From mr.marouen at gmail.com Mon Jul 31 22:28:06 2006 From: mr.marouen at gmail.com (Marouen MRAIHI) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 04:28:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] US/ICANN agreement to be over Message-ID: <9ea79150607311928m32c35b07u892c7b05018f312c@mail.gmail.com> The two most important news in this article in french is that http://www.silicon.fr/getarticle.asp?ID=16191 : - The US/ICANN agreement will be over on september 30 - Mr John Kneuer from the DoC said that they want to "give up" some of the controls over internet to the private sector or the international community. No more details on that. The writer is wondering about the when/how and if the root servers will be included in this transfer. Marouen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at acm.org Mon Jul 31 23:44:53 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 23:44:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF registration is open Message-ID: <3AD2F9CC-1296-4C91-BF10-188008499F79@acm.org> http://www.intgovforum.org/register/index.php a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at acm.org Wed Jul 19 23:30:39 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 23:30:39 -0400 Subject: [governance] Update on charter voting In-Reply-To: <20060719224754.83643.qmail@web54711.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060719224754.83643.qmail@web54711.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 19 jul 2006, at 18.47, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > Nevertheless, it is a shame that only 13 people have taken the > trouble to log in and add their name. well i have now added all the names i could find in a decent pass (i was in work avoidance mode, so doing this clerical exercise made me feel like i was sort of working). i now have 176/296 - with duplicates removed. it was rather amazing how many i was able to find in the mail archives. even if it is only once or twice a lot of people have sent email at some point since 2004 (that is as far back as i went). i still recommend that people make sure their listing is correct before Monday morning, and perhaps some of the people for whom I don't have names can add them. special thanks to those who did do their own update. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at acm.org Thu Jul 20 00:53:11 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 00:53:11 -0400 Subject: [governance] charter 1.5 Message-ID: Hi, As usual the latest copy can be found in: http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_draft.html aka: http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC_charter_draft-1.5.html Older versions can still be found on the web site http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC_charter_draft-1.4.html etc.... Changes in 1.5 - removed notes on Vision issue - removed vision from the set of options that needed a seperate decision (i.e. it seems like we have pretty much settled on having a Vision and Mission that closely resembles the text currently in the document) - add option for secret vs public ballots - editorial changes to vision and mission - changes made based on Parminder's note on recommended changes to the Mission. i simplified the text somewhat. - formatting changes to objectives - replaced Internet Goverance with Internet governance (not really sure which is correct but figured it should be consistent) - removed reference to nominating committee under organizational roles. It remains as an option under process. - Included the two options, voting or nomcom, for appeal teams selection - Added reference to no term limitations for nomcom under the nomcom process option – people can be selected as often as the random draw slects them (assuming the igc opts for a nomcom process) On the editorial changes to vision, i tried to make it read better, but hopefully did not change any meanings. the most significant change was to the mission where i replaced It is intended with The membership of the caucus intends I understand this is a slightly different meeting as it attributes the intention to the membership as opposed to some abstract entity. thanks a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From apeake at gmail.com Thu Jul 20 10:12:25 2006 From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp)) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 23:12:25 +0900 Subject: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal for introducing multi-lateral oversight of the root Message-ID: Thanks to Brenden Kuerbis and IGP for pointing to an interesting proposal from Becky Burr and Marilyn Cade on oversight of the root. Brenden's comment and a link to the Burr/Cade paper Burr/Cade suggest a working group -- modeled on the UN Security Council? -- to replace the US govt. as authority over the root. Working group would be made up of senior level government representatives (senior so they have authority to act without delay reporting back to capitals.) Changes to the root recommended by ICANN/IANA would be approved (or not) by this working group within 15 days. There would be an appeals process. A sensible proposal, could be a great step forward. Problem will be in populating this new "security council". Have to start somewhere, and who gets a seat obviously going to be contentious. And I think this the weakest part of Burr and Cade's proposal, they suggest members of the governments that made significant contributions to the 1998 White Paper, and "Based on the recollections of the authors, the principal governmental contributors to the White Paper included Australia, Canada, the European Commission, Japan, New Zealand, and the UK". Burr should know, she was with NTIA at the time and responsible for the transition process. I do not recall the govt of New Zealand making any significant contribution (Internet NZ, ISOC NZ and the NZ ccTLD operator were very involved.) And, while someone has to start naming names, I can see zero merit in either New Zealand or Australia being involved. IDNs and population (and ability to derail just about anything!) suggest China a much more deserving member. Probably also India. Other seats would be allocated 3 to Africa, 3 Latin America, 1 from Europe (selected by some means determined by governments) and GAC chair as ex officio. 15 members plus 1, i.e. 3 Europe region - UK, EC plus 1 2 N. America - US, Canada 4 Asia/Pacific - Australia, Japan, New Zealand, plus 1 3 Africa region 3 Latin America region 1 GAC Chair - ex officio I suggest Asia/Pacific looks much more sensible, and reflects relevant root issues as well as geography and politics as: Asia/Pacific - China, India, Japan, plus 1 I just don't see Australia and New Zealand as stakeholders of notable importance. Burr and Cade also echo CIRA in recommending ICANN conduct and independent evaluation of its transparency and accountability mechanisms. Please look at the proposal, it's good stuff and knowing the authors, I doubt they'd be pushing this now without pretty significant support. Adam ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Jul 20 16:50:48 2006 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 23:50:48 +0300 Subject: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal for introducing multi-lateral oversight of the root In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 7/20/06, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) wrote: > > A sensible proposal, could be a great step forward. except for those of us who would prefer NO governmental oversight. > population (and ability to derail just about anything!) suggest China > a much more deserving member. Yikes! > > Burr and Cade also echo CIRA in recommending ICANN conduct and > independent evaluation of its transparency and accountability > mechanisms. > > Please look at the proposal, it's good stuff and knowing the authors, > I doubt they'd be pushing this now without pretty significant support. >From gov'ts no doubt! -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Thu Jul 20 17:59:19 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:59:19 -0400 Subject: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal for introducing multi-lateral oversight of the root In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C458054-59E2-4FA6-8AC8-26584FE44D63@psg.com> On 20 jul 2006, at 10.12, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) wrote: > A sensible proposal, could be a great step forward. while I think it is interesting that there is a proposal and that people have begun to talk about there being possible alternatives to US government oversight of the root, I don't understand why CS, or ICANN for that matter, would be interested in supporting a model that was not a multistakeholder model. in some ways this seems like it might actually be a step backward in the process of enabling new and improved multistakeholder governance models. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ki_chango at yahoo.com Thu Jul 20 18:10:19 2006 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 15:10:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal for introducing multi-lateral oversight of the root In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060720221019.73747.qmail@web54703.mail.yahoo.com> --- McTim wrote: > On 7/20/06, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) > wrote: > > > > > > A sensible proposal, could be a great step forward. > > except for those of us who would prefer NO governmental > oversight. Precisely, the membership of this Internet "security council" could be made up not only of government senior representatives but also from experts as well as representatives of the main stakeholder groups. Would you agree with that, McTim, or do you see ICANN as it is now with no oversight at all, its decisions over the root being final? Mawaki ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Jul 20 20:17:30 2006 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (ian.peter at ianpeter.com) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 19:17:30 -0500 Subject: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal for introducing multi-lateral oversight of the root In-Reply-To: <4C458054-59E2-4FA6-8AC8-26584FE44D63@psg.com> References: <4C458054-59E2-4FA6-8AC8-26584FE44D63@psg.com> Message-ID: <20060720191730.qvqwa8dj520c0wwo@webmail.ianpeter.com> Quoting Avri Doria : > > > On 20 jul 2006, at 10.12, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) wrote: > >> A sensible proposal, could be a great step forward. > > > while I think it is interesting that there is a proposal and that > people have begun to talk about there being possible alternatives to > US government oversight of the root, I don't understand why CS, or > ICANN for that matter, would be interested in supporting a model that > was not a multistakeholder model. > > in some ways this seems like it might actually be a step backward in > the process of enabling new and improved multistakeholder governance > models. > > a. Well, I'm not sure that multistakeholder means that every group is involved in everything and every process? This is the authorisation role we are talking about. It gives a final tick to recommendations that come through the multistakeholder ICANN processes. Its the sort of role its good to give to governments because it makes them feel important and in control wheras in effect the multistakeholder process decides everything. I think you will have enormous difficulties if you interpret multistakeholder to mean that there are no unique functions best carried out by groups of stakeholders best equipped to fulfil the task (eg there might be an insistence one day on equal numbers of government reps in IETF working groups or government board members on RIRs or other such dysfunctional ideas). Maybe we need to define a multistakeholder model? To me it is something like a model which involves all parties appropriately utilising their various strengths to achieve outcomes .... Ian > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dina_hov at yahoo.com Thu Jul 20 23:24:36 2006 From: dina_hov at yahoo.com (dina) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 20:24:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Fwd: deadline for sign-up: NTIA Public Hearing on ICANN 7/26 In-Reply-To: <20060719183946.26666.qmail@web54704.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060721032436.96088.qmail@web30211.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear Mawaki , As I can,t attend to this very interesting meeting would you please send me all the documents of that day please? Thank you in advance. Dina Mawaki Chango wrote: FYI Note: forwarded message attached. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 13:21:01 EDT From: KathrynKL at AOL.COM Subject: deadline for sign-up: NTIA Public Hearing on ICANN 7/26 To: NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU On Wednesday, NTIA will hold a public hearing on the renewal of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in Washington DC, on Wednesday, July 26th (time to be announced). (Full public notice at: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/frnotices/2006/NOI_DNS_Transition_0506.htm). Today is the deadline for signing for this hearing (since it is being held in a federal government building which has special security). If you want to attend, I am told you should send an email to: thawkins at ntia.doc.gov with your name and the organization you are representing. Also, **on the day of the hearing, you must bring a picture ID with you to gain admission to the building.** Additional information seems to be required if you are not a US Citizen, but the person I was talking with at NTIA did not have all the details. It seems to vary country by country, but you must have at least a passport. I am told that someone at NTIA 202/482- 1866 will be able to answer questions about what information you need to provide ahead of time and what to bring to the hearing. Please let me know if you are coming, and perhaps we can sit together or meet afterwards. Regards, Kathy >From the May 23rd Public Notice (Note: Hawkins is out of the office this week.) "Public Meeting: NTIA announces a public meeting to be held on July 26, 2006, to discuss issues associated with this transition. The agenda for the meeting will be posted on NTIA’s website, www.ntia.doc.gov, one week prior to the meeting. The meeting will be open to the public and press on a first-come, first-served basis. Space is limited. Due to security requirements and to facilitate entry to the Department of Commerce building, anyone wishing to attend must contact Tanika Hawkins at (202) 482–1866 or thawkins at ntia.doc.gov at least five (5) days prior to the meeting in order to provide the necessary clearance information. When arriving for the meeting, attendees must present photo or passport identification and/or a U.S. Government building pass, if applicable, and should arrive at least one-half hour prior to the start time of the meeting. The public meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals requiring special services, such as sign language interpretation or other ancillary aids are asked to indicate this to Ms. Hawkins." Dina Hovakmian Tel:098 21 88053586 Fax:098 21 88031879 0912 119 7840--mobile E-mail: dina_hov at yahoo.com --------------------------------- Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Jul 21 01:42:44 2006 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 08:42:44 +0300 Subject: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal for introducing multi-lateral oversight of the roo In-Reply-To: <20060720221019.73747.qmail@web54703.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060720221019.73747.qmail@web54703.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: hello! On 7/21/06, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > > --- McTim wrote: > > > On 7/20/06, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > A sensible proposal, could be a great step forward. > > > > except for those of us who would prefer NO governmental > > oversight. > > Precisely, the membership of this Internet "security council" > could be made up not only of government senior representatives > but also from experts as well as representatives of the main > stakeholder groups. It "could", but probably won't. Governments aren't likely to give up any percieved "power" lightly, as we saw during discussions around MSHism @ WSIS. If I find it difficult to get a seat at the table of WSIS/IGF/other inetrgovernamental fora, why on earth would I give up my seat (with full voice) at the current table of Internet Governance fora in favor of smt that may or may not allow me to participate as fully as I do now? In other words, the current system (as I participate in it) IS made up of "experts as well as representatives of the main stakeholder groups." Governments are free to join in as much as anyone else. Why kowtow to them and let them build an alternative structure if they can't be bothered to join in the current structure. > > Would you agree with that, McTim, or do you see ICANN as it is > now with no oversight at all, its decisions over the root being > final? I see ICANN continuing it's reforms towards transparency and openness. I see the IANA making decisions on root zone edits that preserve the operational stability of the Internet without heavy handed interference from layer 8 and layer 9 interests. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From patrick at isoc.lu Fri Jul 21 02:06:01 2006 From: patrick at isoc.lu (Patrick Vande Walle) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 08:06:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Burr & Cade: proposal for introducing multi-lateral oversight of the root In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44C06EC9.2020008@isoc.lu> Thanks Adam for the link. I would characterize the Burr-Cade proposal as a "small step for mankind and a giant step for the US" to paraphrase Neil Armstrong. The main merit of the proposal is that it looks like something the USG might want to follow. Other posters suggested there should be no governmental oversight at all but that does not look realistic, in the sense that there can be huge economic and political interests behind ICANN decisions. Historically, governments have always been involved in foreign economic policy decisions (WTO) and would be blamed by their people if they did not. ICANN is yet another such process. Like it or not, there are sovereignty issues linked to ccTLDs. There is no way one could exclude governments from the decision process. Regarding the composition of this oversight group, Adam already pointed out that the Asia Pacific should be reviewed. I would say that the European group should be reviewed, too. It would not be accepted by the EU that UK, itself a member of the EU, gets a seat on its own. I would rather expect two seats for the EU, one permanent and one rotating according to the EU presidency. The third seat should be for non-EU countries. The authors of the proposal show they have no clue regarding regional political weightings. Rather, they suggest American-friendly countries. It would be wiser to allow regional governmental councils (African Union, Organization of American States, etc) to designate their representatives. All in all, I would personally support this proposal as a starting point for discussions. It is incidentally close to a reply to a WSIS questionnaire last year, in which I suggested that the oversight on the root should be done by a sub-committee of the GAC. Patrick Vande Walle ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Jul 21 04:15:12 2006 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 10:15:12 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal for introducing multi-lateral oversight of the root References: <4C458054-59E2-4FA6-8AC8-26584FE44D63@psg.com> <20060720191730.qvqwa8dj520c0wwo@webmail.ianpeter.com> Message-ID: Ian: Maybe we need to define a multistakeholder model? To me it is something like a model which involves all parties appropriately utilising their various strengths to achieve outcomes .... Wolfgang. Yes there is need for a MS definition. The bizarr discussions during the recent ECOSOC/CSTD meeting in Geneva on WSIS Follow up have shown, that although the MS principle as such was accepted by the heads of states already in WSIS I (Geneva, December 2003) and strongly reconfirmed by WSIS II (Tunis, November 2005) and is seen in particular as a basic principle for Internet Govnernace, there is no agreement what "full involvement of all stakeholders" means in practice. The WGIG report has a section whre it tries to define the "specific roles and responsibilities" if the three main stakeholder groups (there are also others) but it didn´t say anything on how the three goups should interact in practice. Ian is right if he is arguing that the three stakeholder groups have different functions and that it would be stupid to introduce a fixed mechanism (governments in RIRs and CS/PS oversight) in which everyhwere and everytime all stakeholder groups have to be included on equal footing. My understanding is that Multistakeholderism (a form of a flexible triangular relationship based on the specific strengths and opportunities by the involved parties with regard to specific issues) is the basic principle, but the concrete design of the "triangle" depends from the given issue. While some areas like IP number allocation or DNS management can be done under private sector leadership (with limited governmental involvement if it comes to ccTLDs etc.) fighting cybercrime or protecting human rights governmental leadership is needed (but needs also a rational involvement of private sector and civil society, partly as watchdog). With other words, in the 21st century diplomacy you will have "governance triangles" everywhere, but each triangle is different, according to the specific substance of the issue. Such an approach allows also a bottom up policy development process, that is you can involve all stakeholdes in the buPDP via public calls for proposals etc. Bbut if it comes to decision making, the specifcs of the issue will determine what the best way is. Sometimes you need legally binding agreements (and then you need governments), sometimes an informal arrangement or "rough consensus" by involved parties is enough. And then no govenrment is needed. The result is - as I have it described in another paper - that Internet Governance as a multilayer multiplayer mechanism constitutes something like a "tower of triangles" with no single model. Look forward and be innovative. Best w ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From raul at lacnic.net Fri Jul 21 10:14:13 2006 From: raul at lacnic.net (Raul Echeberria) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 11:14:13 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Burr & Cade: proposal for introducing multi-lateral oversight of the root In-Reply-To: <44C06EC9.2020008@isoc.lu> References: <44C06EC9.2020008@isoc.lu> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.0.20060721110907.03e51d90@lacnic.net> Personally (and it should be clear that this is my personal view), I don't see that progress that you mention. This is exactly what many of us were afraid since the beggining of the process, many years ago. We knew that governmental oversight could evolve to a replication of the Security Council model, what is the most anachronistic governance model and clearly a not democratic one. This would be a big step back for the mankind, because, from my view, the most important outcome of all this debate, has been exactly the new concepts related with governance models. Raúl (just speakin on my own behalf) At 03:06 a.m. 21/07/2006, Patrick Vande Walle wrote: >Thanks Adam for the link. > >I would characterize the Burr-Cade proposal as a "small step for >mankind and a giant step for the US" to paraphrase Neil Armstrong. >The main merit of the proposal is that it looks like something the USG >might want to follow. > >Other posters suggested there should be no governmental oversight at all >but that does not look realistic, in the sense that there can be huge >economic and political interests behind ICANN decisions. Historically, >governments have always been involved in foreign economic policy >decisions (WTO) and would be blamed by their people if they did not. >ICANN is yet another such process. > >Like it or not, there are sovereignty issues linked to ccTLDs. There is > no way one could exclude governments from the decision process. > >Regarding the composition of this oversight group, Adam already pointed >out that the Asia Pacific should be reviewed. I would say that the >European group should be reviewed, too. It would not be accepted by the >EU that UK, itself a member of the EU, gets a seat on its own. I would >rather expect two seats for the EU, one permanent and one rotating >according to the EU presidency. The third seat should be for non-EU >countries. > >The authors of the proposal show they have no clue regarding regional >political weightings. Rather, they suggest American-friendly countries. >It would be wiser to allow regional governmental councils (African >Union, Organization of American States, etc) to designate their >representatives. > >All in all, I would personally support this proposal as a starting point >for discussions. It is incidentally close to a reply to a WSIS >questionnaire last year, in which I suggested that the oversight on the > root should be done by a sub-committee of the GAC. > >Patrick Vande Walle >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > >-- >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.1/391 - Release Date: 18/07/2006 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From orobles at nic.mx Fri Jul 21 10:21:00 2006 From: orobles at nic.mx (Oscar A. Robles-Garay) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 09:21:00 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Burr & Cade: proposal for introducing multi-lateral oversight of the root In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.0.20060721110907.03e51d90@lacnic.net> References: <44C06EC9.2020008@isoc.lu> <7.0.1.0.0.20060721110907.03e51d90@lacnic.net> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060721091830.03e07b48@nic.mx> Just as Vint said a few weeks ago, we should move N to be *zero*, instead of 200... (being N the number of governments with theirs hands in... today is 1, btw) Oscar At 09:14 AM 7/21/2006, Raul Echeberria wrote: >Personally (and it should be clear that this is >my personal view), I don't see that progress that you mention. >This is exactly what many of us were afraid >since the beggining of the process, many years ago. > >We knew that governmental oversight could evolve >to a replication of the Security Council model, >what is the most anachronistic governance model >and clearly a not democratic one. > >This would be a big step back for the mankind, >because, from my view, the most important >outcome of all this debate, has been exactly the >new concepts related with governance models. > >Raúl (just speakin on my own behalf) > > > > >At 03:06 a.m. 21/07/2006, Patrick Vande Walle wrote: >>Thanks Adam for the link. >> >>I would characterize the Burr-Cade proposal as a "small step for >>mankind and a giant step for the US" to paraphrase Neil Armstrong. >>The main merit of the proposal is that it looks like something the USG >>might want to follow. >> >>Other posters suggested there should be no governmental oversight at all >>but that does not look realistic, in the sense that there can be huge >>economic and political interests behind ICANN decisions. Historically, >>governments have always been involved in foreign economic policy >>decisions (WTO) and would be blamed by their people if they did not. >>ICANN is yet another such process. >> >>Like it or not, there are sovereignty issues linked to ccTLDs. There is >> no way one could exclude governments from the decision process. >> >>Regarding the composition of this oversight group, Adam already pointed >>out that the Asia Pacific should be reviewed. I would say that the >>European group should be reviewed, too. It would not be accepted by the >>EU that UK, itself a member of the EU, gets a seat on its own. I would >>rather expect two seats for the EU, one permanent and one rotating >>according to the EU presidency. The third seat should be for non-EU >>countries. >> >>The authors of the proposal show they have no clue regarding regional >>political weightings. Rather, they suggest American-friendly countries. >>It would be wiser to allow regional governmental councils (African >>Union, Organization of American States, etc) to designate their >>representatives. >> >>All in all, I would personally support this proposal as a starting point >>for discussions. It is incidentally close to a reply to a WSIS >>questionnaire last year, in which I suggested that the oversight on the >> root should be done by a sub-committee of the GAC. >> >>Patrick Vande Walle >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >>-- >>No virus found in this incoming message. >>Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.1/391 - Release Date: 18/07/2006 > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ki_chango at yahoo.com Fri Jul 21 11:03:04 2006 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 08:03:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: AW: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal for introducing multi-lateral oversight of the root In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060721150304.2929.qmail@web54710.mail.yahoo.com> hi, --- Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: > Ian: > > Maybe we need to define a multistakeholder model? To me it is > something like a model which involves all parties > appropriately utilising their various strengths to achieve > outcomes .... > > Wolfgang. > > > My understanding is that Multistakeholderism (a form of a > flexible triangular relationship based on the specific > strengths and opportunities by the involved parties with > regard to specific issues) is the basic principle, but the > concrete design of the "triangle" depends from the given > issue. While some areas like IP number allocation or DNS > management can be done under private sector leadership (with > limited governmental involvement if it comes to ccTLDs etc.) > fighting cybercrime or protecting human rights governmental > leadership is needed (but needs also a rational involvement of > private sector and civil society, partly as watchdog). to follow up on Ian's interesting question & view, and Wolfgang's response to that, I recall something similar was discussed during the WGIG retreat at Chateau de Bossey, while drafting the final report. More specifically, in the subgroup that discussed in detail the different IG models, it was proposed that on some issues (strongly impacting/involving national & public policies and authorities), governements may have the leading role and the other stakeholders an advisory one, whilst for more technical and practical issues (including, I think, management), the private sector and CS would have the lead and governments advise. I perfectly recall who initially brought up that idea during the retreat discussions, but I won't say it - not that much because of the Chattam House rule, but mostly because some are inclined to value or disqualify ideas based on who proposed them - e.g., because the proponent would be, allegedly, from a non-democratic country, or just from a part of the world they don't like. I prefer to discuss the ideas... So back to "Multistakeholderism," the above proposal consolidated with the views expressed in the previous emails on the subject make me think of a model that I would call the "cursor model" for multistakeholder processes. Obviously, the cursor goes where the stake is bigger (bigger role and responsibilities) in a specific issue area, without breaking the constant cooperation among the multiple players. Regards, Mawaki > > With other words, in the 21st century diplomacy you will have > "governance triangles" everywhere, but each triangle is > different, according to the specific substance of the issue. > Such an approach allows also a bottom up policy development > process, that is you can involve all stakeholdes in the buPDP > via public calls for proposals etc. Bbut if it comes to > decision making, the specifcs of the issue will determine > what the best way is. Sometimes you need legally binding > agreements (and then you need governments), sometimes an > informal arrangement or "rough consensus" by involved parties > is enough. And then no govenrment is needed. The result is - > as I have it described in another paper - that Internet > Governance as a multilayer multiplayer mechanism constitutes > something like a "tower of triangles" with no single model. > Look forward and be innovative. > > Best > > w > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Jul 21 11:24:58 2006 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 18:24:58 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Burr & Cade: proposal for introducing multi-lateral oversight of the root In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060721091830.03e07b48@nic.mx> References: <44C06EC9.2020008@isoc.lu> <7.0.1.0.0.20060721110907.03e51d90@lacnic.net> <7.0.1.0.2.20060721091830.03e07b48@nic.mx> Message-ID: On 7/21/06, Oscar A. Robles-Garay wrote: > Just as Vint said a few weeks ago, we should move > N to be *zero*, instead of 200... (being N the > number of governments with theirs hands in... today is 1, btw) exactly. The Burr/Cade paper moves N towards double digits. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Fri Jul 21 11:33:40 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 11:33:40 -0400 Subject: AW: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal for introducing multi-lateral oversight of the root In-Reply-To: <20060721150304.2929.qmail@web54710.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060721150304.2929.qmail@web54710.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <710B4BDA-517E-4E4D-800F-F252E3FCC0E7@psg.com> On 21 jul 2006, at 11.03, Mawaki Chango wrote: > I perfectly recall who initially brought up that idea during the > retreat discussions, but I won't say it - not that much because > of the Chattam House rule, but mostly because some are inclined > to value or disqualify ideas based on who proposed them - e.g., > because the proponent would be, allegedly, from a non-democratic > country, or just from a part of the world they don't like. I > prefer to discuss the ideas... and there were also some of us who brought up the idea that no government oversight was required. and while i can see valid arguments for governments to participate as stakeholders on a par with other stakeholders, i still do not understand any reason for them to have primacy. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From patrick at isoc.lu Fri Jul 21 12:09:51 2006 From: patrick at isoc.lu (Patrick Vande Walle) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 18:09:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Burr & Cade: proposal for introducing multi-lateral oversight of the root In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.0.20060721110907.03e51d90@lacnic.net> References: <44C06EC9.2020008@isoc.lu> <7.0.1.0.0.20060721110907.03e51d90@lacnic.net> Message-ID: <44C0FC4F.8090906@isoc.lu> dear Raul, I agree with you that the proposal is not what some would expect. The idea of having no government oversight at all may look ideal . Personally, I am not convinced by the ideological approach that the private sector would do better in any case and is intrinsically more democratic. The Burr-Cade proposal only addresses a very small, but important issue many governments have raised: what if the USG considers that my country code has to disappear from the Internet ? This issue has poisoned the debate for much too long. If this could be solved by this proposal, it would allow the more important issues, like accountability, transparency, etc to be addressed in a much more constructive mood. Yours, Patrick Vande Walle Raul Echeberria said the following on 21/07/2006 16:14: > Personally (and it should be clear that this is > my personal view), I don't see that progress that you mention. > This is exactly what many of us were afraid since > the beggining of the process, many years ago. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ki_chango at yahoo.com Fri Jul 21 13:01:47 2006 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 10:01:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: AW: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal for introducing multi-lateral oversight of the root In-Reply-To: <710B4BDA-517E-4E4D-800F-F252E3FCC0E7@psg.com> Message-ID: <20060721170148.12797.qmail@web54706.mail.yahoo.com> --- Avri Doria wrote: > > > On 21 jul 2006, at 11.03, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > > I perfectly recall who initially brought up that idea during the > > retreat discussions, but I won't say it - not that much because > > of the Chattam House rule, but mostly because some are inclined > > to value or disqualify ideas based on who proposed them - e.g., > > because the proponent would be, allegedly, from a non-democratic > > country, or just from a part of the world they don't like. I > > prefer to discuss the ideas... > > and there were also some of us who brought up the idea that no > government oversight was required. Yes indeed, and I am in support of that idea... as an idea ;) Let's not forget that, beyond the power politics, what is at stake is the unity of the global internet. Not all societies are on the same page, or at the same level with some issues. Furthermore, there are still a lot countries where the infastructures heavily depend on govt decisions: whether to build, who will build, and who will operate or even have access - and this is not all market/capital (and sometimes not even people or democratic client) driven process. If the government of China can decide to set up alternative root servers, virtually taking away its huge population from this global internet, because the govt feel they don't have significant participation in the related decision making processes, then what do you do (still about keeping the value of the global internet)? You keep things tight and see them walk away (followed by other "dissident" candidates of the current order, or of the "zero government" option)? Or do you open up for govts while keeping a tight watchdog function, etc. which will lead both (or the three, if you will) parties to evolve toward some new (self-activating) institutional practices that will make things smother to all? > > and while i can see valid arguments for governments to participate > as > stakeholders on a par with other stakeholders, i still do not > understand any reason for them to have primacy. Then as someone pointed out, govts may as well say there's no point that non-profit, non-govt have primacy in some fora such as IETF, etc. If there are issue areas where non-profit, non-govt are best at, there might be some others where govts are not that bad. Mawaki > > a. > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Jul 21 13:04:30 2006 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 20:04:30 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Burr & Cade: proposal for introducing multi-lateral oversight of the root In-Reply-To: <44C0FC4F.8090906@isoc.lu> References: <44C06EC9.2020008@isoc.lu> <7.0.1.0.0.20060721110907.03e51d90@lacnic.net> <44C0FC4F.8090906@isoc.lu> Message-ID: On 7/21/06, Patrick Vande Walle wrote: > > The Burr-Cade proposal only addresses a very small, but important issue > many governments have raised: what if the USG considers that my country > code has to disappear from the Internet ? But if you remove all governments, you remove this issue as well. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Fri Jul 21 13:24:39 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 13:24:39 -0400 Subject: AW: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal for introducing multi-lateral oversight of the root In-Reply-To: <20060721170148.12797.qmail@web54706.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060721170148.12797.qmail@web54706.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6B9E34DE-BEFC-4541-B9A3-B9A6B48779E7@psg.com> On 21 jul 2006, at 13.01, Mawaki Chango wrote: > >> >> and while i can see valid arguments for governments to participate >> as >> stakeholders on a par with other stakeholders, i still do not >> understand any reason for them to have primacy. > > Then as someone pointed out, govts may as well say there's no point > that non-profit, non-govt have primacy in some fora such as IETF, > etc. If there are issue areas where non-profit, non-govt are best at, > there might be some others where govts are not that bad. anyone who participates in the ietf participates as a peer. as a counter-example this one does not work. there are very active government participants. i also don't think much of the argument of 'the segment (govt, ps, cs) is better at x gets to rule x' this is a argument meant to maintain a status quo as those in control always appear to know best and it is one that ignores the importance of stakeholders. i think that it not about who is best at oversight, it is rather who is a stakeholder and therefore has an equal right of participation in any necessary oversight. then again i, as many of the CS participants, was never comfortable with the WSIS/WGIG determination of 'participation of each according to their proper role'. this sort of reasoning is meant to keep people in their place and i see no reason why CS should accept the place it has been given by governments. and i repeat, i see no reason to ever accept government (uni or multilateral) primacy in the Internet. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ki_chango at yahoo.com Fri Jul 21 15:30:55 2006 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 12:30:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: AW: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal for introducing multi-lateral oversight of the root In-Reply-To: <6B9E34DE-BEFC-4541-B9A3-B9A6B48779E7@psg.com> Message-ID: <20060721193055.59591.qmail@web54703.mail.yahoo.com> --- Avri Doria wrote: > > > > anyone who participates in the ietf participates as a peer. > as a counter-example this one does not work. there are very active > > government participants. I guess you mean peer individuals that happen to be govt officials in their day job (as I understand it), and not participants mandated by, thus accountable to, their govt for their participation -? > > i also don't think much of the argument of 'the segment (govt, ps, > > cs) is better at x gets to rule x' this is a argument meant to > maintain a status quo as those in control always appear to know > best > and it is one that ignores the importance of stakeholders. i think > > that it not about who is best at oversight, it is rather who is a > stakeholder and therefore has an equal right of participation in > any > necessary oversight. > > then again i, as many of the CS participants, was never comfortable > > with the WSIS/WGIG determination of 'participation of each > according > to their proper role'. this sort of reasoning is meant to keep > people in their place and i see no reason why CS should accept the > > place it has been given by governments. and i repeat, i see no > reason to ever accept government (uni or multilateral) primacy in > the > Internet. I know you understood, but to avoid possible misinterpretation by any one, I haven't argued for govt primacy in the internet. But I've found reasonable and acceptable the proposal that they may have a leading role on some issues while the other stakeholders may have a leading role in some others (both necessarily go together). Your views are fine by me, but I see the tradeoff of the above option as a necessary transition, and not as a definite situation. What you're saying may work fine for the USA, Canada, most of the EU and many other countries that are pro- market, private sector and individual particiaption. There are many other countries where infrastructures such as the telecom networks, the power grid, etc. are public and/or where the govt budget relies substantially on their operation. Given the dramatic change that internet brings about, e.g. for the telecom industry, and the broader and structural consequences for those govts, it will be very hard to make them understand that _as govts_, they don't have a significant say (and that only peer individual participation will be considered.) The champion of the market and supposedly/presumably, of the individual freedom and participation, the USG, has had problem admitting that premise with all its consequences. Why would you expect China or Togo to accept that without serious resistance (especially after they have been given all the good arguments for the USG to retain political oversight all these years)? I'm not implying that those govts are only looking for the same type of control, or that they will use it as "wisely" as the N=1 country in control. But you can't force people for a whole cultural shift; you can only "force" them to a compromise and make sure to watch the keeper and get him used to the new keys. Mawaki > > a. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Fri Jul 21 19:32:23 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 01:32:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Burr & Cade: proposal for introducing multi-lateral oversight of the root In-Reply-To: References: <44C06EC9.2020008@isoc.lu> <7.0.1.0.0.20060721110907.03e51d90@lacnic.net> <44C0FC4F.8090906@isoc.lu> Message-ID: <44C16407.8090906@bertola.eu.org> McTim ha scritto: >> The Burr-Cade proposal only addresses a very small, but important issue >> many governments have raised: what if the USG considers that my country >> code has to disappear from the Internet ? > > But if you remove all governments, you remove this issue as well. While I agree with you in theory, practice shows that, from entire areas of the world, the only participation you get is through the government. We should push for multistakeholder models rather than for intergovernmental ones, but at the same time I wouldn't be happy to throw the problem of US oversight out of the door (by removing any kind of governmental approval function) and then see it come back again from the window (because, for example, the entire private sector representation is dominated by US multinationals). Beware that any maneuver towards total removal of governmental oversight might be perceived as an attempt to support the continuation of US hegemony over the Internet in other, less evident forms; if that is not your objective, you should couple your proposal with clear provisions to ensure real geographical, cultural and political diversity (no, an Australian does not represent Asia, and an executive of a US company from an African country does not represent Africa). As an example, just have a look at the composition of ICANN's new "Strategy Committee", which is handling exactly this process of reforming ICANN's institutional structure: http://www.icann.org/announcements/psc-consultation.htm (at the end). Is that the kind of multistakeholder diversity we envisage? Seven developed country members over eight? Seven over eight male? Five over eight with English as their mother tongue? All of them from US businesses (oh wait, there's a New Zealander) or from governments? (Apparently, we just got one civil society person into the group. We proposed two, but we were told: hey, one is enough!) And to this regard: > I see ICANN continuing it's reforms towards transparency and > openness. ...this is the best joke of the year :-) -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From raul at lacnic.net Fri Jul 21 19:59:29 2006 From: raul at lacnic.net (Raul Echeberria) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 20:59:29 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Burr & Cade: proposal for introducing multi-lateral oversight of the root In-Reply-To: <44C16407.8090906@bertola.eu.org> References: <44C06EC9.2020008@isoc.lu> <7.0.1.0.0.20060721110907.03e51d90@lacnic.net> <44C0FC4F.8090906@isoc.lu> <44C16407.8090906@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.0.20060721205450.040779f0@lacnic.net> At 08:32 p.m. 21/07/2006, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >McTim ha scritto: >>>The Burr-Cade proposal only addresses a very small, but important issue >>>many governments have raised: what if the USG considers that my country >>>code has to disappear from the Internet ? >>But if you remove all governments, you remove this issue as well. > >While I agree with you in theory, practice shows that, from entire >areas of the world, the only participation you get is through the government. I don't agree with this assertion, and so, I disagree with the reasoning based on this supposed hypothesis. But, beside that, the model that is being proposed is not a model that will allow a good representation of those governments, that supposedly represent the people that you are talking about. It is a fallacy. The model proposed favors a small groups of governments/countries. Raul ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at acm.org Fri Jul 21 23:41:09 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 23:41:09 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN's strategy for the future Message-ID: <1D83085E-DAE6-4478-B9AC-BACE34D7BFA1@acm.org> Hi, This is a really really late bit of information. Unfortunately even though I knew something was happening in the background, I wasn't paying close enough attention and missed the notice of the consultation. ICANN has blue ribbon panel to advise the ICANN president on strategy directions for the future: The announcement for the president strategy committee: http://www.icann.org/announcements/psc-consultation.htm On 21 Jul (today that was) they had an web consultation. I don't know if there is a mp3 recording or are transcripts of that consultation, but if i find them, i will let the group know. The announcement was at: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-1-20jul06.htm The significant thing for which there still is time is written comments. I am not suggesting that the IGC should come up with a statement, but I figured that individuals, or groups of individuals may want to contribute. The deadline for these comments is > Please note that the online consultations shall continue through 15 > August 2006. > sent to: psc at icann.org. Comments that have already been received can be found at: http:// forum.icann.org/lists/psc/ . Some IGC participants have already commented, so at least some of us were paying attention. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Sat Jul 22 04:39:14 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 10:39:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN's strategy for the future In-Reply-To: <1D83085E-DAE6-4478-B9AC-BACE34D7BFA1@acm.org> References: <1D83085E-DAE6-4478-B9AC-BACE34D7BFA1@acm.org> Message-ID: <44C1E432.6070409@bertola.eu.org> Avri Doria ha scritto: > The significant thing for which there still is time is written > comments. I am not suggesting that the IGC should come up with a > statement, but I figured that individuals, or groups of individuals may > want to contribute. The deadline for these comments is > > Comments that have already been received can be found at: http:// > forum.icann.org/lists/psc/ . Some IGC participants have already > commented, so at least some of us were paying attention. Actually, I am one of the ones who did, but it never came to my mind that the IGC "as itself" could want to participate in ICANN consultations; it never did in the past (I presume it is also because most of us are already directly involved in ICANN through other groups and constituencies). But of course, now that I think at it, there is no particular reason why it shouldn't start to do so. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Sat Jul 22 06:34:48 2006 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 12:34:48 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal for introducing multi-lateral oversight of the root In-Reply-To: <6B9E34DE-BEFC-4541-B9A3-B9A6B48779E7@psg.com> References: <20060721170148.12797.qmail@web54706.mail.yahoo.com> <6B9E34DE-BEFC-4541-B9A3-B9A6B48779E7@psg.com> Message-ID: <44C1FF48.5030500@wz-berlin.de> > i also don't think much of the argument of 'the segment (govt, ps, cs) > is better at x gets to rule x' this is a argument meant to maintain a > status quo as those in control always appear to know best and it is one > that ignores the importance of stakeholders. i think that it not about > who is best at oversight, it is rather who is a stakeholder and > therefore has an equal right of participation in any necessary oversight. It is not about who knows best. Governments do have a different type of (formally) legitimate authority. Governments make binding decisions. Governments can regulate ISPs. For example, they can impose rules of non-discrimination or data protection provisions on ISPs. There is no doubt that governments have specific means of political oversight at their disposal that no other group of actors has. And, of course, they make use of those means. I don't see any point in denying this, and in more general terms, I also don't see why the Internet should be treated differently than any other cross border or transnational policy field. As long as the government's authority is constrained by a democratic constitution, I don't have any problem with it. In my view self-governance mechanismis would have to develop similar constitutive elements in order to gain such a high level of legitimacy. Excluding governmens from transnational policy making sounds like throwing out the baby with the bath water. For me the whole debate on political oversight is about _how_ the various groups, stakes, regions etc. can be legitimately integrated in decision making procedures. If the principle of sovereignty is not a satisfiying solution anymore, what does a better answer look like? jeanette > > then again i, as many of the CS participants, was never comfortable > with the WSIS/WGIG determination of 'participation of each according to > their proper role'. this sort of reasoning is meant to keep people in > their place and i see no reason why CS should accept the place it has > been given by governments. and i repeat, i see no reason to ever > accept government (uni or multilateral) primacy in the Internet. > > > a. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Jul 22 08:20:17 2006 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 17:50:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] charter 1.5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060722122022.E16FCDADDC@smtp3.electricembers.net> Thanks Avri, for driving the process long and hard, but hopefully now towards a closure. Can I share a few comments on the latest changes. >the most significant > change was to the mission where i replaced > > It is intended > with > The membership of the caucus intends > > I understand this is a slightly different meeting as it attributes > the intention to the membership as opposed to some abstract entity. > Can we just say ' the caucus intends....' because the mention of membership in this line appears to stand out discordantly. It appears to highlight the importance of enrolling as members, kind of a exclusive ' only for members' stance. Whereas we plan to keep the forum wider, more open, and though developing networks and other connections offer some possibilities for non-members to participate in some ways - through membership of individuals representing groups, HR caucus for example, or through other outreach measures that we pledge to undertake in other parts of the charter.. Another thing about the part where the option of secret versus open voting is stated. At all times when a case for open voting was made on this list, it was insisted that there can and will be situations where secret voting may be needed. So can we make the option to read All voting will be open, though on discretion of moderators, with or without request from member(s), it can be made into a secret vote. The reasons for making it a secret vote will be stated, and are subject to appeal. As for making the vote on this charter itself a secret vote, I know that a decision has to be taken one way or the other by the moderator, and I do not want to raise dissent here and will agree to go with the decision. However, this particular vote exemplifies my position on open voting very well. I cannot find one reason why the vote should be secret in this case, and the 'competing' imperative of transparency of process and 'public-ness' of opinion and representation (if any) remains strong in this case. Third thing. The phrase (realization of) 'cultural concerns' in the vision looks a bit odd, can we think of a replacement that serves the purpose better. that if any one has some bright idea, I couldn't hit upon one. Thanks Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] > Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 10:23 AM > To: Governance Caucus > Subject: [governance] charter 1.5 > > Hi, > > As usual the latest copy can be found in: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_draft.html > aka: http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC_charter_draft-1.5.html > > Older versions can still be found on the web site > http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC_charter_draft-1.4.html etc.... > > Changes in 1.5 > > - removed notes on Vision issue > - removed vision from the set of options that needed a seperate > decision (i.e. it seems like we have pretty much settled on having a > Vision and Mission that closely resembles the text currently in the > document) > - add option for secret vs public ballots > - editorial changes to vision and mission > - changes made based on Parminder's note on recommended changes to > the Mission. i simplified the text somewhat. > - formatting changes to objectives > - replaced Internet Goverance with Internet governance (not really > sure which is correct but figured it should be consistent) > - removed reference to nominating committee under organizational > roles. It remains as an option under process. > - Included the two options, voting or nomcom, for appeal teams selection > - Added reference to no term limitations for nomcom under the nomcom > process option - people can be selected as often as the random draw > slects them (assuming the igc opts for a nomcom process) > > On the editorial changes to vision, i tried to make it read better, > but hopefully did not change any meanings. the most significant > change was to the mission where i replaced > > It is intended > with > The membership of the caucus intends > > I understand this is a slightly different meeting as it attributes > the intention to the membership as opposed to some abstract entity. > > thanks > a. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From avri at acm.org Sat Jul 22 11:07:20 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 11:07:20 -0400 Subject: [governance] charter 1.5 In-Reply-To: <20060722122022.E16FCDADDC@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20060722122022.E16FCDADDC@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Hi, I have put my comments in-line. On 22 jul 2006, at 08.20, Parminder wrote: > > > Thanks Avri, for driving the process long and hard, but hopefully > now towards a closure. yes, i very much hope that is the case. I will submit the names for voting on Monday and start to build the voting directory. once that is done we can schedule the vote. > > > > Can I share a few comments on the latest changes. > > > > >the most significant > > > change was to the mission where i replaced > > > > > > It is intended > > > with > > > The membership of the caucus intends > > > > > > I understand this is a slightly different meeting as it attributes > > > the intention to the membership as opposed to some abstract entity. > > > > > > > Can we just say ' the caucus intends....' because the mention of > membership in this line appears to stand out discordantly. in my understanding of the notion of intentionality, only people can have intentions. if an abstract entity like a caucus has an intention it is only because its membership has one. > It appears to highlight the importance of enrolling as members, > kind of a exclusive ‘ only for members’ stance. Whereas we plan to > keep the forum wider, more open, and though developing networks and > other connections offer some possibilities for non-members to > participate in some ways – through membership of individuals > representing groups, HR caucus for example, or through other > outreach measures that we pledge to undertake in other parts of the > charter…. the charter includes a paragraph on membership: >>> Membership >>> >>> The members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal >>> capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All members >>> are equal and have the same rights and duties. as this shows, the IGC is composed of individuals who subscribe to the charter. so to say that 'the membership' of the IGC is not exclusionary in the least. It does, however, distinguish between those on the list because they want to track what we are talking about, especially when it is contentful, and those who actually see themselves as members. I see no content difference between the two constructions, except that one is more conceptually reasonable, i.e. the people who are the IGC have the intention not the abstract entity called IGC. I would be interested in hearing other opinions on this. > > > Another thing about the part where the option of secret versus open > voting is stated. > > > > At all times when a case for open voting was made on this list, it > was insisted that there can and will be situations where secret > voting may be needed. So can we make the option to read > > > > All voting will be open, though on discretion of moderators, with > or without request from member(s), it can be made into a secret > vote. The reasons for making it a secret vote will be stated, and > are subject to appeal. I can certainly substitute this for the current open voting option. i.e. > Elections will be run by the coordinators and will be subject to > the appeals process. > Option 1: All voting will be by secret ballot with the exception > noted above for release of voters names. > Option 2: All voting will be open, though on discretion of > moderators, with or without request from member(s), it can be made > into a secret vote. The reasons for making it a secret vote will be > stated, and are subject to appeal. > > > > As for making the vote on this charter itself a secret vote, I know > that a decision has to be taken one way or the other by the > moderator, and I do not want to raise dissent here and will agree > to go with the decision. However, this particular vote exemplifies > my position on open voting very well. I cannot find one reason why > the vote should be secret in this case, and the ‘competing’ > imperative of transparency of process and ‘public-ness’ of opinion > and representation (if any) remains strong in this case. for me there are two reasons: - it has been the assumption of this process for a while now that the vote will be closed. the charter proposal that came out of the drafting team contained: >>> Acceptance of the Charter >>> >>> After 30 days discussion and editing, the charter will be >>> presented for a vote. All members of the IGC mail list will be >>> given voter accounts. In order to qualify to vote on the charter, >>> the prospective voter will first need to affirm that they qualify >>> as a member of the group as described elsewhere in the charter. A >>> list of those who self-affirm membership, but not their votes, >>> will be published after the vote. Obviously this is not a option that can be voted on after the charter vote, so it needs to be decided beforehand. Since yours is the only argument against this acceptance clause since we began the discussion, I would prefer to leave this in place. If the rest of the membership desires open votes (option 2) thereafter they can decide that way. Since this has stood until now in the charter, I would very much appreciate letting the acceptance process go through as written. > > > > Third thing… > > > > The phrase (realization of) ‘cultural concerns’ in the vision looks > a bit odd, can we think of a replacement that serves the purpose > better… that if any one has some bright idea, I couldn’t hit upon one. I kind of like cultural concerns because it keeps us from having to include a long list of all the possible cultural concerns we care about. And of course, since no such list is ever complete, we would leave a few out as we would not be able to agree on some and we might have no one currently in the IGC who would argue for some. While we could include 'inter alia' to make up for the fact that we did not include someone's cultural concern, i think that is a poor consolation. thanks for your comments a. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From avri at acm.org Sat Jul 22 11:25:24 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 11:25:24 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN's strategy for the future In-Reply-To: <44C1E432.6070409@bertola.eu.org> References: <1D83085E-DAE6-4478-B9AC-BACE34D7BFA1@acm.org> <44C1E432.6070409@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <01F8D552-8D47-44AE-AD13-066CBC4F2C7C@acm.org> Hi, On 22 jul 2006, at 04.39, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > but it never came to my mind that the IGC "as itself" could want > to participate in ICANN consultations; it never did in the past (I > presume it is also because most of us are already directly involved > in ICANN through other groups and constituencies). As I tried to say in my note, I don't think, especially at this point, that the IGC per-se will have a statement to make (it would surprise me). but I think there are many individuals on the IGC that might. One of the values of the IGC, in addition to any cooperative actions we may take, is to serve as a informational point for activities that may be of interest to participants (a category i think includes both meta-members, those who plan to vote on the charter, and others on the list). So as a participant who noticed it, and thought it might be interesting to others, i passed it on. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Jul 22 12:17:27 2006 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 21:47:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] charter 1.5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060722161732.D3B5BC9C57@smtp1.electricembers.net> Hi Avri >in my understanding of the notion of intentionality, only people can have intentions. if an abstract entity like a caucus has an intention it is only because its >membership has one. I think, organizations have intentions as well, which is more than or different from the sum of (independent) intentions of its constituents. I think this is very basic to definition, theory etc of organizations. We can of course speak of organizations seeking to, having the intention, working towards etc etc without having to speak of its members having the intention etc... In fact, often my own independent intentions may not be exactly the same as that of the organization that I may constitute, IGC, in this case. I saw the 'membership' clause in the draft closely, and I agreed with this clause as it stand, though I, and some others who have argued on this list, do have views about how groups/ organizations/ interest groups based stakeholder-ship (going beyond a strict construction implied in 'membership') of IGC should be emphasized. And it is emphasized in the mission of the present draft, and in some parts of the tasks. And it also flows from the history of the caucus. For example, the webpage for the IGC list serve mentions that This list is for a) public discussion of Internet governance issues, and b) coordination of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC). The IGC comprises individual and organizational civil society actors (emphasis added) that came together in the context of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. However, I also understand that for many process related issues, some kind of strict definition of membership aspects is necessary. And that the membership portion of the draft charter deals with this issue. And that perhaps it will be too complicated to get into organizational memberships in this respect. And to that extent, and for that strict purpose of fixing some necessary processes, it may be necessary to describe "the members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity". So the issue of speaking about membership in relation to fixing some important IGC processes, is not the same as laying out IGC's wider scope, domain, general constitution, stakeholdership, representative-ness etc, which I understand it is the intention of all of us to be a inclusive of what can go in the name of civil society as possible. It is in this sense that I have problems with mentioning 'membership' in the mission statement. As for secret vote for charter adoption, I have already stated that I will go with your decision on this. However, I was just emphasizing the issues and values involved in my appeal for open voting once more. And this connects with the wider scope and some kind of representation-ship of the IGC group that I speak of above. About 'cultural concerns' I only wondered if the language was the best that can be used here, and if 'concerns' sound fine. Otherwise I agree altogether with all that you say in your email about this issue. So, I am fine with it going as it is. Regards Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134 www.ITforChange.net _____ From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2006 8:37 PM To: Parminder Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] charter 1.5 Hi, I have put my comments in-line. On 22 jul 2006, at 08.20, Parminder wrote: Thanks Avri, for driving the process long and hard, but hopefully now towards a closure. yes, i very much hope that is the case. I will submit the names for voting on Monday and start to build the voting directory. once that is done we can schedule the vote. Can I share a few comments on the latest changes. >the most significant > change was to the mission where i replaced > > It is intended > with > The membership of the caucus intends > > I understand this is a slightly different meeting as it attributes > the intention to the membership as opposed to some abstract entity. > Can we just say ' the caucus intends....' because the mention of membership in this line appears to stand out discordantly. in my understanding of the notion of intentionality, only people can have intentions. if an abstract entity like a caucus has an intention it is only because its membership has one. It appears to highlight the importance of enrolling as members, kind of a exclusive ' only for members' stance. Whereas we plan to keep the forum wider, more open, and though developing networks and other connections offer some possibilities for non-members to participate in some ways - through membership of individuals representing groups, HR caucus for example, or through other outreach measures that we pledge to undertake in other parts of the charter.. the charter includes a paragraph on membership: Membership The members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All members are equal and have the same rights and duties. as this shows, the IGC is composed of individuals who subscribe to the charter. so to say that 'the membership' of the IGC is not exclusionary in the least. It does, however, distinguish between those on the list because they want to track what we are talking about, especially when it is contentful, and those who actually see themselves as members. I see no content difference between the two constructions, except that one is more conceptually reasonable, i.e. the people who are the IGC have the intention not the abstract entity called IGC. I would be interested in hearing other opinions on this. Another thing about the part where the option of secret versus open voting is stated. At all times when a case for open voting was made on this list, it was insisted that there can and will be situations where secret voting may be needed. So can we make the option to read All voting will be open, though on discretion of moderators, with or without request from member(s), it can be made into a secret vote. The reasons for making it a secret vote will be stated, and are subject to appeal. I can certainly substitute this for the current open voting option. i.e. Elections will be run by the coordinators and will be subject to the appeals process. Option 1: All voting will be by secret ballot with the exception noted above for release of voters names. Option 2: All voting will be open, though on discretion of moderators, with or without request from member(s), it can be made into a secret vote. The reasons for making it a secret vote will be stated, and are subject to appeal. As for making the vote on this charter itself a secret vote, I know that a decision has to be taken one way or the other by the moderator, and I do not want to raise dissent here and will agree to go with the decision. However, this particular vote exemplifies my position on open voting very well. I cannot find one reason why the vote should be secret in this case, and the 'competing' imperative of transparency of process and 'public-ness' of opinion and representation (if any) remains strong in this case. for me there are two reasons: - it has been the assumption of this process for a while now that the vote will be closed. the charter proposal that came out of the drafting team contained: Acceptance of the Charter After 30 days discussion and editing, the charter will be presented for a vote. All members of the IGC mail list will be given voter accounts. In order to qualify to vote on the charter, the prospective voter will first need to affirm that they qualify as a member of the group as described elsewhere in the charter. A list of those who self-affirm membership, but not their votes, will be published after the vote. Obviously this is not a option that can be voted on after the charter vote, so it needs to be decided beforehand. Since yours is the only argument against this acceptance clause since we began the discussion, I would prefer to leave this in place. If the rest of the membership desires open votes (option 2) thereafter they can decide that way. Since this has stood until now in the charter, I would very much appreciate letting the acceptance process go through as written. Third thing. The phrase (realization of) 'cultural concerns' in the vision looks a bit odd, can we think of a replacement that serves the purpose better. that if any one has some bright idea, I couldn't hit upon one. I kind of like cultural concerns because it keeps us from having to include a long list of all the possible cultural concerns we care about. And of course, since no such list is ever complete, we would leave a few out as we would not be able to agree on some and we might have no one currently in the IGC who would argue for some. While we could include 'inter alia' to make up for the fact that we did not include someone's cultural concern, i think that is a poor consolation. thanks for your comments a. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From avri at psg.com Sat Jul 22 14:25:40 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 14:25:40 -0400 Subject: [governance] charter 1.5 In-Reply-To: <20060722161732.D3B5BC9C57@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20060722161732.D3B5BC9C57@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <43A86BEB-611F-4748-BB3D-E3364D85CC52@psg.com> Hi, On 22 jul 2006, at 12.17, Parminder wrote: > >in my understanding of the notion of intentionality, only people > can have intentions. if an abstract entity like a caucus has an > intention it is only because its >membership has one. > > > > I think, organizations have intentions as well, which is more than > or different from the sum of (independent) intentions of its > constituents. I think this is very basic to definition, theory etc > of organizations. We can of course speak of organizations seeking > to, having the intention, working towards etc etc without having to > speak of its members having the intention etc….. In fact, often my > own independent intentions may not be exactly the same as that of > the organization that I may constitute, IGC, in this case. True, but in the sense of a charter, we are agreeing on a statement that the members specifically intend. > > > > I saw the ‘membership’ clause in the draft closely, and I agreed > with this clause as it stand, though I, and some others who have > argued on this list, do have views about how groups/ organizations/ > interest groups based stakeholder-ship (going beyond a strict > construction implied in ‘membership’) of IGC should be emphasized. > And it is emphasized in the mission of the present draft, and in > some parts of the tasks. > > > > And it also flows from the history of the caucus. For example, the > webpage for the IGC list serve mentions that > > > This list is for a) public discussion of Internet governance > issues, and b) coordination of the > Internet Governance Caucus (IGC). The IGC comprises individual and > organizational civil society > actors (emphasis added) that came together in the context of the > World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) to > promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance > policy making. yes, that is the historical page for the IGC as a WSIS CS committee. I have looked at that and avoided changing it until after the charter is approved. > > However, I also understand that for many process related issues, > some kind of strict definition of membership aspects is necessary. > And that the membership portion of the draft charter deals with > this issue. And that perhaps it will be too complicated to get into > organizational memberships in this respect. And to that extent, and > for that strict purpose of fixing some necessary processes, it may > be necessary to describe “the members of the IGC are individuals, > acting in personal capacity”. > > So the issue of speaking about membership in relation to fixing > some important IGC processes, is not the same as laying out IGC’s > wider scope, domain, general constitution, stakeholdership, > representative-ness etc, which I understand it is the intention of > all of us to be a inclusive of what can go in the name of civil > society as possible. It is in this sense that I have problems with > mentioning ‘membership’ in the mission statement. I understand. And I realize that my objection may be more pedantic than political. so am willing to to go back to the previous usage, though for correctness sake, as far as i can tell from the various dictionary descriptions of usage i have consulted during this conversation, caucus, as committee, takes a plural form of the verb. So it would be: The caucus intend .... I still would like to hear other opinions. thanks a. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Sat Jul 22 15:52:43 2006 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 12:52:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] NTIA Public Meeting Update In-Reply-To: <01F8D552-8D47-44AE-AD13-066CBC4F2C7C@acm.org> Message-ID: <20060722195243.53284.qmail@web53311.mail.yahoo.com> The Continued Transition of the Technical Coordination and Management of the Internet Domain name and Addressing System On July 26, 2006, NTIA is holding a public meeting to discuss issues associated with the continuation of the transition of the technical coordination and management of the Internet domain name and addressing system (Internet DNS) to the private sector. United States Department of Commerce Herbert C. Hoover Building, Auditorium 1401 Constitution Ave, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20230 Wednesday, July 26, 2006 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Please note: Due to security requirements and to facilitate entry to the Department of Commerce building, anyone wishing to attend must contact Tanika Hawkins at (202) 482-1866 or thawkins at ntia.doc.gov prior to the meeting in order to provide the necessary clearance information. When arriving for the meeting, attendees must present photo or passport identification and/or a U.S. Government building pass, if applicable, and should arrive at least one-half hour prior to the start time of the meeting. There will be a video webcast beginning 30 minutes prior to the start of this meeting: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 1:30 p.m. Registration 2:00-2:15 p.m. Introduction and Welcoming Remarks John M. R. Kneuer, Acting Assistant Secretary for Commerce for Communications and Information 2:15 - 3:05 p.m. Session 1: DNS Privatization: Are the MOU principles relevant and the tasks completed? Moderator: John M. R. Kneuer, Acting Assistant Secretary for Commerce for Communications and Information 3:05 – 3:20 p.m. Questions from the Audience 3:20 – 3:35 p.m. Break 3:35 – 4:25 p.m. Session 2: Measuring Success: Do stakeholders believe ICANN is fully sustainable? Moderator: Meredith Attwell Baker, Senior Policy Advisor 4:25 – 4:40 p.m. Questions from the Audience 4:40 – 4:50 p.m. Remarks: Dr. Paul Twoomey, President and C.E.O. Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 4:50 – 5:00 p.m. Conclusion: Concluding Remarks by John M. R. Kneuer, Acting Assistant Secretary for Commerce for Communications and Information http://www.ntia.doc.gov/forums/2006/726dns/index.htm __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jul 23 00:15:10 2006 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 09:45:10 +0530 Subject: [governance] charter 1.5 In-Reply-To: <43A86BEB-611F-4748-BB3D-E3364D85CC52@psg.com> Message-ID: <20060723041525.21135C985A@smtp1.electricembers.net> >yes, that is the historical page for the IGC as a WSIS CS committee. I have looked at that and avoided changing it until after the charter is approved. In fact, since history is one of the most important constituents of meaning, it may be appropriate to leave the historical fact of how IGC came to be, in the opening part of the charter. Though to fit the purpose of the charter, it may have to be changed a bit. Something like, IGC was formed by The IGC comprises individual and organizational civil society actors who came together in the context of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. I propose that this be the opening line of the charter even before the vision, putting the issue in perspective. Thanks. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134 www.ITforChange.net _____ From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2006 11:56 PM To: Parminder Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] charter 1.5 Hi, On 22 jul 2006, at 12.17, Parminder wrote: >in my understanding of the notion of intentionality, only people can have intentions. if an abstract entity like a caucus has an intention it is only because its >membership has one. I think, organizations have intentions as well, which is more than or different from the sum of (independent) intentions of its constituents. I think this is very basic to definition, theory etc of organizations. We can of course speak of organizations seeking to, having the intention, working towards etc etc without having to speak of its members having the intention etc... In fact, often my own independent intentions may not be exactly the same as that of the organization that I may constitute, IGC, in this case. True, but in the sense of a charter, we are agreeing on a statement that the members specifically intend. I saw the 'membership' clause in the draft closely, and I agreed with this clause as it stand, though I, and some others who have argued on this list, do have views about how groups/ organizations/ interest groups based stakeholder-ship (going beyond a strict construction implied in 'membership') of IGC should be emphasized. And it is emphasized in the mission of the present draft, and in some parts of the tasks. And it also flows from the history of the caucus. For example, the webpage for the IGC list serve mentions that This list is for a) public discussion of Internet governance issues, and b) coordination of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC). The IGC comprises individual and organizational civil society actors (emphasis added) that came together in the context of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. yes, that is the historical page for the IGC as a WSIS CS committee. I have looked at that and avoided changing it until after the charter is approved. However, I also understand that for many process related issues, some kind of strict definition of membership aspects is necessary. And that the membership portion of the draft charter deals with this issue. And that perhaps it will be too complicated to get into organizational memberships in this respect. And to that extent, and for that strict purpose of fixing some necessary processes, it may be necessary to describe "the members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity". So the issue of speaking about membership in relation to fixing some important IGC processes, is not the same as laying out IGC's wider scope, domain, general constitution, stakeholdership, representative-ness etc, which I understand it is the intention of all of us to be a inclusive of what can go in the name of civil society as possible. It is in this sense that I have problems with mentioning 'membership' in the mission statement. I understand. And I realize that my objection may be more pedantic than political. so am willing to to go back to the previous usage, though for correctness sake, as far as i can tell from the various dictionary descriptions of usage i have consulted during this conversation, caucus, as committee, takes a plural form of the verb. So it would be: The caucus intend .... I still would like to hear other opinions. thanks a. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jul 23 02:43:42 2006 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 12:13:42 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal for introducing multi-lateral oversight of the root In-Reply-To: <44C1FF48.5030500@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <20060723064345.E2D5FC96A0@smtp1.electricembers.net> The B & C proposal addresses the most contentious and patently unsustainable issue of how US government could sit over the exclusive control over a global infrastructure. This issue, in itself is very important. However, it is important to note that whatever alternative structure is proposed here is 'allowed' to intervene only on the grounds of promoting 'technical stability and security of Internet'. (though once a structure comes to possess the power of authorization, as with the US gov at present, it may tend to use it for all political purposes. Though in this case, since ICANN has other legal obligations and relationships with US government, one wonders if US gov will still be able to adjudicate on whether the exercise of power by the proposed new structure was within its mandate or not, especially in regard to political oversight related to issues which clearly are not about technical issues.) It is also to be considered whether it is the case that; oversight in respect of maintaining technical stability and security of the Internet is the only kind of 'political' oversight of ICANN that is valid? Are there not any other public policy interests that have an interface with ICANN functions? Does ICANN not conduct many other functions that have political implications? If so, what the process for its political oversight in terms of these issues? Having no ostensible political oversight does not make ICANN functions apolitical. In default it only serves dominant interests - mostly pro-big business and pro-US (with all the US based governmental and private sector institutional as well as personal nexus with the present IG dispensation). The B & C proposal seems to be directed more at taking an irritant out of the way with the basic purpose of strengthening the status quo, rather than a serious attempt at looking at the issue of political oversight of ICANN. However, tactically, as a first step out of the present situation, the proposal may have some merit. In the long run, there is no way out of committing to a more sustained international engagement, culminating into a multistakeholder framework convention kind of a process, for governance of the Internet. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh \IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134 www.ITforChange.net ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Mon Jul 24 11:28:53 2006 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 11:28:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal for introducing multi-lateral oversight of the root Message-ID: >>> apeake at gmail.com 7/20/2006 10:12 AM >>> >Thanks to Brenden Kuerbis and IGP for pointing to an interesting >proposal from Becky Burr and Marilyn Cade on oversight of the root A bit behind the traffic here, but please note that the proposal is Burr's. Marilyn Cade has simply endorsed it. Another problem with this debate I have noticed is a confusion between two distinct things: 1. The importance of Internet policies and the need, or even the inevitability, of governments playing a role in how those policies are rules are made. 2. Control over modifications of the Root Zone File (RZF). Let's create a sharp distinction between the two. Governments can have 1 without 2. Since ICANN is a global organization and needs to be accountable, governments can and should establish global rules that help to make it accountable. For example, if ICANN or its successor abuses its authority, breaks its own rules, cheats, steals, etc. it needs to be accountable. Governments need to work out how to apply competition policy and law, and trade rules to ICANN. That's all legitimate government business. But that does not mean that governments need to have or should have some kind of veto power over modifications of the root zone file. It seems to me that giving governments*any one or any collection of them*some kind of final veto power over the RZF is just asking for trouble. The Burr proposal tries to deal with this by saying that governments can intervene only to protect technical stability and security. But this is like telling a fox he can only eat one of the chickens he is guarding when the stability and security of the farm is threatened. The fox will always want to eat the chickens, and will use any excuse he can to define something as a threat to the farm's stability and security. Governments and their representatives are not likely to have any clue as to what RZF changes affect the technical security and stability of the Internet. But they will know how their political interests are affected. They will want to control or affect the RZF for political reasons, not technical ones. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Mon Jul 24 11:35:59 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 11:35:59 -0400 Subject: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal for introducing multi-lateral oversight of the root In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9C8990C1-7EB1-48AA-9D5E-416A76419211@psg.com> Hi, isn't the Burr & Cade (she is a signatory) proposal about the RZF and the control/veto of changes to it? if so, aren't they the ones who are not dividing the topic as opposed to it being the dialogue on this list that isn't. also your topic one, do you distinguish between having a role and having the dominant role or being the only one with a role. a. On 24 jul 2006, at 11.28, Milton Mueller wrote: >>>> apeake at gmail.com 7/20/2006 10:12 AM >>> >> Thanks to Brenden Kuerbis and IGP for pointing to an interesting >> proposal from Becky Burr and Marilyn Cade on oversight of the root > > A bit behind the traffic here, but please note that the proposal is > Burr's. > Marilyn Cade has simply endorsed it. > > Another problem with this debate I have noticed is a confusion > between two distinct things: > > 1. The importance of Internet policies and the need, or even the > inevitability, of governments playing a role in how those policies > are rules are made. > > 2. Control over modifications of the Root Zone File (RZF). > > Let's create a sharp distinction between the two. Governments can > have 1 without 2. Since ICANN is a global organization and needs to > be accountable, governments can and should establish global rules > that help to make it accountable. For example, if ICANN or its > successor abuses its authority, breaks its own rules, cheats, > steals, etc. it needs to be accountable. Governments need to work > out how to apply competition policy and law, and trade rules to > ICANN. That's all legitimate government business. > > But that does not mean that governments need to have or should have > some kind of veto power over modifications of the root zone file. > It seems to me that giving governments*any one or any collection of > them*some kind of final veto power over the RZF is just asking for > trouble. The Burr proposal tries to deal with this by saying that > governments can intervene only to protect technical stability and > security. But this is like telling a fox he can only eat one of the > chickens he is guarding when the stability and security of the farm > is threatened. The fox will always want to eat the chickens, and > will use any excuse he can to define something as a threat to the > farm's stability and security. > > Governments and their representatives are not likely to have any > clue as to what RZF changes affect the technical security and > stability of the Internet. But they will know how their political > interests are affected. They will want to control or affect the RZF > for political reasons, not technical ones. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From raul at lacnic.net Mon Jul 24 12:23:38 2006 From: raul at lacnic.net (Raul Echeberria) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 13:23:38 -0300 Subject: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal for introducing multi-lateral oversight of the root In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.0.20060724132236.046eac40@lacnic.net> At 12:28 p.m. 24/07/2006, Milton Mueller wrote: >Since ICANN is a global organization and needs >to be accountable, governments can and should >establish global rules that help to make it >accountable. For example, if ICANN or its >successor abuses its authority, breaks its own >rules, cheats, steals, etc. it needs to be >accountable. Governments need to work out how to >apply competition policy and law, and trade >rules to ICANN. That's all legitimate government business. > >But that does not mean that governments need to >have or should have some kind of veto power over >modifications of the root zone file. It seems to >me that giving governments*any one or any >collection of them*some kind of final veto power >over the RZF is just asking for trouble. that is exactly my point. Raúl ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Mon Jul 24 13:53:44 2006 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 14:53:44 -0300 Subject: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal for introducing multi-lateral oversight of the root In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.0.20060724132236.046eac40@lacnic.net> References: <7.0.1.0.0.20060724132236.046eac40@lacnic.net> Message-ID: <44C50928.9090000@rits.org.br> Raul Echeberria wrote: > At 12:28 p.m. 24/07/2006, Milton Mueller wrote: ... >> But that does not mean that governments need to have or should have >> some kind of veto power over modifications of the root zone file. It >> seems to me that giving governments*any one or any collection of >> them*some kind of final veto power over the RZF is just asking for >> trouble. > > that is exactly my point. That is the situation now, objectively, so freeing ICANN's core activities from government(s) is still a dream -- it remains a US government contractor. What changes could be expected (for the better) after September? > > Raúl > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- Carlos A. Afonso diretor de planejamento Rits -- http://www.rits.org.br ******************************************** * Projeto Sacix -- Pacote Linux orientado * * a projetos de inclusão digital com * * software livre e de código aberto, * * mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o * * Coletivo Digital. * * Saiba mais: http://www.sacix.org.br * ******************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Tue Jul 25 13:33:26 2006 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 14:33:26 -0300 Subject: [governance] september song... :) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44C655E6.10505@rits.org.br> Well, aside from the fact that MM's methodological separation is just academic (as there are no signs Bushland will relinquish its role on ICANN), *if* ICANN, as it is now, goes to a situation of no governmental control whatsoever on its core operations, *then* we will still have another serious problem -- the objective fact that a private non-profit sustained by a quasi-monopoly of the global domain name business could hardly become truly independent. --c.a. Milton Mueller wrote: >>>> apeake at gmail.com 7/20/2006 10:12 AM >>> >> Thanks to Brenden Kuerbis and IGP for pointing to an interesting >> proposal from Becky Burr and Marilyn Cade on oversight of the root > > A bit behind the traffic here, but please note that the proposal is > Burr's. Marilyn Cade has simply endorsed it. > > Another problem with this debate I have noticed is a confusion > between two distinct things: > > 1. The importance of Internet policies and the need, or even the > inevitability, of governments playing a role in how those policies > are rules are made. > > 2. Control over modifications of the Root Zone File (RZF). > > Let's create a sharp distinction between the two. Governments can > have 1 without 2. Since ICANN is a global organization and needs to > be accountable, governments can and should establish global rules > that help to make it accountable. For example, if ICANN or its > successor abuses its authority, breaks its own rules, cheats, steals, > etc. it needs to be accountable. Governments need to work out how to > apply competition policy and law, and trade rules to ICANN. That's > all legitimate government business. > > But that does not mean that governments need to have or should have > some kind of veto power over modifications of the root zone file. It > seems to me that giving governments*any one or any collection of > them*some kind of final veto power over the RZF is just asking for > trouble. The Burr proposal tries to deal with this by saying that > governments can intervene only to protect technical stability and > security. But this is like telling a fox he can only eat one of the > chickens he is guarding when the stability and security of the farm > is threatened. The fox will always want to eat the chickens, and will > use any excuse he can to define something as a threat to the farm's > stability and security. > > Governments and their representatives are not likely to have any clue > as to what RZF changes affect the technical security and stability of > the Internet. But they will know how their political interests are > affected. They will want to control or affect the RZF for political > reasons, not technical ones. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any > message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- Carlos A. Afonso diretor de planejamento Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor *************************************************************** Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações: www.sacix.org.br www.rits.org.br www.coletivodigital.org.br *************************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jul 26 06:01:52 2006 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 15:31:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal for introducingmulti-lateral oversight of the root In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060726100155.25CA6DAB93@smtp3.electricembers.net> Milton wrote: > Another problem with this debate I have noticed is a confusion between two > distinct things: > > 1. The importance of Internet policies and the need, or even the > inevitability, of governments playing a role in how those policies are > rules are made. > > 2. Control over modifications of the Root Zone File (RZF). > Let's create a sharp distinction between the two. On the contrary, my opinion is that the sharp connection between the two is obvious. For example, is it at all difficult to see why US refuses to relinquish control over RZF? And this even at the risk of courting considerable international ill-will for sticking to a very illogical and untenable stand of unilateralism. Is it only because US is concerned about technical stability and security of the Internet, and others may not be? Others are equally concerned, and there cannot be any real difference of opinion on this issue. It is so obvious that if the issue was only technical it wont be difficult to reach an arrangement for supervisor of RTZ under a team of international experts or some other expertise based arrangement. Everyone knows that behind the control of RTZ is hidden the issue of wider political control over the Internet. And RTZ control is one way to exercise such political control over Internet. US government has other controls as well through its legal relationship with some IG related bodies. >Since ICANN is a global organization and needs to be > accountable, governments can and should establish global rules that help > to make it accountable. For example, if ICANN or its successor abuses its > authority, breaks its own rules, cheats, steals, etc. it needs to be > accountable. Governments need to work out how to apply competition policy > and law, and trade rules to ICANN. That's all legitimate government > business. I have heard a lot about how ICANN should be obligated to observe international law, should stick to all new and old international treaties etc, but not much on how this can be ensured. Shall it be left to ICANN's interpretation and its goodwill? Or to US government which has all kinds of control over ICANN? Every higher political power exercises its political authority through reserving some powers of last resort. (ICANN being incorporated under US law makes its subject to so many of these powers of US gov which can kick in during an emergency - emergency for the US - that this fact itself is scary for non US citizens). It is more important to have these powers in reserve, than use them often. Control over RTZ is seen as one of such powers that enable exercise of political authority. Whoever has legitimate political power over public policy issues related to Internet can only enforce it by having some powers of last resort over the actual running of the infrastructure. This much is obvious, even if we may still debate which body or arrangement should exercise political oversight over Internet. >Governments can have 1 > without 2. Maybe they can. I do not insist that formal process of authentication of RTZ modification is the only 'control lever' available for enforcing political oversight. There can be others, but this lever is being used at present by US, and others see it as one of the main levers as well. One or the other such lever will be needed for 'enforcing' political oversight. So if one agrees with the need for political oversight, then one may have to see RTZ control as a connected issue. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 8:59 PM > To: apeake at gmail.com; Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal for introducingmulti- > lateral oversight of the root > > >>> apeake at gmail.com 7/20/2006 10:12 AM >>> > >Thanks to Brenden Kuerbis and IGP for pointing to an interesting > >proposal from Becky Burr and Marilyn Cade on oversight of the root > > A bit behind the traffic here, but please note that the proposal is > Burr's. > Marilyn Cade has simply endorsed it. > > Another problem with this debate I have noticed is a confusion between two > distinct things: > > 1. The importance of Internet policies and the need, or even the > inevitability, of governments playing a role in how those policies are > rules are made. > > 2. Control over modifications of the Root Zone File (RZF). > > Let's create a sharp distinction between the two. Governments can have 1 > without 2. Since ICANN is a global organization and needs to be > accountable, governments can and should establish global rules that help > to make it accountable. For example, if ICANN or its successor abuses its > authority, breaks its own rules, cheats, steals, etc. it needs to be > accountable. Governments need to work out how to apply competition policy > and law, and trade rules to ICANN. That's all legitimate government > business. > > But that does not mean that governments need to have or should have some > kind of veto power over modifications of the root zone file. It seems to > me that giving governments*any one or any collection of them*some kind of > final veto power over the RZF is just asking for trouble. The Burr > proposal tries to deal with this by saying that governments can intervene > only to protect technical stability and security. But this is like telling > a fox he can only eat one of the chickens he is guarding when the > stability and security of the farm is threatened. The fox will always want > to eat the chickens, and will use any excuse he can to define something as > a threat to the farm's stability and security. > > Governments and their representatives are not likely to have any clue as > to what RZF changes affect the technical security and stability of the > Internet. But they will know how their political interests are affected. > They will want to control or affect the RZF for political reasons, not > technical ones. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Jul 26 07:12:02 2006 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 13:12:02 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal for introducingmulti-lateral oversight of the root References: <20060726100155.25CA6DAB93@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F3043561@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Dear list, a lot of this debate is hot air. The concept of ICANN was never to be above or outside international (governmental) law. Magaziner made this clear after the EU asked some sharp questions in March 1998. This is reflected in Article 4 of the "Articles of Incorporation", still the main legal basis for ICANN (can not be changed like bylaws) which reads as follows: "Article 4: The Corporation shall operate for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole, carrying out its activities in conformity with relevant principles of international law and applicable international conventions and local law and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with these Articles and its Bylaws, through open and transparent processes that enable competition and open entry in Internet-related markets. To this effect, the Corporation shall cooperate as appropriate with relevant international organizations." There is space for interpretation * what the "relevant principles of internationa law" means (obviously jus cogens, including sovereign equality), * what "applicable internaitonal conventions" are (cybercrime convention, ITU regulation, WIPO treaties, GATS, TRIPS, UNESCO Convention on Cultural Diversity?) and * what relevant internaitonal organisaitons are (IETF, RIR, CENTR, ITU, UNESCO, UN. OECD?) But regardless of all interpretations, ICANN was never "putside" inernational law and althougn governments got nothign more than an "avisory role", ICANN was and is legally obliged to carry out its activities in conformity with the law (and this includes also the "local l,aw", that is "national jurisdictions" a formula which gave DENIC and other a lot of power in their struggle to avoid a top down PDP for ccTLDs and should be also more used in the WHOIS debate). With principle 2 (2005) the US Govenrment recognized de facto the sovereignty of governments over the national domain name space which is reflected in.Para 63 of the Tunis Agenda and reads as follows: "Countries should not be involved in decisions regarding another country´s ccTLD. Their legitimate interests, as expressed and defined by each country in diverse ways, regarding decisions affecting their ccTLDs need to be respected, upheld and addressed via a flexible and improved framework and mechanisms". This is clear language, supported and accepted by the US govenrment. The eIANA project by NASK translates this words partly into action. It can be speculated whether this was the price the USG paid to China to remove Bejings opposition against the ICANN controlled DNS, but as I said, this is speculation. If you check recent polica decisions in China, also with regad to iDNS, than you will recognoze that the agenda has been chnged. We do nt have 1998 anymore. However, as long as I can remember, no case is known where a ccTLD became the subject of a (dirty) political game (even the .ly or .iq or .af cases had no political but commercial or procedural backgrounds). Insofar Becky Burrs proposal should be seen as more general idea to find a way to satisfy the wish of governments to play a role (elsewhere in the sky or, as the EU have proposed on an undefined "level of principle"). I made a similar proposal already during the UNICTTF Internet Governance meeting in New York in March 2004, proposing something like an "Internet Convention" for the establishment of an "Internet Security Council", only for cases where the "security and stability of the Internet" is affected (with 15 member states). In my proposal I said that such a committee should work only as an adhoc Sub-Committee of the GAC, should have no authorization function but should be activated only in cases where "the security and stability of the Internet" is affected. For such a procedure there would have been a need to define clear criteria to find out whether a case is indeed a case threatening the stbaility and security of the Internet. The criteria would be the result of a multistakeholder negotations process. You would need an additonal committee, which would check applications of governments to start the procedure in ther adHoc Committee.With other words you would intriduce a "procedural buffer" to reduce misuse or capture of the governmental procedure. To have such an intergovernmental adHoc Internet Security Council under the GAC would have been included the need to settle the Taiwan question in GAC to enable China to join. The reaction to my rather detailed proposal (quated also in the Washington Internet Daily) was rather mixed and I got applause also from suspicious corners. During WGIG we discussed this again and again. No consensus. Some WGIG members, including me, opted at the end for a "status quo minus", that is that USG should terminate its historical grown role and should trust the global Internet Community and ICANN (and not become replace by an "internationalzed oversight mechanism) under the condition that ICANN is embedded into a system of accountability, checks and balances and that government have "on the level of principle elsewhere in the sky" a more general role which they have already now according to the rights under the Charter of the United Nations. . How such an approach could be translated into working mechanisms is the one million dollar question. Para 63 (WSIS II) calls for "a flexible and improved framework and mechanisms". One interpretation is that "improved" implies that no new body is needed but you have to develop further existing mechanisms. This is the same what Kofi Annan called for in New York in March 2004, when he called for "political innovations". ICANN 1.0 was a "political innovation" but went too far by excluding governments from decision making and giving nine voting board seats to individual Internet users. After September 11, 2001 (and the crash of the .com hype) Stuart Lynn wanted to change this but the result was nothing more than a "de facto veto right" of the GAC and the exlcusion of At Large from the decision making process. ALAC got a voice, no vote. No government opposed the reduction of At Large. Later in the WSIS context, Paul Twomey re-discovered the role of the users" as a shield against governmental efforts to push ICANN away. Sith the Tunis summit ICANN got what it wanted: Its inernational recognition as a multistakeholder organisation but with the burden to finish its hom,ework and to move foreward in an undifend process of "enhanced cooperation". And this is what is now happening. Moving forward into unknow territory. My understanding of the recent establishment of the joint GAC-Board working group is that the key players realize and understand what to do but have not yet a clue how to formalize this in a way which would avoid going back to the traditional international law making on the one hand but respecting also de jure the sovereignty of nations on the other hand by having a mechanism in place for govenrmental actions if issues appear which go beyond the DNS and Root Server management and affect "world peace". Sofar I am still in favour of an enhanced joint cooperative mechanism between GAC and the Board. My innovation would be to include the ALAC (as the other non-technical advisory board with no voting powers in the Board) in such a group. This would create a new triangular "Internet Security body" where you could give "veto rights" to a stakeholder group (and not to single UN member states). But I am afaid that this will take more time than one hearing at Capitol Hill and another Forum close the the Acropolis. Best wishes wolfgang Yuthe conclusion w to this proposal - this was before WGIG - n with ________________________________ Von: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Gesendet: Mi 26.07.2006 12:01 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Milton Mueller'; apeake at gmail.com Betreff: RE: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal for introducingmulti-lateral oversight of the root Milton wrote: > Another problem with this debate I have noticed is a confusion between two > distinct things: > > 1. The importance of Internet policies and the need, or even the > inevitability, of governments playing a role in how those policies are > rules are made. > > 2. Control over modifications of the Root Zone File (RZF). > Let's create a sharp distinction between the two. On the contrary, my opinion is that the sharp connection between the two is obvious. For example, is it at all difficult to see why US refuses to relinquish control over RZF? And this even at the risk of courting considerable international ill-will for sticking to a very illogical and untenable stand of unilateralism. Is it only because US is concerned about technical stability and security of the Internet, and others may not be? Others are equally concerned, and there cannot be any real difference of opinion on this issue. It is so obvious that if the issue was only technical it wont be difficult to reach an arrangement for supervisor of RTZ under a team of international experts or some other expertise based arrangement. Everyone knows that behind the control of RTZ is hidden the issue of wider political control over the Internet. And RTZ control is one way to exercise such political control over Internet. US government has other controls as well through its legal relationship with some IG related bodies. >Since ICANN is a global organization and needs to be > accountable, governments can and should establish global rules that help > to make it accountable. For example, if ICANN or its successor abuses its > authority, breaks its own rules, cheats, steals, etc. it needs to be > accountable. Governments need to work out how to apply competition policy > and law, and trade rules to ICANN. That's all legitimate government > business. I have heard a lot about how ICANN should be obligated to observe international law, should stick to all new and old international treaties etc, but not much on how this can be ensured. Shall it be left to ICANN's interpretation and its goodwill? Or to US government which has all kinds of control over ICANN? Every higher political power exercises its political authority through reserving some powers of last resort. (ICANN being incorporated under US law makes its subject to so many of these powers of US gov which can kick in during an emergency - emergency for the US - that this fact itself is scary for non US citizens). It is more important to have these powers in reserve, than use them often. Control over RTZ is seen as one of such powers that enable exercise of political authority. Whoever has legitimate political power over public policy issues related to Internet can only enforce it by having some powers of last resort over the actual running of the infrastructure. This much is obvious, even if we may still debate which body or arrangement should exercise political oversight over Internet. >Governments can have 1 > without 2. Maybe they can. I do not insist that formal process of authentication of RTZ modification is the only 'control lever' available for enforcing political oversight. There can be others, but this lever is being used at present by US, and others see it as one of the main levers as well. One or the other such lever will be needed for 'enforcing' political oversight. So if one agrees with the need for political oversight, then one may have to see RTZ control as a connected issue. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 8:59 PM > To: apeake at gmail.com; Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal for introducingmulti- > lateral oversight of the root > > >>> apeake at gmail.com 7/20/2006 10:12 AM >>> > >Thanks to Brenden Kuerbis and IGP for pointing to an interesting > >proposal from Becky Burr and Marilyn Cade on oversight of the root > > A bit behind the traffic here, but please note that the proposal is > Burr's. > Marilyn Cade has simply endorsed it. > > Another problem with this debate I have noticed is a confusion between two > distinct things: > > 1. The importance of Internet policies and the need, or even the > inevitability, of governments playing a role in how those policies are > rules are made. > > 2. Control over modifications of the Root Zone File (RZF). > > Let's create a sharp distinction between the two. Governments can have 1 > without 2. Since ICANN is a global organization and needs to be > accountable, governments can and should establish global rules that help > to make it accountable. For example, if ICANN or its successor abuses its > authority, breaks its own rules, cheats, steals, etc. it needs to be > accountable. Governments need to work out how to apply competition policy > and law, and trade rules to ICANN. That's all legitimate government > business. > > But that does not mean that governments need to have or should have some > kind of veto power over modifications of the root zone file. It seems to > me that giving governments*any one or any collection of them*some kind of > final veto power over the RZF is just asking for trouble. The Burr > proposal tries to deal with this by saying that governments can intervene > only to protect technical stability and security. But this is like telling > a fox he can only eat one of the chickens he is guarding when the > stability and security of the farm is threatened. The fox will always want > to eat the chickens, and will use any excuse he can to define something as > a threat to the farm's stability and security. > > Governments and their representatives are not likely to have any clue as > to what RZF changes affect the technical security and stability of the > Internet. But they will know how their political interests are affected. > They will want to control or affect the RZF for political reasons, not > technical ones. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Jul 26 07:55:16 2006 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 14:55:16 +0300 Subject: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal for introducingmulti-lateral oversight of the root In-Reply-To: <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F3043561@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <20060726100155.25CA6DAB93@smtp3.electricembers.net> <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F3043561@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: On 7/26/06, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: > Dear list, > > a lot of this debate is hot air. Can't disagree with yoou here! (snip) > > Sofar I am still in favour of an enhanced joint cooperative mechanism between GAC and the Board. My innovation would be to include the ALAC (as the other non-technical advisory board with no voting powers in the Board) in such a group. This would create a new triangular "Internet Security body" What about the SSAC? http://secsac.icann.org/ There is already a body charged with this security/stabilty. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From correia.rui at gmail.com Thu Jul 27 04:45:07 2006 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 10:45:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] FW: [PEN-L] exposing the telecom ripoff Message-ID: <001d01c6b158$fbbfb080$0500000a@Laptop> ________________________________________________     Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 38 Finch St, Ontdekkers Park, Roodepoort, Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Cell (+27) (0) 83-368-1214 "Quando a verdade é substituída pelo silêncio, o silêncio é uma mentira" - Yevgeny Yevtushenko "When truth is replaced by silence, the silence is a lie" - Yevgeny Yevtushenko -----Original Message----- From: PEN-L list [mailto:PEN-L at SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On Behalf Of michael perelman Sent: 27 July 2006 06:18 To: PEN-L at SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Subject: [PEN-L] exposing the telecom ripoff BusinessWeek just published a terrific article, exposing the giant telecom corporations as fraudulently winning regulatory support that will solidify its control over the Internet. In part, justification is to promote the technology, but the article shows their research commitment is minimal. Gimein, Mark. 2006. "The Phone Companies Still Don't Get It: They Block Competition and Charge Too Much." Business Week (31 July): pp. 51-3. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_31/b3995070.htm 51-2: "In case you haven't been keeping score, after the original phone company, American Telephone & Telegraph, was broken up in 1984, the country was left with eight major regional telcos. Over the past decade these companies proceeded to gobble one another up. Now there are four: AT&T, Verizon, BellSouth, and Qwest .... The "new" AT&T is actually the rechristened SBC, based in Austin, Tex., which acquired the venerable name last year -- and it's in the process of buying BellSouth. That will leave two phone giants, Verizon and AT&T, and the much smaller Qwest. The biggest wireless carriers are Verizon Wireless, majority owned by Verizon, and Cingular, which is soon to be wholly owned by AT&T. It's not exactly the return of the old Ma Bell monopoly -- the world has gotten way too complicated for that -- but that's a lot of power in the hands of just two companies." 52: "One way in which these companies are very different from the old phone monopoly is that while the original AT&T had a world-class research operation, its successors don't. One of the signal facts of the communications revolution is that virtually all the new technologies that made it possible were developed outside the phone world. Last year, Verizon's revenue came in at nearly $80 billion. AT&T (without BellSouth or Cingular) had revenue of $44 billion. And yet while Intel Corp. spent $5.1 billion last year on research and development, AT&T spent just $130 million. The word "research" doesn't even appear in Verizon's annual report." 52: "The phone giants have even used "innovation" as a key justification for their aggressive merger wave. Last year, when SBC was buying the remnants of AT&T, SBC Chief Executive Edward E. Whitacre made sure to note that by merging, the combined company would have "the intellectual and financial resources to spur innovation"." -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jul 27 07:29:23 2006 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 16:59:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal for introducingmulti-lateral oversight of the root In-Reply-To: <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F3043561@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <20060727113009.56614DA844@smtp3.electricembers.net> Hi Wolfgang > a lot of this debate is hot air. Didn’t understand that. Can you explain more? What is hot air about which you too have gone ahead and contributed 13 paras to. > The concept of ICANN was never to be > above or outside international (governmental) law. A self declaration of adherence is not enough. ICANN is incorporated under US law and that law alone is enforceable on it. And this raise considerable anxiety in minds of those who are not US citizens or (if one may excuse oneself to say) citizens of those countries that have strong NATO kind of ties with the US. ICANN is not incorporated under international law. And international law doesn’t apply except by a US executive or judicial interpretation of it, that too in all cases subordinate to the US law. All this is not hot air to a nation that may be at war with US, and otherwise be subject to US’s strong displeasures. The problem here is real though the kind of ‘political innovations’ needed may not yet be clear to anyone . Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni- > halle.de] > Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 4:42 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; governance at lists.cpsr.org; > Milton Mueller; apeake at gmail.com > Subject: AW: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal for introducingmulti- > lateral oversight of the root > > Dear list, > > a lot of this debate is hot air. The concept of ICANN was never to be > above or outside international (governmental) law. Magaziner made this > clear after the EU asked some sharp questions in March 1998. This is > reflected in Article 4 of the "Articles of Incorporation", still the main > legal basis for ICANN (can not be changed like bylaws) which reads as > follows: > > "Article 4: The Corporation shall operate for the benefit of the Internet > community as a whole, carrying out its activities in conformity with > relevant principles of international law and applicable international > conventions and local law and, to the extent appropriate and consistent > with these Articles and its Bylaws, through open and transparent processes > that enable competition and open entry in Internet-related markets. To > this effect, the Corporation shall cooperate as appropriate with relevant > international organizations." > > There is space for interpretation > * what the "relevant principles of internationa law" means (obviously jus > cogens, including sovereign equality), > * what "applicable internaitonal conventions" are (cybercrime convention, > ITU regulation, WIPO treaties, GATS, TRIPS, UNESCO Convention on Cultural > Diversity?) and > * what relevant internaitonal organisaitons are (IETF, RIR, CENTR, ITU, > UNESCO, UN. OECD?) > > But regardless of all interpretations, ICANN was never "putside" > inernational law and althougn governments got nothign more than an > "avisory role", ICANN was and is legally obliged to carry out its > activities in conformity with the law (and this includes also the "local > l,aw", that is "national jurisdictions" a formula which gave DENIC and > other a lot of power in their struggle to avoid a top down PDP for ccTLDs > and should be also more used in the WHOIS debate). > > With principle 2 (2005) the US Govenrment recognized de facto the > sovereignty of governments over the national domain name space which is > reflected in.Para 63 of the Tunis Agenda and reads as follows: "Countries > should not be involved in decisions regarding another country´s ccTLD. > Their legitimate interests, as expressed and defined by each country in > diverse ways, regarding decisions affecting their ccTLDs need to be > respected, upheld and addressed via a flexible and improved framework and > mechanisms". > > This is clear language, supported and accepted by the US govenrment. The > eIANA project by NASK translates this words partly into action. It can be > speculated whether this was the price the USG paid to China to remove > Bejings opposition against the ICANN controlled DNS, but as I said, this > is speculation. If you check recent polica decisions in China, also with > regad to iDNS, than you will recognoze that the agenda has been chnged. We > do nt have 1998 anymore. > > However, as long as I can remember, no case is known where a ccTLD became > the subject of a (dirty) political game (even the .ly or .iq or .af cases > had no political but commercial or procedural backgrounds). > > Insofar Becky Burrs proposal should be seen as more general idea to find a > way to satisfy the wish of governments to play a role (elsewhere in the > sky or, as the EU have proposed on an undefined "level of principle"). I > made a similar proposal already during the UNICTTF Internet Governance > meeting in New York in March 2004, proposing something like an "Internet > Convention" for the establishment of an "Internet Security Council", only > for cases where the "security and stability of the Internet" is affected > (with 15 member states). In my proposal I said that such a committee > should work only as an adhoc Sub-Committee of the GAC, should have no > authorization function but should be activated only in cases where "the > security and stability of the Internet" is affected. For such a procedure > there would have been a need to define clear criteria to find out whether > a case is indeed a case threatening the stbaility and security of the > Internet. The criteria would be the result of a multistakeholder > negotations process. You would need an additonal committee, which would > check applications of governments to start the procedure in ther adHoc > Committee.With other words you would intriduce a "procedural buffer" to > reduce misuse or capture of the governmental procedure. > > To have such an intergovernmental adHoc Internet Security Council under > the GAC would have been included the need to settle the Taiwan question in > GAC to enable China to join. The reaction to my rather detailed proposal > (quated also in the Washington Internet Daily) was rather mixed and I got > applause also from suspicious corners. During WGIG we discussed this again > and again. No consensus. Some WGIG members, including me, opted at the end > for a "status quo minus", that is that USG should terminate its historical > grown role and should trust the global Internet Community and ICANN (and > not become replace by an "internationalzed oversight mechanism) under the > condition that ICANN is embedded into a system of accountability, checks > and balances and that government have "on the level of principle elsewhere > in the sky" a more general role which they have already now according to > the rights under the Charter of the United Nations. . > > How such an approach could be translated into working mechanisms is the > one million dollar question. Para 63 (WSIS II) calls for "a flexible and > improved framework and mechanisms". One interpretation is that "improved" > implies that no new body is needed but you have to develop further > existing mechanisms. This is the same what Kofi Annan called for in New > York in March 2004, when he called for "political innovations". > > ICANN 1.0 was a "political innovation" but went too far by excluding > governments from decision making and giving nine voting board seats to > individual Internet users. After September 11, 2001 (and the crash of the > .com hype) Stuart Lynn wanted to change this but the result was nothing > more than a "de facto veto right" of the GAC and the exlcusion of At Large > from the decision making process. ALAC got a voice, no vote. No government > opposed the reduction of At Large. Later in the WSIS context, Paul Twomey > re-discovered the role of the users" as a shield against governmental > efforts to push ICANN away. Sith the Tunis summit ICANN got what it > wanted: Its inernational recognition as a multistakeholder organisation > but with the burden to finish its hom,ework and to move foreward in an > undifend process of "enhanced cooperation". And this is what is now > happening. Moving forward into unknow territory. > > My understanding of the recent establishment of the joint GAC-Board > working group is that the key players realize and understand what to do > but have not yet a clue how to formalize this in a way which would avoid > going back to the traditional international law making on the one hand but > respecting also de jure the sovereignty of nations on the other hand by > having a mechanism in place for govenrmental actions if issues appear > which go beyond the DNS and Root Server management and affect "world > peace". > > Sofar I am still in favour of an enhanced joint cooperative mechanism > between GAC and the Board. My innovation would be to include the ALAC (as > the other non-technical advisory board with no voting powers in the Board) > in such a group. This would create a new triangular "Internet Security > body" where you could give "veto rights" to a stakeholder group (and not > to single UN member states). But I am afaid that this will take more time > than one hearing at Capitol Hill and another Forum close the the > Acropolis. > > Best wishes > > wolfgang > > Yuthe conclusion w > > to this proposal - this was before WGIG - n with > > ________________________________ > > Von: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Gesendet: Mi 26.07.2006 12:01 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Milton Mueller'; apeake at gmail.com > Betreff: RE: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal for introducingmulti- > lateral oversight of the root > > > > Milton wrote: > > > Another problem with this debate I have noticed is a confusion between > two > > > distinct things: > > > > > > 1. The importance of Internet policies and the need, or even the > > > inevitability, of governments playing a role in how those policies are > > > rules are made. > > > > > > 2. Control over modifications of the Root Zone File (RZF). > > > > > Let's create a sharp distinction between the two. > > > > On the contrary, my opinion is that the sharp connection between the two > is obvious. > > > > For example, is it at all difficult to see why US refuses to relinquish > control over RZF? And this even at the risk of courting considerable > international ill-will for sticking to a very illogical and untenable > stand of unilateralism. Is it only because US is concerned about technical > stability and security of the Internet, and others may not be? Others are > equally concerned, and there cannot be any real difference of opinion on > this issue. It is so obvious that if the issue was only technical it wont > be difficult to reach an arrangement for supervisor of RTZ under a team of > international experts or some other expertise based arrangement. Everyone > knows that behind the control of RTZ is hidden the issue of wider > political control over the Internet. And RTZ control is one way to > exercise such political control over Internet. US government has other > controls as well through its legal relationship with some IG related > bodies. > > > > >Since ICANN is a global organization and needs to be > > > accountable, governments can and should establish global rules that help > > > to make it accountable. For example, if ICANN or its successor abuses > its > > > authority, breaks its own rules, cheats, steals, etc. it needs to be > > > accountable. Governments need to work out how to apply competition > policy > > > and law, and trade rules to ICANN. That's all legitimate government > > > business. > > > > > > I have heard a lot about how ICANN should be obligated to observe > international law, should stick to all new and old international treaties > etc, but not much on how this can be ensured. Shall it be left to ICANN's > interpretation and its goodwill? Or to US government which has all kinds > of control over ICANN? Every higher political power exercises its > political authority through reserving some powers of last resort. (ICANN > being incorporated under US law makes its subject to so many of these > powers of US gov which can kick in during an emergency - emergency for the > US - that this fact itself is scary for non US citizens). It is more > important to have these powers in reserve, than use them often. Control > over RTZ is seen as one of such powers that enable exercise of political > authority. Whoever has legitimate political power over public policy > issues related to Internet can only enforce it by having some powers of > last resort over the actual running of the infrastructure. This much is > obvious, even if we may still debate which body or arrangement should > exercise political oversight over Internet. > > > > > > >Governments can have 1 > > > without 2. > > > > Maybe they can. I do not insist that formal process of authentication of > RTZ modification is the only 'control lever' available for enforcing > political oversight. There can be others, but this lever is being used at > present by US, and others see it as one of the main levers as well. One or > the other such lever will be needed for 'enforcing' political oversight. > So if one agrees with the need for political oversight, then one may have > to see RTZ control as a connected issue. > > > > Parminder > > > > ________________________________________________ > > Parminder Jeet Singh > > IT for Change, Bangalore > > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > 91-80-26654134 > > www.ITforChange.net > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller at syr.edu] > > > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 8:59 PM > > > To: apeake at gmail.com; Governance > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal for introducingmulti- > > > lateral oversight of the root > > > > > > >>> apeake at gmail.com 7/20/2006 10:12 AM >>> > > > >Thanks to Brenden Kuerbis and IGP for pointing to an interesting > > > >proposal from Becky Burr and Marilyn Cade on oversight of the root > > > > > > A bit behind the traffic here, but please note that the proposal is > > > Burr's. > > > Marilyn Cade has simply endorsed it. > > > > > > Another problem with this debate I have noticed is a confusion between > two > > > distinct things: > > > > > > 1. The importance of Internet policies and the need, or even the > > > inevitability, of governments playing a role in how those policies are > > > rules are made. > > > > > > 2. Control over modifications of the Root Zone File (RZF). > > > > > > Let's create a sharp distinction between the two. Governments can have 1 > > > without 2. Since ICANN is a global organization and needs to be > > > accountable, governments can and should establish global rules that help > > > to make it accountable. For example, if ICANN or its successor abuses > its > > > authority, breaks its own rules, cheats, steals, etc. it needs to be > > > accountable. Governments need to work out how to apply competition > policy > > > and law, and trade rules to ICANN. That's all legitimate government > > > business. > > > > > > But that does not mean that governments need to have or should have some > > > kind of veto power over modifications of the root zone file. It seems to > > > me that giving governments*any one or any collection of them*some kind > of > > > final veto power over the RZF is just asking for trouble. The Burr > > > proposal tries to deal with this by saying that governments can > intervene > > > only to protect technical stability and security. But this is like > telling > > > a fox he can only eat one of the chickens he is guarding when the > > > stability and security of the farm is threatened. The fox will always > want > > > to eat the chickens, and will use any excuse he can to define something > as > > > a threat to the farm's stability and security. > > > > > > Governments and their representatives are not likely to have any clue as > > > to what RZF changes affect the technical security and stability of the > > > Internet. But they will know how their political interests are affected. > > > They will want to control or affect the RZF for political reasons, not > > > technical ones. > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Jul 27 08:33:16 2006 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:33:16 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal for introducingmulti-lateral oversight of the root References: <0J3200DB79D5AG@mail.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F3043568@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Parminder: A self declaration of adherence is not enough. ICANN is incorporated under US law and that law alone is enforceable on it. ICANN is not incorporated under international law. And international law doesn't apply except by a US executive or judicial interpretation of it, that too in all cases subordinate to the US law. Wolfgang: One of the option would be to have something like a "seat agreement" like the UN has in NYC. This is one option, but normally not the practice for non-govenrmental or private organisaitons but only for intergovernmental organisaiton operating under the Vienna Convention (which guarantees also diplomatic status to its employees). If you would prefer such a solution, you have to change ICANN into an intergovernmentl body. I would prefer to "invent" something which creates new procedures and practices, based on (good and bad) existing experiences from the 20st century diplomacy. ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni- > halle.de] > Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 4:42 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; governance at lists.cpsr.org; > Milton Mueller; apeake at gmail.com > Subject: AW: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal for introducingmulti- > lateral oversight of the root > > Dear list, > > a lot of this debate is hot air. The concept of ICANN was never to be > above or outside international (governmental) law. Magaziner made this > clear after the EU asked some sharp questions in March 1998. This is > reflected in Article 4 of the "Articles of Incorporation", still the main > legal basis for ICANN (can not be changed like bylaws) which reads as > follows: > > "Article 4: The Corporation shall operate for the benefit of the Internet > community as a whole, carrying out its activities in conformity with > relevant principles of international law and applicable international > conventions and local law and, to the extent appropriate and consistent > with these Articles and its Bylaws, through open and transparent processes > that enable competition and open entry in Internet-related markets. To > this effect, the Corporation shall cooperate as appropriate with relevant > international organizations." > > There is space for interpretation > * what the "relevant principles of internationa law" means (obviously jus > cogens, including sovereign equality), > * what "applicable internaitonal conventions" are (cybercrime convention, > ITU regulation, WIPO treaties, GATS, TRIPS, UNESCO Convention on Cultural > Diversity?) and > * what relevant internaitonal organisaitons are (IETF, RIR, CENTR, ITU, > UNESCO, UN. OECD?) > > But regardless of all interpretations, ICANN was never "putside" > inernational law and althougn governments got nothign more than an > "avisory role", ICANN was and is legally obliged to carry out its > activities in conformity with the law (and this includes also the "local > l,aw", that is "national jurisdictions" a formula which gave DENIC and > other a lot of power in their struggle to avoid a top down PDP for ccTLDs > and should be also more used in the WHOIS debate). > > With principle 2 (2005) the US Govenrment recognized de facto the > sovereignty of governments over the national domain name space which is > reflected in.Para 63 of the Tunis Agenda and reads as follows: "Countries > should not be involved in decisions regarding another country´s ccTLD. > Their legitimate interests, as expressed and defined by each country in > diverse ways, regarding decisions affecting their ccTLDs need to be > respected, upheld and addressed via a flexible and improved framework and > mechanisms". > > This is clear language, supported and accepted by the US govenrment. The > eIANA project by NASK translates this words partly into action. It can be > speculated whether this was the price the USG paid to China to remove > Bejings opposition against the ICANN controlled DNS, but as I said, this > is speculation. If you check recent polica decisions in China, also with > regad to iDNS, than you will recognoze that the agenda has been chnged. We > do nt have 1998 anymore. > > However, as long as I can remember, no case is known where a ccTLD became > the subject of a (dirty) political game (even the .ly or .iq or .af cases > had no political but commercial or procedural backgrounds). > > Insofar Becky Burrs proposal should be seen as more general idea to find a > way to satisfy the wish of governments to play a role (elsewhere in the > sky or, as the EU have proposed on an undefined "level of principle"). I > made a similar proposal already during the UNICTTF Internet Governance > meeting in New York in March 2004, proposing something like an "Internet > Convention" for the establishment of an "Internet Security Council", only > for cases where the "security and stability of the Internet" is affected > (with 15 member states). In my proposal I said that such a committee > should work only as an adhoc Sub-Committee of the GAC, should have no > authorization function but should be activated only in cases where "the > security and stability of the Internet" is affected. For such a procedure > there would have been a need to define clear criteria to find out whether > a case is indeed a case threatening the stbaility and security of the > Internet. The criteria would be the result of a multistakeholder > negotations process. You would need an additonal committee, which would > check applications of governments to start the procedure in ther adHoc > Committee.With other words you would intriduce a "procedural buffer" to > reduce misuse or capture of the governmental procedure. > > To have such an intergovernmental adHoc Internet Security Council under > the GAC would have been included the need to settle the Taiwan question in > GAC to enable China to join. The reaction to my rather detailed proposal > (quated also in the Washington Internet Daily) was rather mixed and I got > applause also from suspicious corners. During WGIG we discussed this again > and again. No consensus. Some WGIG members, including me, opted at the end > for a "status quo minus", that is that USG should terminate its historical > grown role and should trust the global Internet Community and ICANN (and > not become replace by an "internationalzed oversight mechanism) under the > condition that ICANN is embedded into a system of accountability, checks > and balances and that government have "on the level of principle elsewhere > in the sky" a more general role which they have already now according to > the rights under the Charter of the United Nations. . > > How such an approach could be translated into working mechanisms is the > one million dollar question. Para 63 (WSIS II) calls for "a flexible and > improved framework and mechanisms". One interpretation is that "improved" > implies that no new body is needed but you have to develop further > existing mechanisms. This is the same what Kofi Annan called for in New > York in March 2004, when he called for "political innovations". > > ICANN 1.0 was a "political innovation" but went too far by excluding > governments from decision making and giving nine voting board seats to > individual Internet users. After September 11, 2001 (and the crash of the > .com hype) Stuart Lynn wanted to change this but the result was nothing > more than a "de facto veto right" of the GAC and the exlcusion of At Large > from the decision making process. ALAC got a voice, no vote. No government > opposed the reduction of At Large. Later in the WSIS context, Paul Twomey > re-discovered the role of the users" as a shield against governmental > efforts to push ICANN away. Sith the Tunis summit ICANN got what it > wanted: Its inernational recognition as a multistakeholder organisation > but with the burden to finish its hom,ework and to move foreward in an > undifend process of "enhanced cooperation". And this is what is now > happening. Moving forward into unknow territory. > > My understanding of the recent establishment of the joint GAC-Board > working group is that the key players realize and understand what to do > but have not yet a clue how to formalize this in a way which would avoid > going back to the traditional international law making on the one hand but > respecting also de jure the sovereignty of nations on the other hand by > having a mechanism in place for govenrmental actions if issues appear > which go beyond the DNS and Root Server management and affect "world > peace". > > Sofar I am still in favour of an enhanced joint cooperative mechanism > between GAC and the Board. My innovation would be to include the ALAC (as > the other non-technical advisory board with no voting powers in the Board) > in such a group. This would create a new triangular "Internet Security > body" where you could give "veto rights" to a stakeholder group (and not > to single UN member states). But I am afaid that this will take more time > than one hearing at Capitol Hill and another Forum close the the > Acropolis. > > Best wishes > > wolfgang > > Yuthe conclusion w > > to this proposal - this was before WGIG - n with > > ________________________________ > > Von: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Gesendet: Mi 26.07.2006 12:01 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Milton Mueller'; apeake at gmail.com > Betreff: RE: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal for introducingmulti- > lateral oversight of the root > > > > Milton wrote: > > > Another problem with this debate I have noticed is a confusion between > two > > > distinct things: > > > > > > 1. The importance of Internet policies and the need, or even the > > > inevitability, of governments playing a role in how those policies are > > > rules are made. > > > > > > 2. Control over modifications of the Root Zone File (RZF). > > > > > Let's create a sharp distinction between the two. > > > > On the contrary, my opinion is that the sharp connection between the two > is obvious. > > > > For example, is it at all difficult to see why US refuses to relinquish > control over RZF? And this even at the risk of courting considerable > international ill-will for sticking to a very illogical and untenable > stand of unilateralism. Is it only because US is concerned about technical > stability and security of the Internet, and others may not be? Others are > equally concerned, and there cannot be any real difference of opinion on > this issue. It is so obvious that if the issue was only technical it wont > be difficult to reach an arrangement for supervisor of RTZ under a team of > international experts or some other expertise based arrangement. Everyone > knows that behind the control of RTZ is hidden the issue of wider > political control over the Internet. And RTZ control is one way to > exercise such political control over Internet. US government has other > controls as well through its legal relationship with some IG related > bodies. > > > > >Since ICANN is a global organization and needs to be > > > accountable, governments can and should establish global rules that help > > > to make it accountable. For example, if ICANN or its successor abuses > its > > > authority, breaks its own rules, cheats, steals, etc. it needs to be > > > accountable. Governments need to work out how to apply competition > policy > > > and law, and trade rules to ICANN. That's all legitimate government > > > business. > > > > > > I have heard a lot about how ICANN should be obligated to observe > international law, should stick to all new and old international treaties > etc, but not much on how this can be ensured. Shall it be left to ICANN's > interpretation and its goodwill? Or to US government which has all kinds > of control over ICANN? Every higher political power exercises its > political authority through reserving some powers of last resort. (ICANN > being incorporated under US law makes its subject to so many of these > powers of US gov which can kick in during an emergency - emergency for the > US - that this fact itself is scary for non US citizens). It is more > important to have these powers in reserve, than use them often. Control > over RTZ is seen as one of such powers that enable exercise of political > authority. Whoever has legitimate political power over public policy > issues related to Internet can only enforce it by having some powers of > last resort over the actual running of the infrastructure. This much is > obvious, even if we may still debate which body or arrangement should > exercise political oversight over Internet. > > > > > > >Governments can have 1 > > > without 2. > > > > Maybe they can. I do not insist that formal process of authentication of > RTZ modification is the only 'control lever' available for enforcing > political oversight. There can be others, but this lever is being used at > present by US, and others see it as one of the main levers as well. One or > the other such lever will be needed for 'enforcing' political oversight. > So if one agrees with the need for political oversight, then one may have > to see RTZ control as a connected issue. > > > > Parminder > > > > ________________________________________________ > > Parminder Jeet Singh > > IT for Change, Bangalore > > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > 91-80-26654134 > > www.ITforChange.net > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller at syr.edu] > > > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 8:59 PM > > > To: apeake at gmail.com; Governance > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal for introducingmulti- > > > lateral oversight of the root > > > > > > >>> apeake at gmail.com 7/20/2006 10:12 AM >>> > > > >Thanks to Brenden Kuerbis and IGP for pointing to an interesting > > > >proposal from Becky Burr and Marilyn Cade on oversight of the root > > > > > > A bit behind the traffic here, but please note that the proposal is > > > Burr's. > > > Marilyn Cade has simply endorsed it. > > > > > > Another problem with this debate I have noticed is a confusion between > two > > > distinct things: > > > > > > 1. The importance of Internet policies and the need, or even the > > > inevitability, of governments playing a role in how those policies are > > > rules are made. > > > > > > 2. Control over modifications of the Root Zone File (RZF). > > > > > > Let's create a sharp distinction between the two. Governments can have 1 > > > without 2. Since ICANN is a global organization and needs to be > > > accountable, governments can and should establish global rules that help > > > to make it accountable. For example, if ICANN or its successor abuses > its > > > authority, breaks its own rules, cheats, steals, etc. it needs to be > > > accountable. Governments need to work out how to apply competition > policy > > > and law, and trade rules to ICANN. That's all legitimate government > > > business. > > > > > > But that does not mean that governments need to have or should have some > > > kind of veto power over modifications of the root zone file. It seems to > > > me that giving governments*any one or any collection of them*some kind > of > > > final veto power over the RZF is just asking for trouble. The Burr > > > proposal tries to deal with this by saying that governments can > intervene > > > only to protect technical stability and security. But this is like > telling > > > a fox he can only eat one of the chickens he is guarding when the > > > stability and security of the farm is threatened. The fox will always > want > > > to eat the chickens, and will use any excuse he can to define something > as > > > a threat to the farm's stability and security. > > > > > > Governments and their representatives are not likely to have any clue as > > > to what RZF changes affect the technical security and stability of the > > > Internet. But they will know how their political interests are affected. > > > They will want to control or affect the RZF for political reasons, not > > > technical ones. > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Jul 27 08:41:35 2006 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 21:41:35 +0900 Subject: [governance] Caucus Contribution to IGF "Synthesis Papers"? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello everyone. The deadline for contributions is August 2. I'm quoting Bill's email, that was the one I could find easily. It's the caucus' task to submit a paper (or not.) I think this is important, a chance to get comments into the record of the meeting, to discuss issues that may not come up in workshops or the main sessions. Adam At 6:40 PM +0200 7/11/06, William Drake wrote: >Hi Adam, > >Thanks for this, a few things in response: > >1. I spoke with Markus and Chengetai, and the deadline for contributions >has been extended to July 31. So there's a little time for people to do >whatever they intend to, individually or collectively. > >2. A lot of our stuff over the years was of course written on site in a >rush and then shot off to the list without being archived anywhere. While I >assume I have all the statements that I drafted, I doubt that I have a >complete set of caucus documents, including those pertaining to the IGF >(although I know I have our response to the WGIG report, which was probably >the most detailed caucus statement on the topic). This lack of an archive >is problematic, as I noted back when we were discussing the possibility of >adding more substantive material to the charter evolved from previously >agreed texts. Whether it be the new site Avri set up or the old one you >did, it would make sense for us to have a central repository somewhere that >we could reference. I don't know if someone would like to volunteer to >receive, transparently label, and post them (these needn't all be done by >the same person), but if so maybe we could try exorcizing our hard drives >and passing them on... > >3. That said, I'm not sure whether what we have said before actually would >be of much use in assembling a new statement. The process has moved on, and >general comments on how the IGF should be organized and functionally tasked >don't seem terribly relevant, unless we simply wish to emphasize how >different the IGF as it is being constructed is from what the WGIG and the >caucus recommended (and what the Tunis Agenda actually says, which I gather >does not matter). A statement along those lines might be seen in some >circles as "unhelpful criticism" that "rehashes old issues" (aka hegemony, >Gramsci-style). It might also be seen as inconsistent with the criteria >established by the mAG, that the paper should be on Openness, Security, >Diversity, and Access, which as far as I can tell are framed more as >Internet issues than as Internet governance issues (i.e. what governance >mechanisms exist, how well do they work, what might need doing) anyway. To >the extent that Athens is looking a bit like a UN-sponsored version of INET, >such a statement would be pretty orthogonal. So while I agree that it would >be a real pity for the caucus to be mute at this rather important point in >the evolution, I'm not certain what we could say that would be received as >relevant and useful---blah blah about multistakeholderism wouldn't >be---without generating an entirely new text, which would require a lot of >dialogue and work starting like yesterday. > >4. Anyway, I would certainly support any effort to get something going. In >the meanwhile, if I can find time in the next weeks, I will probably try to >write something personally on my wildly outlandish notion that the WSIS >principles, having been agreed and reiterated repeatedly over several years, >might be worth assessing in relation to actual practice, and maybe even >implementing (fat chance). > >Cheers, > >Bill > > >> From: "Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp)" >> Reply-To: , "Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp)" >> >> Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 22:48:51 +0900 >> To: >> Cc: Robin Gross >> Subject: Re: [governance] IP Justice Call for Participation at UN Internet >> Governance Forum: 15 July Deadline for >>Contribution to IGF "Synthesis Papers" >> >> Robin, thanks for posting this. > > >> Just a couple of days to the deadline for paper -- July 15. Would be >> a shame if the caucus didn't submit something. >> >> These papers will be made available on the IGF website, will be > > summarized by the secretariat and the summary translated into UN >> languages. They will be the main written contributions to the IGF >> Athens meeting. I don't know how many have been received so far, but >> I have a feeling not too many. >> >> Think it would be particularly helpful to see comments on the WSIS >> principles, strengthening of participation in Internet governance >> mechanisms, etc i.e. issues covered in para 72 of the Tunis Agenda. >> We've written a lot on this before, it's pretty much agreed text so >> long as edited carefully and no one tries to squeeze in something too >> new... >> >> The Advisory Group has focused on other thematic issues, the para 72 >> stuff not well covered. We have a lot of old text on this, both from >> caucus and members (Bill and I think Wolfgang in particular.) If few >> papers are received then anything sent could have an impact. >> >> Comments on the nature of IGF --multi-stakeholder, working groups, etc >> etc -- could also be a useful contribution. Again, we've plenty of >> text on this. >> >> Please don't miss this opportunity. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> >> On 7/6/06, Robin Gross wrote: >>> Apologies for the cross-posting. Available at: >>> http://www.ipjustice.org/WSIS/IGF_070106.shtml >>> >>> >>> IP JUSTICE CALL FOR PARTICIPATION AT UN INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM: >>> 15 July Deadline for Contribution to IGF "Synthesis Papers" >>> 24 Aug Deadline for Athens Workshop Proposals >>> >>> The 30 Oct. - 2 Nov. 2006 inaugural meeting of United Nations Internet >>> Governance Forum (IGF) in Athens, Greece provides plenty of opportunity >>> for discussion on a wide variety of topics related to "Internet >>> governance". >>> >>> This is IP Justice's call for participation for civil society >>> contributions to the Athens IGF meeting. Participation at the Athens IGF >>> meeting can be through written contributions, workshop proposals, >>> prepared video statements, and a "plaza" to showcase institutions and >>> projects. >>> >>> Four Main Themes in Athens: Openness, Security, Diversity, Access >>> >>> 1. OPENNESS >>> - Freedom of Expression >>> - Free flow of information and ideas >>> - Access to knowledge >>> 2. SECURITY >>> - Building trust online >>> - Protecting users from spam, phishing, viruses >>> - Maintain security while protecting privacy >>> 3. DIVERSITY >>> - Multilingualism including IDN >>> - promoting local content >>> - Respecting geographical diversity >>> 4. ACCESS >>> - Internet connectivity, policies and costs >>> - Interoperability and open standards >>> >>> >>> IGF Written Contributions: >>> The IGF Secretariat has issued a call for contributions on its website. >>> Written contributions are intended to shape the discussion at the Athens >>> meeting. The IGF Secretariat will prepare synthesis papers of all >>> written contributions that will be translated into all UN languages and >>> submitted to the Athens meeting as official conference documents. >>> >>> 15 July 2006 ­ Deadline for submitting written contributions to be >>> included in synthesis papers. >>> >>> Papers submitted after the 15 July deadline will be included on the IGF > >> website, but not included in the synthesis papers. >>> >>> Many more details regarding the submission of written contributions are >>> available on the IGF's website: >>> http://www.intgovforum.org/athens_outline.htm >>> >>> >>> >>> IGF Work Shop Proposals: >>> The IGF Secretariat has issued a call for work shop proposals and >>> template for submitting proposals on its website. >>> >>> 24 August 2006 is the final deadline for submitting workshop proposals >>> in English. The deadline for submitting proposals in UN languages other >>> than English is 31 July 2006. >>> >>> The Secretariat encourages proposals to be submitted as early as >>> possible, as proposals will be accepted on an ongoing basis. The final >>> selection of workshops will be made by the IGF Advisory Group at its >>> meeting on 7-8 September 2006. All valid proposals will be posted to the > >> IGF website. >>> >>> Many more details and the template for submitting workshop proposals is >>> available on the IGF's website: >>> http://www.intgovforum.org/workshops.html > >> >>> >>> IP Justice recommends submitting written contributions and workshop >>> proposals on the following sub-issues (non-exhaustive): >>> >>> 1. OPENNESS - Freedom of expression, free flow of information, ideas and >>> access to knowledge: >>> - Freedom of expression rights >>> - Free flow of information >>> - Access to knowledge >>> - Appropriate balance of intellectual property rights for protecting >>> free expression and free flow of information >>> - Promotion of accessible public domain >>> - Government censorship on Internet >>> - Corporate censorship on Internet >>> - Impact of technological protection measures and anti-circumvention >>> laws on the free flow of information >>> - Impact of software patents on freedom of expression >>> >>> 2. SECURITY - Building trust online, protecting users from spam, >>> phishing, viruses, maintain security while protecting privacy: >>> - Civil liberties concerns from government surveillance programs >>> - Relationship of protecting privacy rights and promoting consumer trust >>> on Internet >>> - Role of free and open source software in promoting information security >>> - Impact on freedom of expression from spam and content filtering >>> - Privacy right violations from publication of ICANN's "WHOIS" database >>> on Internet >>> >>> 3. DIVERSITY - Promoting multi-lingualism, local content, and >>> geographical diversity: >>> - Ability of ICANN to meet needs of international Internet community >>> - Role of Creative Commons licenses to promote local content >>> - Ability of non-proprietary development and licensing schemes to meet >>> local needs >>> - Management of critical Internet infrastructure resources >>> - Role of Internet to promote democratic participation >>> - Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) >>> >>> 4. ACCESS - Internet connectivity, policies and costs: >>> - Open standards >>> - Interoperability of technology >>> - Role of free and open source software to provide access >>> >>> More Info: >>> >>> IP Justice Recommendations regarding Substantive Agenda for UN Internet >>> Governance Forum >>> >>> UN Press Release Announcing Internet Governance Forum Advisory Group >>> >>> >>> IP Justice Statement at UN IGF "Open Consultations" - 19 May 2006 >>> >>> >>> UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) webpage >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >> >> >> -- >> Email from Adam Peake >> Email from my Gmail account probably means I am travelling. Please >> reply to Thanks! >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Thu Jul 27 10:01:46 2006 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 10:01:46 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Burr & Cade: proposal for introducing multi-lateral oversight of the root In-Reply-To: <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F3043561@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <20060726100155.25CA6DAB93@smtp3.electricembers.net> <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F3043561@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: At 1:12 PM +0200 7/26/06, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: >Sith the Tunis summit ICANN got what it wanted: Its inernational recognition as a multistakeholder organisation but with the burden to finish its hom,ework and to move foreward in an undifend process of "enhanced cooperation". How one understands the historical outcome - in this case, Tunis in November - quite shapes prospects going forward. Rather than this interpretation, some see November as the consequence of consensus rules which allowed, in effect, no action. That of course would not amount to a blessing, by all. In that case, 'the discussion continues,' with IGF a designated forum, if not for negotiations, with a five-year timeframe. And as we know, perhaps other discussions of 'enhanced cooperation.' Of course the Burr-Cade proposal has not been made, formally anyway, to IGF, but rather within the parochial quarters of the existing structure. Appropriately enough, to be sure. There are, equally surely, other proposals out there - have been, for some time. Presumably they will in some form once again see the light of day, to be considered one in comparison with others. David ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From seiiti.lists at googlemail.com Thu Jul 27 10:07:55 2006 From: seiiti.lists at googlemail.com (Seiiti Arata) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 11:07:55 -0300 Subject: [governance] United States cedes control of the internet - but what now? Message-ID: http://www.theregister.com/2006/07/27/ntia_icann_meeting/ Anyone else with links to related documents (transcripts especially)? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From avri at psg.com Thu Jul 27 10:09:35 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 10:09:35 -0400 Subject: AW: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal for introducingmulti-lateral oversight of the root In-Reply-To: <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F3043568@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <0J3200DB79D5AG@mail.uni-halle.de> <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F3043568@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <5A2B5645-70A5-41B8-B0D6-3AFCD487D53D@psg.com> On 27 jul 2006, at 08.33, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: > Wolfgang: > > > > One of the option would be to have something like a "seat > agreement" like the UN has in NYC. This is one option, but normally > not the practice for non-govenrmental or private organisaitons but > only for intergovernmental organisaiton operating under the Vienna > Convention (which guarantees also diplomatic status to its > employees). If you would prefer such a solution, you have to change > ICANN into an intergovernmentl body. I would prefer to "invent" > something which creates new procedures and practices, based on > (good and bad) existing experiences from the 20st century diplomacy. i don't think this is at all the case. there are many instances of independent international organizations that are have host country agreement where they are governened by their by-laws and the agreement they set with the country/countries that they make the agreement with. among the rules these international organizations can commit to are international law. and among the rules they can agree to not be bound by are the ones that are based nationalist laws. the best know example is the Internation Red Cross. And my favorite, lesser known example is the international potato center (CIP). i think organization like this are international organizations but are not intergovernmental. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Thu Jul 27 10:12:53 2006 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 10:12:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal for introducingmulti-lateral oversight of the root In-Reply-To: References: <20060726100155.25CA6DAB93@smtp3.electricembers.net> <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F3043561@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <131293a20607270712o1b259f46jc1c31f2453139a51@mail.gmail.com> On 7/26/06, McTim wrote: > > What about the SSAC? http://secsac.icann.org/ > > There is already a body charged with this security/stabilty. Seems as if the security and stability has been excellent and this body has had nothing to do? - Page Updated 09-Jul-2004 -- Jacqueline Morris www.carnivalondenet.com T&T Music and videos online ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Thu Jul 27 10:45:39 2006 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 11:45:39 -0300 Subject: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal for introducingmulti-lateral oversight of the root In-Reply-To: <131293a20607270712o1b259f46jc1c31f2453139a51@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060726100155.25CA6DAB93@smtp3.electricembers.net> <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F3043561@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <131293a20607270712o1b259f46jc1c31f2453139a51@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <44C8D193.6050806@rits.org.br> This SECSAC thing seems to be dead since 2003... --c.a. Jacqueline Morris wrote: > On 7/26/06, McTim wrote: > >> >> What about the SSAC? http://secsac.icann.org/ >> >> There is already a body charged with this security/stabilty. > > Seems as if the security and stability has been excellent and this > body has had nothing to do? - Page Updated 09-Jul-2004 > > -- Carlos A. Afonso diretor de planejamento Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor *************************************************************** Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações: www.sacix.org.br www.rits.org.br www.coletivodigital.org.br *************************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ki_chango at yahoo.com Thu Jul 27 11:40:51 2006 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 08:40:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Intergovernmental-/NG-Os & Siege agreement (was: Burr & Cade: proposal for introducingmulti-lateral oversight of the root In-Reply-To: <5A2B5645-70A5-41B8-B0D6-3AFCD487D53D@psg.com> Message-ID: <20060727154051.6332.qmail@web54702.mail.yahoo.com> Absolutely correct, avri (please Wolfgang, don't say that again.) In fact, there are even _national_ organizations that operate in the international arena who enjoy a seige agreement with diplomatic prerogatives. I guess this depends on the host country (national sovereignty) just as it depends on the international treaties (for the bigger picture: e.g., I imagine if an NGO engages in prohibited arm traffic, the country that would offer them a diplomatic status because, say, the President of that country is a big friend of the NGO founder, may have some serious worries in the international arena.) If I'm not mistaken, an example of a national org. with diplomatic status in some countries were they have a bureau is the Canadian IDRC (International Development Research Centre). It is the Development that is International, not the Centre. It is purely a Canadian organization though they are not a totally public/governmental agency, like CIDA (and though their staff is international due to their activities and coverage), and they have siege agreement with diplomatic prerogatives in several countries they are represented in, if not all. Many other NGOs are in the same situation. What about GTZ, by the way? Mawaki --- Avri Doria wrote: > > > On 27 jul 2006, at 08.33, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: > > > Wolfgang: > > > > > > > > One of the option would be to have something like a "seat > > agreement" like the UN has in NYC. This is one option, but > normally > > not the practice for non-govenrmental or private organisaitons > but > > only for intergovernmental organisaiton operating under the > Vienna > > Convention (which guarantees also diplomatic status to its > > employees). If you would prefer such a solution, you have to > change > > ICANN into an intergovernmentl body. I would prefer to "invent" > > something which creates new procedures and practices, based on > > (good and bad) existing experiences from the 20st century > diplomacy. > > > i don't think this is at all the case. there are many instances of > > independent international organizations that are have host country > > agreement where they are governened by their by-laws and the > agreement they set with the country/countries that they make the > agreement with. among the rules these international organizations > > can commit to are international law. and among the rules they can > > agree to not be bound by are the ones that are based nationalist > laws. the best know example is the Internation Red Cross. And my > > favorite, lesser known example is the international potato center > (CIP). > > i think organization like this are international organizations but > > are not intergovernmental. > > a. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Jul 27 12:14:44 2006 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 19:14:44 +0300 Subject: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal for introducingmulti-lateral oversight of the root In-Reply-To: <44C8D193.6050806@rits.org.br> References: <20060726100155.25CA6DAB93@smtp3.electricembers.net> <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F3043561@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <131293a20607270712o1b259f46jc1c31f2453139a51@mail.gmail.com> <44C8D193.6050806@rits.org.br> Message-ID: Hello Carlos, On 7/27/06, Carlos Afonso wrote: > This SECSAC thing seems to be dead since 2003... They are quite active actually, I just sent a link to an old webpage. Here is what they are using now: http://www.icann.org/committees/security/ This file last modified 14-Apr-2006 (c) 2006 Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers Also, see: http://icannwiki.org/SSAC http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/24/0148242&mode=thread Google is your friend, always! ;-) -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From raul at lacnic.net Thu Jul 27 12:32:33 2006 From: raul at lacnic.net (Raul Echeberria) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 13:32:33 -0300 Subject: [governance] Intergovernmental-/NG-Os & Siege agreement (was: Burr & Cade: proposal for introducingmulti-lateral oversight of the root In-Reply-To: <20060727154051.6332.qmail@web54702.mail.yahoo.com> References: <5A2B5645-70A5-41B8-B0D6-3AFCD487D53D@psg.com> <20060727154051.6332.qmail@web54702.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.0.20060727125028.03d42788@lacnic.net> At 12:40 p.m. 27/07/2006, Mawaki Chango wrote:I fI'm not mistaken, an example of a national org. with diplomatic >status in some countries were they have a bureau is the Canadian IDRC >(International Development Research Centre). It is the Development >that is International, not the Centre. It is purely a Canadian >organization though they are not a totally public/governmental >agency, like CIDA (and though their staff is international due to >their activities and coverage), and they have siege agreement with >diplomatic prerogatives in several countries they are represented in, >if not all. Many other NGOs are in the same situation. > >What about GTZ, by the way? > >Mawaki BTW, In Uruguay you don't need a hosting agreement. If you are an inernational non-governemntal organization, you can apply to be recognized as an International organization with a dipolomatic status that includes tax free and inviolability of files and facilities. Lacnic is incorporated in Uruguay under this status and also LACTLD (the latinamerican association of ccTLDs), CLARA (the latinamerican association of advanced networks), and many other organizations. There about 100 organizations with this status in Uruguay (including the Latinamerican branch of IDRC) Raúl ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Thu Jul 27 13:08:00 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 13:08:00 -0400 Subject: [governance] Intergovernmental-/NG-Os & Siege agreement (was: Burr & Cade: proposal for introducingmulti-lateral oversight of the root In-Reply-To: <20060727154051.6332.qmail@web54702.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060727154051.6332.qmail@web54702.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Mawaki: Correct me if i'm wrong, but as a tax paying Canadian I know that IDRC gets part of their budget from the Canadian government. So , i woundn't quite call them an NGO. In a way, they are a friendly GONGO.. Refs: 1. http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-8513-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html About IDRC The International Development Research Centre (IDRC) is a public corporation created by the Parliament of Canada in 1970 2. http://www.oecd.org/document/ 11/0,2340,en_33873108_33873277_1915339_1_1_1_1,00.html (from the OECD) International Development Research Centre (www.idrc.ca/) The International Development Research Centre is a public corporation created by the Canadian government to help communities in the developing world find solutions to social, economic, and environmental problems through research. regards Robert On 27-Jul-06, at 11:40 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > > If I'm not mistaken, an example of a national org. with diplomatic > status in some countries were they have a bureau is the Canadian IDRC > (International Development Research Centre). It is the Development > that is International, not the Centre. It is purely a Canadian > organization though they are not a totally public/governmental > agency, like CIDA (and though their staff is international due to > their activities and coverage), and they have siege agreement with > diplomatic prerogatives in several countries they are represented in, > if not all. Many other NGOs are in the same situation. > > What about GTZ, by the way? There's also the NED (USA, national endowment for Democracy) , German Stiftungs (Boëll, FES, and others) and several european foundations that are funded in part part by national parliaments or the goverments directly____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Thu Jul 27 18:16:02 2006 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 18:16:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal for introducingmulti-lateral oversight of the root Message-ID: >>> "Parminder" 7/26/2006 6:01 AM >>> >> Let's create a sharp distinction between the two. >On the contrary, my opinion is that the sharp connection >between the two is obvious. >For example, is it at all difficult to see why US refuses to relinquish >control over RZF? A humane and just global policy toward name and number resources will not come about by one -- or 180 -- government(s) grabbing onto to a centralized chokepoint and fighting over how to exploit its leverage. It will come when those govts -- and the public -- agree on what the proper global policies are. Giving govts the power to mess with a technical function like the RZF without _first_ coming to an agreement on what policies will be applied to the Internet is dangerous and wrong. >It is so obvious that if the issue was only technical it wont be >difficult to reach an arrangement for supervisor of RTZ under a team of >international experts or some other expertise based arrangement. Everyone >knows that behind the control of RTZ is hidden the issue of wider political >control over the Internet. And RTZ control is one way to exercise such >political control over Internet. US government has other controls as well >through its legal relationship with some IG related bodies. Thanks for repeating to me things I've been writing for 5 years. My objections to internationalizing the US's arbitrary power over RZF modifications comes to this: Attempting to set policy by hanging on to the ability to manipulate a file that ensures global interoperability is not a good thiing. It is a dysfunctional, unhealthy and unconstructive way to insert legitimate political interests into the process. Why should governments hide and distort their political objectives under the cover of technically managing the RZF? How can they be given power over such a critical resource when they have no idea what they want to use it for? If governments can agree on globally applicable public policies, let them do so. And let them enforce those public policies on ICANN through more direct and legitimate means, such as fines for misconduct, taking away the contract, or stronger penalties for criminal breaches. Leave modification of the RZF to IANA. OTOH, if govts cant agree on global policies, let them get the hell out of the process. IGP was for a long time advocating a framework convention as a starting point precsiely for this reason. >I have heard a lot about how ICANN should be obligated to observe >international law, should stick to all new and old international treaties >etc, but not much on how this can be ensured. Shall it be left to ICANN's >interpretation and its goodwill? No, of course not. But does controlling the RZF prevent ICANN from violating human rights, stealing, violating its own processes, corruption, etc.? Please explain how. >Every higher political power exercises its political >authority through reserving some powers of last resort. [snip] But the RZF is the wrong target. Unless you support the exercise of political authority for its own sake (which I sometimes think you do) I don't see the point. It seems to me that what you really want is the ability to take the IANA contract away from ICANN and give it to someone else -- not the ability to review and approve technical modifications of the RZF. Letting other govts share in the arbitrary, imperious US oversight actually distacts attention from the real issues. >It is more important to have >these powers in reserve, than use them often. Control over RTZ is seen as >one of such powers that enable exercise of political authority. Whose political authority? This is the other huge gap in your thinking. >Whoever has legitimate political power over public policy issues related to Internet >can only enforce it by having some powers of last resort over the actual running >of the infrastructure. Who has legitimate political power over public policy issues related to the Internet? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Thu Jul 27 18:30:37 2006 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 18:30:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] september song... :) Message-ID: Carlos: Read our comments on the NTIA NOI. We need to develop new and better accountability mechanisms -- including (but not limited to) the return of global democratic voting for part of the Board. The improvement of accountability is hurt, not helped, by proposals to give some unaccountable, monopolistic and coercive "security council" of governments arbitrary power over RZF modifications. >>> ca at rits.org.br 7/25/2006 1:33 PM >>> Well, aside from the fact that MM's methodological separation is just academic (as there are no signs Bushland will relinquish its role on ICANN), *if* ICANN, as it is now, goes to a situation of no governmental control whatsoever on its core operations, *then* we will still have another serious problem -- the objective fact that a private non-profit sustained by a quasi-monopoly of the global domain name business could hardly become truly independent. --c.a. Milton Mueller wrote: >>>> apeake at gmail.com 7/20/2006 10:12 AM >>> >> Thanks to Brenden Kuerbis and IGP for pointing to an interesting >> proposal from Becky Burr and Marilyn Cade on oversight of the root > > A bit behind the traffic here, but please note that the proposal is > Burr's. Marilyn Cade has simply endorsed it. > > Another problem with this debate I have noticed is a confusion > between two distinct things: > > 1. The importance of Internet policies and the need, or even the > inevitability, of governments playing a role in how those policies > are rules are made. > > 2. Control over modifications of the Root Zone File (RZF). > > Let's create a sharp distinction between the two. Governments can > have 1 without 2. Since ICANN is a global organization and needs to > be accountable, governments can and should establish global rules > that help to make it accountable. For example, if ICANN or its > successor abuses its authority, breaks its own rules, cheats, steals, > etc. it needs to be accountable. Governments need to work out how to > apply competition policy and law, and trade rules to ICANN. That's > all legitimate government business. > > But that does not mean that governments need to have or should have > some kind of veto power over modifications of the root zone file. It > seems to me that giving governments*any one or any collection of > them*some kind of final veto power over the RZF is just asking for > trouble. The Burr proposal tries to deal with this by saying that > governments can intervene only to protect technical stability and > security. But this is like telling a fox he can only eat one of the > chickens he is guarding when the stability and security of the farm > is threatened. The fox will always want to eat the chickens, and will > use any excuse he can to define something as a threat to the farm's > stability and security. > > Governments and their representatives are not likely to have any clue > as to what RZF changes affect the technical security and stability of > the Internet. But they will know how their political interests are > affected. They will want to control or affect the RZF for political > reasons, not technical ones. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any > message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- Carlos A. Afonso diretor de planejamento Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor *************************************************************** Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações: www.sacix.org.br www.rits.org.br www.coletivodigital.org.br *************************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From baptista at cynikal.net Thu Jul 27 19:26:45 2006 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 19:26:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal for introducingmulti-lateral oversight of the root In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Milton Mueller wrote: > A humane and just global policy toward name and number resources will > not come about by one -- or 180 -- government(s) grabbing onto to a > centralized chokepoint and fighting over how to exploit its leverage. > It will come when those govts -- and the public -- agree on what the > proper global policies are. Giving govts the power to mess with a > technical function like the RZF without _first_ coming to an agreement > on what policies will be applied to the Internet is dangerous and wrong. That I agree with. Were watching another mess in progress. regards joe baptista ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Fri Jul 28 00:13:24 2006 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 14:13:24 +1000 (EST) Subject: [governance] charter 1.5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060728041324.66149.qmail@web54101.mail.yahoo.com> --- Avri Doria wrote: > Changes in 1.5 ... > - replaced Internet Goverance with Internet > governance (not really > sure which is correct but figured it should be > consistent) Can someone explain why the capital "I" is used for "internet"? Internet is a noun, so unless we're naming something like the "Internet Governance Caucus" it should be a small "i". And yes, this response is late... I don't know how people get the chance to get through so much! Cheers David David Goldstein address: 4/3 Abbott Street COOGEE NSW 2034 AUSTRALIA email: Goldstein_David @yahoo.com.au phone: +61 418 228 605 - mobile; +61 2 9665 5773 - home Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mandjelkovic at iisd.ca Fri Jul 28 05:57:45 2006 From: mandjelkovic at iisd.ca (Maja Andjelkovic) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 04:57:45 -0500 Subject: [governance] FW: IP-Watch: US Government On Internet Control: ICANN Can Go, IANA Is Ours Message-ID: <47AB1D483BC00940AC5DE54F9587ACAD022C46E1@proton.iisd.ca> -----Original Message----- From: Intellectual Property Watch [mailto:info at ip-watch.ch] Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 4:43 AM To: Maja Andjelkovic Subject: IP-Watch: US Government On Internet Control: ICANN Can Go, IANA Is Ours A new entry has been posted to the Intellectual Property Watch website. ************************************************************************ ******************************** July 28, 2006: US Government On Internet Control: ICANN Can Go, IANA Is Ours By Monika Ermert for Intellectual Property Watch The United States government does not want to retain "all [its] historic roles" in the technical oversight of the Internet domain name system (DNS), a senior Bush administration official said this week. But while it might let go of the coordination role for names such as those ending in .com and .net, it still has no plans to give up control over changes to the underlying structure of the Internet, he said. Link to the complete article: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index_test.php?p=375 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------- Une selection d'articles est traduite en francais; pour etre notifie a propos de ces traductions, veuillez modifier vos preferences en cliquant sur le lien suivant: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/subscribe_edit.php?addr=mandjelkovic at iisd .ca Para recibir notificaciones sobre las traducciones al frances o al espanol de una seleccion de historias de IP-Watch, sirvase modificar sus preferencias haciendo click en el enlace siguiente: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/subscribe_edit.php?addr=mandjelkovic at iisd .ca ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------- Subscribe to the IP-Watch Monthly Reporter, the best of the news stories, briefs, and the latest on people in the IP policy community. Click on the following link for details: http://www.ip-watch.org/reporter.php ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------- You have signed up to receive these notifications. If you would like to unsubscribe, visit the url below: http://www.ip-watch.org/maillist/index_test.php?action=unsub&addr=mandje lkovic at iisd.ca If you would like to modify the settings of your subscription, visit the url below: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/subscribe_edit.php?addr=mandjelkovic at iisd .ca ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at acm.org Fri Jul 28 07:23:57 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 07:23:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] charter 1.5 In-Reply-To: <20060728041324.66149.qmail@web54101.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060728041324.66149.qmail@web54101.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 28 jul 2006, at 00.13, David Goldstein wrote: > Can someone explain why the capital "I" is used for > "internet"? Internet is a noun, so unless we're naming > something like the "Internet Governance Caucus" it > should be a small "i". > As I understand it (in the briefest of ways) 'internet' a general term and 'Internet' is a proper name. an internet is a network or networks. there can be many internets, some public some private, some relatively local or regional and some global. Internet on the other hand, is the proper name given to the publicly accessed network of networks where all hosts have have end to end reachability, a common naming system, a (more or less) global addressing system and based for the most part on IP protocols. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Fri Jul 28 07:56:33 2006 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 13:56:33 +0200 Subject: [governance] Canadian_input_to_NTIA_NOI_on_ICANN.pdf Message-ID: <44C9FB71.4050107@wz-berlin.de> Fyi, attached is a copy of Bill Graham's contribution to the NTIA hearing this week. Btw, is it anywhere not boiling hot on this planet? jeanette ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Canadian_input_to_NTIA_NOI_on_ICANN.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 42130 bytes Desc: not available URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jul 28 09:56:00 2006 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 19:26:00 +0530 Subject: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal forintroducingmulti-lateral oversight of the root In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060728135609.73973C9886@smtp1.electricembers.net> Milton Personal things first. > Unless you support the exercise of > political authority for its own sake (which I sometimes think you do) Well, I have some things to say about what I think you do, but lets agree to spare this space from such an exchange. Now to the issue: > A humane and just global policy toward name and number resources will > not come about by one -- or 180 -- government(s) grabbing onto to a > centralized chokepoint and fighting over how to exploit its leverage. You have been a great campaigner against rhetoric on this list, so why use it yourself when this is just not the issue being discussed. I did not say how the policy will come, I said all political authority - legitimate or not - needs some strong levers of power, even if as a reserve power of last resort, to be meaningful. This is a simple statement of fact. Do you, with your knowledge of public affairs, think this is untrue? US knows quite well how to assert its political interests, and it thinks RTZ control is one key. And any other political authority (hopefully more legitimate) will seek its levers of assertion. And I also said in my email that I do not insist that this control is the only way to exercise political oversight. And that RTZ control is one of many ways by which authority has been exercised over ICANN. > OTOH, if govts cant agree on global policies, let them get the hell out > of the process. IGP was for a long time advocating a framework > convention as a starting point precisely for this reason. Yes, herein lies the main issue. I have been supporting IGP's effort till you were advocating a framework convention (In fact my organization prepared a submission for gender caucus on basis of IGP's framework convention proposal). But why are you NOT advocating it now? What changed meanwhile? I'd be very interested to know. >From a very political stance on IG, why has IGP's stance gone apolitical. ICANN should be rid from US control, and then it shd hang in the air?? Doing some kind of self political control.... Political power is always being exercised whether we formalize it or not. And you are an academician and you know it well. If US control goes away, whatever it means, does political power in internet governance disappears. It still resides with powerful dominant interests. If you have given up advocacy for a framework convention or some other significant political innovation beyond the present structures then you may be fine with the present political controls. I am very much not so.... That is the difference between your politics and mine, you may think Internet is fine in hands of its present political masters (minus the more visible controls by the US gov), I think Internet needs a very different political mandate and thereby a different political oversight/control. The 'politics of the apolitical' is an interesting issue. In India the middle classes have a great aversion to politics. They think it is the root of all evil in India. And they never cease attempts to disguise political issues as apolitical. The basic issue is simple, existing structures work for them, and those who are excluded press for greater structural changes, and this is dangerous to their entrenched positions. >Whose political authority? This is the other huge gap in your thinking. US gov and some private interests at present, and whoever is able to get it or a part of it, later on. About gaps in thinking, please refer to para 1 above. > Who has legitimate political power over public policy issues related to > the Internet? A difficult question, but it is there and cant be brushed aside. Because someone is meanwhile exercising illegitimate power. And the status quo is more problematic to some than to others. Parminder _______________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 3:46 AM > To: apeake at gmail.com; Parminder; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal forintroducingmulti- > lateral oversight of the root > > > >>> "Parminder" 7/26/2006 6:01 AM >>> > >> Let's create a sharp distinction between the two. > > >On the contrary, my opinion is that the sharp connection > >between the two is obvious. > >For example, is it at all difficult to see why US refuses to > relinquish > >control over RZF? > > A humane and just global policy toward name and number resources will > not come about by one -- or 180 -- government(s) grabbing onto to a > centralized chokepoint and fighting over how to exploit its leverage. > It will come when those govts -- and the public -- agree on what the > proper global policies are. Giving govts the power to mess with a > technical function like the RZF without _first_ coming to an agreement > on what policies will be applied to the Internet is dangerous and wrong. > > > >It is so obvious that if the issue was only technical it wont be > >difficult to reach an arrangement for supervisor of RTZ under a team > of > >international experts or some other expertise based arrangement. > Everyone > >knows that behind the control of RTZ is hidden the issue of wider > political > >control over the Internet. And RTZ control is one way to exercise > such > >political control over Internet. US government has other controls as > well > >through its legal relationship with some IG related bodies. > > Thanks for repeating to me things I've been writing for 5 years. > > My objections to internationalizing the US's arbitrary power over RZF > modifications comes to this: Attempting to set policy by hanging on to > the ability to manipulate a file that ensures global interoperability is > not a good thiing. It is a dysfunctional, unhealthy and unconstructive > way to insert legitimate political interests into the process. > > Why should governments hide and distort their political objectives > under the cover of technically managing the RZF? How can they be given > power over such a critical resource when they have no idea what they > want to use it for? If governments can agree on globally applicable > public policies, let them do so. And let them enforce those public > policies on ICANN through more direct and legitimate means, such as > fines for misconduct, taking away the contract, or stronger penalties > for criminal breaches. Leave modification of the RZF to IANA. > > OTOH, if govts cant agree on global policies, let them get the hell out > of the process. IGP was for a long time advocating a framework > convention as a starting point precsiely for this reason. > > >I have heard a lot about how ICANN should be obligated to observe > >international law, should stick to all new and old international > treaties > >etc, but not much on how this can be ensured. Shall it be left to > ICANN's > >interpretation and its goodwill? > > No, of course not. But does controlling the RZF prevent ICANN from > violating human rights, stealing, violating its own processes, > corruption, etc.? Please explain how. > > >Every higher political power exercises its political > >authority through reserving some powers of last resort. [snip] > > But the RZF is the wrong target. Unless you support the exercise of > political authority for its own sake (which I sometimes think you do) I > don't see the point. It seems to me that what you really want is the > ability to take the IANA contract away from ICANN and give it to someone > else -- not the ability to review and approve technical modifications of > the RZF. Letting other govts share in the arbitrary, imperious US > oversight actually distacts attention from the real issues. > > >It is more important to have > >these powers in reserve, than use them often. Control over RTZ is seen > as > >one of such powers that enable exercise of political authority. > > Whose political authority? This is the other huge gap in your thinking. > > > >Whoever has legitimate political power over public policy issues > related to Internet > >can only enforce it by having some powers of last resort over the > actual running > >of the infrastructure. > > Who has legitimate political power over public policy issues related to > the Internet? > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ki_chango at yahoo.com Fri Jul 28 12:09:03 2006 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 09:09:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Intergovernmental-/NG-Os & Siege agreement (was: Burr & Cade: proposal for introducingmulti-lateral oversight of the root In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060728160903.36266.qmail@web54711.mail.yahoo.com> Robert: You are totally right: the bulk of their budget is voted by the Canadian Parliament, and I beleive the President of the Board of Governors is appointed by the same Parliament. However, as far as I know, they (may) substantially complement their budget with private (non-governmental) funds, and they are not, unlike CIDA, a government agency in the sense that they don't have to implement the Canadian government policy of cooperation for development. That's why IDRC could start operating in South Africa before the formal end of apartheid, while CIDA could not. Now, I don't know if NGO is the right label for such organizations, or something else. Hope this clarifies. Regards, Mawaki Robert Guerra wrote: Mawaki: Correct me if i'm wrong, but as a tax paying Canadian I know that IDRC gets part of their budget from the Canadian government. So , i woundn't quite call them an NGO. In a way, they are a friendly GONGO.. Refs: 1. http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-8513-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html About IDRC The International Development Research Centre (IDRC) is a public corporation created by the Parliament of Canada in 1970 2. http://www.oecd.org/document/ 11/0,2340,en_33873108_33873277_1915339_1_1_1_1,00.html (from the OECD) International Development Research Centre (www.idrc.ca/) The International Development Research Centre is a public corporation created by the Canadian government to help communities in the developing world find solutions to social, economic, and environmental problems through research. regards Robert On 27-Jul-06, at 11:40 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > > If I'm not mistaken, an example of a national org. with diplomatic > status in some countries were they have a bureau is the Canadian IDRC > (International Development Research Centre). It is the Development > that is International, not the Centre. It is purely a Canadian > organization though they are not a totally public/governmental > agency, like CIDA (and though their staff is international due to > their activities and coverage), and they have siege agreement with > diplomatic prerogatives in several countries they are represented in, > if not all. Many other NGOs are in the same situation. > > What about GTZ, by the way? There's also the NED (USA, national endowment for Democracy) , German Stiftungs (Boëll, FES, and others) and several european foundations that are funded in part part by national parliaments or the goverments directly -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Fri Jul 28 12:14:11 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 12:14:11 -0400 Subject: [governance] Canadian_input_to_NTIA_NOI_on_ICANN.pdf In-Reply-To: <44C9FB71.4050107@wz-berlin.de> References: <44C9FB71.4050107@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <93C5734E-E9F2-4CE7-B02B-68A53C7CD52D@lists.privaterra.org> Weather in Toronto - though humid, seems fine. Not the sweltering heat making its way through europe and california. Seems there have been power outages in Marina del Rey as well ;) ref: http://cbs2.com/local/local_story_208080409.html regards Robert On 28-Jul-06, at 7:56 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Fyi, attached is a copy of Bill Graham's contribution to the NTIA > hearing this week. > > Btw, is it anywhere not boiling hot on this planet? > jeanette ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU Fri Jul 28 12:42:27 2006 From: gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU (Gurstein, Michael) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 12:42:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] Canadian_input_to_NTIA_NOI_on_ICANN.pdf Message-ID: Hmmm... Vancouver is a very pleasant 18 C. but overcast... Also, the IDRC so far as I know, doesn't take outside (non-CDN Government) funding, although a number of its off-shoots e.g. Bellanet and now Telecentres.Org do receive outside co-funding. MG -----Original Message----- From: Robert Guerra [mailto:rguerra at lists.privaterra.org] Sent: July 28, 2006 6:14 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Canadian_input_to_NTIA_NOI_on_ICANN.pdf Weather in Toronto - though humid, seems fine. Not the sweltering heat making its way through europe and california. Seems there have been power outages in Marina del Rey as well ;) ref: http://cbs2.com/local/local_story_208080409.html regards Robert On 28-Jul-06, at 7:56 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Fyi, attached is a copy of Bill Graham's contribution to the NTIA > hearing this week. > > Btw, is it anywhere not boiling hot on this planet? > jeanette ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ki_chango at yahoo.com Fri Jul 28 14:10:11 2006 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:10:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Canadian_input_to_NTIA_NOI_on_ICANN.pdf In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060728181011.8827.qmail@web54701.mail.yahoo.com> Thanks for the precision (re IDRC). Weather, etc.: This week in Central/Upstate New York, there have been rain, thunder strikes and lightening... after the heat (even though the air conditionner is still needed.) And guess what, am undergoing a "severe" selective power outage, that is, the thunder have apparently chosen to strike the part of the electrical circuit that allows the functioning of the garage doorway, the home theatre (receiver), and the pool filter. And the key people seem to be out of town, or difficult to reach. Really too bad for my summer time... Uh, I ought to be realistic, those are not mine after all - am house sitting for someone ;) ... (all the more so: I should have been enjoying them while am at it; too bad!) -mC --- "Gurstein, Michael" wrote: > Hmmm... Vancouver is a very pleasant 18 C. but overcast... > > Also, the IDRC so far as I know, doesn't take outside (non-CDN > Government) funding, although a number of its off-shoots e.g. > Bellanet > and now Telecentres.Org do receive outside co-funding. > > MG > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Guerra [mailto:rguerra at lists.privaterra.org] > Sent: July 28, 2006 6:14 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Canadian_input_to_NTIA_NOI_on_ICANN.pdf > > > Weather in Toronto - though humid, seems fine. Not the sweltering > heat making its way through europe and california. Seems there have > > been power outages in Marina del Rey as well ;) > > > ref: > http://cbs2.com/local/local_story_208080409.html > > regards > > Robert > > > On 28-Jul-06, at 7:56 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > Fyi, attached is a copy of Bill Graham's contribution to the NTIA > > hearing this week. > > > > Btw, is it anywhere not boiling hot on this planet? > > jeanette > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From pouzin at well.com Fri Jul 28 14:20:07 2006 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 20:20:07 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Update on charter voting Message-ID: <200607281820.k6SIK7C3018940@ares.enst.fr> Avri, I tried to login from early July, to no avail:

NPOGroups: Incompatible browser

We're sorry, but a major bug in your browser (Internet Explorer for the Mac) prevents you from seeing any of the intended formatting and layout on this site, making it essentially unusable. In order to use this site, you will need to switch to another browser; we recommend Mozilla Firefox, the excellent open source browser that is much better written, increasingly popular, and free: www.mozilla.org.

If you are not using IE on a Mac, please contact NPOGroups support at help at electricembers.net. I could not find the free mozilla browser for download on www.mozilla.org. Btw I am not using IE on a Mac, but iCab. Admittedly it is quite shaky. Best - - On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 23:30:39 -0400, Avri Doria wrote: >well i have now added all the names i could find in a decent pass (i was in work avoidance mode, so doing this clerical exercise made me feel like i was sort of working). i now have 176/296 - with duplicates removed. it was rather amazing how many i was able to find in the mail archives. even if it is only once or twice a lot of people have sent email at some point since 2004 (that is as far back as i went). i still recommend that people make sure their listing is correct before Monday morning, and perhaps some of the people for whom I don't have names can add them. special thanks to those who did do their own update. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Fri Jul 28 14:26:08 2006 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 14:26:08 -0400 Subject: [governance] Analysis of NTIA public meeting on ICANN Wed. Message-ID: Here is our analysis of the NTIA hearings. http://internetgovernance.org/news.html#ntiahearing_072706 Monika Ermert also wrote a very good piece for IPWatch. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bfausett at internet.law.pro Fri Jul 28 14:51:00 2006 From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:51:00 -0700 Subject: [governance] Analysis of NTIA public meeting on ICANN Wed. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: And if you missed the hearing live, you can still get the Real Video on the DOC web site: http://www.woc.noaa.gov/pub/real/doc-2006-07-27.ram For those who like to load and go and listen on iPods, etc., I stripped out the audio into mp3 files here: http://blog.lextext.com/blog/_archives/2006/7/27/2169437.html -- Bret ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From garth.graham at telus.net Fri Jul 28 15:09:31 2006 From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 12:09:31 -0700 Subject: [governance] IDRC (was Intergovernmental-/NG-Os & Siege agreement) In-Reply-To: <20060728160903.36266.qmail@web54711.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060728160903.36266.qmail@web54711.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <9A10C72C-AD75-40E8-BDAC-90E0123E631C@telus.net> IDRC is rare, but not unusual, in being a creature of the Act of Parliament that established it. It is defined in law as working at arms-length to the Government of Canada. It's Board of Governors is autonomous while pursuing the objects and powers stated in the Act. The Board reports to Parliament through the Minister of Foreign Affairs, but not "to" that Minister. Section 4. (1) of the IDRC Act says: "The objects of the Centre are to initiate, encourage, support and conduct research into the problems of the developing regions of the world and into the means for applying and adapting scientific, technical and other knowledge to the economic and social advancement of those regions and, in carrying out those objects ... Section 18. (1) of the IDRC Act says: "The Centre is not an agent of Her Majesty, and, except as provided in subsection (2), the governors and the officers, agents and employees of the Centre are not part of the public service." IDRC is fully capable of receiving funds from anywhere. As per Sections 20. (1) and (2) of the Act: (1) The Centre shall establish, under its management in a bank or in an authorized foreign bank within the meaning of section 2 of the Bank Act that is not subject to the restrictions and requirements referred to in subsection 524(2) of that Act in respect of its business in Canada, an account to be known as the International Development Research Centre Account, in this section called the "Account". (2) There shall be credited to the Account all amounts realized by the Centre under this Act in carrying out research or technical development or from providing any other services in Canada or elsewhere under any contract or agreement. I think IDRC provides a model worthy of study as to how a single government can establish, and effectively support without undue interference, an arms-length agency with a global mandate and reach. (I should probably disclose that IDRC was my employer from 1983 to 1989 as Regional Programme Officer for Information Science in East and Southern Africa). Garth Graham On 28-Jul-06, at 9:09 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Robert: > > You are totally right: the bulk of their budget is voted by the > Canadian Parliament, and I beleive the President of the Board of > Governors is appointed by the same Parliament. However, as far as I > know, they (may) substantially complement their budget with private > (non-governmental) funds, and they are not, unlike CIDA, a > government agency in the sense that they don't have to implement > the Canadian government policy of cooperation for development. > That's why IDRC could start operating in South Africa before the > formal end of apartheid, while CIDA could not. > > Now, I don't know if NGO is the right label for such organizations, > or something else. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at acm.org Fri Jul 28 15:44:33 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 15:44:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] Update on charter voting In-Reply-To: <200607281820.k6SIK7C3018940@ares.enst.fr> References: <200607281820.k6SIK7C3018940@ares.enst.fr> Message-ID: Hi, Before answering the message let me give an update. I will get a revision of the charter out later today (i expect). i am having trouble with the voting. the folks i thought were going to be able to do it, notified me they were going on vacation just as i got back to them ready to go. so i am looking for other options. also i now have a list of participants w/names as of 060724. i have 197 named participants out of 295 subscriptions (including duplicates). thanks to all who logged in to help. anyone who is concerned about whether they are on the list, should let me know (send me the email instead of the list) and i will confirm. and the specific issue: On 28 jul 2006, at 14.20, Louis Pouzin wrote: > Avri, I tried to login from early July, to no avail: I took care of it for you. thanks for trying. > >

NPOGroups: Incompatible browser ... i have had no problems with either firefox or safari from a mac. > > I could not find the free mozilla browser for download on > www.mozilla.org. try http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/ i think it is a little sluggish compared to safari, but otherwise not bad with some good features. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From LMcKnigh at syr.edu Fri Jul 28 15:55:35 2006 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 15:55:35 -0400 Subject: [governance] Update on charter voting Message-ID: Hey avri, I was one of the lazy bums, assume you got me in the voting system though? Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> avri at acm.org 7/28/2006 3:44 PM >>> Hi, Before answering the message let me give an update. I will get a revision of the charter out later today (i expect). i am having trouble with the voting. the folks i thought were going to be able to do it, notified me they were going on vacation just as i got back to them ready to go. so i am looking for other options. also i now have a list of participants w/names as of 060724. i have 197 named participants out of 295 subscriptions (including duplicates). thanks to all who logged in to help. anyone who is concerned about whether they are on the list, should let me know (send me the email instead of the list) and i will confirm. and the specific issue: On 28 jul 2006, at 14.20, Louis Pouzin wrote: > Avri, I tried to login from early July, to no avail: I took care of it for you. thanks for trying. > >

NPOGroups: Incompatible browser ... i have had no problems with either firefox or safari from a mac. > > I could not find the free mozilla browser for download on > www.mozilla.org. try http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/ i think it is a little sluggish compared to safari, but otherwise not bad with some good features. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From LMcKnigh at syr.edu Fri Jul 28 18:16:02 2006 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 18:16:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal forintroducingmulti-lateral oversight of the root Message-ID: Hi Parminder, Jumping into pick up on your framework convention points, yes indeed several of us in IGP pushed hard on it for a while, didin;t get the traction we hoped for, and have since channged tactics but not taken back anything we said before. Speaking for myself, I still see something like that as necessary, but in policy agenda-setting as you know timing matters. A lot. So we helped spread the notion, got push back from usual suspect sources, and lately have been waiting for the dust to settle from some intermediary policy steps and process developments. Specifically, until it became clear(er) what the IGF can and cannot do, was hard to get people to focus beyond IGF which after all is critically important that its early establishment does not go for naught. Now, while we can now more clearly see what IGF cannot do, we (and everyone else so minded) can push the call for a next step, ie the framework convention. So maybe we better get our own caucus charter adopted before we propose a 'charter' for the world....at least that is my excuse! ; ) Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> parminder at itforchange.net 7/28/2006 9:56 AM >>> Milton Personal things first. > Unless you support the exercise of > political authority for its own sake (which I sometimes think you do) Well, I have some things to say about what I think you do, but lets agree to spare this space from such an exchange. Now to the issue: > A humane and just global policy toward name and number resources will > not come about by one -- or 180 -- government(s) grabbing onto to a > centralized chokepoint and fighting over how to exploit its leverage. You have been a great campaigner against rhetoric on this list, so why use it yourself when this is just not the issue being discussed. I did not say how the policy will come, I said all political authority - legitimate or not - needs some strong levers of power, even if as a reserve power of last resort, to be meaningful. This is a simple statement of fact. Do you, with your knowledge of public affairs, think this is untrue? US knows quite well how to assert its political interests, and it thinks RTZ control is one key. And any other political authority (hopefully more legitimate) will seek its levers of assertion. And I also said in my email that I do not insist that this control is the only way to exercise political oversight. And that RTZ control is one of many ways by which authority has been exercised over ICANN. > OTOH, if govts cant agree on global policies, let them get the hell out > of the process. IGP was for a long time advocating a framework > convention as a starting point precisely for this reason. Yes, herein lies the main issue. I have been supporting IGP's effort till you were advocating a framework convention (In fact my organization prepared a submission for gender caucus on basis of IGP's framework convention proposal). But why are you NOT advocating it now? What changed meanwhile? I'd be very interested to know. >From a very political stance on IG, why has IGP's stance gone apolitical. ICANN should be rid from US control, and then it shd hang in the air?? Doing some kind of self political control.... Political power is always being exercised whether we formalize it or not. And you are an academician and you know it well. If US control goes away, whatever it means, does political power in internet governance disappears. It still resides with powerful dominant interests. If you have given up advocacy for a framework convention or some other significant political innovation beyond the present structures then you may be fine with the present political controls. I am very much not so.... That is the difference between your politics and mine, you may think Internet is fine in hands of its present political masters (minus the more visible controls by the US gov), I think Internet needs a very different political mandate and thereby a different political oversight/control. The 'politics of the apolitical' is an interesting issue. In India the middle classes have a great aversion to politics. They think it is the root of all evil in India. And they never cease attempts to disguise political issues as apolitical. The basic issue is simple, existing structures work for them, and those who are excluded press for greater structural changes, and this is dangerous to their entrenched positions. >Whose political authority? This is the other huge gap in your thinking. US gov and some private interests at present, and whoever is able to get it or a part of it, later on. About gaps in thinking, please refer to para 1 above. > Who has legitimate political power over public policy issues related to > the Internet? A difficult question, but it is there and cant be brushed aside. Because someone is meanwhile exercising illegitimate power. And the status quo is more problematic to some than to others. Parminder _______________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 3:46 AM > To: apeake at gmail.com; Parminder; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal forintroducingmulti- > lateral oversight of the root > > > >>> "Parminder" 7/26/2006 6:01 AM >>> > >> Let's create a sharp distinction between the two. > > >On the contrary, my opinion is that the sharp connection > >between the two is obvious. > >For example, is it at all difficult to see why US refuses to > relinquish > >control over RZF? > > A humane and just global policy toward name and number resources will > not come about by one -- or 180 -- government(s) grabbing onto to a > centralized chokepoint and fighting over how to exploit its leverage. > It will come when those govts -- and the public -- agree on what the > proper global policies are. Giving govts the power to mess with a > technical function like the RZF without _first_ coming to an agreement > on what policies will be applied to the Internet is dangerous and wrong. > > > >It is so obvious that if the issue was only technical it wont be > >difficult to reach an arrangement for supervisor of RTZ under a team > of > >international experts or some other expertise based arrangement. > Everyone > >knows that behind the control of RTZ is hidden the issue of wider > political > >control over the Internet. And RTZ control is one way to exercise > such > >political control over Internet. US government has other controls as > well > >through its legal relationship with some IG related bodies. > > Thanks for repeating to me things I've been writing for 5 years. > > My objections to internationalizing the US's arbitrary power over RZF > modifications comes to this: Attempting to set policy by hanging on to > the ability to manipulate a file that ensures global interoperability is > not a good thiing. It is a dysfunctional, unhealthy and unconstructive > way to insert legitimate political interests into the process. > > Why should governments hide and distort their political objectives > under the cover of technically managing the RZF? How can they be given > power over such a critical resource when they have no idea what they > want to use it for? If governments can agree on globally applicable > public policies, let them do so. And let them enforce those public > policies on ICANN through more direct and legitimate means, such as > fines for misconduct, taking away the contract, or stronger penalties > for criminal breaches. Leave modification of the RZF to IANA. > > OTOH, if govts cant agree on global policies, let them get the hell out > of the process. IGP was for a long time advocating a framework > convention as a starting point precsiely for this reason. > > >I have heard a lot about how ICANN should be obligated to observe > >international law, should stick to all new and old international > treaties > >etc, but not much on how this can be ensured. Shall it be left to > ICANN's > >interpretation and its goodwill? > > No, of course not. But does controlling the RZF prevent ICANN from > violating human rights, stealing, violating its own processes, > corruption, etc.? Please explain how. > > >Every higher political power exercises its political > >authority through reserving some powers of last resort. [snip] > > But the RZF is the wrong target. Unless you support the exercise of > political authority for its own sake (which I sometimes think you do) I > don't see the point. It seems to me that what you really want is the > ability to take the IANA contract away from ICANN and give it to someone > else -- not the ability to review and approve technical modifications of > the RZF. Letting other govts share in the arbitrary, imperious US > oversight actually distacts attention from the real issues. > > >It is more important to have > >these powers in reserve, than use them often. Control over RTZ is seen > as > >one of such powers that enable exercise of political authority. > > Whose political authority? This is the other huge gap in your thinking. > > > >Whoever has legitimate political power over public policy issues > related to Internet > >can only enforce it by having some powers of last resort over the > actual running > >of the infrastructure. > > Who has legitimate political power over public policy issues related to > the Internet? > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at acm.org Fri Jul 28 19:29:43 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 19:29:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] charter 1.6 Message-ID: <9771F24E-BAF1-47C8-9970-E01DCE2BF22C@acm.org> Hi, As usual the latest copy can be found in: http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_draft.html aka: http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC_charter_draft-1.6.html Older versions can still be found on the web site http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC_charter_draft-1.5.html etc.... δ Changes in 1.6 * replaced second option – dealing with open voting – with new text provided by Parminder. *Added leadin sentence about the origin of the IGC to the front of the charter as suggested by Parminder. Note: I am now trying to find the voting system. I am not sure I can pull it off in 2 weeks, but unless there are any critical objections, I would like to start the vote on the charter shortly after 16 august. Also I will be almost totally out of communications areas from 5-14 August as I will be in the communication challenged mountains of the Arctic working on my remote communications research project. Anyone who has a voting solution is asked to give me some help. I looked into a paying option, but with 197 possible voters it would have cost me 150 USD and I don't have that sort of cash to contribute to voting on the charter. So I will keep searching for the free option. With some help, I did find a sw package, but I have not been able to get it (or much of anything e.g. the wiki) to work on the server I currently have. Suggestions and help are welcome. thanks a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Jul 29 05:50:49 2006 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 15:20:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposalforintroducingmulti-lateral oversight of the root In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060729095101.76E745C53@smtp2.electricembers.net> Lee > Now, while we can now more clearly see what IGF cannot do, we (and > everyone else so minded) can push the call for a next step, ie the > framework convention. It will be good to hear the group's view on this. It is my opinion that IGC should take a two-track approach to IG. One inside-out and, the other outside-in. Inside-out (or incremental change) approach is about knowing that IG establishment is today in a particular state and things take time, and show inertia, to change, and while we attempt more structural change, we need to also work on making the present systems work in a manner that serves our purposes better. All our work on ICANN reform etc falls into this category, and is important. But this should not - and I think this often happens here - distract us from the need for more structural changes in IG and Internet policy universe. How much ever the present ICANN reforms itself in making its processes more transparent etc, it embedded-ness in a particular political thinking isn't going to change through such incremental processes. The outside-in (or structural change) approach develops the concepts and contours of a more ideal IG system, that serves our collective interests best, and advocates, for this purpose, to move toward a structural arrangement for evolving such a system. For this, in my view, a global convention framework kind of process, in its broadest meaning, is necessary. But we are conscious, and insistent, that Internet and information society itself changes global governance context sufficiently to require 'political innovations'(and also make them more possible) which, inter alia, have more space for non-state players. There are many reasons why a proposal for a more formal international Internet policy making process (naming it a framework convention process doesn't exclude our insistence on the needed political innovations in this process) should come from the civil society or IGC. One, that governments tend mostly to operate on a fire-fighting mode, and are not likely to easily sit down to develop forward looking ideas and proposal. Two, global civil society (which is much more developed today than a global political system) has the mandate to develop progressive global political principles, and seek their implementation. Again nation states are too narrowly constructed to do this task on their own. And three, taking up the early advocacy, and contributing expertise for substantive proposal formulation, gives the CS a better chance of being represented in the various processes, and outcomes. Between how strongly we advocate the incremental change activity and structural change activity, and what political mandate we come up with for the Internet, lies the issue of inclusiveness of those who are excluded today from the dominant paradigm of Internet and information society. Speaking only about incremental changes and ignoring structural change issues completely, (if I be allowed to state my political opinion without meaning anything personal to anyone) is a political stance. And we as IGC need to do that political stance fine-tuning. > So maybe we better get our own caucus charter adopted before we propose > a 'charter' for the world.... Yes, I agree, we can do our charter first, and later, as suggested by Bill and others, work on more substantive principles that can guide our activities. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee McKnight [mailto:LMcKnigh at syr.edu] > Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 3:46 AM > To: apeake at gmail.com; parminder at itforchange.net; > governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton Mueller > Subject: RE: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposalforintroducingmulti-lateral > oversight of the root > > Hi Parminder, > > Jumping into pick up on your framework convention points, yes indeed > several of us in IGP pushed hard on it for a while, didin;t get the > traction we hoped for, and have since channged tactics but not taken > back anything we said before. > > Speaking for myself, I still see something like that as necessary, but > in policy agenda-setting as you know timing matters. A lot. > > So we helped spread the notion, got push back from usual suspect > sources, and lately have been waiting for the dust to settle from some > intermediary policy steps and process developments. > > Specifically, until it became clear(er) what the IGF can and cannot do, > was hard to get people to focus beyond IGF which after all is critically > important that its early establishment does not go for naught. > > Now, while we can now more clearly see what IGF cannot do, we (and > everyone else so minded) can push the call for a next step, ie the > framework convention. > > So maybe we better get our own caucus charter adopted before we propose > a 'charter' for the world....at least that is my excuse! ; ) > > Lee > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > > >>> parminder at itforchange.net 7/28/2006 9:56 AM >>> > Milton > > Personal things first. > > > Unless you support the exercise of > > political authority for its own sake (which I sometimes think you > do) > > Well, I have some things to say about what I think you do, but lets > agree to > spare this space from such an exchange. > > Now to the issue: > > > A humane and just global policy toward name and number resources > will > > not come about by one -- or 180 -- government(s) grabbing onto to a > > centralized chokepoint and fighting over how to exploit its > leverage. > > You have been a great campaigner against rhetoric on this list, so why > use > it yourself when this is just not the issue being discussed. > > I did not say how the policy will come, I said all political authority > - > legitimate or not - needs some strong levers of power, even if as a > reserve > power of last resort, to be meaningful. This is a simple statement of > fact. > Do you, with your knowledge of public affairs, think this is untrue? > > US knows quite well how to assert its political interests, and it > thinks RTZ > control is one key. And any other political authority (hopefully more > legitimate) will seek its levers of assertion. > > And I also said in my email that I do not insist that this control is > the > only way to exercise political oversight. And that RTZ control is one > of > many ways by which authority has been exercised over ICANN. > > > OTOH, if govts cant agree on global policies, let them get the hell > out > > of the process. IGP was for a long time advocating a framework > > convention as a starting point precisely for this reason. > > Yes, herein lies the main issue. I have been supporting IGP's effort > till > you were advocating a framework convention (In fact my organization > prepared > a submission for gender caucus on basis of IGP's framework convention > proposal). But why are you NOT advocating it now? What changed > meanwhile? > I'd be very interested to know. > > From a very political stance on IG, why has IGP's stance gone > apolitical. > ICANN should be rid from US control, and then it shd hang in the air?? > Doing > some kind of self political control.... > > Political power is always being exercised whether we formalize it or > not. > And you are an academician and you know it well. If US control goes > away, > whatever it means, does political power in internet governance > disappears. > It still resides with powerful dominant interests. > > If you have given up advocacy for a framework convention or some other > significant political innovation beyond the present structures then you > may > be fine with the present political controls. I am very much not so.... > > That is the difference between your politics and mine, you may think > Internet is fine in hands of its present political masters (minus the > more > visible controls by the US gov), I think Internet needs a very > different > political mandate and thereby a different political oversight/control. > > > The 'politics of the apolitical' is an interesting issue. In India the > middle classes have a great aversion to politics. They think it is the > root > of all evil in India. And they never cease attempts to disguise > political > issues as apolitical. The basic issue is simple, existing structures > work > for them, and those who are excluded press for greater structural > changes, > and this is dangerous to their entrenched positions. > > >Whose political authority? This is the other huge gap in your > thinking. > > US gov and some private interests at present, and whoever is able to > get it > or a part of it, later on. About gaps in thinking, please refer to > para 1 > above. > > > Who has legitimate political power over public policy issues related > to > > the Internet? > > A difficult question, but it is there and cant be brushed aside. > Because > someone is meanwhile exercising illegitimate power. And the status quo > is > more problematic to some than to others. > > > Parminder > > _______________________________________________ > Parminder Jeet Singh > IT for Change, Bangalore > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > 91-80-26654134 > www.ITforChange.net > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller at syr.edu] > > Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 3:46 AM > > To: apeake at gmail.com; Parminder; governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: RE: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal forintroducingmulti- > > lateral oversight of the root > > > > > > >>> "Parminder" 7/26/2006 6:01 AM >>> > > >> Let's create a sharp distinction between the two. > > > > >On the contrary, my opinion is that the sharp connection > > >between the two is obvious. > > >For example, is it at all difficult to see why US refuses to > > relinquish > > >control over RZF? > > > > A humane and just global policy toward name and number resources > will > > not come about by one -- or 180 -- government(s) grabbing onto to a > > centralized chokepoint and fighting over how to exploit its > leverage. > > It will come when those govts -- and the public -- agree on what the > > proper global policies are. Giving govts the power to mess with a > > technical function like the RZF without _first_ coming to an > agreement > > on what policies will be applied to the Internet is dangerous and > wrong. > > > > > > >It is so obvious that if the issue was only technical it wont be > > >difficult to reach an arrangement for supervisor of RTZ under a > team > > of > > >international experts or some other expertise based arrangement. > > Everyone > > >knows that behind the control of RTZ is hidden the issue of wider > > political > > >control over the Internet. And RTZ control is one way to exercise > > such > > >political control over Internet. US government has other controls > as > > well > > >through its legal relationship with some IG related bodies. > > > > Thanks for repeating to me things I've been writing for 5 years. > > > > My objections to internationalizing the US's arbitrary power over > RZF > > modifications comes to this: Attempting to set policy by hanging on > to > > the ability to manipulate a file that ensures global interoperability > is > > not a good thiing. It is a dysfunctional, unhealthy and > unconstructive > > way to insert legitimate political interests into the process. > > > > Why should governments hide and distort their political objectives > > under the cover of technically managing the RZF? How can they be > given > > power over such a critical resource when they have no idea what they > > want to use it for? If governments can agree on globally applicable > > public policies, let them do so. And let them enforce those public > > policies on ICANN through more direct and legitimate means, such as > > fines for misconduct, taking away the contract, or stronger > penalties > > for criminal breaches. Leave modification of the RZF to IANA. > > > > OTOH, if govts cant agree on global policies, let them get the hell > out > > of the process. IGP was for a long time advocating a framework > > convention as a starting point precsiely for this reason. > > > > >I have heard a lot about how ICANN should be obligated to observe > > >international law, should stick to all new and old international > > treaties > > >etc, but not much on how this can be ensured. Shall it be left to > > ICANN's > > >interpretation and its goodwill? > > > > No, of course not. But does controlling the RZF prevent ICANN from > > violating human rights, stealing, violating its own processes, > > corruption, etc.? Please explain how. > > > > >Every higher political power exercises its political > > >authority through reserving some powers of last resort. [snip] > > > > But the RZF is the wrong target. Unless you support the exercise of > > political authority for its own sake (which I sometimes think you do) > I > > don't see the point. It seems to me that what you really want is the > > ability to take the IANA contract away from ICANN and give it to > someone > > else -- not the ability to review and approve technical modifications > of > > the RZF. Letting other govts share in the arbitrary, imperious US > > oversight actually distacts attention from the real issues. > > > > >It is more important to have > > >these powers in reserve, than use them often. Control over RTZ is > seen > > as > > >one of such powers that enable exercise of political authority. > > > > Whose political authority? This is the other huge gap in your > thinking. > > > > > > >Whoever has legitimate political power over public policy issues > > related to Internet > > >can only enforce it by having some powers of last resort over the > > actual running > > >of the infrastructure. > > > > Who has legitimate political power over public policy issues related > to > > the Internet? > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ki_chango at yahoo.com Sat Jul 29 15:48:58 2006 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 12:48:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IDRC (was Intergovernmental-/NG-Os & Siege agreement) In-Reply-To: <9A10C72C-AD75-40E8-BDAC-90E0123E631C@telus.net> Message-ID: <20060729194858.31192.qmail@web54710.mail.yahoo.com> Hi, --- Garth Graham wrote: > IDRC is rare, but not unusual, in being a creature of the Act of > Parliament that established it. It is defined in law as working at > arms-length to the Government of Canada. > Section 18. (1) of the IDRC Act says: "The Centre is not an agent > of Her Majesty, and, except as provided in subsection (2), the > governors and the officers, agents and employees of the Centre are > not part of the public service." > IDRC is fully capable of receiving funds from anywhere. As per > Sections 20. (1) and (2) of the Act: > I think IDRC provides a model worthy of study as to how a single > government can establish, and effectively support without undue > interference, an arms-length agency with a global mandate and > reach. On that account, I wonder how rare the IDRC case is, though I'm suspecting the answer may lie in its exact difference with CIDA. However, as far as being established by a single government and having a "global mandate and reach" are concerned, my impression is there are many other cases from developed countries: the AFD (l'Agence Française de Développement) has "diplomatic" representation in many countries in Africa; I'm not sure whether the British Institute does not act often as the DFID representation in foreign countries; what about USAID? GTZ? ; and for the more discrete (e.g., NORAD for Norway, SIDA for Sweden, etc.), their representations are often parts of their country diplomatic services (Consulate, High Commission, Embassy, etc.) So yes, the field abounds in all kinds of species and... rules that would be interesting to explore. Anyway, the fact is many national organizations (not exactly chancellery related in nature, not intergovernmental, not international NGOs) do enjoy "diplomatic" prerogatives internationally. Mawaki ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ki_chango at yahoo.com Sat Jul 29 16:15:00 2006 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 13:15:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Update on charter voting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060729201500.6903.qmail@web54709.mail.yahoo.com> --- Avri Doria wrote: anyone who is concerned about > > whether they are on the list, should let me know (send me the email > > instead of the list) and i will confirm. What about having a link on the IGC webpage (or wherever) so that people can double check themselves whether they are, or not, registered as voters, according to their will - and, possibily, action? Mawaki ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at acm.org Sat Jul 29 16:55:54 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 16:55:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] Update on charter voting In-Reply-To: <20060729201500.6903.qmail@web54709.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060729201500.6903.qmail@web54709.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3FE07FF7-7F6E-42F1-8F5A-92DD69EE6170@acm.org> Hi, On 29 jul 2006, at 16.15, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > > --- Avri Doria wrote: > > anyone who is concerned about >> >> whether they are on the list, should let me know (send me the email >> >> instead of the list) and i will confirm. > > > What about having a link on the IGC webpage (or wherever) so that > people can double check themselves whether they are, or not, > registered as voters, according to their will - and, possibily, > action? That would mean making the list of names open to the world, and I don't feel I have permission to do that. i tried to get the list to show the names to all subscribers willing to have their names show, but unfortunately that feature doesn't seem to work. Of course people can still check their subscriptions to see if there is a name there. My offer to confirm was just made for those who really wanted to double check. And If i get the voting SW working (i have a faint bit of hope today) then all of those who are registered will get an email saying they are registered. And since I will announce that those emails went out, all those who don't receive one will know something is wrong, and if they caare will have time to do something about it. According to the draft charter once people vote and declare themselves members (assuming enough bother to vote), those names will be made public, but as of the moment, i believe i have no authority for making the names of the people on the list open to the world. a. ps. your name is on the list. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sun Jul 30 12:16:16 2006 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 12:16:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposalforintroducingmulti-lateral oversight of the root Message-ID: Parminder: I am pleasantly surprised by the congruence in our strategic outlooks: your understanding of the relationship between incremental and "structural" change, the critique of nation-states and the need for CS to take a leading role, and the willingness to embrace institutional innovations along the way. So you should be able to easily understand why we were forced to set aside the FC concept. First, meaningful change was avoided via the creation of the Forum. Second, there was no support for the FC, and some opposition, from within civil society prior to the Tunis Summit. The WGIG report didn't even mention the idea. Indeed, civil society, bedazzled by the WGIG, embraced this act of substituting MS Forum for MS Reform. Your support for FC was news to me. Third, states didn't support it either: Brazil did endorse the idea very late in the game, and the EU seemed to tinker with it in its own distinctively muddled way, but no one piicked it up and ran with it. Now if the only outcome of WSIS is 1) a nonbinding discussion Forum and 2) "enhanced cooperation," and the first avoids controversial issues and does not even make recommendations, and the latter is defined as invisible by the US and as states-only by the EU, it's clear that there is not the needed political support for FC negotiations from either the private sector or govts. So we turned our attention elsewhere. Right now the key "structural" issue is the de-nationalization of the RZF. Which we have aggressively taken up. So we were again somewhat surprised by the inability of this caucus to take any action during the NTIA proceeding. Participation and comment was made easy by our campaign, and many individuals -- including you -- did avail themselves of that opportunity (thanks!), but so much more could have been done had people invested the kind of energy they invested in, say, statements for a WSIS PrepCom or the Forum agenda. In general, then I don't quite agree with you that >global civil society...is much more developed today than a global >political system) I wish. Still, the effects of our modest campaign were quite profound, generating imitative language in many comments and provoking political entrepreneurs to float a status-quo-preserving proposal that attempts to resolve the contradiction within the current system. The isolation of the Bush admin. position is truly exposed. Amazing what can happen when you shoot at the right target. >>> parminder at itforchange.net 7/29/2006 5:50:49 AM >>> It will be good to hear the group's view on this. It is my opinion that IGC should take a two-track approach to IG. One inside-out and, the other outside-in. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance