfortunate that the ITU▓s February 1 >reform meeting is closed to civil society >participation. Our exclusion from this and >similar events has been debated extensively on >civil society Internet listservs in the course >of the WSIS process and afterwards. There was >little enthusiasm for the website▓s cheery >invitation to ⌠be part of it■ by submitting >statements in this ⌠open forum■ for a meeting >from which we are barred. If however the ITU >were to initiate a genuine, open and inclusive >dialogue on the matter, the response would be rather different. > >--------- > >Best, > >Bill > >******************************************************* >William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch >Director, Project on the Information > Revolution and Global Governance > Graduate Institute for International Studies > Geneva, Switzerland >President, Computer Professionals for > Social Responsibility >http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake >******************************************************* > > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Mon Jan 30 10:49:24 2006 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 15:49:24 +0000 Subject: [governance] statement for ITU website In-Reply-To: References: <0ITW00JR3TD2KN@romeo.unige.ch> Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.0.20060130154733.039e4350@gn.apc.org> hi bill, please do add APC karen At 15:06 30/01/2006, William Drake wrote: >Hi, > >So far I have as signatories, > >William Drake Computer >Professionals for Social Responsibility/ > >Graduate Institute for International Studies >Wolfgang Kleinwächter University of Aarhus >McTim Internet Infrastructure Consultant >Lee McKnight Syracuse >University/Internet Governance Project >Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change >Jeanette Hofmann Social Science Research Center, Berlin >Avri Doria Computer >Professionals for Social Responsibility/Consultant > >Questions: > >1. Parminder thinks we should have some sort of >WSIS-related identification. I'm not much on a >lead like 'we the people of WSIS-CS' or whatever >since it implies a level of consultation and >consensus that isn't there, but I suppose I >could label it, Statement by Members of the >WSIS-Civil Society Internet Governance >Caucus. Any problems with that? Of course, I'd >rather it was simply a statement of the caucus, >full stop, can't imagine that many caucus >members are opposed to asking for inclusion, and >we've made caucus statements in the past with >fewer ayes (an issue in itself, I suppose), but >maybe that's pushing it a bit...Anyone have >guidance/feelings about this either way? this is fine with me >2. Avri suggested I frame this in terms of >"civil society organizations and academics." I >view academia as part of CS by definition, but >can do this for emphasis, in which case perhaps >I should stick Dr. in front of the relevant >names. With ITU, where claims of 'expertise' >are highly relevant to a claim to participation, >this might be desirable. Guidance/feelings...? i'm not too much bothered on this one.. karen _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Mon Jan 30 11:31:46 2006 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:31:46 +0000 Subject: [governance] statement for ITU website In-Reply-To: <200601301417.k0UEHnVj083464@trout.cpsr.org> References: <200601301417.k0UEHnVj083464@trout.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.0.20060130162112.03ae9c98@gn.apc.org> hi parminder and all, >I still find it astonishing that ITU can get >away with not incorporating open access >principle which is clearly stated in POA, and >more clearly so for the kind of work ITU does – technical IS related info . > >I am in the middle of something urgent, and not >able to draft a separate ‘open access’ >statement’ – so well, some other time. Though I >also see that there could be some lack of >complete consensus on this issue in the CS – it >is certainly is a complex issue this was a really difficult issue for those of us in the WGIG who felt it an important element in the IG landscape - i just read over the draft issue paper i started on the subject and am reminded of just how complex the area is.. in some ways, it could be quite simple.. all publically funded research should be made available under an open access policy - an awful lots of work has been done on this by a whole range of groups - who are not totally disconnected from the WSIS CS - rather intersect at certain points with certain groups i was trying to locate some readily-usable text to submit to the ITU, but most of the work around open access initiatives are targetted at governments and research institutes, or speak directrly to scientific information The most useful document i've come across if the Access to Knowledge Treaty - which has been developed somewhat alongside the WIPO development agenda - but even it doesn't speak directly to intergovernmentals. I believe this work was led by many of the groups who supported the 'Friends of Development' in WIPO (IP justice, CPtech, IFLA etc) (section 5 included below) The other substantial work is spearheaded by the OSI Budapest Open Access Initiative http://www.soros.org/openaccess/index.shtml - but is mainly targetted at scientific journals - still, the recommendations for 'transition' are relevant One of our main priorities this coming year is to become more engaged in the Open Access framework of content, software and infrastructure (as you would know parminder) and it seems a first step has to be a mapping of existing initiatives, identifying gaps (and i think IGO's is one) and develop an advocacy strategy.. although i can't offer anything much more today, i wanted to support your post on the ITU reform forum and flag this as a priority.. karen http://www.cptech.org/a2k/consolidatedtext-may9.pdf PART 5 - EXPANDING AND ENHANCING THE KNOWLEDGE COMMONS Article 5-1 - Knowledge Commons Committee A knowledge commons committee (KCC) is established to promote cooperation and investment in databases, open access journals and other open knowledge projects that expand the knowledge commons. Article 5-2 – Access to Public Funded Research (a) Members agree that works resulting from government-funded research shall be publicly available at no charge within a reasonable time frame, subject to reasonable exceptions, for example, for classified military research, for patentable discoveries, and for works that generate revenue for the author such as books. (b) The KCC shall publish and periodically update best practices for providing public access to government funded research. The best practices will include such topics as support for open access journals, open access archives/repositories, interoperability, etc. Article 5-3 – No Copyright of Government Works Works created by government employees and by contractors conducting essential public functions shall enter the public domain. Article 5-4 - Archives of Public Broadcasting Members that provide free access to archives of public broadcasting works to their own residents agree to extend such access on a reciprocal basis to residents of other members who offer similar access. Article 5-5 - Access to Government Information (a) Members shall facilitate public access to information held by public bodies and private bodies that are conducting public business. This shall include laws and regulations to provide for legal procedures for access to information based on the principles of openness and transparency. (b) The right to information shall be guaranteed by law in accordance with the following principles: (i) everyone has the right to access information held by public bodies; (ii) any exemptions to this right shall be set down in law, limited in scope, and proportional to the interest to be protected, and subject to a review of the public interest. (iii) any refusal to disclose information shall be subject to review by an independent body such as an ombudsman and/or a court; (iv) public bodies shall be required, even in the absence of a request, actively to publish important information of significant public interest; (v) secrecy laws and other legislation shall be amended as necessary to comply with freedom of information principles. Article 5-6 - Knowledge Commons Databases (a) The KCC shall adopt procedures whereby persons, organizations or communities that seek to establish certain qualifying open databases apply for a time limited period during which no patent applications can be submitted that rely upon the data from the database. To quality, the databases must address an important public interest, and be freely available to all. (b) Members agree that during the time period determined in (a), no patents will be granted for patent applications that contain claims to particular uses of the data obtained from such a qualifying database, unless such claims do not restrict, or are licensed on such terms that that they do not restrict, the ability of others to use the data at no cost. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Mon Jan 30 14:47:58 2006 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 20:47:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] ITU statement last call Message-ID: Hi, Having shifted from an individual to group statement, I can't help thinking this would be more effective if there was more of a group associated with it. Twelve names is ok, but more would be merrier. I will submit it when I wake up tomorrow morning, if anyone else wants to join please let me know privately before then. Thanks Bill Statement by members of the WSIS-civil society Internet Governance Caucus Submitted for the WG-WSIS ITU Reform Meeting 1 February 2006 The WSIS Principles state that Internet governance should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations. The ITU clearly does not meet the last criteria. For the overwhelming majority of civil society organizations and individual academics, the barriers to becoming a sector member or even an associate are simply too high to overcome. In parallel, there are no options for participating on a more flexible, ad hoc basis in special workshops and seminars, or in the assemblies and conferences. In consequence, and unlike other UN agencies, true NGOs (as opposed to hybrid business/user/technical organizations) are almost entirely absent and alienated from the ITU. That this is not in the ITU’s own interest was demonstrated by the WSIS process, in which civil society opposed the ITU playing an expanded, leading role in Internet governance. With WSIS follow-up and implementation efforts forthcoming, now would be a particularly appropriate time to make opening up to civil society a central element of ITU reform. Doing so would not in any way disrupt the work of the Union, and the administrative cost would be negligible (we can print our own documents, etc). The ITU would not face a stampede of hundreds of organizations seeking to participate in ongoing study group work on frequency propagation, signaling requirements and protocols, and other technical matters. A much more likely scenario would be that a manageable number of NGOs and academics would seek to participate in some of the above-mentioned workshops, seminars, assemblies and conferences. Civil society experts contributed significantly to the success of the February 2004 workshop on Internet governance, and there is every reason to believe that same constructive engagement would ensue in other forums. Allowing civil society participation in events like the March 2006 meeting on NGN policies would be a good first step, and would not require changes to the Constitution and Convention. WSIS and/or ECOSOC accreditation would seem sufficient for this purpose. It is unfortunate that the ITU’s February 1 reform meeting is closed to civil society participation. Our exclusion from this and similar events has been debated extensively on civil society Internet listservs. There was little enthusiasm for the website’s cheery invitation to “be part of it” by submitting statements in this “open forum” for a meeting from which we are barred. If however the ITU were to initiate a genuine, open and inclusive dialogue on the matter, the response would be much more supportive. Dr. William Drake Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility/ Graduate Institute for International Studies, Geneva Dr. Wolfgang Kleinwächter University of Aarhus McTim Internet Infrastructure Consultant Dr. Lee McKnight Syracuse University/Internet Governance Project Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change Dr. Jeanette Hofmann Social Science Research Center, Berlin Avri Doria Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility/ Nomadic Women's ICT Network Robert Guerra Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility/ Privaterra Dr. Ralf Bendrath www.worldsummit2005.org Max Senges Committee for a Democratic United Nations Veni Markovski Internet Society, Bulgaria Karen Banks Association for Progressive Communications -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rbloem at ngocongo.org Mon Jan 30 15:00:02 2006 From: rbloem at ngocongo.org (Renate Bloem) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 21:00:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] statement for ITU website In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <43C618A3005293CB@mail22.bluewin.ch> (added by postmaster@bluewin.ch) Hi Bill, It is a very good statement. I am happy that you sent this. As Philippe said in his Friday message, we had pushed as CONGO also for more opening. This will reinforce it. Thanks Renata _____ De : governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] De la part de William Drake Envoyé : lundi, 30. janvier 2006 16:06 À : 'Governance' Objet : Re: [governance] statement for ITU website Importance : Haute Hi, So far I have as signatories, William Drake Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility/ Graduate Institute for International Studies Wolfgang Kleinwächter University of Aarhus McTim Internet Infrastructure Consultant Lee McKnight Syracuse University/Internet Governance Project Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change Jeanette Hofmann Social Science Research Center, Berlin Avri Doria Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility/Consultant Questions: 1. Parminder thinks we should have some sort of WSIS-related identification. I'm not much on a lead like 'we the people of WSIS-CS' or whatever since it implies a level of consultation and consensus that isn't there, but I suppose I could label it, Statement by Members of the WSIS-Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. Any problems with that? Of course, I'd rather it was simply a statement of the caucus, full stop, can't imagine that many caucus members are opposed to asking for inclusion, and we've made caucus statements in the past with fewer ayes (an issue in itself, I suppose), but maybe that's pushing it a bit...Anyone have guidance/feelings about this either way? 2. Avri suggested I frame this in terms of "civil society organizations and academics." I view academia as part of CS by definition, but can do this for emphasis, in which case perhaps I should stick Dr. in front of the relevant names. With ITU, where claims of 'expertise' are highly relevant to a claim to participation, this might be desirable. Guidance/feelings...? I guess I can send this later in the evening to give more time in case others want to sign on, I'll just email it directly to relevant staff to make sure it gets seen before the meeting. Best, Bill -----Original Message----- From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 3:25 PM To: 'William Drake'; 'Governance' Subject: RE: [governance] statement for ITU website Hi Bill Pl add IT for Change’s endorsement to it. Thanks. I still find it astonishing that ITU can get away with not incorporating open access principle which is clearly stated in POA, and more clearly so for the kind of work ITU does – technical IS related info . I am in the middle of something urgent, and not able to draft a separate ‘open access’ statement’ – so well, some other time. Though I also see that there could be some lack of complete consensus on this issue in the CS – it is certainly is a complex issue For me making such representations is important not only from a content point of view – which is of course more important – but as much from process point of view. We need to take opportunity at these times when the WSIS-CS mandate, structure and future is uncertain to asset ourselves as the ‘WSIS CS’ or something. We have gathered some political strength in our collective form, however rudimentary. It needs to be preserved – and it can only be preserved by pushing ‘content’ or substantive actions like this one That was the reason I had used the rather artificial sounding opening for the statement I drafted – ‘We, the CS that associated with the WSIS’. See if some acceptable version of such assertion can be used It will be politically significant .. though we need to figure out how much active the WSIS CS is at present . More on that later . Thanks for the effort Best regards Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134 www.ITforChange.net _____ From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 3:05 PM To: Governance Subject: [governance] statement for ITU website Good morning, Since there was no consensus on making a joint caucus or other CS statement on the website for the ITU's Wednesday reform meeting, I decided I might as well type up something short to submit on a personal basis. If anyone would like to sign on you're more than welcome; either way, I will submit this by close of business today, Geneva time. I don't know that we'd have time to do any text tweaking, but if that might make this more attractive to potential signatories, let's communicate. I see that Parminder made a nice submission on the cost of ITU documentation and its nonconformity with the access to knowledge and information principle enunciated in the WSIS Plan of Action. The below text is on a different point and is complementary. ------- The WSIS Principles state that Internet governance should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations. The ITU clearly does not meet the last criteria. For the overwhelming majority of civil society organizations, the barriers to becoming a sector member or even an associate are simply too high. In parallel, there are no options for participating on a more flexible, ad hoc basis in special workshops and seminars, or in the assemblies and conferences. In consequence, and unlike other UN agencies, true NGOs (as opposed to hybrid business/user/technical organizations) are almost entirely absent and alienated from the ITU. That this is not in the ITU’s own interest was amply demonstrated by the WSIS process, in which civil society strongly opposed the ITU playing an expanded, leading role in Internet governance. With WSIS follow-up and implementation efforts forthcoming, now would be a particularly appropriate time to make opening up to civil society a central element of ITU reform. Doing so would not in any way disrupt the work of the Union, and the administrative cost would be negligible (we can print our own documents, etc). The ITU would not face a stampede of hundreds of organizations seeking to participate in ongoing study group work on frequency propagation, signaling requirements and protocols, and other technical matters. A much more likely scenario would be that a manageable number of NGOs would seek to participate in some of the above-mentioned workshops, seminars, assemblies and conferences. Civil society experts contributed significantly to the success of the February 2004 ITU workshop on Internet governance, and there is every reason to believe that same constructive engagement would ensue in other forums. Allowing civil society participation in events like the March 2006 meeting on NGN policies would be a good first step, and would not require changes to the Constitution and Convention. WSIS and/or ECOSOC accreditation would seem sufficient for this purpose. It is unfortunate that the ITU’s February 1 reform meeting is closed to civil society participation. Our exclusion from this and similar events has been debated extensively on civil society Internet listservs in the course of the WSIS process and afterwards. There was little enthusiasm for the website’s cheery invitation to “be part of it” by submitting statements in this “open forum” for a meeting from which we are barred. If however the ITU were to initiate a genuine, open and inclusive dialogue on the matter, the response would be rather different. --------- Best, Bill ******************************************************* William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance Graduate Institute for International Studies Geneva, Switzerland President, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake ******************************************************* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From mgurst at vcn.bc.ca Mon Jan 30 15:52:29 2006 From: mgurst at vcn.bc.ca (mgurst at vcn.bc.ca) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 12:52:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] ITU statement last call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40243.157.150.192.237.1138654349.squirrel@mail.vcn.bc.ca> Bill, Please add my name, Michael Gurstein, Ph.D. Chair: Community Informatics Research Network Best, MG > Hi, > > Having shifted from an individual to group statement, I can't help > thinking this would be more effective if there was more of a group > associated with it. Twelve names is ok, but more would be merrier. I > will submit it when I wake up tomorrow morning, if anyone else wants to > join please let me know privately before then. > > Thanks > > Bill > > > > Statement by members of the WSIS-civil society Internet Governance Caucus > > > > Submitted for the WG-WSIS ITU Reform Meeting > > 1 February 2006 > > > > > > The WSIS Principles state that Internet governance should be multilateral, > transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the > private sector, civil society and international organizations. The ITU > clearly does not meet the last criteria. For the overwhelming majority of > civil society organizations and individual academics, the barriers to > becoming a sector member or even an associate are simply too high to > overcome. In parallel, there are no options for participating on a more > flexible, ad hoc basis in special workshops and seminars, or in the > assemblies and conferences. In consequence, and unlike other UN agencies, > true NGOs (as opposed to hybrid business/user/technical organizations) are > almost entirely absent and alienated from the ITU. That this is not in > the ITU’s own interest was demonstrated by the WSIS process, in which > civil society opposed the ITU playing an expanded, leading role in > Internet governance. > > > > With WSIS follow-up and implementation efforts forthcoming, now would be a > particularly appropriate time to make opening up to civil society a > central element of ITU reform. Doing so would not in any way disrupt the > work of the Union, and the administrative cost would be negligible (we can > print our own documents, etc). The ITU would not face a stampede of > hundreds of organizations seeking to participate in ongoing study group > work on frequency propagation, signaling requirements and protocols, and > other technical matters. A much more likely scenario would be that a > manageable number of NGOs and academics would seek to participate in some > of the above-mentioned workshops, seminars, assemblies and conferences. > Civil society experts contributed significantly to the success of the > February 2004 workshop on Internet governance, and there is every reason > to believe that same constructive engagement would ensue in other forums. > Allowing civil society participation in events like the March 2006 meeting > on NGN policies would be a good first step, and would not require changes > to the Constitution and Convention. WSIS and/or ECOSOC accreditation > would seem sufficient for this purpose. > > > > It is unfortunate that the ITU’s February 1 reform meeting is closed to > civil society participation. Our exclusion from this and similar events > has been debated extensively on civil society Internet listservs. There > was little enthusiasm for the website’s cheery invitation to “be part of > it” by submitting statements in this “open forum” for a meeting from which > we are barred. If however the ITU were to initiate a genuine, open and > inclusive dialogue on the matter, the response would be much more > supportive. > > > > > > Dr. William Drake > > Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility/ > > Graduate Institute for International Studies, Geneva > > > > Dr. Wolfgang Kleinwächter > > University of Aarhus > > > > McTim > > Internet Infrastructure Consultant > > > > Dr. Lee McKnight > > Syracuse University/Internet Governance Project > > > > Parminder Jeet Singh > > IT for Change > > > > Dr. Jeanette Hofmann > > Social Science Research Center, Berlin > > > > Avri Doria > > Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility/ > > Nomadic Women's ICT Network > > > > Robert Guerra > > Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility/ > > Privaterra > > > > Dr. Ralf Bendrath > > www.worldsummit2005.org > > > > Max Senges > > Committee for a Democratic United Nations > > > > Veni Markovski > > Internet Society, Bulgaria > > > > Karen Banks > > Association for Progressive Communications > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From qshatti at safat.kisr.edu.kw Mon Jan 30 16:55:16 2006 From: qshatti at safat.kisr.edu.kw (Qusai Al-Shatti) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:55:16 +0300 Subject: [governance] statement for ITU website Message-ID: <200601302155.AAA10484@safat.kisr.edu.kw> dear all: this is a good statement, I supported. Qusai Al-Shatti --- Message Header --- The following message was sent by "William Drake" on Mon, 30 Jan 2006 10:35:04 +0100. --- Original Message --- > Good morning, > > Since there was no consensus on making a joint caucus or other CS > statement on the website for the ITU's Wednesday reform meeting, I > decided I might as well type up something short to submit on a personal > basis. If anyone would like to sign on you're more than welcome; either > way, I will submit this by close of business today, Geneva time. I > don't know that we'd have time to do any text tweaking, but if that > might make this more attractive to potential signatories, let's > communicate. I see that Parminder made a nice submission on the cost of > ITU documentation and its nonconformity with the access to knowledge and > information principle enunciated in the WSIS Plan of Action. The below > text is on a different point and is complementary. > > ------- > > The WSIS Principles state that Internet governance should be > multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of > governments, the private sector, civil society and international > organizations. The ITU clearly does not meet the last criteria. For > the overwhelming majority of civil society organizations, the barriers > to becoming a sector member or even an associate are simply too high. > In parallel, there are no options for participating on a more flexible, > ad hoc basis in special workshops and seminars, or in the assemblies and > conferences. In consequence, and unlike other UN agencies, true NGOs > (as opposed to hybrid business/user/technical organizations) are almost > entirely absent and alienated from the ITU. That this is not in the > ITU�s own interest was amply demonstrated by the WSIS process, in > which civil society strongly opposed the ITU playing an expanded, > leading role in Internet governance. > > > > With WSIS follow-up and implementation efforts forthcoming, now would be > a particularly appropriate time to make opening up to civil society a > central element of ITU reform. Doing so would not in any way disrupt > the work of the Union, and the administrative cost would be negligible > (we can print our own documents, etc). The ITU would not face a > stampede of hundreds of organizations seeking to participate in ongoing > study group work on frequency propagation, signaling requirements and > protocols, and other technical matters. A much more likely scenario > would be that a manageable number of NGOs would seek to participate in > some of the above-mentioned workshops, seminars, assemblies and > conferences. Civil society experts contributed significantly to the > success of the February 2004 ITU workshop on Internet governance, and > there is every reason to believe that same constructive engagement would > ensue in other forums. Allowing civil society partici! pa! ! tion in events > like the March 2006 meeting on NGN policies would be a good first step, > and would not require changes to the Constitution and Convention. WSIS > and/or ECOSOC accreditation would seem sufficient for this purpose. > > > > It is unfortunate that the ITU�s February 1 reform meeting is closed > to civil society participation. Our exclusion from this and similar > events has been debated extensively on civil society Internet listservs > in the course of the WSIS process and afterwards. There was little > enthusiasm for the website�s cheery invitation to �be part of it� > by submitting statements in this �open forum� for a meeting from > which we are barred. If however the ITU were to initiate a genuine, > open and inclusive dialogue on the matter, the response would be rather > different. > > > --------- > > Best, > > Bill > > ******************************************************* > William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch > > Director, Project on the Information > > Revolution and Global Governance > > Graduate Institute for International Studies > > Geneva, Switzerland > President, Computer Professionals for > Social Responsibility > http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake > ******************************************************* > > > Good morning, > > Since there was no consensus on making a joint caucus or other CS > statement on the website for the ITU's Wednesday reform meeting, I > decided I might as well type up something short to submit on a personal > basis. If anyone would like to sign on you're more than welcome; either > way, I will submit this by close of business today, Geneva time. I > don't know that we'd have time to do any text tweaking, but if that > might make this more attractive to potential signatories, let's > communicate. I see that Parminder made a nice submission on the cost of > ITU documentation and its nonconformity with the access to knowledge and > information principle enunciated in the WSIS Plan of Action. The below > text is on a different point and is complementary. > > ------- > > The WSIS Principles state that Internet governance should be > multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of > governments, the private sector, civil society and international > organizations. The ITU clearly does not meet the last criteria. For > the overwhelming majority of civil society organizations, the barriers > to becoming a sector member or even an associate are simply too high. > In parallel, there are no options for participating on a more flexible, > ad hoc basis in special workshops and seminars, or in the assemblies and > conferences. In consequence, and unlike other UN agencies, true NGOs > (as opposed to hybrid business/user/technical organizations) are almost > entirely absent and alienated from the ITU. That this is not in the > ITU�s own interest was amply demonstrated by the WSIS process, in > which civil society strongly opposed the ITU playing an expanded, > leading role in Internet governance. > > > > With WSIS follow-up and implementation efforts forthcoming, now would be > a particularly appropriate time to make opening up to civil society a > central element of ITU reform. Doing so would not in any way disrupt > the work of the Union, and the administrative cost would be negligible > (we can print our own documents, etc). The ITU would not face a > stampede of hundreds of organizations seeking to participate in ongoing > study group work on frequency propagation, signaling requirements and > protocols, and other technical matters. A much more likely scenario > would be that a manageable number of NGOs would seek to participate in > some of the above-mentioned workshops, seminars, assemblies and > conferences. Civil society experts contributed significantly to the > success of the February 2004 ITU workshop on Internet governance, and > there is every reason to believe that same constructive engagement would > ensue in other forums. Allowing civil society partici! pa! ! tion in events > like the March 2006 meeting on NGN policies would be a good first step, > and would not require changes to the Constitution and Convention. WSIS > and/or ECOSOC accreditation would seem sufficient for this purpose. > > > > It is unfortunate that the ITU�s February 1 reform meeting is closed > to civil society participation. Our exclusion from this and similar > events has been debated extensively on civil society Internet listservs > in the course of the WSIS process and afterwards. There was little > enthusiasm for the website�s cheery invitation to �be part of it� > by submitting statements in this �open forum� for a meeting from > which we are barred. If however the ITU were to initiate a genuine, > open and inclusive dialogue on the matter, the response would be rather > different. > > > --------- > > Best, > > Bill > > ******************************************************* > William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch > > Director, Project on the Information > > Revolution and Global Governance > > Graduate Institute for International Studies > > Geneva, Switzerland > President, Computer Professionals for > Social Responsibility > http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake > ******************************************************* > > > -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Mon Jan 30 18:41:20 2006 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:41:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] draft privacy submission for IGF consultations Message-ID: <43DEA420.4090601@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Hi all, the Privacy&Security WG will also submit some suggestions to the IGF consultations. We are still finalizing the latest draft, but you find a copy of the current version below. Feedback is welcome, of course. Best, Ralf --------------------- WSIS Civil Society Privacy and Security Working Group 31 January 2006 A Global Privacy Forum for a Global Privacy Protection Framework Submission to the Internet Governance Forum Consultations As more and more social interaction – be it for business, culture, leisure, or political activities – takes place online, we leave more and more electronic traces. Every transaction, every communication, every movement we make on the Internet has the form of data flows. This is why the technical structures of the Internet as well as its governance have to be designed in a privacy-enhancing way. Only if everyone can use the Internet freely without fear of constant observation, recording and monitoring, it can become an infrastructure that leads to a “people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society” that we all envision as the overarching goal of the WSIS and its follow-up. Only then, we can make sure that Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is fully upheld and respected as the most important international human rights standard with regards to privacy. We reiterate that paragraph 46 the Tunis Agenda calls “upon all stakeholders to ensure respect for privacy and the protection of personal information and data, whether via adoption of legislation, the implementation of collaborative frameworks, best practices and self-regulatory and technological measures by business and users.” While self-regulatory and technological measures are important, there needs to be an internationally agreed and binding framework for privacy protection to make sure all measures are substantially coherent and do not lead to unnecessary conflicts and overlap of national and international legal and other measures. A global privacy framework is a natural consequence of the global Internet. This also echoes paragraph 3 of the Tunis Commitment that aims at strengthening “respect for the rule of law in international as in national affairs”. Last year, the world’s data protection and privacy commissioners reached the same conclusion. We join them in their Montreux Declaration appealing “to the United Nations to prepare a legal binding instrument which clearly sets out in detail the rights to data protection and privacy as enforceable human rights.” We therefore encourage the conveners of the Internet Governance Forum to work for an international legal framework that ensures the rights to privacy and data protection for all citizens within the Information Society. This echoes commitments taken by the Iberoamerican summit of Santa Cruz in 2003, the summit of Countries that share French language of Ouagadougou in 2004, and the Declaration on Human Rights and the Rule of Law in the Information Society adopted by the Council of Europe in 2005. More specifically, we support the suggestion of the International Working Group on Data Protection in Telecommunications, calling for a global Privacy Forum as a result of the WSIS Summit. It is important now to seriously follow up on this and establish a Global Privacy Forum - as part of the Internet Governance Forum – to start working on a substantial global privacy protection framework. In order to engage all important stakeholders, we strongly suggest actively inviting and including the global network of data protection commissioners and professionals. Important bodies and venues for this would be - the annual global data protection commissioners’ conference, of which the next will be hosted by the government of Argentina in November 2006; - the International Working Group on Data Protection in Telecommunications (the “Berlin Group”) - the network of civil society privacy organizations that has mainly evolved around Privacy International (PI), the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), and European Digital Rights (EDRi); - the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP); - specialized working groups of several international organizations, including OECD, APEC, the Council of Europe, and the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights. We are more than willing to offer any help in organizing and facilitating such a Global Privacy Forum and other related activities as part of the Internet Governance Forum. ---------------------- The WSIS Civil Society Privacy and Security Working Group was established in February 2003 and has constantly been involved in the WSIS process since then. It has more than 30 members from a range of organizations in the privacy and security field all over the world. Contact: Ralf Bendrath Karen Banks _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Mon Jan 30 22:55:40 2006 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 22:55:40 -0500 Subject: [governance] ITU statement last call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bill, You have good text - you don't need any changes now. So, for your thoughts later: WSIS accreditation will do fine now. Down the road, new NGOs will - inevitably - accrete. One day we will have to face the (bad) bear of accreditation, once again. My org is not the sort who poll easily, and there would be a range of views. Sorry we can't be useful as a signatory. Will try to be useful, in conversation with relevant folks on the subject. David At 8:47 PM +0100 1/30/06, William Drake wrote: >Hi, > >Having shifted from an individual to group >statement, I can't help thinking this would be >more effective if there was more of a group >associated with it. Twelve names is ok, but >more would be merrier. I will submit it when I >wake up tomorrow morning, if anyone else wants >to join please let me know privately before then. > >Thanks > >Bill > > > > >Statement by members of the WSIS-civil society Internet Governance Caucus > > > >Submitted for the WG-WSIS ITU Reform Meeting > >1 February 2006 > > > > > >The WSIS Principles state that Internet >governance should be multilateral, transparent >and democratic, with the full involvement of >governments, the private sector, civil society >and international organizations. The ITU >clearly does not meet the last criteria. For >the overwhelming majority of civil society >organizations and individual academics, the >barriers to becoming a sector member or even an >associate are simply too high to overcome. In >parallel, there are no options for participating >on a more flexible, ad hoc basis in special >workshops and seminars, or in the assemblies and >conferences. In consequence, and unlike other >UN agencies, true NGOs (as opposed to hybrid >business/user/technical organizations) are >almost entirely absent and alienated from the >ITU. That this is not in the ITU’s own >interest was demonstrated by the WSIS process, >in which civil society opposed the ITU playing >an expanded, leading role in Internet governance. > > > >With WSIS follow-up and implementation efforts >forthcoming, now would be a particularly >appropriate time to make opening up to civil >society a central element of ITU reform. Doing >so would not in any way disrupt the work of the >Union, and the administrative cost would be >negligible (we can print our own documents, >etc). The ITU would not face a stampede of >hundreds of organizations seeking to participate >in ongoing study group work on frequency >propagation, signaling requirements and >protocols, and other technical matters. A much >more likely scenario would be that a manageable >number of NGOs and academics would seek to >participate in some of the above-mentioned >workshops, seminars, assemblies and conferences. >Civil society experts contributed significantly >to the success of the February 2004 workshop on >Internet governance, and there is every reason >to believe that same constructive engagement >would ensue in other forums. Allowing civil >society participation in events like the March >2006 meeting on NGN policies would be a good >first step, and would not require changes to the >Constitution and Convention. WSIS and/or ECOSOC >accreditation would seem sufficient for this >purpose. > > > >It is unfortunate that the ITU’s February 1 >reform meeting is closed to civil society >participation. Our exclusion from this and >similar events has been debated extensively on >civil society Internet listservs. There was >little enthusiasm for the website’s cheery >invitation to “be part of it” by submitting >statements in this “open forum” for a meeting >from which we are barred. If however the ITU >were to initiate a genuine, open and inclusive >dialogue on the matter, the response would be >much more supportive. > > > > > >Dr. William Drake > >Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility/ > >Graduate Institute for International Studies, Geneva > > > >Dr. Wolfgang Kleinwächter > >University of Aarhus > > > >McTim > >Internet Infrastructure Consultant > > > >Dr. Lee McKnight > >Syracuse University/Internet Governance Project > > > >Parminder Jeet Singh > >IT for Change > > > >Dr. Jeanette Hofmann > >Social Science Research Center, Berlin > > > >Avri Doria > >Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility/ > >Nomadic Women's ICT Network > > > >Robert Guerra > >Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility/ > >Privaterra > > > >Dr. Ralf Bendrath > >www.worldsummit2005.org > > > >Max Senges > >Committee for a Democratic United Nations > > > >Veni Markovski > >Internet Society, Bulgaria > > > >Karen Banks > >Association for Progressive Communications > > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Tue Jan 31 10:07:03 2006 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 10:07:03 -0500 Subject: [governance] New dimension for Net governance Message-ID: A new dimension for Net governance. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4655196.stm To quote from the news piece: 'Fight the net' When it describes plans for electronic warfare, or EW, the document takes on an extraordinary tone. It seems to see the internet as being equivalent to an enemy weapons system. "Strategy should be based on the premise that the [US] Department [of Defense] will 'fight the net' as it would an enemy weapons system," it reads. The slogan "fight the net" appears several times throughout the roadmap. Signed off at the highest level, Secretary, US Dept of Defense. Original doc downloadable middle of the news page. This lay behind, in some way, arguments presented to the WSIS governance debate? David _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Tue Jan 31 10:28:47 2006 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 15:28:47 +0000 Subject: [governance] New dimension for Net governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.0.20060131152653.03fb2150@gn.apc.org> hi >"Strategy should be based on the premise that the [US] Department [of >Defense] will 'fight the net' as it would an enemy weapons system," >it reads. > >The slogan "fight the net" appears several times throughout the roadmap. back in the early 90's, the RAND corporation was comissioned to do a study on 'net wars' - the role of the internet or computer mediated communication in several latin american (particularly zapatista) struggles.. it's a pretty powerful tool to be sure, so the above comment, in it's context, doesn't suprise me karen _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Tue Jan 31 10:40:47 2006 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:40:47 +0100 Subject: [governance] New dimension for Net governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43DF84FF.7010004@zedat.fu-berlin.de> David Allen wrote: > The slogan "fight the net" appears several times throughout the > roadmap. > > Signed off at the highest level, Secretary, US Dept of Defense. > Original doc downloadable middle of the news page. > > This lay behind, in some way, arguments presented to the WSIS > governance debate? It was behind some struggling between Russia and the US in WSIS phase one over the security paragraph. Russia wanted to refer to "military security", the US did not. Background: Russia has been pushing in the UN for arms control attempts in this field for a number of years, with the US opposing it for obvious reasons. I wrote a summary of the WSIS negotiations around security leading up to PrepCom3a in 2003 for this publication: http://www.worldsummit2003.de/download_de/Vision_in_process.pdf. Andrew Rathmell and Alexander Nikitin give good summaries of the wider arms control and cyberwar debates in a documentation of a conference we did some years ago in Berlin: http://www.boell.de/downloads/medien/DokuNr20.pdf Ralf _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From maxsenges at gmail.com Tue Jan 31 12:07:19 2006 From: maxsenges at gmail.com (Max Senges) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 18:07:19 +0100 Subject: [governance] New dimension for Net governance In-Reply-To: <43DF84FF.7010004@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <43df994b.2539b486.5665.ffffe79c@mx.gmail.com> Adding to what Karen said - another RAND report published in collaboration with the National Defense Research Institute U. S. and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, in 1999 was entitled "The Emergence of Noopolitik: Toward an American Information Strategy". It analyses the soft power potential of the net and how it should be used to 'get everybody in the world hooked on the dreams made in Hollywood'. It's available at http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1033/ Max -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Ralf Bendrath Sent: martes, 31 de enero de 2006 16:41 To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] New dimension for Net governance David Allen wrote: > The slogan "fight the net" appears several times throughout the > roadmap. > > Signed off at the highest level, Secretary, US Dept of Defense. > Original doc downloadable middle of the news page. > > This lay behind, in some way, arguments presented to the WSIS > governance debate? It was behind some struggling between Russia and the US in WSIS phase one over the security paragraph. Russia wanted to refer to "military security", the US did not. Background: Russia has been pushing in the UN for arms control attempts in this field for a number of years, with the US opposing it for obvious reasons. I wrote a summary of the WSIS negotiations around security leading up to PrepCom3a in 2003 for this publication: http://www.worldsummit2003.de/download_de/Vision_in_process.pdf. Andrew Rathmell and Alexander Nikitin give good summaries of the wider arms control and cyberwar debates in a documentation of a conference we did some years ago in Berlin: http://www.boell.de/downloads/medien/DokuNr20.pdf Ralf _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Tue Jan 31 12:13:21 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 12:13:21 -0500 Subject: [governance] New dimension for Net governance In-Reply-To: <43df994b.2539b486.5665.ffffe79c@mx.gmail.com> References: <43DF84FF.7010004@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <43df994b.2539b486.5665.ffffe79c@mx.gmail.com> Message-ID: Possible references of interest on this topic... INSTITUTE FOR THE ADVANCED STUDY OF INFORMATION WARFARE (IASIW) http://www.iwar.org.uk/ * IWS - The Information Warfare Site *http://www.psycom.net/i On 1/31/06, Max Senges wrote: > > Adding to what Karen said - another RAND report published in collaboration > with the National Defense Research Institute U. S. and the Office of the > Secretary of Defense, in 1999 was entitled "The Emergence of Noopolitik: > Toward an American Information Strategy". It analyses the soft power > potential of the net and how it should be used to 'get everybody in the > world hooked on the dreams made in Hollywood'. > > It's available at http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1033/ > > Max > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Ralf Bendrath > Sent: martes, 31 de enero de 2006 16:41 > To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: [governance] New dimension for Net governance > > David Allen wrote: > > The slogan "fight the net" appears several times throughout the > > roadmap. > > > > Signed off at the highest level, Secretary, US Dept of Defense. > > Original doc downloadable middle of the news page. > > > > This lay behind, in some way, arguments presented to the WSIS > > governance debate? > It was behind some struggling between Russia and the US in WSIS phase one > over the security paragraph. Russia wanted to refer to "military > security", the US did not. > Background: Russia has been pushing in the UN for arms control attempts in > this field for a number of years, with the US opposing it for obvious > reasons. > > I wrote a summary of the WSIS negotiations around security leading up to > PrepCom3a in 2003 for this publication: > http://www.worldsummit2003.de/download_de/Vision_in_process.pdf. > > Andrew Rathmell and Alexander Nikitin give good summaries of the wider > arms control and cyberwar debates in a documentation of a conference we > did some years ago in Berlin: > http://www.boell.de/downloads/medien/DokuNr20.pdf > > Ralf > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Tue Jan 31 15:30:46 2006 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 15:30:46 -0500 Subject: [governance] New dimension for Net governance In-Reply-To: <7.0.0.16.0.20060131152653.03fb2150@gn.apc.org> References: <7.0.0.16.0.20060131152653.03fb2150@gn.apc.org> Message-ID: At 12:13 PM -0500 1/31/06, Robert Guerra wrote: >Possible references of interest on this topic... > >INSTITUTE FOR THE ADVANCED STUDY OF INFORMATION WARFARE >(IASIW) >http://www.iwar.org.uk/ > >IWS - The Information Warfare Site >http://www.psycom.net/i At 6:07 PM +0100 1/31/06, Max Senges wrote: >Adding to what Karen said - another RAND report published in collaboration >with the National Defense Research Institute U. S. and the Office of the >Secretary of Defense, in 1999 was entitled "The Emergence of Noopolitik: >Toward an American Information Strategy". It analyses the soft power >potential of the net and how it should be used to 'get everybody in the >world hooked on the dreams made in Hollywood'. > >It's available at http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1033/ > >Max At 4:40 PM +0100 1/31/06, Ralf Bendrath wrote: > > This lay behind, in some way, arguments presented to the WSIS >> governance debate? >It was behind some struggling between Russia and the US in WSIS phase one >over the security paragraph. Russia wanted to refer to "military >security", the US did not. >Background: Russia has been pushing in the UN for arms control attempts in >this field for a number of years, with the US opposing it for obvious reasons. > >I wrote a summary of the WSIS negotiations around security leading up to >PrepCom3a in 2003 for this publication: >http://www.worldsummit2003.de/download_de/Vision_in_process.pdf. > >Andrew Rathmell and Alexander Nikitin give good summaries of the wider >arms control and cyberwar debates in a documentation of a conference we >did some years ago in Berlin: >http://www.boell.de/downloads/medien/DokuNr20.pdf > >Ralf At 3:28 PM +0000 1/31/06, karen banks wrote: >back in the early 90's, the RAND corporation was comissioned to do a >study on 'net wars' - the role of the internet or computer mediated >communication in several latin american (particularly zapatista) >struggles.. it's a pretty powerful tool to be sure, so the above >comment, in it's context, doesn't suprise me > >karen Appreciative to learn this thorough work, depth and expertise on the subject, particularly the papers. That is how we get ahead I think. The response my untutored eye raises is a good bit less benign. A few years back, at TPRC (main US telecoms policy research conference), a panel from DoD was invited. Their vision and proposals for net warfare were met by a wall of incredulity, from across the senior (mainly US) research community gathered in plenary. Today, there might be some modulation in the response - but in the main the tone that day continues to feel indicative. The simplistic (my untutored) response is, what - attack the net? Interesting juxtaposition to 'protect the net, by letting it be free.' I'm probably missing something. David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Tue Jan 31 16:16:44 2006 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 13:16:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Petition in opposition to the proposed .com price hike In-Reply-To: <43DF84FF.7010004@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <20060131211644.85963.qmail@web53501.mail.yahoo.com> Dear All, As a believer in grassroots democracy, I have created a petition opposing the proposed ICANN/VeriSign settlement agreement that increases without justification .com registrant prices. The URL: http://www.petitiononline.com/pricesup/petition.html Your signatures will be appreciated. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance