From michael_leibrandt at web.de Thu Feb 1 03:35:18 2007 From: michael_leibrandt at web.de (michael_leibrandt at web.de) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 00:35:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Caucus at IGF? In-Reply-To: C1E52F7F.8DF5%drake@hei.unige.ch Message-ID: hi Bill and others, recalling the role civil society played in the wsis process and especially with regard to the creation og the igf, i'm somewhat surprised about the relative silence on this matter at least on this list (haven't discovered the virtual grey corridors yet ;-). the meeting in geneva is about stocktaking and the way forward, and the latter is what matters most. should the igf-ag continue its work in the present format? how about a rotation scheme regarding civil society representation? do we want to see the same variety of issue in Rio as we saw in Athens? do we have some ideas who could follow Nitin if he doesn't continue as the chair? do we have some burning desires regarding issues we want to see discussed at the second igf? how could interaction with other stakeholders during the meeting could be further improved? many people invest time and money while attending the geneva meeting, so i hope i'm not the only one who feels that there is a need for some sort of preparation. michael ____________________________________________________________ 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 Feb 1 07:10:22 2007 From: Parminder at ITforChange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 17:40:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting In-Reply-To: <8cbfe7410701310938r4ac431dfq303e30db05cf0e46@mail.gmail.com> References: <8cbfe7410701310938r4ac431dfq303e30db05cf0e46@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1170331822.45c1d8ae57524@secure.symonds.net> Hi All, Requesting once again for points that need to be take up at the stock taking meeting, which paticipants from the IGC may be able to raise at the meeitng. Meanwhile, I am forwarding a document which we will submit tomorrow to the IGF to meet its deadline of the 2nd for making it to the synthesis paper. Elements from this documents may also be considered, if found useful, by Vittorio to seek a consensus document for the meeting. Parminder Taking stock and the way forward (contribution by IT for Change, in response to the IGF questionnaire for the stock taking meeting in Geneva) What worked well? The open format without a heavy governmental feel, but with a strong participation of governments nonetheless, worked well. The distributed workshop sessions that were organized by different stakeholders, with all requests for workshops being allowed, gave a sense of ownership to all stakeholders, especially those from civil society who tend to be left out from agenda setting positions in global policy forums. The innovation of setting up ‘dynamic coalitions’ appears to hold promise to develop constituencies and consensus on certain IG related issues, and to possibly trigger specific activities on these issues. What worked less well? The plenary sessions held in a journalistic mode were perhaps (only perhaps) fine for an opening IGF meeting but this format needs to be revised in subsequent meetings. We need more focused sessions conducted by subject experts, and the panels need to be smaller. They should be able to conduct an informed discussion/ presentation, which no doubt is always a difficult task in huge conference situations like at the IGF. But taking relatively focused subject areas will help greatly. This will increase the topic selection responsibility of the IGF MAG, but with more lead time available for the Rio meeting this can be attempted to be done through a participatory process. However, some crucial decisions may still have to be taken by the MAG. Although the overall thematic focus of the Athens meet was on development, most workshops did not address this issue. This shows the limitations of just opening up a ‘facilitative’ forum without direct support and action to highlight and discuss such priority issues, when the interested stakeholders may be disadvantaged in capacity on many fronts. This also makes the case for the IGF to evolve into a more proactive organization, apart from such evolution being required by the IGF’s mandate listed below. Suggestions for improvement in view of the second IGF meeting? Our concern remains that the IGF in its present shape, as was evident at the Athens meeting, is able to fulfill just a narrow part of its mandate given by the Tunis Agenda (TA). And we see no signs of what is meant to be done regarding the larger part of the mandate which goes beyond IGF’s role as a facilitative forum for open discussion, to issues like interacting with different IG related organizations (TA 72 c), facilitating discourse between them (72 b), facilitate the exchange of information and best practices (d), do capacity building (h), promote and assess the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes (i), advice stakeholders (e), identify emerging issues and make recommendations(g) and help find solutions (k). The stock taking meeting should do a serious exercise to develop processes and structures in the IGF that can enable it to meet these parts of its mandate. A couple of suggestions in this regard are listed below: 1. All major IG related organizations, like the ICANN, US government, ITU, WIPO/WTO etc, should be invited to hold open forums at the annual IGF meeting to enable a stakeholder dialogue, as also ‘facilitating discourse between them’. 2. The IGF must be able to develop elaborate papers and reports on various important themes of IG, employing experts, especially in under-researched areas like developmental aspects of IG. This must be an ongoing exercise. (To cite an example, similar work was done by the UN ICT Task Force.) This will enable the IGF to fulfill its mandate in respect of many of the above listed areas. 3. At its annual meeting, and in the in-between periods, IGF should be able to hold workshops of its own (other than those held by various stakeholders) on key themes – for example, on the issue of promoting and assessing ‘’the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes’ and on development issues in IG. These workshops should also be held in the regional and national contexts. 4. To be able to undertake the above activities, and to fulfill other required responsibilities, IGF must seek to establish some kind of a permanent structure. This requires adequate funding for which a case should be made at this stock taking meeting and the issue taken up with various possible sources of funds. Any other comments or suggestions? Included in above. Did the synthesis paper, which gave an overview of all contributions received and which was translated in all UN languages, meet a real need? Should a similar paper be prepared prior to the next meeting? Yes, it meets a real need, and such papers should continue to be produced. Quoting "l.d.misek-falkoff" : > Dear Parminder, Vittorio, and All: > > Thank you for the opportunity to input to these important discussions. > > In terms of present scheduling, I submit here the following, with > appreciation for the openness in regard to all governance matters: > > From the perspectives of *Respectful Interfaces* (Coda: 'Achieving *Dialogue > * While Cherishing *Diversity' ) - *and integrating project and enterprise > models of many sorts - sustaining the values of *inclusion* across the > board is very important. > > The Civil Society Voice along with other constituencies should and shall > with the good efforts of those here be part of all phases and aspects of > Internet and general ICT capacity enlarging: > ** R*equirements, *E*quipping, *S*pecifications, *P*lanning, *C*hecking, and > *T*ransfer. * > > These Policy-To-Action phases are of course iterative and flexible, to guard > against potential narrowness of unilaterally imposed "finished" end-products > and services based only on rigid or externally conceived "target > audience" marketing strategies. > > And thank you again as Representatives and individuals, for the * > inclusiveness* present here. > > P.S. As for inclusion in Rio, it is suggested in good cheer that more events > will be open to more people if elevators are not blocked and especially > where there are stairs without rails (though I appreciated that in Athens > the Hotel Staff took some of us with disabilities downstairs through > inner-wall (seeming) routes - 'not uninteresting' side trips in themselves ! > ). > > Best wishes and warm regards, Linda. > Dr. L. D. Misek-Falkoff > *Respectful Interfaces Programme*, Communications Coordination Committee For > the U.N. (NGO). > > > On 1/30/07, Parminder wrote: > > > > > > > > I understand that Vittorio is trying to put together some views expressed > > on > > this list for inputting into the stock taking meeting. while we cant make > > it to > > the deadline of the 2nd to submit a formal input document, if we are able > > to > > agree on a few common points, these can be taken up on the behalf of IGC > > by IGC > > members participating in the meeting... > > > > so please contribute your views on the matter - specifically, what points > > will > > you like to be raised in the stock taking meeting regarding the conduct of > > IGF > > meeting in Athens and looking forward to the meeting in Rio. the format > > given at > > http://info.intgovforum.org/Q2006v2.php may be a useful indicator of what > > is > > being sought for the meeting... However, views can also be contributed in > > a more > > open ended manner, which Vittorio and I can try to integrate into a > > possible > > consensus document. > > > > Parminder > > > > www.ITforChange.net > > IT for Change > > Bridging Developmental Realities and Technological Possibilities > > > > > > Quoting Avri Doria : > > > > > > > > On 31 jan 2007, at 03.29, Ralf Bendrath wrote: > > > > > > > The privacy coalition is meeting Sun afternoon. > > > > > > can you send the details on where/when this will be held? > > > > > > in fact, it might be good if those who are in the know about the when/ > > > where of other DC meetings would publish the details somewhere. i am > > > willing to add them to the igcaucus list, but maybe the igf community > > > wiki is the better option. > > > > > > i am assuming that these meetings are open to anyone who happens to > > > be in Geneva at the time. > > > > > > 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 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Taking stock and the way forward.rtf Type: application/msword Size: 16212 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Thu Feb 1 07:32:40 2007 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 13:32:40 +0100 Subject: [governance] Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting In-Reply-To: <1170331822.45c1d8ae57524@secure.symonds.net> References: <8cbfe7410701310938r4ac431dfq303e30db05cf0e46@mail.gmail.com> <1170331822.45c1d8ae57524@secure.symonds.net> Message-ID: <45C1DDE8.9060608@wz-berlin.de> Hi Parminder, I agree with most of your points and suggestions made in the contribution posted below. I would recommend that you take into account the temporary mandate of the IGF. Some of your suggestions such as a more permanent structure can probably only be considered towards the end of the mandate when the future of the IGF will be discussed. A more ambitious interpretation of the IGF's mandate would require funding. Do we have any suggestions regarding a funding of the IGF? What about all the money being made from domain names. Right now most of it goes to ICANN, ISOC, IETF, etc. Would it be conceivable that the IGF gets also a share? jeanette Parminder wrote: > > Hi All, > > Requesting once again for points that need to be take up at the stock taking > meeting, which paticipants from the IGC may be able to raise at the meeitng. > > Meanwhile, I am forwarding a document which we will submit tomorrow to the IGF > to meet its deadline of the 2nd for making it to the synthesis paper. Elements > from this documents may also be considered, if found useful, by Vittorio to seek > a consensus document for the meeting. > > Parminder > > Taking stock and the way forward > (contribution by IT for Change, in response to the IGF questionnaire for the > stock taking meeting in Geneva) > > > What worked well? > > The open format without a heavy governmental feel, but with a strong > participation of governments nonetheless, worked well. The distributed workshop > sessions that were organized by different stakeholders, with all requests for > workshops being allowed, gave a sense of ownership to all stakeholders, > especially those from civil society who tend to be left out from agenda setting > positions in global policy forums. > > The innovation of setting up ‘dynamic coalitions’ appears to hold promise to > develop constituencies and consensus on certain IG related issues, and to > possibly trigger specific activities on these issues. > > What worked less well? > > The plenary sessions held in a journalistic mode were perhaps (only perhaps) > fine for an opening IGF meeting but this format needs to be revised in > subsequent meetings. We need more focused sessions conducted by subject experts, > and the panels need to be smaller. They should be able to conduct an informed > discussion/ presentation, which no doubt is always a difficult task in huge > conference situations like at the IGF. But taking relatively focused subject > areas will help greatly. This will increase the topic selection responsibility > of the IGF MAG, but with more lead time available for the Rio meeting this can > be attempted to be done through a participatory process. However, some crucial > decisions may still have to be taken by the MAG. > > Although the overall thematic focus of the Athens meet was on development, most > workshops did not address this issue. This shows the limitations of just opening > up a ‘facilitative’ forum without direct support and action to highlight and > discuss such priority issues, when the interested stakeholders may be > disadvantaged in capacity on many fronts. This also makes the case for the IGF > to evolve into a more proactive organization, apart from such evolution being > required by the IGF’s mandate listed below. > > Suggestions for improvement in view of the second IGF meeting? > > Our concern remains that the IGF in its present shape, as was evident at the > Athens meeting, is able to fulfill just a narrow part of its mandate given by > the Tunis Agenda (TA). And we see no signs of what is meant to be done regarding > the larger part of the mandate which goes beyond IGF’s role as a facilitative > forum for open discussion, to issues like interacting with different IG related > organizations (TA 72 c), facilitating discourse between them (72 b), facilitate > the exchange of information and best practices (d), do capacity building (h), > promote and assess the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance > processes (i), advice stakeholders (e), identify emerging issues and make > recommendations(g) and help find solutions (k). > > The stock taking meeting should do a serious exercise to develop processes and > structures in the IGF that can enable it to meet these parts of its mandate. A > couple of suggestions in this regard are listed below: > > 1. All major IG related organizations, like the ICANN, US government, ITU, > WIPO/WTO etc, should be invited to hold open forums at the annual IGF meeting to > enable a stakeholder dialogue, as also ‘facilitating discourse between them’. > > 2. The IGF must be able to develop elaborate papers and reports on various > important themes of IG, employing experts, especially in under-researched areas > like developmental aspects of IG. This must be an ongoing exercise. (To cite an > example, similar work was done by the UN ICT Task Force.) This will enable the > IGF to fulfill its mandate in respect of many of the above listed areas. > > 3. At its annual meeting, and in the in-between periods, IGF should be able to > hold workshops of its own (other than those held by various stakeholders) on key > themes – for example, on the issue of promoting and assessing ‘’the embodiment > of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes’ and on development issues > in IG. These workshops should also be held in the regional and national contexts. > > 4. To be able to undertake the above activities, and to fulfill other required > responsibilities, IGF must seek to establish some kind of a permanent structure. > This requires adequate funding for which a case should be made at this stock > taking meeting and the issue taken up with various possible sources of funds. > > > Any other comments or suggestions? > > Included in above. > > Did the synthesis paper, which gave an overview of all contributions received > and which was translated in all UN languages, meet a real need? Should a similar > paper be prepared prior to the next meeting? > > Yes, it meets a real need, and such papers should continue to be produced. > > > > Quoting "l.d.misek-falkoff" : > >> Dear Parminder, Vittorio, and All: >> >> Thank you for the opportunity to input to these important discussions. >> >> In terms of present scheduling, I submit here the following, with >> appreciation for the openness in regard to all governance matters: >> >> From the perspectives of *Respectful Interfaces* (Coda: 'Achieving *Dialogue >> * While Cherishing *Diversity' ) - *and integrating project and enterprise >> models of many sorts - sustaining the values of *inclusion* across the >> board is very important. >> >> The Civil Society Voice along with other constituencies should and shall >> with the good efforts of those here be part of all phases and aspects of >> Internet and general ICT capacity enlarging: >> ** R*equirements, *E*quipping, *S*pecifications, *P*lanning, *C*hecking, and >> *T*ransfer. * >> >> These Policy-To-Action phases are of course iterative and flexible, to guard >> against potential narrowness of unilaterally imposed "finished" end-products >> and services based only on rigid or externally conceived "target >> audience" marketing strategies. >> >> And thank you again as Representatives and individuals, for the * >> inclusiveness* present here. >> >> P.S. As for inclusion in Rio, it is suggested in good cheer that more events >> will be open to more people if elevators are not blocked and especially >> where there are stairs without rails (though I appreciated that in Athens >> the Hotel Staff took some of us with disabilities downstairs through >> inner-wall (seeming) routes - 'not uninteresting' side trips in themselves ! >> ). >> >> Best wishes and warm regards, Linda. >> Dr. L. D. Misek-Falkoff >> *Respectful Interfaces Programme*, Communications Coordination Committee For >> the U.N. (NGO). >> >> >> On 1/30/07, Parminder wrote: >>> >>> >>> I understand that Vittorio is trying to put together some views expressed >>> on >>> this list for inputting into the stock taking meeting. while we cant make >>> it to >>> the deadline of the 2nd to submit a formal input document, if we are able >>> to >>> agree on a few common points, these can be taken up on the behalf of IGC >>> by IGC >>> members participating in the meeting... >>> >>> so please contribute your views on the matter - specifically, what points >>> will >>> you like to be raised in the stock taking meeting regarding the conduct of >>> IGF >>> meeting in Athens and looking forward to the meeting in Rio. the format >>> given at >>> http://info.intgovforum.org/Q2006v2.php may be a useful indicator of what >>> is >>> being sought for the meeting... However, views can also be contributed in >>> a more >>> open ended manner, which Vittorio and I can try to integrate into a >>> possible >>> consensus document. >>> >>> Parminder >>> >>> www.ITforChange.net >>> IT for Change >>> Bridging Developmental Realities and Technological Possibilities >>> >>> >>> Quoting Avri Doria : >>> >>>> On 31 jan 2007, at 03.29, Ralf Bendrath wrote: >>>> >>>>> The privacy coalition is meeting Sun afternoon. >>>> can you send the details on where/when this will be held? >>>> >>>> in fact, it might be good if those who are in the know about the when/ >>>> where of other DC meetings would publish the details somewhere. i am >>>> willing to add them to the igcaucus list, but maybe the igf community >>>> wiki is the better option. >>>> >>>> i am assuming that these meetings are open to anyone who happens to >>>> be in Geneva at the time. >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 Parminder at ITforChange.net Thu Feb 1 08:06:12 2007 From: Parminder at ITforChange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 18:36:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting In-Reply-To: <45C1DDE8.9060608@wz-berlin.de> References: <8cbfe7410701310938r4ac431dfq303e30db05cf0e46@mail.gmail.com> <1170331822.45c1d8ae57524@secure.symonds.net> <45C1DDE8.9060608@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <1170335172.45c1e5c443d8b@secure.symonds.net> Jeanette > I would recommend that you take into account the temporary mandate of > the IGF. Some of your suggestions such as a more permanent structure can > probably only be considered towards the end of the mandate when the > future of the IGF will be discussed. This to push them toward greater 'structurality' required for greater activity in order to fulfil IGF's mandate... But I agree, I can change the term 'permanent structure' to ' a more substantial structure' in view of the fact taht TA does require a review after 5 years. > A more ambitious interpretation of the IGF's mandate would require > funding. Do we have any suggestions regarding a funding of the IGF? What > about all the money being made from domain names. Right now most of it > goes to ICANN, ISOC, IETF, etc. Would it be conceivable that the IGF > gets also a share? Your suggestions for raising funds are very interesting. A 'tax' on domain names is a good idea, since the money is to be used for IG related public policy activity. In any case, with the new proposal regarding the .xxx domain such an idea of a tax kind of thing for a public policy purpose is already being mooted (as a contribution to child safety organizations, and development of user end content control technologies). With your permission can I include the above suggestion in the submission to the IGF, unless you are also submitting this proposal in response to their questionaire. Parminder Parminder www.ITforChange.net IT for Change Bridging Developmental Realities and Technological Possibilities Quoting Jeanette Hofmann : > Hi Parminder, I agree with most of your points and suggestions made in > the contribution posted below. > I would recommend that you take into account the temporary mandate of > the IGF. Some of your suggestions such as a more permanent structure can > probably only be considered towards the end of the mandate when the > future of the IGF will be discussed. > > A more ambitious interpretation of the IGF's mandate would require > funding. Do we have any suggestions regarding a funding of the IGF? What > about all the money being made from domain names. Right now most of it > goes to ICANN, ISOC, IETF, etc. Would it be conceivable that the IGF > gets also a share? > > jeanette > > Parminder wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > Requesting once again for points that need to be take up at the stock > taking > > meeting, which paticipants from the IGC may be able to raise at the > meeitng. > > > > Meanwhile, I am forwarding a document which we will submit tomorrow to the > IGF > > to meet its deadline of the 2nd for making it to the synthesis paper. > Elements > > from this documents may also be considered, if found useful, by Vittorio to > seek > > a consensus document for the meeting. > > > > Parminder > > > > Taking stock and the way forward > > (contribution by IT for Change, in response to the IGF questionnaire for > the > > stock taking meeting in Geneva) > > > > > > What worked well? > > > > The open format without a heavy governmental feel, but with a strong > > participation of governments nonetheless, worked well. The distributed > workshop > > sessions that were organized by different stakeholders, with all requests > for > > workshops being allowed, gave a sense of ownership to all stakeholders, > > especially those from civil society who tend to be left out from agenda > setting > > positions in global policy forums. > > > > The innovation of setting up ‘dynamic coalitions’ appears to hold promise > to > > develop constituencies and consensus on certain IG related issues, and to > > possibly trigger specific activities on these issues. > > > > What worked less well? > > > > The plenary sessions held in a journalistic mode were perhaps (only > perhaps) > > fine for an opening IGF meeting but this format needs to be revised in > > subsequent meetings. We need more focused sessions conducted by subject > experts, > > and the panels need to be smaller. They should be able to conduct an > informed > > discussion/ presentation, which no doubt is always a difficult task in > huge > > conference situations like at the IGF. But taking relatively focused > subject > > areas will help greatly. This will increase the topic selection > responsibility > > of the IGF MAG, but with more lead time available for the Rio meeting this > can > > be attempted to be done through a participatory process. However, some > crucial > > decisions may still have to be taken by the MAG. > > > > Although the overall thematic focus of the Athens meet was on development, > most > > workshops did not address this issue. This shows the limitations of just > opening > > up a ‘facilitative’ forum without direct support and action to highlight > and > > discuss such priority issues, when the interested stakeholders may be > > disadvantaged in capacity on many fronts. This also makes the case for the > IGF > > to evolve into a more proactive organization, apart from such evolution > being > > required by the IGF’s mandate listed below. > > > > Suggestions for improvement in view of the second IGF meeting? > > > > Our concern remains that the IGF in its present shape, as was evident at > the > > Athens meeting, is able to fulfill just a narrow part of its mandate given > by > > the Tunis Agenda (TA). And we see no signs of what is meant to be done > regarding > > the larger part of the mandate which goes beyond IGF’s role as a > facilitative > > forum for open discussion, to issues like interacting with different IG > related > > organizations (TA 72 c), facilitating discourse between them (72 b), > facilitate > > the exchange of information and best practices (d), do capacity building > (h), > > promote and assess the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet > governance > > processes (i), advice stakeholders (e), identify emerging issues and make > > recommendations(g) and help find solutions (k). > > > > The stock taking meeting should do a serious exercise to develop processes > and > > structures in the IGF that can enable it to meet these parts of its > mandate. A > > couple of suggestions in this regard are listed below: > > > > 1. All major IG related organizations, like the ICANN, US government, ITU, > > WIPO/WTO etc, should be invited to hold open forums at the annual IGF > meeting to > > enable a stakeholder dialogue, as also ‘facilitating discourse between > them’. > > > > 2. The IGF must be able to develop elaborate papers and reports on various > > important themes of IG, employing experts, especially in under-researched > areas > > like developmental aspects of IG. This must be an ongoing exercise. (To > cite an > > example, similar work was done by the UN ICT Task Force.) This will enable > the > > IGF to fulfill its mandate in respect of many of the above listed areas. > > > > 3. At its annual meeting, and in the in-between periods, IGF should be able > to > > hold workshops of its own (other than those held by various stakeholders) > on key > > themes – for example, on the issue of promoting and assessing ‘’the > embodiment > > of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes’ and on development > issues > > in IG. These workshops should also be held in the regional and national > contexts. > > > > 4. To be able to undertake the above activities, and to fulfill other > required > > responsibilities, IGF must seek to establish some kind of a permanent > structure. > > This requires adequate funding for which a case should be made at this > stock > > taking meeting and the issue taken up with various possible sources of > funds. > > > > > > Any other comments or suggestions? > > > > Included in above. > > > > Did the synthesis paper, which gave an overview of all contributions > received > > and which was translated in all UN languages, meet a real need? Should a > similar > > paper be prepared prior to the next meeting? > > > > Yes, it meets a real need, and such papers should continue to be produced. > > > > > > > > > Quoting "l.d.misek-falkoff" : > > > >> Dear Parminder, Vittorio, and All: > >> > >> Thank you for the opportunity to input to these important discussions. > >> > >> In terms of present scheduling, I submit here the following, with > >> appreciation for the openness in regard to all governance matters: > >> > >> From the perspectives of *Respectful Interfaces* (Coda: 'Achieving > *Dialogue > >> * While Cherishing *Diversity' ) - *and integrating project and > enterprise > >> models of many sorts - sustaining the values of *inclusion* across the > >> board is very important. > >> > >> The Civil Society Voice along with other constituencies should and shall > >> with the good efforts of those here be part of all phases and aspects of > >> Internet and general ICT capacity enlarging: > >> ** R*equirements, *E*quipping, *S*pecifications, *P*lanning, *C*hecking, > and > >> *T*ransfer. * > >> > >> These Policy-To-Action phases are of course iterative and flexible, to > guard > >> against potential narrowness of unilaterally imposed "finished" > end-products > >> and services based only on rigid or externally conceived "target > >> audience" marketing strategies. > >> > >> And thank you again as Representatives and individuals, for the * > >> inclusiveness* present here. > >> > >> P.S. As for inclusion in Rio, it is suggested in good cheer that more > events > >> will be open to more people if elevators are not blocked and especially > >> where there are stairs without rails (though I appreciated that in Athens > >> the Hotel Staff took some of us with disabilities downstairs through > >> inner-wall (seeming) routes - 'not uninteresting' side trips in themselves > ! > >> ). > >> > >> Best wishes and warm regards, Linda. > >> Dr. L. D. Misek-Falkoff > >> *Respectful Interfaces Programme*, Communications Coordination Committee > For > >> the U.N. (NGO). > >> > >> > >> On 1/30/07, Parminder wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> I understand that Vittorio is trying to put together some views > expressed > >>> on > >>> this list for inputting into the stock taking meeting. while we cant > make > >>> it to > >>> the deadline of the 2nd to submit a formal input document, if we are > able > >>> to > >>> agree on a few common points, these can be taken up on the behalf of IGC > >>> by IGC > >>> members participating in the meeting... > >>> > >>> so please contribute your views on the matter - specifically, what > points > >>> will > >>> you like to be raised in the stock taking meeting regarding the conduct > of > >>> IGF > >>> meeting in Athens and looking forward to the meeting in Rio. the format > >>> given at > >>> http://info.intgovforum.org/Q2006v2.php may be a useful indicator of > what > >>> is > >>> being sought for the meeting... However, views can also be contributed > in > >>> a more > >>> open ended manner, which Vittorio and I can try to integrate into a > >>> possible > >>> consensus document. > >>> > >>> Parminder > >>> > >>> www.ITforChange.net > >>> IT for Change > >>> Bridging Developmental Realities and Technological Possibilities > >>> > >>> > >>> Quoting Avri Doria : > >>> > >>>> On 31 jan 2007, at 03.29, Ralf Bendrath wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> The privacy coalition is meeting Sun afternoon. > >>>> can you send the details on where/when this will be held? > >>>> > >>>> in fact, it might be good if those who are in the know about the when/ > >>>> where of other DC meetings would publish the details somewhere. i am > >>>> willing to add them to the igcaucus list, but maybe the igf community > >>>> wiki is the better option. > >>>> > >>>> i am assuming that these meetings are open to anyone who happens to > >>>> be in Geneva at the time. > >>>> > >>>> 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 > >>>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> 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 > ____________________________________________________________ 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 Feb 1 08:09:54 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 22:09:54 +0900 Subject: [governance] Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting In-Reply-To: <45C1DDE8.9060608@wz-berlin.de> References: <8cbfe7410701310938r4ac431dfq303e30db05cf0e46@mail.gmail.com> <1170331822.45c1d8ae57524@secure.symonds.net> <45C1DDE8.9060608@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: Without funds, the IGF will continue to be pretty much what it was in Athens. (that's very cynical... but there's a great deal that can be improved with money, and very hard to improve without.) Whatever so end up saying --and I think it's late to start worrying about a consensus document-- at a minimum I hope we can strongly support and encourage Mr Desai to continue as chair of the advisory group. Responding to Michael's question of yesterday: At 12:35 AM -0800 2/1/07, michael_leibrandt at web.de wrote: > do we have some ideas who could follow Nitin if he doesn't continue >as the chair? I cannot think of anyone who could replace him! Adam At 1:32 PM +0100 2/1/07, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >Hi Parminder, I agree with most of your points >and suggestions made in the contribution posted >below. >I would recommend that you take into account the >temporary mandate of the IGF. Some of your >suggestions such as a more permanent structure >can probably only be considered towards the end >of the mandate when the future of the IGF will >be discussed. > >A more ambitious interpretation of the IGF's >mandate would require funding. Do we have any >suggestions regarding a funding of the IGF? What >about all the money being made from domain >names. Right now most of it goes to ICANN, ISOC, >IETF, etc. Would it be conceivable that the IGF >gets also a share? > >jeanette > >Parminder wrote: >> >>Hi All, >>Requesting once again for points that need to be take up at the stock taking >>meeting, which paticipants from the IGC may be able to raise at the meeitng. >> >>Meanwhile, I am forwarding a document which we >>will submit tomorrow to the IGF >>to meet its deadline of the 2nd for making it >>to the synthesis paper. Elements >>from this documents may also be considered, if >>found useful, by Vittorio to seek >>a consensus document for the meeting. >>Parminder >> >>Taking stock and the way forward (contribution >>by IT for Change, in response to the IGF >>questionnaire for the >>stock taking meeting in Geneva) >> >>What worked well? >>The open format without a heavy governmental feel, but with a strong >>participation of governments nonetheless, >>worked well. The distributed workshop >>sessions that were organized by different stakeholders, with all requests for >>workshops being allowed, gave a sense of ownership to all stakeholders, >>especially those from civil society who tend to >>be left out from agenda setting >>positions in global policy forums. >> >>The innovation of setting up Œdynamic coalitions¹ appears to hold promise to >>develop constituencies and consensus on certain IG related issues, and to >>possibly trigger specific activities on these issues. >>What worked less well? >> >>The plenary sessions held in a journalistic mode were perhaps (only perhaps) >>fine for an opening IGF meeting but this format needs to be revised in >>subsequent meetings. We need more focused >>sessions conducted by subject experts, >>and the panels need to be smaller. They should be able to conduct an informed >>discussion/ presentation, which no doubt is always a difficult task in huge >>conference situations like at the IGF. But taking relatively focused subject >>areas will help greatly. This will increase the >>topic selection responsibility >>of the IGF MAG, but with more lead time >>available for the Rio meeting this can >>be attempted to be done through a participatory >>process. However, some crucial >>decisions may still have to be taken by the MAG. >> >>Although the overall thematic focus of the >>Athens meet was on development, most >>workshops did not address this issue. This >>shows the limitations of just opening >>up a Œfacilitative¹ forum without direct support and action to highlight and >>discuss such priority issues, when the interested stakeholders may be >>disadvantaged in capacity on many fronts. This >>also makes the case for the IGF >>to evolve into a more proactive organization, apart from such evolution being >>required by the IGF¹s mandate listed below. >>Suggestions for improvement in view of the second IGF meeting? >> >>Our concern remains that the IGF in its present shape, as was evident at the >>Athens meeting, is able to fulfill just a narrow part of its mandate given by >>the Tunis Agenda (TA). And we see no signs of >>what is meant to be done regarding >>the larger part of the mandate which goes beyond IGF¹s role as a facilitative >>forum for open discussion, to issues like >>interacting with different IG related >>organizations (TA 72 c), facilitating discourse >>between them (72 b), facilitate >>the exchange of information and best practices (d), do capacity building (h), >>promote and assess the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance >>processes (i), advice stakeholders (e), identify emerging issues and make >>recommendations(g) and help find solutions (k). >>The stock taking meeting should do a serious >>exercise to develop processes and >>structures in the IGF that can enable it to >>meet these parts of its mandate. A >>couple of suggestions in this regard are listed below: >> >>1. All major IG related organizations, like the ICANN, US government, ITU, >>WIPO/WTO etc, should be invited to hold open >>forums at the annual IGF meeting to >>enable a stakeholder dialogue, as also Œfacilitating discourse between them¹. >> >>2. The IGF must be able to develop elaborate papers and reports on various >>important themes of IG, employing experts, >>especially in under-researched areas >>like developmental aspects of IG. This must be >>an ongoing exercise. (To cite an >>example, similar work was done by the UN ICT >>Task Force.) This will enable the >>IGF to fulfill its mandate in respect of many of the above listed areas. >> >>3. At its annual meeting, and in the >>in-between periods, IGF should be able to >>hold workshops of its own (other than those >>held by various stakeholders) on key >>themes ­ for example, on the issue of promoting >>and assessing Œ¹the embodiment >>of WSIS principles in Internet governance >>processes¹ and on development issues >>in IG. These workshops should also be held in >>the regional and national contexts. >> >>4. To be able to undertake the above >>activities, and to fulfill other required >>responsibilities, IGF must seek to establish >>some kind of a permanent structure. >>This requires adequate funding for which a case should be made at this stock >>taking meeting and the issue taken up with various possible sources of funds. >> >>Any other comments or suggestions? >> >>Included in above. >>Did the synthesis paper, which gave an overview of all contributions received >>and which was translated in all UN languages, >>meet a real need? Should a similar >>paper be prepared prior to the next meeting? >> >>Yes, it meets a real need, and such papers should continue to be produced. >> >> >>Quoting "l.d.misek-falkoff" : >> >>>Dear Parminder, Vittorio, and All: >>> >>>Thank you for the opportunity to input to these important discussions. >>> >>>In terms of present scheduling, I submit here the following, with >>>appreciation for the openness in regard to all governance matters: >>> >>>From the perspectives of *Respectful Interfaces* (Coda: 'Achieving *Dialogue >>>* While Cherishing *Diversity' ) - *and integrating project and enterprise >>>models of many sorts - sustaining the values of *inclusion* across the >>>board is very important. >>> >>>The Civil Society Voice along with other constituencies should and shall >>>with the good efforts of those here be part of all phases and aspects of >>>Internet and general ICT capacity enlarging: >>>** R*equirements, *E*quipping, *S*pecifications, *P*lanning, *C*hecking, and >>>*T*ransfer. * >>> >>>These Policy-To-Action phases are of course iterative and flexible, to guard >>>against potential narrowness of unilaterally imposed "finished" end-products >>>and services based only on rigid or externally conceived "target >>>audience" marketing strategies. >>> >>>And thank you again as Representatives and individuals, for the * >>>inclusiveness* present here. >>> >>>P.S. As for inclusion in Rio, it is suggested in good cheer that more events >>>will be open to more people if elevators are not blocked and especially >>>where there are stairs without rails (though I appreciated that in Athens >>>the Hotel Staff took some of us with disabilities downstairs through >>>inner-wall (seeming) routes - 'not uninteresting' side trips in themselves ! >>>). >>> >>>Best wishes and warm regards, Linda. >>>Dr. L. D. Misek-Falkoff >>>*Respectful Interfaces Programme*, Communications Coordination Committee For >>>the U.N. (NGO). >>> >>> >>>On 1/30/07, Parminder wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>I understand that Vittorio is trying to put together some views expressed >>>>on >>>>this list for inputting into the stock taking meeting. while we cant make >>>>it to >>>>the deadline of the 2nd to submit a formal input document, if we are able >>>>to >>>>agree on a few common points, these can be taken up on the behalf of IGC >>>>by IGC >>>>members participating in the meeting... >>>> >>>>so please contribute your views on the matter - specifically, what points >>>>will >>>>you like to be raised in the stock taking meeting regarding the conduct of >>>>IGF >>>>meeting in Athens and looking forward to the meeting in Rio. the format >>>>given at >>>>http://info.intgovforum.org/Q2006v2.php may be a useful indicator of what >>>>is >>>>being sought for the meeting... However, views can also be contributed in >>>>a more >>>>open ended manner, which Vittorio and I can try to integrate into a >>>>possible >>>>consensus document. >>>> >>>>Parminder >>>> >>>>www.ITforChange.net >>>>IT for Change >>>>Bridging Developmental Realities and Technological Possibilities >>>> >>>> >>>>Quoting Avri Doria : >>>> >>>>>On 31 jan 2007, at 03.29, Ralf Bendrath wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>The privacy coalition is meeting Sun afternoon. >>>>>can you send the details on where/when this will be held? >>>>> >>>>>in fact, it might be good if those who are in the know about the when/ >>>>>where of other DC meetings would publish the details somewhere. i am >>>>>willing to add them to the igcaucus list, but maybe the igf community >>>>>wiki is the better option. >>>>> >>>>>i am assuming that these meetings are open to anyone who happens to >>>>>be in Geneva at the time. >>>>> >>>>>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 >>>>> >>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>>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 ____________________________________________________________ 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 Thu Feb 1 08:11:18 2007 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 14:11:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting In-Reply-To: <1170335172.45c1e5c443d8b@secure.symonds.net> References: <8cbfe7410701310938r4ac431dfq303e30db05cf0e46@mail.gmail.com> <1170331822.45c1d8ae57524@secure.symonds.net> <45C1DDE8.9060608@wz-berlin.de> <1170335172.45c1e5c443d8b@secure.symonds.net> Message-ID: <45C1E6F6.5040309@wz-berlin.de> Parminder, >> A more ambitious interpretation of the IGF's mandate would require >> funding. Do we have any suggestions regarding a funding of the IGF? What >> about all the money being made from domain names. Right now most of it >> goes to ICANN, ISOC, IETF, etc. Would it be conceivable that the IGF >> gets also a share? > > Your suggestions for raising funds are very interesting. A 'tax' on domain names > is a good idea, since the money is to be used for IG related public policy > activity. In any case, with the new proposal regarding the .xxx domain such an > idea of a tax kind of thing for a public policy purpose is already being mooted > (as a contribution to child safety organizations, and development of user end > content control technologies). It would only work for generic Top Level Domains. For ccTLDs, it would be too complicated and take decades to reach agreement. > > With your permission can I include the above suggestion in the submission to the > IGF, unless you are also submitting this proposal in response to their > questionaire. I am not submitting anything. Make use of it if you like although I would prefer to hear other opinions first. jeanette > > Parminder > > > Parminder > > www.ITforChange.net > IT for Change > Bridging Developmental Realities and Technological Possibilities > > > Quoting Jeanette Hofmann : > >> Hi Parminder, I agree with most of your points and suggestions made in >> the contribution posted below. >> I would recommend that you take into account the temporary mandate of >> the IGF. Some of your suggestions such as a more permanent structure can >> probably only be considered towards the end of the mandate when the >> future of the IGF will be discussed. >> >> A more ambitious interpretation of the IGF's mandate would require >> funding. Do we have any suggestions regarding a funding of the IGF? What >> about all the money being made from domain names. Right now most of it >> goes to ICANN, ISOC, IETF, etc. Would it be conceivable that the IGF >> gets also a share? >> >> jeanette >> >> Parminder wrote: >>> Hi All, >>> >>> Requesting once again for points that need to be take up at the stock >> taking >>> meeting, which paticipants from the IGC may be able to raise at the >> meeitng. >>> Meanwhile, I am forwarding a document which we will submit tomorrow to the >> IGF >>> to meet its deadline of the 2nd for making it to the synthesis paper. >> Elements >>> from this documents may also be considered, if found useful, by Vittorio to >> seek >>> a consensus document for the meeting. >>> >>> Parminder >>> >>> Taking stock and the way forward >>> (contribution by IT for Change, in response to the IGF questionnaire for >> the >>> stock taking meeting in Geneva) >>> >>> >>> What worked well? >>> >>> The open format without a heavy governmental feel, but with a strong >>> participation of governments nonetheless, worked well. The distributed >> workshop >>> sessions that were organized by different stakeholders, with all requests >> for >>> workshops being allowed, gave a sense of ownership to all stakeholders, >>> especially those from civil society who tend to be left out from agenda >> setting >>> positions in global policy forums. >>> >>> The innovation of setting up ‘dynamic coalitions’ appears to hold promise >> to >>> develop constituencies and consensus on certain IG related issues, and to >>> possibly trigger specific activities on these issues. >>> >>> What worked less well? >>> >>> The plenary sessions held in a journalistic mode were perhaps (only >> perhaps) >>> fine for an opening IGF meeting but this format needs to be revised in >>> subsequent meetings. We need more focused sessions conducted by subject >> experts, >>> and the panels need to be smaller. They should be able to conduct an >> informed >>> discussion/ presentation, which no doubt is always a difficult task in >> huge >>> conference situations like at the IGF. But taking relatively focused >> subject >>> areas will help greatly. This will increase the topic selection >> responsibility >>> of the IGF MAG, but with more lead time available for the Rio meeting this >> can >>> be attempted to be done through a participatory process. However, some >> crucial >>> decisions may still have to be taken by the MAG. >>> >>> Although the overall thematic focus of the Athens meet was on development, >> most >>> workshops did not address this issue. This shows the limitations of just >> opening >>> up a ‘facilitative’ forum without direct support and action to highlight >> and >>> discuss such priority issues, when the interested stakeholders may be >>> disadvantaged in capacity on many fronts. This also makes the case for the >> IGF >>> to evolve into a more proactive organization, apart from such evolution >> being >>> required by the IGF’s mandate listed below. >>> >>> Suggestions for improvement in view of the second IGF meeting? >>> >>> Our concern remains that the IGF in its present shape, as was evident at >> the >>> Athens meeting, is able to fulfill just a narrow part of its mandate given >> by >>> the Tunis Agenda (TA). And we see no signs of what is meant to be done >> regarding >>> the larger part of the mandate which goes beyond IGF’s role as a >> facilitative >>> forum for open discussion, to issues like interacting with different IG >> related >>> organizations (TA 72 c), facilitating discourse between them (72 b), >> facilitate >>> the exchange of information and best practices (d), do capacity building >> (h), >>> promote and assess the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet >> governance >>> processes (i), advice stakeholders (e), identify emerging issues and make >>> recommendations(g) and help find solutions (k). >>> >>> The stock taking meeting should do a serious exercise to develop processes >> and >>> structures in the IGF that can enable it to meet these parts of its >> mandate. A >>> couple of suggestions in this regard are listed below: >>> >>> 1. All major IG related organizations, like the ICANN, US government, ITU, >>> WIPO/WTO etc, should be invited to hold open forums at the annual IGF >> meeting to >>> enable a stakeholder dialogue, as also ‘facilitating discourse between >> them’. >>> 2. The IGF must be able to develop elaborate papers and reports on various >>> important themes of IG, employing experts, especially in under-researched >> areas >>> like developmental aspects of IG. This must be an ongoing exercise. (To >> cite an >>> example, similar work was done by the UN ICT Task Force.) This will enable >> the >>> IGF to fulfill its mandate in respect of many of the above listed areas. >>> >>> 3. At its annual meeting, and in the in-between periods, IGF should be able >> to >>> hold workshops of its own (other than those held by various stakeholders) >> on key >>> themes – for example, on the issue of promoting and assessing ‘’the >> embodiment >>> of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes’ and on development >> issues >>> in IG. These workshops should also be held in the regional and national >> contexts. >>> 4. To be able to undertake the above activities, and to fulfill other >> required >>> responsibilities, IGF must seek to establish some kind of a permanent >> structure. >>> This requires adequate funding for which a case should be made at this >> stock >>> taking meeting and the issue taken up with various possible sources of >> funds. >>> >>> Any other comments or suggestions? >>> >>> Included in above. >>> >>> Did the synthesis paper, which gave an overview of all contributions >> received >>> and which was translated in all UN languages, meet a real need? Should a >> similar >>> paper be prepared prior to the next meeting? >>> >>> Yes, it meets a real need, and such papers should continue to be produced. >>> >>> >>> Quoting "l.d.misek-falkoff" : >>> >>>> Dear Parminder, Vittorio, and All: >>>> >>>> Thank you for the opportunity to input to these important discussions. >>>> >>>> In terms of present scheduling, I submit here the following, with >>>> appreciation for the openness in regard to all governance matters: >>>> >>>> From the perspectives of *Respectful Interfaces* (Coda: 'Achieving >> *Dialogue >>>> * While Cherishing *Diversity' ) - *and integrating project and >> enterprise >>>> models of many sorts - sustaining the values of *inclusion* across the >>>> board is very important. >>>> >>>> The Civil Society Voice along with other constituencies should and shall >>>> with the good efforts of those here be part of all phases and aspects of >>>> Internet and general ICT capacity enlarging: >>>> ** R*equirements, *E*quipping, *S*pecifications, *P*lanning, *C*hecking, >> and >>>> *T*ransfer. * >>>> >>>> These Policy-To-Action phases are of course iterative and flexible, to >> guard >>>> against potential narrowness of unilaterally imposed "finished" >> end-products >>>> and services based only on rigid or externally conceived "target >>>> audience" marketing strategies. >>>> >>>> And thank you again as Representatives and individuals, for the * >>>> inclusiveness* present here. >>>> >>>> P.S. As for inclusion in Rio, it is suggested in good cheer that more >> events >>>> will be open to more people if elevators are not blocked and especially >>>> where there are stairs without rails (though I appreciated that in Athens >>>> the Hotel Staff took some of us with disabilities downstairs through >>>> inner-wall (seeming) routes - 'not uninteresting' side trips in themselves >> ! >>>> ). >>>> >>>> Best wishes and warm regards, Linda. >>>> Dr. L. D. Misek-Falkoff >>>> *Respectful Interfaces Programme*, Communications Coordination Committee >> For >>>> the U.N. (NGO). >>>> >>>> >>>> On 1/30/07, Parminder wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I understand that Vittorio is trying to put together some views >> expressed >>>>> on >>>>> this list for inputting into the stock taking meeting. while we cant >> make >>>>> it to >>>>> the deadline of the 2nd to submit a formal input document, if we are >> able >>>>> to >>>>> agree on a few common points, these can be taken up on the behalf of IGC >>>>> by IGC >>>>> members participating in the meeting... >>>>> >>>>> so please contribute your views on the matter - specifically, what >> points >>>>> will >>>>> you like to be raised in the stock taking meeting regarding the conduct >> of >>>>> IGF >>>>> meeting in Athens and looking forward to the meeting in Rio. the format >>>>> given at >>>>> http://info.intgovforum.org/Q2006v2.php may be a useful indicator of >> what >>>>> is >>>>> being sought for the meeting... However, views can also be contributed >> in >>>>> a more >>>>> open ended manner, which Vittorio and I can try to integrate into a >>>>> possible >>>>> consensus document. >>>>> >>>>> Parminder >>>>> >>>>> www.ITforChange.net >>>>> IT for Change >>>>> Bridging Developmental Realities and Technological Possibilities >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Quoting Avri Doria : >>>>> >>>>>> On 31 jan 2007, at 03.29, Ralf Bendrath wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> The privacy coalition is meeting Sun afternoon. >>>>>> can you send the details on where/when this will be held? >>>>>> >>>>>> in fact, it might be good if those who are in the know about the when/ >>>>>> where of other DC meetings would publish the details somewhere. i am >>>>>> willing to add them to the igcaucus list, but maybe the igf community >>>>>> wiki is the better option. >>>>>> >>>>>> i am assuming that these meetings are open to anyone who happens to >>>>>> be in Geneva at the time. >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >> ____________________________________________________________ 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 Feb 1 08:29:03 2007 From: Parminder at ITforChange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 18:59:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting In-Reply-To: <45C1E6F6.5040309@wz-berlin.de> References: <8cbfe7410701310938r4ac431dfq303e30db05cf0e46@mail.gmail.com> <1170331822.45c1d8ae57524@secure.symonds.net> <45C1DDE8.9060608@wz-berlin.de> <1170335172.45c1e5c443d8b@secure.symonds.net> <45C1E6F6.5040309@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <1170336543.45c1eb1fc532f@secure.symonds.net> > With your permission can I include the above suggestion in the submission > to the > > IGF, unless you are also submitting this proposal in response to their > > questionaire. > > I am not submitting anything. Make use of it if you like although I > would prefer to hear other opinions first. I did not mean it for IGC's submission, but the one I plan to make on behalf of organisation tomorrow. The two are seperate. Parminder www.ITforChange.net IT for Change Bridging Developmental Realities and Technological Possibilities Quoting Jeanette Hofmann : > > > Parminder, > > >> A more ambitious interpretation of the IGF's mandate would require > >> funding. Do we have any suggestions regarding a funding of the IGF? What > >> about all the money being made from domain names. Right now most of it > >> goes to ICANN, ISOC, IETF, etc. Would it be conceivable that the IGF > >> gets also a share? > > > > Your suggestions for raising funds are very interesting. A 'tax' on domain > names > > is a good idea, since the money is to be used for IG related public policy > > activity. In any case, with the new proposal regarding the .xxx domain such > an > > idea of a tax kind of thing for a public policy purpose is already being > mooted > > (as a contribution to child safety organizations, and development of user > end > > content control technologies). > > It would only work for generic Top Level Domains. For ccTLDs, it would > be too complicated and take decades to reach agreement. > > > > With your permission can I include the above suggestion in the submission > to the > > IGF, unless you are also submitting this proposal in response to their > > questionaire. > > I am not submitting anything. Make use of it if you like although I > would prefer to hear other opinions first. > > jeanette > > > > Parminder > > > > > > Parminder > > > > www.ITforChange.net > > IT for Change > > Bridging Developmental Realities and Technological Possibilities > > > > > > Quoting Jeanette Hofmann : > > > >> Hi Parminder, I agree with most of your points and suggestions made in > >> the contribution posted below. > >> I would recommend that you take into account the temporary mandate of > >> the IGF. Some of your suggestions such as a more permanent structure can > >> probably only be considered towards the end of the mandate when the > >> future of the IGF will be discussed. > >> > >> A more ambitious interpretation of the IGF's mandate would require > >> funding. Do we have any suggestions regarding a funding of the IGF? What > >> about all the money being made from domain names. Right now most of it > >> goes to ICANN, ISOC, IETF, etc. Would it be conceivable that the IGF > >> gets also a share? > >> > >> jeanette > >> > >> Parminder wrote: > >>> Hi All, > >>> > >>> Requesting once again for points that need to be take up at the stock > >> taking > >>> meeting, which paticipants from the IGC may be able to raise at the > >> meeitng. > >>> Meanwhile, I am forwarding a document which we will submit tomorrow to > the > >> IGF > >>> to meet its deadline of the 2nd for making it to the synthesis paper. > >> Elements > >>> from this documents may also be considered, if found useful, by Vittorio > to > >> seek > >>> a consensus document for the meeting. > >>> > >>> Parminder > >>> > >>> Taking stock and the way forward > >>> (contribution by IT for Change, in response to the IGF questionnaire for > >> the > >>> stock taking meeting in Geneva) > >>> > >>> > >>> What worked well? > >>> > >>> The open format without a heavy governmental feel, but with a strong > >>> participation of governments nonetheless, worked well. The distributed > >> workshop > >>> sessions that were organized by different stakeholders, with all > requests > >> for > >>> workshops being allowed, gave a sense of ownership to all stakeholders, > >>> especially those from civil society who tend to be left out from agenda > >> setting > >>> positions in global policy forums. > >>> > >>> The innovation of setting up ‘dynamic coalitions’ appears to hold > promise > >> to > >>> develop constituencies and consensus on certain IG related issues, and > to > >>> possibly trigger specific activities on these issues. > >>> > >>> What worked less well? > >>> > >>> The plenary sessions held in a journalistic mode were perhaps (only > >> perhaps) > >>> fine for an opening IGF meeting but this format needs to be revised in > >>> subsequent meetings. We need more focused sessions conducted by subject > >> experts, > >>> and the panels need to be smaller. They should be able to conduct an > >> informed > >>> discussion/ presentation, which no doubt is always a difficult task in > >> huge > >>> conference situations like at the IGF. But taking relatively focused > >> subject > >>> areas will help greatly. This will increase the topic selection > >> responsibility > >>> of the IGF MAG, but with more lead time available for the Rio meeting > this > >> can > >>> be attempted to be done through a participatory process. However, some > >> crucial > >>> decisions may still have to be taken by the MAG. > >>> > >>> Although the overall thematic focus of the Athens meet was on > development, > >> most > >>> workshops did not address this issue. This shows the limitations of just > >> opening > >>> up a ‘facilitative’ forum without direct support and action to highlight > >> and > >>> discuss such priority issues, when the interested stakeholders may be > >>> disadvantaged in capacity on many fronts. This also makes the case for > the > >> IGF > >>> to evolve into a more proactive organization, apart from such evolution > >> being > >>> required by the IGF’s mandate listed below. > >>> > >>> Suggestions for improvement in view of the second IGF meeting? > >>> > >>> Our concern remains that the IGF in its present shape, as was evident at > >> the > >>> Athens meeting, is able to fulfill just a narrow part of its mandate > given > >> by > >>> the Tunis Agenda (TA). And we see no signs of what is meant to be done > >> regarding > >>> the larger part of the mandate which goes beyond IGF’s role as a > >> facilitative > >>> forum for open discussion, to issues like interacting with different IG > >> related > >>> organizations (TA 72 c), facilitating discourse between them (72 b), > >> facilitate > >>> the exchange of information and best practices (d), do capacity building > >> (h), > >>> promote and assess the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet > >> governance > >>> processes (i), advice stakeholders (e), identify emerging issues and > make > >>> recommendations(g) and help find solutions (k). > >>> > >>> The stock taking meeting should do a serious exercise to develop > processes > >> and > >>> structures in the IGF that can enable it to meet these parts of its > >> mandate. A > >>> couple of suggestions in this regard are listed below: > >>> > >>> 1. All major IG related organizations, like the ICANN, US government, > ITU, > >>> WIPO/WTO etc, should be invited to hold open forums at the annual IGF > >> meeting to > >>> enable a stakeholder dialogue, as also ‘facilitating discourse between > >> them’. > >>> 2. The IGF must be able to develop elaborate papers and reports on > various > >>> important themes of IG, employing experts, especially in > under-researched > >> areas > >>> like developmental aspects of IG. This must be an ongoing exercise. (To > >> cite an > >>> example, similar work was done by the UN ICT Task Force.) This will > enable > >> the > >>> IGF to fulfill its mandate in respect of many of the above listed areas. > >>> > >>> 3. At its annual meeting, and in the in-between periods, IGF should be > able > >> to > >>> hold workshops of its own (other than those held by various > stakeholders) > >> on key > >>> themes – for example, on the issue of promoting and assessing ‘’the > >> embodiment > >>> of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes’ and on development > >> issues > >>> in IG. These workshops should also be held in the regional and national > >> contexts. > >>> 4. To be able to undertake the above activities, and to fulfill other > >> required > >>> responsibilities, IGF must seek to establish some kind of a permanent > >> structure. > >>> This requires adequate funding for which a case should be made at this > >> stock > >>> taking meeting and the issue taken up with various possible sources of > >> funds. > >>> > >>> Any other comments or suggestions? > >>> > >>> Included in above. > >>> > >>> Did the synthesis paper, which gave an overview of all contributions > >> received > >>> and which was translated in all UN languages, meet a real need? Should a > >> similar > >>> paper be prepared prior to the next meeting? > >>> > >>> Yes, it meets a real need, and such papers should continue to be > produced. > >>> > >>> > >>> Quoting "l.d.misek-falkoff" : > >>> > >>>> Dear Parminder, Vittorio, and All: > >>>> > >>>> Thank you for the opportunity to input to these important discussions. > >>>> > >>>> In terms of present scheduling, I submit here the following, with > >>>> appreciation for the openness in regard to all governance matters: > >>>> > >>>> From the perspectives of *Respectful Interfaces* (Coda: 'Achieving > >> *Dialogue > >>>> * While Cherishing *Diversity' ) - *and integrating project and > >> enterprise > >>>> models of many sorts - sustaining the values of *inclusion* across the > >>>> board is very important. > >>>> > >>>> The Civil Society Voice along with other constituencies should and > shall > >>>> with the good efforts of those here be part of all phases and aspects > of > >>>> Internet and general ICT capacity enlarging: > >>>> ** R*equirements, *E*quipping, *S*pecifications, *P*lanning, > *C*hecking, > >> and > >>>> *T*ransfer. * > >>>> > >>>> These Policy-To-Action phases are of course iterative and flexible, to > >> guard > >>>> against potential narrowness of unilaterally imposed "finished" > >> end-products > >>>> and services based only on rigid or externally conceived "target > >>>> audience" marketing strategies. > >>>> > >>>> And thank you again as Representatives and individuals, for the * > >>>> inclusiveness* present here. > >>>> > >>>> P.S. As for inclusion in Rio, it is suggested in good cheer that more > >> events > >>>> will be open to more people if elevators are not blocked and especially > >>>> where there are stairs without rails (though I appreciated that in > Athens > >>>> the Hotel Staff took some of us with disabilities downstairs through > >>>> inner-wall (seeming) routes - 'not uninteresting' side trips in > themselves > >> ! > >>>> ). > >>>> > >>>> Best wishes and warm regards, Linda. > >>>> Dr. L. D. Misek-Falkoff > >>>> *Respectful Interfaces Programme*, Communications Coordination > Committee > >> For > >>>> the U.N. (NGO). > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 1/30/07, Parminder wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> I understand that Vittorio is trying to put together some views > >> expressed > >>>>> on > >>>>> this list for inputting into the stock taking meeting. while we cant > >> make > >>>>> it to > >>>>> the deadline of the 2nd to submit a formal input document, if we are > >> able > >>>>> to > >>>>> agree on a few common points, these can be taken up on the behalf of > IGC > >>>>> by IGC > >>>>> members participating in the meeting... > >>>>> > >>>>> so please contribute your views on the matter - specifically, what > >> points > >>>>> will > >>>>> you like to be raised in the stock taking meeting regarding the > conduct > >> of > >>>>> IGF > >>>>> meeting in Athens and looking forward to the meeting in Rio. the > format > >>>>> given at > >>>>> http://info.intgovforum.org/Q2006v2.php may be a useful indicator of > >> what > >>>>> is > >>>>> being sought for the meeting... However, views can also be contributed > >> in > >>>>> a more > >>>>> open ended manner, which Vittorio and I can try to integrate into a > >>>>> possible > >>>>> consensus document. > >>>>> > >>>>> Parminder > >>>>> > >>>>> www.ITforChange.net > >>>>> IT for Change > >>>>> Bridging Developmental Realities and Technological Possibilities > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Quoting Avri Doria : > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 31 jan 2007, at 03.29, Ralf Bendrath wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> The privacy coalition is meeting Sun afternoon. > >>>>>> can you send the details on where/when this will be held? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> in fact, it might be good if those who are in the know about the > when/ > >>>>>> where of other DC meetings would publish the details somewhere. i am > >>>>>> willing to add them to the igcaucus list, but maybe the igf community > >>>>>> wiki is the better option. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> i am assuming that these meetings are open to anyone who happens to > >>>>>> be in Geneva at the time. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 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 > >>>>>> > >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>>> 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 > >> > ____________________________________________________________ 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 rishi at gipi.org.in Thu Feb 1 08:34:01 2007 From: rishi at gipi.org.in (Rishi Chawla) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 19:04:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting In-Reply-To: <45C1E6F6.5040309@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: I support the idea of funding IGF by "taxing" the domain names and would rather extend this "taxing " to IP Address allocation and bandwidth services also. Rishi Chawla > With your permission can I include the above suggestion in the submission to the > IGF, unless you are also submitting this proposal in response to their > questionaire. I am not submitting anything. Make use of it if you like although I would prefer to hear other opinions first. jeanette > > Parminder > > > Parminder > > www.ITforChange.net > IT for Change > Bridging Developmental Realities and Technological Possibilities > > > Quoting Jeanette Hofmann : > >> Hi Parminder, I agree with most of your points and suggestions made in >> the contribution posted below. >> I would recommend that you take into account the temporary mandate of >> the IGF. Some of your suggestions such as a more permanent structure can >> probably only be considered towards the end of the mandate when the >> future of the IGF will be discussed. >> >> A more ambitious interpretation of the IGF's mandate would require >> funding. Do we have any suggestions regarding a funding of the IGF? What >> about all the money being made from domain names. Right now most of it >> goes to ICANN, ISOC, IETF, etc. Would it be conceivable that the IGF >> gets also a share? >> >> jeanette >> >> Parminder wrote: >>> Hi All, >>> >>> Requesting once again for points that need to be take up at the stock >> taking >>> meeting, which paticipants from the IGC may be able to raise at the >> meeitng. >>> Meanwhile, I am forwarding a document which we will submit tomorrow to the >> IGF >>> to meet its deadline of the 2nd for making it to the synthesis paper. >> Elements >>> from this documents may also be considered, if found useful, by Vittorio to >> seek >>> a consensus document for the meeting. >>> >>> Parminder >>> >>> Taking stock and the way forward >>> (contribution by IT for Change, in response to the IGF questionnaire for >> the >>> stock taking meeting in Geneva) >>> >>> >>> What worked well? >>> >>> The open format without a heavy governmental feel, but with a strong >>> participation of governments nonetheless, worked well. The distributed >> workshop >>> sessions that were organized by different stakeholders, with all requests >> for >>> workshops being allowed, gave a sense of ownership to all stakeholders, >>> especially those from civil society who tend to be left out from agenda >> setting >>> positions in global policy forums. >>> >>> The innovation of setting up ‘dynamic coalitions’ appears to hold promise >> to >>> develop constituencies and consensus on certain IG related issues, and to >>> possibly trigger specific activities on these issues. >>> >>> What worked less well? >>> >>> The plenary sessions held in a journalistic mode were perhaps (only >> perhaps) >>> fine for an opening IGF meeting but this format needs to be revised in >>> subsequent meetings. We need more focused sessions conducted by subject >> experts, >>> and the panels need to be smaller. They should be able to conduct an >> informed >>> discussion/ presentation, which no doubt is always a difficult task in >> huge >>> conference situations like at the IGF. But taking relatively focused >> subject >>> areas will help greatly. This will increase the topic selection >> responsibility >>> of the IGF MAG, but with more lead time available for the Rio meeting this >> can >>> be attempted to be done through a participatory process. However, some >> crucial >>> decisions may still have to be taken by the MAG. >>> >>> Although the overall thematic focus of the Athens meet was on development, >> most >>> workshops did not address this issue. This shows the limitations of just >> opening >>> up a ‘facilitative’ forum without direct support and action to highlight >> and >>> discuss such priority issues, when the interested stakeholders may be >>> disadvantaged in capacity on many fronts. This also makes the case for the >> IGF >>> to evolve into a more proactive organization, apart from such evolution >> being >>> required by the IGF’s mandate listed below. >>> >>> Suggestions for improvement in view of the second IGF meeting? >>> >>> Our concern remains that the IGF in its present shape, as was evident at >> the >>> Athens meeting, is able to fulfill just a narrow part of its mandate given >> by >>> the Tunis Agenda (TA). And we see no signs of what is meant to be done >> regarding >>> the larger part of the mandate which goes beyond IGF’s role as a >> facilitative >>> forum for open discussion, to issues like interacting with different IG >> related >>> organizations (TA 72 c), facilitating discourse between them (72 b), >> facilitate >>> the exchange of information and best practices (d), do capacity building >> (h), >>> promote and assess the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet >> governance >>> processes (i), advice stakeholders (e), identify emerging issues and make >>> recommendations(g) and help find solutions (k). >>> >>> The stock taking meeting should do a serious exercise to develop processes >> and >>> structures in the IGF that can enable it to meet these parts of its >> mandate. A >>> couple of suggestions in this regard are listed below: >>> >>> 1. All major IG related organizations, like the ICANN, US government, ITU, >>> WIPO/WTO etc, should be invited to hold open forums at the annual IGF >> meeting to >>> enable a stakeholder dialogue, as also ‘facilitating discourse between >> them’. >>> 2. The IGF must be able to develop elaborate papers and reports on various >>> important themes of IG, employing experts, especially in under-researched >> areas >>> like developmental aspects of IG. This must be an ongoing exercise. (To >> cite an >>> example, similar work was done by the UN ICT Task Force.) This will enable >> the >>> IGF to fulfill its mandate in respect of many of the above listed areas. >>> >>> 3. At its annual meeting, and in the in-between periods, IGF should be able >> to >>> hold workshops of its own (other than those held by various stakeholders) >> on key >>> themes – for example, on the issue of promoting and assessing ‘’the >> embodiment >>> of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes’ and on development >> issues >>> in IG. These workshops should also be held in the regional and national >> contexts. >>> 4. To be able to undertake the above activities, and to fulfill other >> required >>> responsibilities, IGF must seek to establish some kind of a permanent >> structure. >>> This requires adequate funding for which a case should be made at this >> stock >>> taking meeting and the issue taken up with various possible sources of >> funds. >>> >>> Any other comments or suggestions? >>> >>> Included in above. >>> >>> Did the synthesis paper, which gave an overview of all contributions >> received >>> and which was translated in all UN languages, meet a real need? Should a >> similar >>> paper be prepared prior to the next meeting? >>> >>> Yes, it meets a real need, and such papers should continue to be produced. >>> >>> >>> Quoting "l.d.misek-falkoff" : >>> >>>> Dear Parminder, Vittorio, and All: >>>> >>>> Thank you for the opportunity to input to these important discussions. >>>> >>>> In terms of present scheduling, I submit here the following, with >>>> appreciation for the openness in regard to all governance matters: >>>> >>>> From the perspectives of *Respectful Interfaces* (Coda: 'Achieving >> *Dialogue >>>> * While Cherishing *Diversity' ) - *and integrating project and >> enterprise >>>> models of many sorts - sustaining the values of *inclusion* across the >>>> board is very important. >>>> >>>> The Civil Society Voice along with other constituencies should and shall >>>> with the good efforts of those here be part of all phases and aspects of >>>> Internet and general ICT capacity enlarging: >>>> ** R*equirements, *E*quipping, *S*pecifications, *P*lanning, *C*hecking, >> and >>>> *T*ransfer. * >>>> >>>> These Policy-To-Action phases are of course iterative and flexible, to >> guard >>>> against potential narrowness of unilaterally imposed "finished" >> end-products >>>> and services based only on rigid or externally conceived "target >>>> audience" marketing strategies. >>>> >>>> And thank you again as Representatives and individuals, for the * >>>> inclusiveness* present here. >>>> >>>> P.S. As for inclusion in Rio, it is suggested in good cheer that more >> events >>>> will be open to more people if elevators are not blocked and especially >>>> where there are stairs without rails (though I appreciated that in Athens >>>> the Hotel Staff took some of us with disabilities downstairs through >>>> inner-wall (seeming) routes - 'not uninteresting' side trips in themselves >> ! >>>> ). >>>> >>>> Best wishes and warm regards, Linda. >>>> Dr. L. D. Misek-Falkoff >>>> *Respectful Interfaces Programme*, Communications Coordination Committee >> For >>>> the U.N. (NGO). >>>> >>>> >>>> On 1/30/07, Parminder wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I understand that Vittorio is trying to put together some views >> expressed >>>>> on >>>>> this list for inputting into the stock taking meeting. while we cant >> make >>>>> it to >>>>> the deadline of the 2nd to submit a formal input document, if we are >> able >>>>> to >>>>> agree on a few common points, these can be taken up on the behalf of IGC >>>>> by IGC >>>>> members participating in the meeting... >>>>> >>>>> so please contribute your views on the matter - specifically, what >> points >>>>> will >>>>> you like to be raised in the stock taking meeting regarding the conduct >> of >>>>> IGF >>>>> meeting in Athens and looking forward to the meeting in Rio. the format >>>>> given at >>>>> http://info.intgovforum.org/Q2006v2.php may be a useful indicator of >> what >>>>> is >>>>> being sought for the meeting... However, views can also be contributed >> in >>>>> a more >>>>> open ended manner, which Vittorio and I can try to integrate into a >>>>> possible >>>>> consensus document. >>>>> >>>>> Parminder >>>>> >>>>> www.ITforChange.net >>>>> IT for Change >>>>> Bridging Developmental Realities and Technological Possibilities >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Quoting Avri Doria : >>>>> >>>>>> On 31 jan 2007, at 03.29, Ralf Bendrath wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> The privacy coalition is meeting Sun afternoon. >>>>>> can you send the details on where/when this will be held? >>>>>> >>>>>> in fact, it might be good if those who are in the know about the when/ >>>>>> where of other DC meetings would publish the details somewhere. i am >>>>>> willing to add them to the igcaucus list, but maybe the igf community >>>>>> wiki is the better option. >>>>>> >>>>>> i am assuming that these meetings are open to anyone who happens to >>>>>> be in Geneva at the time. >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >> ____________________________________________________________ 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 Thu Feb 1 09:07:33 2007 From: Parminder at ITforChange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 19:37:33 +0530 Subject: [governance] Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting In-Reply-To: References: <8cbfe7410701310938r4ac431dfq303e30db05cf0e46@mail.gmail.com> <1170331822.45c1d8ae57524@secure.symonds.net> <45C1DDE8.9060608@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <1170338853.45c1f42580d54@secure.symonds.net> Whatever so end up saying --and I think it's late > to start worrying about a consensus document-- Since some people from IGC are attending the meeting, there may be the possibility of their taking up some issues that get discussed on the list. such issues on which there is a strong consensus can be taken up by them on behalf of the IGC. thats the idea... Parminder www.ITforChange.net IT for Change Bridging Developmental Realities and Technological Possibilities Quoting Adam Peake : > Without funds, the IGF will continue to be pretty > much what it was in Athens. (that's very > cynical... but there's a great deal that can be > improved with money, and very hard to improve > without.) > > Whatever so end up saying --and I think it's late > to start worrying about a consensus document-- at > a minimum I hope we can strongly support and > encourage Mr Desai to continue as chair of the > advisory group. Responding to Michael's question > of yesterday: > > At 12:35 AM -0800 2/1/07, michael_leibrandt at web.de wrote: > > do we have some ideas who could follow Nitin if he doesn't continue > >as the chair? > > I cannot think of anyone who could replace him! > > Adam > > > > > At 1:32 PM +0100 2/1/07, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >Hi Parminder, I agree with most of your points > >and suggestions made in the contribution posted > >below. > >I would recommend that you take into account the > >temporary mandate of the IGF. Some of your > >suggestions such as a more permanent structure > >can probably only be considered towards the end > >of the mandate when the future of the IGF will > >be discussed. > > > >A more ambitious interpretation of the IGF's > >mandate would require funding. Do we have any > >suggestions regarding a funding of the IGF? What > >about all the money being made from domain > >names. Right now most of it goes to ICANN, ISOC, > >IETF, etc. Would it be conceivable that the IGF > >gets also a share? > > > >jeanette > > > >Parminder wrote: > >> > >>Hi All, > >>Requesting once again for points that need to be take up at the stock > taking > >>meeting, which paticipants from the IGC may be able to raise at the > meeitng. > >> > >>Meanwhile, I am forwarding a document which we > >>will submit tomorrow to the IGF > >>to meet its deadline of the 2nd for making it > >>to the synthesis paper. Elements > >>from this documents may also be considered, if > >>found useful, by Vittorio to seek > >>a consensus document for the meeting. > >>Parminder > >> > >>Taking stock and the way forward (contribution > >>by IT for Change, in response to the IGF > >>questionnaire for the > >>stock taking meeting in Geneva) > >> > >>What worked well? > >>The open format without a heavy governmental feel, but with a strong > >>participation of governments nonetheless, > >>worked well. The distributed workshop > >>sessions that were organized by different stakeholders, with all requests > for > >>workshops being allowed, gave a sense of ownership to all stakeholders, > >>especially those from civil society who tend to > >>be left out from agenda setting > >>positions in global policy forums. > >> > >>The innovation of setting up Œdynamic coalitions¹ appears to hold promise > to > >>develop constituencies and consensus on certain IG related issues, and to > >>possibly trigger specific activities on these issues. > >>What worked less well? > >> > >>The plenary sessions held in a journalistic mode were perhaps (only > perhaps) > >>fine for an opening IGF meeting but this format needs to be revised in > >>subsequent meetings. We need more focused > >>sessions conducted by subject experts, > >>and the panels need to be smaller. They should be able to conduct an > informed > >>discussion/ presentation, which no doubt is always a difficult task in > huge > >>conference situations like at the IGF. But taking relatively focused > subject > >>areas will help greatly. This will increase the > >>topic selection responsibility > >>of the IGF MAG, but with more lead time > >>available for the Rio meeting this can > >>be attempted to be done through a participatory > >>process. However, some crucial > >>decisions may still have to be taken by the MAG. > >> > >>Although the overall thematic focus of the > >>Athens meet was on development, most > >>workshops did not address this issue. This > >>shows the limitations of just opening > >>up a Œfacilitative¹ forum without direct support and action to highlight > and > >>discuss such priority issues, when the interested stakeholders may be > >>disadvantaged in capacity on many fronts. This > >>also makes the case for the IGF > >>to evolve into a more proactive organization, apart from such evolution > being > >>required by the IGF¹s mandate listed below. > >>Suggestions for improvement in view of the second IGF meeting? > >> > >>Our concern remains that the IGF in its present shape, as was evident at > the > >>Athens meeting, is able to fulfill just a narrow part of its mandate given > by > >>the Tunis Agenda (TA). And we see no signs of > >>what is meant to be done regarding > >>the larger part of the mandate which goes beyond IGF¹s role as a > facilitative > >>forum for open discussion, to issues like > >>interacting with different IG related > >>organizations (TA 72 c), facilitating discourse > >>between them (72 b), facilitate > >>the exchange of information and best practices (d), do capacity building > (h), > >>promote and assess the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet > governance > >>processes (i), advice stakeholders (e), identify emerging issues and make > >>recommendations(g) and help find solutions (k). > >>The stock taking meeting should do a serious > >>exercise to develop processes and > >>structures in the IGF that can enable it to > >>meet these parts of its mandate. A > >>couple of suggestions in this regard are listed below: > >> > >>1. All major IG related organizations, like the ICANN, US government, ITU, > >>WIPO/WTO etc, should be invited to hold open > >>forums at the annual IGF meeting to > >>enable a stakeholder dialogue, as also Œfacilitating discourse between > them¹. > >> > >>2. The IGF must be able to develop elaborate papers and reports on various > >>important themes of IG, employing experts, > >>especially in under-researched areas > >>like developmental aspects of IG. This must be > >>an ongoing exercise. (To cite an > >>example, similar work was done by the UN ICT > >>Task Force.) This will enable the > >>IGF to fulfill its mandate in respect of many of the above listed areas. > >> > >>3. At its annual meeting, and in the > >>in-between periods, IGF should be able to > >>hold workshops of its own (other than those > >>held by various stakeholders) on key > >>themes ­ for example, on the issue of promoting > >>and assessing Œ¹the embodiment > >>of WSIS principles in Internet governance > >>processes¹ and on development issues > >>in IG. These workshops should also be held in > >>the regional and national contexts. > >> > >>4. To be able to undertake the above > >>activities, and to fulfill other required > >>responsibilities, IGF must seek to establish > >>some kind of a permanent structure. > >>This requires adequate funding for which a case should be made at this > stock > >>taking meeting and the issue taken up with various possible sources of > funds. > >> > >>Any other comments or suggestions? > >> > >>Included in above. > >>Did the synthesis paper, which gave an overview of all contributions > received > >>and which was translated in all UN languages, > >>meet a real need? Should a similar > >>paper be prepared prior to the next meeting? > >> > >>Yes, it meets a real need, and such papers should continue to be produced. > >> > >> > >>Quoting "l.d.misek-falkoff" : > >> > >>>Dear Parminder, Vittorio, and All: > >>> > >>>Thank you for the opportunity to input to these important discussions. > >>> > >>>In terms of present scheduling, I submit here the following, with > >>>appreciation for the openness in regard to all governance matters: > >>> > >>>From the perspectives of *Respectful Interfaces* (Coda: 'Achieving > *Dialogue > >>>* While Cherishing *Diversity' ) - *and integrating project and > enterprise > >>>models of many sorts - sustaining the values of *inclusion* across the > >>>board is very important. > >>> > >>>The Civil Society Voice along with other constituencies should and shall > >>>with the good efforts of those here be part of all phases and aspects of > >>>Internet and general ICT capacity enlarging: > >>>** R*equirements, *E*quipping, *S*pecifications, *P*lanning, *C*hecking, > and > >>>*T*ransfer. * > >>> > >>>These Policy-To-Action phases are of course iterative and flexible, to > guard > >>>against potential narrowness of unilaterally imposed "finished" > end-products > >>>and services based only on rigid or externally conceived "target > >>>audience" marketing strategies. > >>> > >>>And thank you again as Representatives and individuals, for the * > >>>inclusiveness* present here. > >>> > >>>P.S. As for inclusion in Rio, it is suggested in good cheer that more > events > >>>will be open to more people if elevators are not blocked and especially > >>>where there are stairs without rails (though I appreciated that in Athens > >>>the Hotel Staff took some of us with disabilities downstairs through > >>>inner-wall (seeming) routes - 'not uninteresting' side trips in themselves > ! > >>>). > >>> > >>>Best wishes and warm regards, Linda. > >>>Dr. L. D. Misek-Falkoff > >>>*Respectful Interfaces Programme*, Communications Coordination Committee > For > >>>the U.N. (NGO). > >>> > >>> > >>>On 1/30/07, Parminder wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>I understand that Vittorio is trying to put together some views > expressed > >>>>on > >>>>this list for inputting into the stock taking meeting. while we cant > make > >>>>it to > >>>>the deadline of the 2nd to submit a formal input document, if we are > able > >>>>to > >>>>agree on a few common points, these can be taken up on the behalf of IGC > >>>>by IGC > >>>>members participating in the meeting... > >>>> > >>>>so please contribute your views on the matter - specifically, what > points > >>>>will > >>>>you like to be raised in the stock taking meeting regarding the conduct > of > >>>>IGF > >>>>meeting in Athens and looking forward to the meeting in Rio. the format > >>>>given at > >>>>http://info.intgovforum.org/Q2006v2.php may be a useful indicator of > what > >>>>is > >>>>being sought for the meeting... However, views can also be contributed > in > >>>>a more > >>>>open ended manner, which Vittorio and I can try to integrate into a > >>>>possible > >>>>consensus document. > >>>> > >>>>Parminder > >>>> > >>>>www.ITforChange.net > >>>>IT for Change > >>>>Bridging Developmental Realities and Technological Possibilities > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>Quoting Avri Doria : > >>>> > >>>>>On 31 jan 2007, at 03.29, Ralf Bendrath wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>>The privacy coalition is meeting Sun afternoon. > >>>>>can you send the details on where/when this will be held? > >>>>> > >>>>>in fact, it might be good if those who are in the know about the when/ > >>>>>where of other DC meetings would publish the details somewhere. i am > >>>>>willing to add them to the igcaucus list, but maybe the igf community > >>>>>wiki is the better option. > >>>>> > >>>>>i am assuming that these meetings are open to anyone who happens to > >>>>>be in Geneva at the time. > >>>>> > >>>>>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 > >>>>> > >>>>____________________________________________________________ > >>>>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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 vb at bertola.eu Thu Feb 1 11:21:51 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 17:21:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] Statement for the Feb 13 meeting Message-ID: <45C2139F.2050109@bertola.eu> All, this is the draft I've been working upon in the last couple of days. I was offline, so I had no way to go back and read the entire discussion we had in the last couple of months, neither I could read the latest submissions... I'll try to do so in the next few days, but in the meantime I thought it better to post the draft as it is now, so that specific editing suggestions can be made as soon as possible. I'm attaching it in the ODT format since we'd better start to practice what we preach - however, I'm pasting a text-only version below for those of you who are still stuck with Microsoft-only readers :) Regards, ===== Consultations on the Internet Governance Forum, Geneva, 13 February 2007 Statement of the Internet Governance Caucus The Internet Governance Caucus, as the main coordination framework for civil society participation in Internet governance discussions at the WSIS and then at the IGF, would like to provide feedback and opinions on the subjects of this meeting. The first IGF meeting in Athens was without doubt a great success. It was interesting and well organized, and many important matters were discussed. Specifically, we express our satisfaction for the widespread embracing of the multi-stakeholder principle in the structuring of panels and workshops and in the definition of themes. We would then like to provide some practical suggestions for an even better meeting in Rio. We think that the plenary sessions as designed in Athens were interesting, especially for the general public, but that adequate attention should be put to all the issues pertaining to one main theme, rather than focusing on just a few. This could be obtained by shortening the plenary sessions, which should be kept as a “special focus” event on certain “hot” issues, designed in a journalistic style. At the same time, separate, more traditional plenary sessions (though always in a fully multistakeholder style) should host the general summarization of the discussions, including those from the workshops. Workshops were usually interesting, though some effort should be made to better integrate them with the overall themes and flow of discussions of the IGF. Specifically, it should be ensured that all workshops meet the multi-stakeholder criteria, and that at least half of their duration is allocated to open floor discussion rather than to panel presentations, to prevent some workshops from becoming just a showcase for the organizers, or a lobbying event for a single group of stakeholders. Clear guidelines should be given to workshop moderators to this effect; also, the Advisory Group, after collecting all workshop proposals, should consider fostering the organization of workshops on issues not addressed anywhere, or requesting organizers to merge their workshops if too similar. Finally, workshop results should be collected and presented with more evidence as outputs of the IGF meeting, for example in a final “Acts” book. From a practical standpoint, it would be important to ensure that sufficient time is allocated for a lunch break, and that adequate “quick food” options are offered to delegates. Also, it should be kept in mind that many participants, especially from developing countries and civil society, are on a tight budget; adequate accommodation and meal options should be provided. About the Advisory Group, while supporting the concept, we express our dissatisfaction for the very limited representation of civil society in its first instance, which amounted to five or less members over about forty. We think that the significant participation of civil society and individual users, as proved by the WGIG, is key to making Internet governance events a success both in practical and in political terms; thus we would like to see such participation expanded to at least one fourth of the group, if not one third, and to the same levels of the private sector and of the Internet technical community. We confirm our support to the civil society members of the incumbent group, and stand ready to provide suggestions for additional members. We also reiterate the need for the IGF to be considered as a process, rather than as an event. We support the concept of “dynamic coalitions” and their activities; however, there needs to be a way to “bless” their work and give some recognition, even if not binding, to their products. The IGF was created to help solving global problems that could not be addressed anywhere else; simple discussion is not enough, and would betray what was agreed in Tunis and is clearly stated in the mandate of the IGF itself. We stand ready to provide more detailed procedural suggestions on how this could work in practice, or to participate in any multi-stakeholder working process to define it. About the themes for Rio, we are generally satisfied with the areas of work as defined for Athens, but note that some of them are much bigger than others, and thus many issues falling into them failed to get adequate attention. We would like to propose to break the “Openness” group of items in two, one about human rights and freedom of expression, and the other one about intellectual property rights and access to knowledge. We raise the attention on the importance of access not just in terms of physical connections for developing countries, but also in terms of accessibility of technologies to the disabled and other disadvantaged groups; this could also become another group of issues per se. We are aware of the complex discussion on whether the “narrow” Internet governance themes, such as the oversight of the Internet addressing and naming system, should be part of the agenda in Rio. Inside civil society, there are different points of view about this matter; however, we all agree in the deep dissatisfaction for the lack of transparency and inclusion in the so-called “enhanced cooperation” process, which, as agreed in Tunis, should discuss these matters in a multi-stakeholder fashion. We ask that prompt communication is given to all stakeholders about the status and nature of this process, and that, independently from the venue chosen to host it, steps are taken to ensure the full inclusion of all stakeholders in this process. We would like to close our statement by thanking Mr. Desai, Mr. Kummer and all the members of the Advisory Group for their hard work in favour of this process. We look forward to another fruitful and successful meeting in Rio. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ 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: 20070213 - Statement of the IGC.odt Type: application/octet-stream Size: 9509 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Feb 1 11:33:00 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 01:33:00 +0900 Subject: [governance] Statement for the Feb 13 meeting In-Reply-To: <45C2139F.2050109@bertola.eu> References: <45C2139F.2050109@bertola.eu> Message-ID: At 5:21 PM +0100 2/1/07, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >All, > >this is the draft I've been working upon in the >last couple of days. I was offline, so I had no >way to go back and read the entire discussion we >had in the last couple of months, neither I >could read the latest submissions... I'll try to >do so in the next few days, but in the meantime >I thought it better to post the draft as it is >now, so that specific editing suggestions can be >made as soon as possible. > >I'm attaching it in the ODT format since we'd >better start to practice what we preach - Could you post as RTF? And use simple plain text when trying to use text, no high ascii (curly quotes etc.) Thanks, Adam >however, I'm pasting a text-only version below >for those of you who are still stuck with >Microsoft-only readers :) > >Regards, > >===== >Consultations on the Internet Governance Forum, Geneva, 13 February 2007 >Statement of the Internet Governance Caucus > > >The Internet Governance Caucus, as the main >coordination framework for civil society >participation in Internet governance discussions >at the WSIS and then at the IGF, would like to >provide feedback and opinions on the subjects of >this meeting. > >The first IGF meeting in Athens was without >doubt a great success. It was interesting and >well organized, and many important matters were >discussed. Specifically, we express our >satisfaction for the widespread embracing of the >multi-stakeholder principle in the structuring >of panels and workshops and in the definition of >themes. We would then like to provide some >practical suggestions for an even better meeting >in Rio. > >We think that the plenary sessions as designed >in Athens were interesting, especially for the >general public, but that adequate attention >should be put to all the issues pertaining to >one main theme, rather than focusing on just a >few. This could be obtained by shortening the >plenary sessions, which should be kept as a >³special focus² event on certain ³hot² issues, >designed in a journalistic style. At the same >time, separate, more traditional plenary >sessions (though always in a fully >multistakeholder style) should host the general >summarization of the discussions, including >those from the workshops. > >Workshops were usually interesting, though some >effort should be made to better integrate them >with the overall themes and flow of discussions >of the IGF. Specifically, it should be ensured >that all workshops meet the multi-stakeholder >criteria, and that at least half of their >duration is allocated to open floor discussion >rather than to panel presentations, to prevent >some workshops from becoming just a showcase for >the organizers, or a lobbying event for a single >group of stakeholders. Clear guidelines should >be given to workshop moderators to this effect; >also, the Advisory Group, after collecting all >workshop proposals, should consider fostering >the organization of workshops on issues not >addressed anywhere, or requesting organizers to >merge their workshops if too similar. Finally, >workshop results should be collected and >presented with more evidence as outputs of the >IGF meeting, for example in a final ³Acts² book. > >From a practical standpoint, it would be >important to ensure that sufficient time is >allocated for a lunch break, and that adequate >³quick food² options are offered to delegates. >Also, it should be kept in mind that many >participants, especially from developing >countries and civil society, are on a tight >budget; adequate accommodation and meal options >should be provided. > >About the Advisory Group, while supporting the >concept, we express our dissatisfaction for the >very limited representation of civil society in >its first instance, which amounted to five or >less members over about forty. We think that the >significant participation of civil society and >individual users, as proved by the WGIG, is key >to making Internet governance events a success >both in practical and in political terms; thus >we would like to see such participation expanded >to at least one fourth of the group, if not one >third, and to the same levels of the private >sector and of the Internet technical community. >We confirm our support to the civil society >members of the incumbent group, and stand ready >to provide suggestions for additional members. > >We also reiterate the need for the IGF to be >considered as a process, rather than as an >event. We support the concept of ³dynamic >coalitions² and their activities; however, there >needs to be a way to ³bless² their work and give >some recognition, even if not binding, to their >products. The IGF was created to help solving >global problems that could not be addressed >anywhere else; simple discussion is not enough, >and would betray what was agreed in Tunis and is >clearly stated in the mandate of the IGF itself. >We stand ready to provide more detailed >procedural suggestions on how this could work in >practice, or to participate in any >multi-stakeholder working process to define it. > >About the themes for Rio, we are generally >satisfied with the areas of work as defined for >Athens, but note that some of them are much >bigger than others, and thus many issues falling >into them failed to get adequate attention. We >would like to propose to break the ³Openness² >group of items in two, one about human rights >and freedom of expression, and the other one >about intellectual property rights and access to >knowledge. We raise the attention on the >importance of access not just in terms of >physical connections for developing countries, >but also in terms of accessibility of >technologies to the disabled and other >disadvantaged groups; this could also become >another group of issues per se. > >We are aware of the complex discussion on >whether the ³narrow² Internet governance themes, >such as the oversight of the Internet addressing >and naming system, should be part of the agenda >in Rio. Inside civil society, there are >different points of view about this matter; >however, we all agree in the deep >dissatisfaction for the lack of transparency and >inclusion in the so-called ³enhanced >cooperation² process, which, as agreed in Tunis, >should discuss these matters in a >multi-stakeholder fashion. We ask that prompt >communication is given to all stakeholders about >the status and nature of this process, and that, >independently from the venue chosen to host it, >steps are taken to ensure the full inclusion of >all stakeholders in this process. > >We would like to close our statement by thanking >Mr. Desai, Mr. Kummer and all the members of the >Advisory Group for their hard work in favour of >this process. We look forward to another >fruitful and successful meeting in Rio. >-- >vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- >--------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- >____________________________________________________________ >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 > > >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:20070213 - >Statement#254995.odt (NO%F/›j›¤) (00254995) ____________________________________________________________ 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 bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Thu Feb 1 12:13:08 2007 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 18:13:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF Dynamic Coalition on Privacy: Geneva, 11 February, 14:00-18:00 Message-ID: <45C21FA4.5020103@zedat.fu-berlin.de> ------------------------------------------------------- Working Meeting of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Privacy Sunday, 11 February 2007, 14:00-18:00 ------------------------------------------------------- Manotel Jade 55 rue Rotschild - CH 1202 Geneva (Tel : 41 22 544 38 38) Draft programme --------------- 1. Welcome and introduction 2. Thematic block I: digital identity management short input presentations by: - Ralf Bendrath and Udo Neitzel (University of Bremen) - Jan Schallaböck (PRIME-Project), - Allison Knight (Electronic Privacy Information Center) - Bertrand de La Chapelle (French Government) - Caspar Bowden (Microsoft EMEA) - Mary C. Rundle (Identity Commons WG on Identity Rights Agreements) general debate (focus: global public policy aspects) 3. Thematic block II: privacy and development short input presentations by: - Karen banks (APC, will submit something written) (still looking for more feedback) 4. Thematic block III: privacy and freedom of expression short input presentations by: - Christian Möller (OSCE, tbc) (still looking for more feedback) 5. Next steps for the Dynamic Coalition on Privacy - working methods - outreach - next meetings - deliverables After the meeting, we will work on a written report and maybe some other documents for the IGF consultations on the 13th. The IGF secretariat has kindly reserved a room at the UN palace on the 12th which we can use for this. However, if you want to enter the UN premises on this day, you have to let the IGF secretariat know in advance. (igf at unog.ch) -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Dipl. Pol. Ralf Bendrath University of Bremen Collaborative Research Center "Transformations of the State" Linzer Str. 9a, D-28359 Bremen, Germany Tel. +49 (421) 218-8735 Fax +49 (421) 218-8721 official http://www.sfb597.uni-bremen.de/homepages/bendrath personal http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~bendrath blog http://bendrath.blogspot.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 vb at bertola.eu Thu Feb 1 12:11:31 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 18:11:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] Statement for the Feb 13 meeting In-Reply-To: References: <45C2139F.2050109@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <45C21F43.4020802@bertola.eu> Adam Peake ha scritto: > Could you post as RTF? Attached. > And use simple plain text when trying to use text, no high ascii (curly > quotes etc.) That's the free software community trying to beat Microsoft in terms of "smart copy & paste" :) -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ 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: 20070213 - Statement of the IGC.rtf Type: application/rtf Size: 13152 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sylvia.caras at gmail.com Thu Feb 1 12:43:47 2007 From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 09:43:47 -0800 Subject: [governance] IGF Dynamic Coalition on Privacy: Geneva, 11 February, 14:00-18:00 In-Reply-To: <45C21FA4.5020103@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <45C21FA4.5020103@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: On 2/1/07, Ralf Bendrath wrote: > ------------------------------------------------------- > Working Meeting of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Privacy > > 4. Thematic block III: privacy and freedom of expression > > short input presentations by: > - Christian Möller (OSCE, tbc) > (still looking for more feedback) > Perhaps not on topic, but there is currently a polarized US discussion about electronic health records - whose data is it, who determines 'health', does patient have the right to withhold health information from provider, ... Providers: need to know to provide accurate care, avoid liability, ... Patient: my data, my decision, my health, my responsibility. Basically the tension between utility and autonomy. What's interesting is that despite the discussions, business is writing software, insurance and health providers are using it, and the standards are set defacto before standards agreements that involve end-users, civil society. Sylvia ____________________________________________________________ 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 klohento at panos-ao.org Thu Feb 1 13:15:48 2007 From: klohento at panos-ao.org (Ken Lohento) Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 18:15:48 +0000 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: Info CIPACO (IPAO/PIWA) -- Jan - Feb 2007 - Special IGF and Africa, ECOWAS, EuroAfrica ICT] Message-ID: <45C22E54.5010900@panos-ao.org> For your information - includes a special section on "Resources on Africa and the Internet Governance Forum" KL -------- Message original -------- Sujet: Info CIPACO (IPAO/PIWA) -- Jan - Feb 2007 - Special IGF and Africa, ECOWAS, EuroAfrica ICT Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 16:32:50 +0000 De: cipaco contact Pour: newsletter at cipaco.org Info CIPACO (IPAO/PIWA) -- January - February 2007 ------------------------------------- In English <#english> (below) and French: please check both versions for more information En anglais et en français. Veuillez consulter les deux versions pour plus d'information. *********************************************************************** FRANCAIS *********************************************************************** SOMMAIRE : *Agenda* *Nouvelles* *Bibliothèque* *Focus Spécial : * ** Ressources sur l'Afrique et le Forum sur la Gouvernance de l'Internet ** *Activités du CIPACO* ** Projet EuroAfrica-ICT : Atelier d'information et d'échanges ** * A lire:* ** Rapport de l'atelier sur la Gouvernance de l'Internet organisé par la Société Civile de la RDC ** ( Voir section "Spécial Focus") ** Un cadre légal pour le développement des TIC en Afrique de l'Ouest ** ** Evaluation du Forum sur la Gouvernance de l'Internet à Genève ** **------------ AGENDA ------------ ** Evaluation du Forum sur la Gouvernance de l'Internet à Genève ** 13 février 2007, Genève, Suisse Consultation publique pour évaluer le Forum sur la Gouvernance de l'Internet - Appel à contribution - participation à distance -> http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?article1156 ** Informedica 2007 ** 14 - 16 mars 2007, Paris, France. 24ème salon de l'informatique et des NTIC Santé. Informedica 2007 présentera les outils les plus performants et les dernières nouveautés sur des stands, ateliers de formation ou des conférences thématiques. Le salon se tiendra au Palais des Congrès (Porte Maillot, Paris). -> http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?article1104 ** Projet EuroAfrica-ICT : Atelier d'information et d'échanges ** 21 - 22 mars 2007, Dakar, Sénégal. Cet atelier a pour objectifs l'information sur le projet EuroAfrica ICT, la formation sur la soumission de projets dans le cadre du FP7, l'échange, le réseautage. -> http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?article1198 ** Colloque international Brazzaville - Kinshasa ** 16 - 20 avril 2007. Quelles sont les dynamiques de globalisation, ou de participation à la globalisation, qui se mettent en place, avec l'internationalisation accrue des flux de communication et dans quelle mesure les potentiels culturels jadis gouvernés par des territoires de souveraineté géographiquement délimités, résistent ou adhèrent aux déterminismes ambiants de l'universalité ? -> http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?article898 ** Télécommunications et TIC : présentation des technologies françaises en Afrique ** 19 septembre 2007 - Kenya, Nairobi. Colloque régional organisé par UBIFRANCE. "Promouvoir le savoir-faire français et plus particulièrement le mobile, les ISP, l'Internet et les technologies wireless". -> http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?article1102 ** ** **Consulter les autres événements de notre agenda** : http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?rubrique3 ------------------- NOUVELLES ------------------- ** Le manque de finances retarde la mise sur orbite du 1er satellite africain** "Jusqu'à ce jour, sur 361,5 millions de dollars (+ de 160 milliards de Fcfa) de besoin total d'investissement, seulement un peu plus de 181,3 millions (90,65 milliards Fcfa) ont été mobilisés", a révélé le Dr Jones A. Killimbe, directeur général du Réseau africain de communication par satellite (RASCOM). -> http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?article1183 ** Lancement de la commission de la CEDEAO pour l'accélération de l'intégration et du développement ** S'agissant des télécommunications, le sommet a adopté une Politique régionale de Télécommunication et un cadre de régulation qui couvre des aspects spécifiques du secteur tels que l'interconnexion par rapport aux réseaux du secteur des NTIC et des services, le régime des licences, la gestion du spectre des fréquences radio. -> http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?article1179 ** Un cadre légal pour le développement des TIC en Afrique de l'Ouest ** La CEA, la CEDEAO et l'UEMOA ont discuté de la mise en place d'un cadre légal favorable au commerce électronique et qui pourrait renforcer la lutte contre la cyber criminalité lors d'un atelier organisé à Ouagadougou en Décembre 2006. -> http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?article1174 ** Guinée Bissau : La Sonatel s'offre une licence mobile « au mérite » ** La Société nationale des télécommunications du Sénégal (Sonatel) prend pied en Guinée-Bissau suite à un appel d'offres international. -> http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?article1171 ** René Nsoe : "Je veux faire le Yahoo camerounais" ** Le promoteur de Kaï Waïlaï décline les ambitions de ce portail d'informations interviewé par Lazare Kolyang de "Quotidien Mutations". -> http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?article1155 ** L'ONATEL et Telmob ont un nouveau DG ** Après la remise du décret et du chèque de 144 milliards de F CFA le 29 décembre 2006, scellant ainsi la privatisation de cette société, un nouveau patron a été nommé le 5 janvier 2007. -> http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?article1154 **Consulter les autres nouvelles ici** : http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?rubrique1 --------------------- BIBLIOTHEQUE -------------------- ** VoIP pour le développement : Un guide pour construire une infrastructure de télécommunication en région émergente ** Par : Alberto Escudero-Pascual et Louise Berthilson "Bien que de très bon livres soient disponibles aujourd'hui, je n'ai pas rencontré de documents qui présentent quelques notions fondamentales de manière intuitive au commun des mortels. Ce précis tente de présenter des concepts essentiels à la téléphonie par Internet, et donne quelques exemples de son potentiel dans les régions émergentes. Le but étant de conserver ce document succinct mais utile, un effort particulier a été porté sur sa pédagogie." -> http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?page=document&id_rubrique=2&num_doc=328 ** Le rôle des Etats dans l'ère des TIC ** Par : Roberto Di Cosmo "Les TIC ont profondément changé l'écosystème de la publication scientifique, en révélant au grand jour un conflit d'intérêts grandissant entre les éditeurs d'un côté et tous les autres acteurs de l'autre. En partant d'une analyse précise des exigences minimales d'un système de publication scientifique et du divorce qui se consomme, entre auteurs, utilisateurs et éditeurs de la publication scientifique à cause de la révolution apportée par les TIC, nous mettons ici en évidence ce que la communauté scientifique peut faire, et commence déjà à faire par elle même, pour se libérer du joug désormais injustifié imposé par les éditeurs." -> http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?page=document&id_rubrique=2&num_doc=323 ** Perspectives des technologies de l'information 2006 : principales conclusions ** Par : OCDE Cet ouvrage décrit la dynamique et les tendances récentes du marché dans les secteurs fournisseurs de biens et de services liés aux TI. Il dresse un panorama de la mondialisation du secteur des technologies de l'information et des communications (TIC) et du développement de la délocalisation qui est facilitée par ces technologies. -> http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?page=document&id_rubrique=2&num_doc=314 **Consulter d'autres documents de notre bibliothèque ici :** http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?page=documents&id_rubrique=2 -------------------------------------------------------------------- FOCUS SPECIAL : RESSOURCES SUR L'AFRIQUE ET LE FGI --------------------------------------------------------------- Voir en dessous de la version anglaise du présent document. --------------------------------- ACTIVITES DU CIPACO : --------------------------------- Promouvoir la recherche et la coopération technique sur les TIC en Afrique : L'initiative "EuroAfrica ICT" L'un des axes stratégiques d'intervention, identifiés lors de l'atelier de lancement du CIPACO à Mbodiène (Sénégal, 2004), est la recherche sur les TIC. L'une des activités du CIPACO dans ce contexte est l'appui à la mise en oeuvre du projet EuroAfrica ICT qui a pour objectifs de favoriser, dans le cadre du FP7 (Framework Programme 7), des partenariats Europe-Afrique sub-saharienne dans le domaine des TIC et de contribuer au développement de la coopération scientifique et technique, dans ce même domaine, et entre ces deux régions (un volet particulier du projet est focalisé sur l'Afrique du Sud). Aussi appelé START, ce projet est soutenu par la Commission Européenne dans le cadre de son programme IST. Un processus de consultation publique a été récemment lancé pour inviter les organisations européennes et de l'Afrique sub-saharienne à apporter leurs contributions au groupe de travail du projet et à donner leur avis sur les productions de ce groupe. Le projet cible aussi bien les acteurs de la recherche et de la coopération technique tant du secteur public que privé, ainsi que les acteurs concernés de la société civile. -> http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?article1165 Appel à contributions sur l'initiative EuroAfrica ICT : -> http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?article1163 -------------------------------- Le CIPACO est mis en place par l'Institut Panos Afrique de l'Ouest (IPAO) http://www.panos-ao.org, une organisation non gouvernementale africaine dont l'objectif est de promouvoir une culture de la démocratie, de la citoyenneté et de la paix, à travers l'information et la communication. Il a pour but de renforcer les capacités des acteurs en Afrique de l'Ouest et du Centre, pour une meilleure participation à la prise de décision internationale en matière de TIC. Une initiative partenaire couvrant l'Afrique de l'Est et l'Afrique Australe a été également mis en place dans le cadre du programme CATIA : www.cipesa.org. Le CIPACO s'insère dans le Programme NTIC de l'IPAO. Pour plus d'information, consultez notre site www.cipaco.org. Contact - Envoyez-nous vos informations: contact at cipaco.org Pour s'abonner, envoyez-nous un email ou aller sur : http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?page=contribuer Pour se désabonner, envoyez-nous un email ou aller sur http://mailman.cipaco.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/newsletter *************************************************************************** ENGLISH *************************************************************************** ** CONTENTS: *Calendar* *News Updates* *Library* *Special Focus:* Resources on Africa and the Internet Governance Forum *CIPACO's activities: ** Promoting ICT Research and Technical Cooperation in Africa : the EuroAfrica ICT initiative * *Recommended Reading *** IGF : Taking stock and the way forward ** (check the section "Special Focus") ** Nigeria, an Emerging Global Player in Telecoms ** ** Governance challenges : assessing participation in WSIS from Africa and its private sector (Synthesis) ** ----------------------- CALENDAR ----------------------- ** IGF : Taking stock and the way forward ** 13 February 2007. The meeting is open to all WSIS accredited entities and individuals with proven expertise and experience in Internet Governance related issues. Venue : The Palais des Nations, United Nations Office in Geneva (Room XX). Registration process - call for contributions - remote participation. -> http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?article1156&lang=en ** Broadband Summit 2007 ** 26th - 28th February, 2007, South Africa. Provide a platform where broadband industry leaders can network and identify the current challenges and opportunities they are facing. -> http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?article1182&lang=en ** SatCom Africa 2007 ** 12th - 16th March 2007, Sandton Convention Centre, Johannesburg, South Africa. 10th Anniversary. The place that brings you in contact with hundreds of senior level decision makers with the power to purchase your solutions. -> http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?article1132&lang=en ** EuroAfrica-ICT project : Awareness and exchange workshop ** 21 - 22 March, 2007, Dakar, Senegal. The aim of this workshop are : the provision of information on the EuroAfrica ICT project, training on projects's submission in the framework of FP7. -> http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?article1198&lang=en ** IST-Africa 2007 Conference & Exhibition ** 9th - 11 May, 2007, Maputo, Mozambique. Bridging the Digital Divide by sharing knowledge, experience, lessons learnt and good practice. -> http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?article1129&lang=en ** eLearning Africa 2007 ** 28th - 30th May, 2007, Nairobi, Kenya. 'Building Infrastructures and Capacities to Reach out to the Whole of Africa'. The second International Conference on ICT for Development, Education and Training, will take place from May 28 to 30, 2007 in Nairobi (Kenya) under the Patronage of the Kenyan Minister for Education, Science and Technology. -> http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?id_article=1020&lang=en *More events* : http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?rubrique3&lang=en ----------------- NEWS ----------------- ** Launching of ECOWAS commission to speed-up integration and development ** The Summit adopted a regional telecommunications policy and a regulatory framework covering specific areas, such as interconnection to ICT and services networks. -> http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?article1179&lang=en ** Nigeria, an Emerging Global Player in Telecoms ** The Former Minister of Communication, Mr Obafemi Anibaba has described Nigeria as an emerging major global player in telecoms that should play key leadership roles in international organisations. -> http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?article1175&lang=en ** A legal framework for ICT development in West Africa ** ECA, ECOWAS and UEMOA discussed on the adoption of a common regulatory framework on ICTs for West Africa, as a way of attracting foreign direct investments during a workshop held in December 2006 in Ouagadougou. -> http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?article1174&lang=en ** Unified Licensing : What Benefits for Telecoms Sector? ** What benefits will the new unified licensing regime bring to the Nigerian telecommunications sector, especially in the light of the emergence of new operators ? -> http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?article1172&lang=en ** Dot com : the U.S. Department of Commerce, the ultimate decider ** 30 November 2006 : The U.S. Department of Commerce announced that it, and not ICANN, would be the ultimate "decider" when it comes to dot com. Dot com is the largest and most valuable Internet top level domain, accounting for about 40% of the global market. -> http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?article1157&lang=en **More news:** http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?rubrique1&lang=en ------------------ LIBRARY ------------------ ** Governance challenges : assessing participation in WSIS from Africa and its private sector (Synthesis) ** By : Karim SY and Sylvie JAVELOT, with input from Ken LOHENTO and the support of Patrick MATHIEU The study gives emphasis to the second phase of the Summit. But, in the process, it looks also at the first phase to improve understanding of African participation throughout the WSIS. -> http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?article400&lang=en ** VoIP-4D Primer : Building Voice Infrastructure in Developing Regions ** By : Alberto Escudero-Pascual and Louise Berthilson 'This "primer" is an attempt to introduce [people] to those essentials of IP telephony and give [them] some concrete examples of the potential use in developing regions. As the goal was to create a short but not necessarily simplistic document, a big part of this effort has been to be as pedagogical as possible.' -> http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?page=document&id_rubrique=2&num_doc=329&lang=en ** The Future of Voice in Africa ** By : Russell Southwood 'This paper draws on a report written by the author called African VoIP Markets that looks in greater detail at some of the issues covered. [It] seeks to identify the changes that VoIP has made in how the African telecoms and Internet sectors operate and looks forward to the new developments that will flow from the transition to IP. Africa has become one of the first developing world continents where major markets have been opened up to the legal use of VoIP. Therefore, its experience as a continent has relevance to other countries struggling with the challenges VoIP poses.' -> http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?page=document&id_rubrique=2&num_doc=324&lang=en **More documents:** http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?page=documents&id_rubrique=2&lang=en ----------------------- CIPACO'S ACTIVITIES ---------------------- Promoting ICT Research in Africa : the EuroAfrica ICT initiative CIPACO is participating in a new project named "EuroAfrica ICT"supported by the European Commission through its IST programme. In fact, one main strategic axis of its intervention identified during the Mbodiene CIPACO launch workshop in 2004 is ICT research. The objective of the new project is to connect Sub-saharan Africa and the European Union for ICT partnerships through the Framework Programme 7 and to contribute to the development of scientific and technical cooperation between the two regions (a specific aspect of the project is related to cooperation with South Africa). An open consultation process has been recently launched in the framework of the project. This consultation invites European and sub-Saharan African organisations to provide inputs to the working group and to give their feedback on working group outputs through on-line posted contributions. The target audience of the project include all stakeholders interested in ICT research and technical cooperation in the ICT field, notably instutions from the public and private sector. -> http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?article1165&lang=en Call for contributions to the EuroAfrica ICT initiative -> http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?article1163&lang=en ******************************************************************************** FOCUS : RESSOURCES SUR L'AFRIQUE ET LE FGI / RESOURCES ON AFRICA AND THE IGF ******************************************************************************** Dans le cadre de l'organisation en février prochain des sessions publiques de concertations sur le FGI (Genève), en prélude au Sommet de Rio, nous vous proposons une sélection d'informations et de documents pour vous tenir informer et pour contribuer au renforcement de la participation de l'Afrique dans le processus. In the framework of the public sessions of consultation on IGF (Geneva), preparing the RIO Summit, we have prepared the following selection of information and resources to update you on, and foster African participation in the process. A - PROCHAINS RENDEZ-VOUS / UPCOMING ACTIVITIES ** IGF : Taking stock and the way forward ** 13 February 2007. The meeting is open to all WSIS accredited entities and individuals with proven expertise and experience in Internet Governance related issues. Venue : The Palais des Nations, United Nations Office in Geneva (Room XX). Registration process - call for contributions - remote participation. -> http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?article1156&lang=en ** IGF 2007 ** 12 - 15 November 2007, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The Government of Brazil will host the second IGF meeting. -> http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?article1107&lang=en B - ACTIVITIES PASSEES / PAST ACTIVITIES ** The African Preparatory Meeting to the IGF ** Africa on the road to Athens took place in Cairo from 19 to 21 September 2006. The National Telecom Regulatory Authority of Egypt (NTRA) hosted this event which was preceded by an "Internet Governance Awareness Day" by Diplo Foundation on the 19th of September, 2006. -> http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?page=article_fgi&id_article=1007&lang=en ** Capacity Building Constraints ** Workshop of the IGF meeting organized and/or sponsored by APC, GLOCOM, CIPESA, CIPACO, APNIC/LACNIC/AFNIC. -> http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?page=article_fgi&id_article=964&lang=en ** Regional workshop : 'ICT Governance and post WSIS strategies in West and Central Africa'** The CIPACO project organized a workshop from 13th to15th July, 2006 in Saly, Senegal. The aim of this workshop was twofold : to assess engagements in ICT policies priority issues in West and Central Africa by stakeholders and by the CIPACO project (of Panos Institute West Africa) in particular and to contribute to the preparation of African stakeholders for the Internet Governance Forum. The Saly Appeal, referenced below, was issued during this workshop. -> http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?article833&lang=en ** Atelier Régional : "Gouvernance des TIC et stratégies post - SMSI en Afrique de l'Ouest et du Centre" ** Le projet CIPACO a organisé un atelier intitulé "Gouvernance des TIC et stratégies post - SMSI en Afrique de l'Ouest et du Centre" du 13 au 15 juillet 2006. Cet atelier avait un objectif double : "évaluer la prise en compte des enjeux prioritaires des politiques des TIC pour l'Afrique de l'Ouest et l'Afrique Centrale par les différents acteurs, en particulier le projet CIPACO de l'Institut Panos Afrique de l'Ouest" et "contribuer à la préparation des acteurs africains au Forum sur la Gouvernance de l'Internet". C'est à l'issue de cet atelier que l'Appel de Saly, référencé ci-dessous, a été lancé. -> http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?article833 C - RESSOURCES INFORMATIONNELLES / RESOURCES ** The African Preparatory Meeting for the Internet : Final Communiqué ** The meeting was held at Mövenpick, Cairo (Egypt), from the 18th to the 21st September 2006, for the purpose of sharing views and exchanging thoughts regarding the upcoming first meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Athens. -> http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?article1195&lang=en ** Internet Governance Training Course for African Policymakers - Recommendations ** Recommendations on Internet Governance Issues from the Participants that were attending the ECA Internet Governance Training Course for African policy makers in Addis Ababa (Ethiopia) from 2 to 6 July, 2006. -> http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?page=article_fgi&id_article=932&lang=en ** IGF : Report of the Africa Group Meeting in Athens ** The main objective of the meeting was to exchange ideas on African participation on the IGF, and post-Athens future perspectives for adequate responses to African issues. -> http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?page=article_fgi&id_article=1064&lang=en ** Opening the Internet Governance Forum Debate in Africa (working paper) ** - version française disponible -- A composite document (Working paper) issued by the CIPACO project of PIWA. This publication discusses post-WSIS and Internet Governance Forum Issues for Africa. -> http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?article993&lang=en ** The Saly Appeal for the establishment of an African Forum on IG ** > From the 13th to 15th July 2006, some forty stakeholders and professionals of media and ICT (regulators, private sector, civil society, public and regional institutions, etc.) gathered in Saly, Senegal to share information and discuss on ICT policies and African participation in Internet governance made this appeal. -> http://www.cipaco.org/article.php3?id_article=883&lang=en ** IGF : Workshop Report : Exploring a Framework Convention on the Internet ** Organizers : IT for Change, Bangalore ; Hivos, Netherlands ; Panos Institute, West Africa - CIPACO Project ; Third World Institute (ITeM), Uruguay ; Foundation for Media Alternatives, Phillipines. -> http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?article1063&lang=en ** Does Africa need an IGF or Internet Development Forum ? ** By : Vincent Waiswa Bagiire In a nutshell, Africa needs to be concerned about developing Internet usage, first, rather than dwelling on who governs the Internet and how. -> http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?article1056&lang=en ** Effective participation of Civil Society Organizations in the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) ** Open letter to M. Markus KUMMER, Coordinator Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum. This letter was written by the African Civil Society for the Information Society Network (ACSIS). This letter was the challenges faced by the Civil Society and developing countries to participate in the Internet Governance Forum process. -> http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?page=article_fgi&id_article=1031&lang=en ** Nigerian Stakeholders' Draft Statement on Internet Governance ** "The Internet is - and should remain - a freedom square, where present and future stakeholders will - and should be free within their respective limits, create, utilize and positively transform information." -> http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?page=article_fgi&id_article=985&lang=en ** Rapport de l'atelier sur la Gouvernance de l'Internet organisé par la Société Civile de la RDC ** La problématique de la gouvernance de l'Internet a nécessité un débat ouvert à tous les pays de façon démocratique, transparente et inclusive. La Société Civile Congolaise oeuvrant dans le domaine des TIC , avec le soutien de l'Agence Universitaire de la partenaire principal de la dynamique, a initié un atelier spécifique, en République Démocratique du Congo, pour la mise en place d'une plate forme des entités de la société civile , des Institutions Universitaires et de Recherche sur la gouvernance de l'Internet en RD Congo. L'atelier, organisé du 9 au 11 janvier 2007 et intitulé. Rapport de l'atelier. -> http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?page=document&id_rubrique=2&num_doc=331 * Portal "Africa and the Internet Governance Forum" ** The CIPACO has put in place a website of which aim is to inform stakeholders, in West and Central Africa, in particular, on IGF issues, relevant to Africa, and to stir debate and actions on this problem. -> http://www.cipaco.org/article.php3?id_article=1057&lang=en ** Appel de Saly pour la mise en place d'un Forum africain sur la GI ** Du 13 au 15 juillet 2006, des acteurs et professionnels des médias et des TIC (régulateurs, secteur privé, société civile, institutions publiques et régionales,etc.), se sont réunis à Saly, au Sénégal, pour débattre des politiques des TIC et de la participation africaine dans la gouvernance de l'Internet. C'est à l'issue de cet atelier que cet appel a été lancé. -> http://www.cipaco.org/article.php3?id_article=883 ** Portail "l'Afrique et le Forum sur la Gouvernance de l'Internet" ** Le CIPACO a mis en place un site web intitulé "L'Afrique et le Forum sur la Gouvernance de l'Internet" dans le but "d'informer les acteurs en Afrique, en particulier en Afrique de l'Ouest et du Centre, sur les questions liées au FGI et d'encourager le débat et l'action autour de cette problématique pour l'Afrique". -> http://www.cipaco.org/article.php3?id_article=1057 ----------------------------------- CIPACO has been initiated by Panos Institute West Africa (PIWA) http://www.panos-ao.org, in order to strengthen the capacity of African stakeholders for a more effective participation in international ICT decision-making processes. PIWA is a regional West African NGO, of which aim is to promote Democracy, Citizenship and Peace, through information and communication. CIPESA a sister project, put in place within the same CATIA framework and covers East and Southern Africa : www.cipesa.org. For more information, please check our website www.cipaco.org Contact : contact at cipaco.org To subscribe, send us a email or go to: http://www.cipaco.org/article.php3?id_article=15&lang=en To unsubscribe, send us an email or go to http://mailman.cipaco.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/newsletter -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Thu Feb 1 20:36:54 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 10:36:54 +0900 Subject: [governance] Statement for the Feb 13 meeting In-Reply-To: <45C2139F.2050109@bertola.eu> References: <45C2139F.2050109@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <45C295B6.3080504@Malcolm.id.au> Thanks for this Vittorio. Vittorio Bertola wrote: > The Internet Governance Caucus, as the main coordination framework for > civil society participation in Internet governance discussions at the > WSIS and then at the IGF, would like to provide feedback and opinions on > the subjects of this meeting. At WSIS more so than the IGF, but anyway... > Workshops were usually interesting, though some effort should be made to > better integrate them with the overall themes and flow of discussions of > the IGF. Specifically, it should be ensured that all workshops meet the > multi-stakeholder criteria, and that at least half of their duration is > allocated to open floor discussion rather than to panel presentations, > to prevent some workshops from becoming just a showcase for the > organizers, or a lobbying event for a single group of stakeholders. Suggest adding here: "Alternative formats for workshops should be facilitated to limit this tendency. For example, one room should be laid out in table groups, to allow workshops held there to foster intensive deliberation on the issues under discussion, rather than encouraging the passive receipt of information. Again, one room could be laid out with computer terminals allowing participants to directly engage with remote participants in the use or collaborative development of online tools and resources." > About the Advisory Group, while supporting the concept, we express our > dissatisfaction for the very limited representation of civil society in > its first instance, which amounted to five or less members over about > forty. It seems that the technical and academic communities may have been regarded as part of civil society (see http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sga1006.doc.htm), but even accepting that they are a cross-cutting constituency (as per WGIG and Tunis Agenda para 36), this would mean that they include part of the quota of members from the private sector and civil society. Since neither WGIG nor WSIS accepted the technical community as a stakeholder group on its own account, is it too late to effectively be arguing that now? An alternative approach for the short-term would be to say: "We are dissatisfied that the criteria for selection of Advisory Group members, and the composition of the Advisory Group including the proportionate representation of stakeholder groups and the cross-cutting technical and academic communities, were not openly and transparently discussed prior to the Advisory Group's appointment. We further consider that if these criteria and the quotas for representation from each stakeholder group were openly established, it would be possible for the Secretary General to delegate the actual process of selection of Advisory Group members to the stakeholder groups themselves." > We also reiterate the need for the IGF to be considered as a process, > rather than as an event. We support the concept of “dynamic coalitions” > and their activities; however, there needs to be a way to “bless” their > work and give some recognition, even if not binding, to their products. Add here, "A transparent, multi-stakeholder and democratic process should be commenced to develop criteria for the recognition of Dynamic Coalitions by the IGF, whereby the output of Coalitions that satisfied those criteria could be formally received for discussion at a plenary session of the following IGF meeting." Also suggest adding, but as a separate point, "We also consider that insufficient priority has been given to supporting the development of online fora for discussion and deliberation, not only to facilitate the participation of those who cannot afford to travel to IGF meetings, but also to enable those who do attend in person to continue their work in between meetings." -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ 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 Fri Feb 2 08:58:58 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 22:58:58 +0900 Subject: [governance] Statement for the Feb 13 meeting In-Reply-To: <45C21F43.4020802@bertola.eu> References: <45C2139F.2050109@bertola.eu> <45C21F43.4020802@bertola.eu> Message-ID: Good statement (other than the curly quotes :-)  I think we should go to the ICC-BASIS statement and use: The Internet Governance Caucus [Business] fully supports Mr. Nitin Desai as the chair of the IGF advisory group, and recognizes his expertise and professionalism as a major factor in the advisory group's successful completion of its tasks. Workshop: I wouldn't go as far as saying they must be be half discussion, but I think an emphasis on discussion should be stressed. I think there are 46 members of the MAG (can someone check). Expressing dissatisfaction with number of CS is right to do. But do we need to present things as a negative, can it be positive? Rather than saying we want an equal number to any other group (not so good, likely lead to people differently interpreting what is/is not CS, and counting differently), suggest we ask that "Representatives from civil society groups who can present a gender perspective [wording?], people with disabilities and experts on local access conditions, particularly from African and SE Asian regions, would be a positive addition to the membership Advisory Group and should be invited to join. IGC would be please to work with the Chair and Secretariat on preparing a possible list of names for the Secretary General's consideration." This "blessing" of the dynamic coalitions is important. I think they must be associated with and become an essential part of the IGF as process, but tieing too closely may not be what some want.  Themes: Access should be the overarching theme. Capacity building a clear priority out of Athens. (related, and I expect some caucus members might object to this, but I would like to see a sentence saying "The IGC welcomes the recognition of the Internet technical community as a fourth stakeholder in the IGF process. Information Society and the critical issues of capacity building and extending access needs the equal participation of this vital fourth stakeholder.") Missing issues we should ask to be addressed in this and future consultations: Tunis Agenda, para 72 as the mandate of the IGF and how to better incorporate all the tasks proposed in this mandate. Particularly in preparation for and in Rio we believe the agenda should include opportunity to begin dialogue on: "Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing and/or future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from developing countries." "Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources." Which could complement discussions on enhanced cooperation. (I would like us to suggest discussing ICANN stuff. So long as it doesn't dominate and suck the life from the rest.) Adam At 6:11 PM +0100 2/1/07, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >Adam Peake ha scritto: >>Could you post as RTF? > >Attached. > >>And use simple plain text when trying to use >>text, no high ascii (curly quotes etc.) > >That's the free software community trying to >beat Microsoft in terms of "smart copy & paste" >:) >-- >vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- >--------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- >____________________________________________________________ >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 > > >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:20070213 - >Statement#254CFD.rtf (NO%F/›j›¤) (00254CFD) ____________________________________________________________ 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 Feb 2 10:40:23 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 10:40:23 -0500 Subject: [governance] Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting Message-ID: >>> Parminder at ITforChange.net 2/1/2007 8:06:12 AM >>> >Your suggestions for raising funds are very interesting. A 'tax' >on domain names is a good idea, since the money is to be used >for IG related public policy activity. Who speaks for the people who pay this tax? What representation, control or accountability do domain name registrants have over the IGF? (I would suggest: none) The principle of no taxation without representation is fundamental to democratic 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 jeanette at wz-berlin.de Fri Feb 2 10:54:43 2007 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 16:54:43 +0100 Subject: [governance] Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45C35EC3.1090800@wz-berlin.de> Actually I didn't think of a tax in the literal sense. I rather thought of the revenue raised from .org etc. jeanette Milton Mueller wrote: >>>> Parminder at ITforChange.net 2/1/2007 8:06:12 AM >>> >> Your suggestions for raising funds are very interesting. A 'tax' >> on domain names is a good idea, since the money is to be used >> for IG related public policy activity. > > Who speaks for the people who pay this tax? What representation, > control or accountability do domain name registrants have over the IGF? > (I would suggest: none) > > The principle of no taxation without representation is fundamental to > democratic 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 Feb 2 11:11:54 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 19:11:54 +0300 Subject: [governance] Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting In-Reply-To: <45C35EC3.1090800@wz-berlin.de> References: <45C35EC3.1090800@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: On 2/2/07, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Actually I didn't think of a tax in the literal sense. I rather thought > of the revenue raised from .org etc. A significant portion of which is already used to fund Internet Governance fora. -- 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 jeanette at wz-berlin.de Fri Feb 2 11:14:40 2007 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 17:14:40 +0100 Subject: [governance] Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting In-Reply-To: References: <45C35EC3.1090800@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <45C36370.3010106@wz-berlin.de> McTim wrote: > On 2/2/07, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> Actually I didn't think of a tax in the literal sense. I rather thought >> of the revenue raised from .org etc. > > A significant portion of which is already used to fund Internet > Governance fora. Exactly, and I am just asking if the IGF could not be one of them. 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 sylvia.caras at gmail.com Fri Feb 2 12:53:53 2007 From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 09:53:53 -0800 Subject: [governance] Statement for the Feb 13 meeting In-Reply-To: References: <45C2139F.2050109@bertola.eu> <45C21F43.4020802@bertola.eu> Message-ID: I think many many components can be included under the over arching them of access - I like Adam's underscoring. In the disability world, and I guess other places, representatives speak about us, without us. So a small wording suggestion follows: Representatives with direct experience from diverse civil society groups ... On 2/2/07, Adam Peake wrote: > > "Representatives from civil society groups who > can present a gender perspective [wording?], > people with disabilities and experts on local > access conditions, particularly from African and > SE Asian regions, would be a positive addition to > the membership Advisory Group and should be > invited to join. IGC would be please to work with > the Chair and Secretariat on preparing a possible > list of names for the Secretary General's > consideration." > > Themes: > > Access should be the overarching theme. Sylvia ____________________________________________________________ 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 Sylvia.Caras at gmail.com Fri Feb 2 19:28:02 2007 From: Sylvia.Caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 16:28:02 -0800 Subject: [governance] access: Special Rapporteur will address UN Commission for Social Development Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070202162636.045199f8@gmail.com> A note of the Secretary-General on Monitoring the Implementation of the Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (document E/CN.5/2007/4) includes the annual report of the Special Rapporteur on Disabilities on that subject. A global survey on implementation of the 1993 Standard Rules, carried out in 1995-1996 by the office of the Special Rapporteur and the South-North Centre for Dialogue and Development, yielded the most comprehensive data yet on the actions taken (or not taken) by Member States. On the basis of the information provided by 114 Member States, the Special Rapporteur submits a number of recommendations to Governments. These include adopting policies and passing legislation to implement the measures identified by the Standard Rules; allocating financial resources to such programmes; intensifying awareness-raising efforts; enrolling the media in a campaign to change attitudes and behaviours; and ensuring that medical care, rehabilitation and assistive services are available in a way that enables full participation and equality to live independent lives. The Rapporteur also recommends treating all forms of accessibility -- whether the built environment, transportation, information or communication -- with the same importance; ensuring integrated education and employment; supporting organizations of persons with disabilities financially and technically; increasing regional and international cooperation, sharing of information and expertise, technical and technological assistance and collaborative efforts; and signing and ratifying the 2006 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. http://insurancenewsnet.com/article.asp?n=1&neID=200702023600.3_00790214ff9dbae2 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sat Feb 3 04:54:11 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 18:54:11 +0900 Subject: [governance] ICANN nominating committee begins candidate recruitment Message-ID: Hi, ICANN Nominating Committee has begun recruitment for 2007 vacancies. New website: Deadline: 1 May 2007 2007 vacancies are for: - three members of the ICANN Board of Directors; - two members of the Council of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO); - one member of the Council of the Country-Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO); and - three members of the At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), for Africa, Asia Pacific and Latin America and Caribbean regions. Thanks, 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sat Feb 3 09:00:30 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 19:30:30 +0530 Subject: [governance] Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070203140037.3D033E1508@smtp3.electricembers.net> Milton > Who speaks for the people who pay this tax? What representation, > control or accountability do domain name registrants have over the IGF? > (I would suggest: none). The obvious fact is that a 'tax' is BEING collected by ICANN. We cant call what ICANN collects as normal service charges, because it's a monopoly provider with no regulation and sets its own charges. And it has the coercive power of excluding anyone from the Internet, if he or she does not pay up. If you are on digital territory you are in some way contributing to the ICANN, as per rules set by the ICANN itself. And it does whatever with this collection - deciding to utilizing it for some technical governance tasks, and some not so technical. The next issue is as you say 'who speaks for the people who pay this tax' (which is directly or indirectly all people who use the Internet). I think ICANN has less representative-ness of 'these people' that IGF etc (and you have often argued about the lack of representative-ness, transparency etc of ICANN). Public policy activity needs to be financed by taxes - and not opportunistic or pro bono participation (with the political interests often disguised). These principals of policy and governance are basic... And we all do set some score by IGF's role in global public policy making in the area of the Internet. IGF is in any case already financed through the UN which itself is financed through the taxes we pay.... And if you are not satisfied with 'representation, control and accountability' of it, we need to engage and make it more so. IGF's purpose is to make ICANN and other IG spaces more accountable, stakeholder-controlled, transparent etc - so, the tax collected from Internet users can and should legitimately be used for funding it. Starving the IGF of such funds and ICANN using the tax it collects in the manner it likes, is what constitutes a non-fulfillment of the above canons of fair governance you speak of. > The principle of no taxation without representation is fundamental to > democratic governance. I completely agree. That's the problem I have in paying taxes to ICANN. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 9:10 PM > To: Parminder at ITforChange.net; Jeanette Hofmann > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting > > >>> Parminder at ITforChange.net 2/1/2007 8:06:12 AM >>> > >Your suggestions for raising funds are very interesting. A 'tax' > >on domain names is a good idea, since the money is to be used > >for IG related public policy activity. > > Who speaks for the people who pay this tax? What representation, > control or accountability do domain name registrants have over the IGF? > (I would suggest: none) > > The principle of no taxation without representation is fundamental to > democratic 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sat Feb 3 09:01:58 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 19:31:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070203140204.5FBDECA015@smtp1.electricembers.net> > On 2/2/07, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > Actually I didn't think of a tax in the literal sense. I rather thought > > of the revenue raised from .org etc. > > A significant portion of which is already used to fund Internet > Governance fora. > > McTim Which ones, and why, and why not others - is the political question. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 9:42 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann > Cc: Milton Mueller; Parminder at itforchange.net > Subject: Re: [governance] Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting > > On 2/2/07, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > Actually I didn't think of a tax in the literal sense. I rather thought > > of the revenue raised from .org etc. > > A significant portion of which is already used to fund Internet > Governance fora. > > -- > 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 ____________________________________________________________ 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 Sat Feb 3 09:37:45 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:37:45 +0300 Subject: [governance] Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting In-Reply-To: <45c495dc.7db13e13.284f.63a1SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> References: <45c495dc.7db13e13.284f.63a1SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: On 2/3/07, Parminder wrote: > > > On 2/2/07, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > Actually I didn't think of a tax in the literal sense. I rather thought > > > of the revenue raised from .org etc. > > > > A significant portion of which is already used to fund Internet > > Governance fora. > > > > McTim > > Which ones, Here are some of them (for the .org revenue): IETF, RFCs, ETSI, IRTF, IESG, IAB, AfNOG | AfriNIC | PacNOG | SANOG | WALC, ISOC Fellowship to the IETF, Network Training Workshops, Pan Asia Networking ICT Grants Programme and the Regional Fund for Digital Innovation in the Latin American and Caribbean, ccTLD Workshops. I am sure there are others that I am missing, including participation in IGF, WSIS and ITU fora. > and why, because they are the most useful, probably. >and why not others - is the political question. Most bang for the buck I guess. If I were making the decisions about whether to fund a non-binding, post-WSIS, exclusive travel and sightseeing club or a "rubber meets the road" inclusive Internet development program, I know what I would choose. -- 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 george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Sat Feb 3 09:52:22 2007 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2007 09:52:22 -0500 Subject: [governance] Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting In-Reply-To: <20070203140037.3D033E1508@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20070203140037.3D033E1508@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: I have problems with the presentation of this argument. See below. At 7:30 PM +0530 2/3/07, Parminder wrote: >Milton > >> Who speaks for the people who pay this tax? What representation, >> control or accountability do domain name registrants have over the IGF? >> (I would suggest: none). > >The obvious fact is that a 'tax' is BEING collected by ICANN. We cant call >what ICANN collects as normal service charges, because it's a monopoly >provider with no regulation and sets its own charges. Monopoly providers of public utilities in many countries have service charges, not taxes. They may include monopoly profits, or legislated guaranteed rates of return, but they are service charges nonetheless. ICANN's charges -- to those who want domain names, not necessarily to those who just want access to the Internet -- are used for the administration of the Domain Name System and to assure its security and stability. That's a service from which we all benefit. > And it has the >coercive power of excluding anyone from the Internet, ICANN does not have the power of excluding anyone from the Internet. > if he or she does not >pay up. If you are on digital territory you are in some way contributing to >the ICANN, as per rules set by the ICANN itself. And it does whatever with >this collection - deciding to utilizing it for some technical governance >tasks, and some not so technical. Please provide examples of ICANN functions that do not contribute at all to the above objectives. > > >The next issue is as you say 'who speaks for the people who pay this tax' >(which is directly or indirectly all people who use the Internet). I think >ICANN has less representative-ness of 'these people' that IGF etc (and you >have often argued about the lack of representative-ness, transparency etc of >ICANN). Neither ICANN nor IGF would claim to be completely representative of the user population. Both have significant user components in their composition. > >Public policy activity needs to be financed by taxes - and not opportunistic >or pro bono participation (with the political interests often disguised). >These principals of policy and governance are basic... And we all do set >some score by IGF's role in global public policy making in the area of the >Internet. IGF is a discussion forum. It has no role ion global public policy making. > > >IGF is in any case already financed through the UN which itself is financed >through the taxes we pay.... And if you are not satisfied with >'representation, control and accountability' of it, we need to engage and >make it more so. > >IGF's purpose is to make ICANN and other IG spaces more accountable, >stakeholder-controlled, transparent etc - IGF is a discussion forum that deals with issues of Internet Governance. >so, the tax collected from >Internet users can and should legitimately be used for funding it. Starving >the IGF of such funds and ICANN using the tax it collects in the manner it >likes, ICANN uses funds in a manner consistent with its mandate. Please provide examples of use of ICANN funds that are completely inconsistent with its mandate. > is what constitutes a non-fulfillment of the above canons of fair >governance you speak of. > >> The principle of no taxation without representation is fundamental to >> democratic governance. > >I completely agree. That's the problem I have in paying taxes to ICANN. > >Parminder >________________________________________________ >Parminder Jeet Singh >IT for Change, Bangalore >Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities >Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 >Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 >www.ITforChange.net >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] >> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 9:10 PM >> To: Parminder at ITforChange.net; Jeanette Hofmann >> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: Re: [governance] Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting >> >> >>> Parminder at ITforChange.net 2/1/2007 8:06:12 AM >>> >> >Your suggestions for raising funds are very interesting. A 'tax' >> >on domain names is a good idea, since the money is to be used >> >for IG related public policy activity. >> >> Who speaks for the people who pay this tax? What representation, >> control or accountability do domain name registrants have over the IGF? >> (I would suggest: none) >> >> The principle of no taxation without representation is fundamental to >> democratic 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 ____________________________________________________________ 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 Sat Feb 3 10:39:22 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 16:39:22 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Message-ID: <49374.130.132.251.34.1170517162.squirrel@webmail.dynamicfun.com> Adam Peake ha scritto: > Good statement (other than the curly quotes :-) Thanks. May I ask everyone to post any proposal for edits before the end of Wednesday, so that there still are a few days to discuss any remaining issue with such proposals, and for me to prepare a final version? For the rest, I think your comments are good, I only have a remark on a couple of things that go in the direction of expressing particular preferences, such as this one: > differently), suggest we ask that "Representatives from civil society > groups who can present a gender perspective [wording?], people with > disabilities and experts on local access conditions, particularly from > African and SE Asian regions, would be a positive addition to the > membership Advisory Group and should be invited to join. IGC would be > please to work with the Chair and Secretariat on preparing a possible > list of names for the Secretary General's consideration." and this one: > Access should be the overarching theme. > Capacity building a clear priority out of Athens. because I think that each of us has different priority issues (for me it would be rights and information freedom, for example) and different views on who should be added to the AG (I do feel the need to add individual users and "hackers", for example). So I would rather state all our suggestions for important themes without prioritizing them, and, for what regards the AG, say that we think that we have more perspectives to add but leave it open about who should be invited to join, also because we might want to run the usual nomcom process. > (related, and I expect > some caucus members might object to this, but I would like to see a > sentence saying "The IGC welcomes the recognition of the Internet > technical community as a fourth stakeholder in the IGF process. > Information Society and the critical issues of capacity building and > extending access needs the equal participation of this vital fourth > stakeholder.") Well... I'd be happy to welcome it, but not if it is at the damage of our own representation. Maybe we can add it, but then add a sentence that specifies that this doesn't eliminate the need for ample representation of the "traditional" WSIS civil society folks :) > "Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources." > Which could complement discussions on enhanced cooperation. (I would > like us to suggest discussing ICANN stuff. So long as it doesn't > dominate and suck the life from the rest.) More views on this one? I'd like to understand whether there is any clear or rough consensus in the caucus. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Sat Feb 3 10:45:22 2007 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2007 16:45:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN taxes/fees (was: Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting) In-Reply-To: References: <20070203140037.3D033E1508@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <45C4AE12.8090505@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Interesting debate. I have adapted the subject line. George Sadowsky wrote: > IGF is a discussion forum. It has no role ion global public policy > making. Wait a second. From the Tunis Agenda: "72.(...) The mandate of the Forum is to: a) Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance (...) g) Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations; (...) k) Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse of the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users; (...) 77. The IGF would have no oversight function and would not replace existing arrangements, mechanisms, institutions or organisations, but would involve them and take advantage of their expertise. It would be constituted as a neutral, non-duplicative and non-binding process. It would have no involvement in day-to-day or technical operations of the Internet." So, the IGF can discuss public policy issues, make recommendations, find solutions etc. They only are non-binding. But a lot of global public policy is being coordinated in a non-binding way nowadays. That's why you call it "governance", not "government". >> IGF is in any case already financed through the UN which itself is >> financed through the taxes we pay.... Not exactly: "The IGF Secretariat's activities are funded through extra-budgetary contributions paid into a Trust Fund administered by the United Nations. Pledges and contributions have been received so far from the following donors." http://www.intgovforum.org/funding.htm > ICANN uses funds in a manner consistent with its mandate. Please > provide examples of use of ICANN funds that are completely inconsistent > with its mandate. That is not the question (well, of course you could question why Californian lawyers have to make a fortune e.g. from applicants for new gTLDs, but this is not the issue here). The question was if adding funding for the IGF would be inconsistent with ICANN's mandate. Best, Ralf ____________________________________________________________ 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 Sat Feb 3 10:47:17 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 16:47:17 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting Message-ID: <49380.130.132.251.34.1170517637.squirrel@webmail.dynamicfun.com> Jeanette Hofmann ha scritto: >> McTim wrote: >> >> A significant portion of which is already used to fund Internet >> Governance fora. > > Exactly, and I am just asking if the IGF could not be one of them. Just for the sake of precision, AFAIK ICANN made significant contributions to the funding of the IGF in Athens and of various items in the WSIS/WGIG process. About the idea of making this flow of money compulsory, I think that it would be very difficult to make it palatable to those who pay ICANN's bill, namely registrars and registries, who always complain about any "political" use of ICANN's money. As there is no authority that can force all these companies in all these countries to collect money and give it to the IGF, I don't think it would fly unless you can really convince anyone that it's a Good Thing. This would possibly require having much more concrete plans on who collects this money, how it is allocated, for what, what decision-making and management processes and entities are there... I mean, the IGF isn't even an incorporated entity with a budget, at this point in time. So if this is something that people really want to put on the table, it should be much more refined than this; putting it out as a vague "we want money" cry will only backfire. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 plzak at arin.net Sat Feb 3 11:31:50 2007 From: plzak at arin.net (Ray Plzak) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 11:31:50 -0500 Subject: [governance] Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting In-Reply-To: References: <45c495dc.7db13e13.284f.63a1SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Add all of the RIRs through the NRO for both WSIS and IGF. Ray > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 9:38 AM > To: Parminder > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann; Milton Mueller > Subject: Re: [governance] Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting > > On 2/3/07, Parminder wrote: > > > > > On 2/2/07, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > > Actually I didn't think of a tax in the literal sense. I rather > thought > > > > of the revenue raised from .org etc. > > > > > > A significant portion of which is already used to fund Internet > > > Governance fora. > > > > > > McTim > > > > Which ones, > > Here are some of them (for the .org revenue): IETF, RFCs, ETSI, IRTF, > IESG, IAB, AfNOG | AfriNIC | PacNOG | SANOG | WALC, ISOC Fellowship to > the IETF, Network Training Workshops, Pan Asia Networking ICT Grants > Programme and the Regional Fund for Digital Innovation in the Latin > American and Caribbean, ccTLD Workshops. > > I am sure there are others that I am missing, including participation > in IGF, WSIS and ITU fora. > > > and why, > > because they are the most useful, probably. > > >and why not others - is the political question. > > Most bang for the buck I guess. If I were making the decisions about > whether to fund a non-binding, post-WSIS, exclusive travel and > sightseeing club or a "rubber meets the road" inclusive Internet > development program, I know what I would choose. > > -- > 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 ____________________________________________________________ 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 george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Sat Feb 3 11:43:52 2007 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2007 11:43:52 -0500 Subject: [governance] ICANN taxes/fees (was: Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting) In-Reply-To: <45C4AE12.8090505@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <20070203140037.3D033E1508@smtp3.electricembers.net> <45C4AE12.8090505@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: Comments inserted below... At 4:45 PM +0100 2/3/07, Ralf Bendrath wrote: >Interesting debate. I have adapted the subject line. > >George Sadowsky wrote: >>IGF is a discussion forum. It has no role ion global public policy >>making. >Wait a second. From the Tunis Agenda: > >"72.(...) The mandate of the Forum is to: >a) Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet >governance >(...) >g) Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant >bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations; >(...) >k) Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse of >the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users; >(...) >77. The IGF would have no oversight function and would not replace >existing arrangements, mechanisms, institutions or organisations, but >would involve them and take advantage of their expertise. It would be >constituted as a neutral, non-duplicative and non-binding process. It >would have no involvement in day-to-day or technical operations of the >Internet." This may be the wording of the Tunis agenda, but in fact, I believe that both Nitin desai and Markus Kummer have stressed that the purpose of the IGF is discussion, and that appears to be the opinion of members of the advisory committee also. There may have been some rethinking about the mandate of the IGF after Tunis; I'm not sure. One of the members of the Advisory Committee pointed out that one reason that Athens worked so well, and that there was so much pleasant mixing of people from different sectors, was that there were no decisions to be made, and no statements that would have to be crafted. I agree with his assessment. So I take your point about the Tunis agenda, but what is happening contradicts it, and for the best, I think. The concept of non-binding recommendations is interesting. I think even that would lead to a fundamental shift in the IGF milieu. Consider the United nations, for example, where sovereign nations generally do not consider UN decisions binding upon them. Yet the way in which UN resolutions are formulated apparently requires a highly politicized environment. Further, if you've ever sat in on UN meetings in New York (I worked there for 13 years), the discussion is formal, verbose, indirect and generally not conducive to a free and frank exchange of views. Let's keep the ambience of the IGF the way it was in Athens. > >So, the IGF can discuss public policy issues, make recommendations, find >solutions etc. They only are non-binding. But a lot of global public >policy is being coordinated in a non-binding way nowadays. That's why you >call it "governance", not "government". Hmm... Governance _sometimes_ is binding, at least the way I think of the term. for example, the pilot of an airplane has governance responsibility for the plane when it is in the air, and it _is_ binding. The Pope has governance responsibility for the Catholic Church, and it is binding on cardinals, bishops, and priests, and presumably at least morally binding on adherents. > >>>IGF is in any case already financed through the UN which itself is >>>financed through the taxes we pay.... >Not exactly: >"The IGF Secretariat's activities are funded through extra-budgetary >contributions paid into a Trust Fund administered by the United Nations. >Pledges and contributions have been received so far from the following >donors." >http://www.intgovforum.org/funding.htm Yes, that is correct, and it's only the Secretariat that is financed in that way. If you look at all the money spent on the IGF, most of it comes from disparate sources -- organizations, other governments, industry, etc. Thanks for pointing that out. > >>ICANN uses funds in a manner consistent with its mandate. Please >>provide examples of use of ICANN funds that are completely >>inconsistent >> with its mandate. >That is not the question (well, of course you could question why >Californian lawyers have to make a fortune e.g. from applicants for new >gTLDs, but this is not the issue here). The question was if adding funding > for the IGF would be inconsistent with ICANN's mandate. ICANN is constantly being criticized for expanding its mandate beyond the narrow technical purposes that define its boundaries, i.e. "mission creep." Can you imagine what the diversion of significant funding from it to the IGF would cause those critics to do? "ICANN is active in the political arena!" they would comlain, and rightly so. > >Best, Ralf Regards, George -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ George Sadowsky george.sadowsky at attglobal.net 64 Sweet Briar Road george.sadowsky at gmail.com Stamford, CT 06905-1514 http://www.georgesadowsky.com/ tel: +1.203.329.3288 GSM mobile: +1.202.415.1933 Voice mail & fax: +1.203.547.6020 SKYPE: sadowsky ____________________________________________________________ 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 drake at hei.unige.ch Sat Feb 3 11:48:53 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2007 17:48:53 +0100 Subject: [governance] In-Reply-To: <49374.130.132.251.34.1170517162.squirrel@webmail.dynamicfun.com> Message-ID: Hi, I'm in complete agreement Vittorio on the points below. Given the current state of things---about ten caucus members who'll be together in Geneva, but apparently little desire to meet as the caucus per se---I don't see how we could have consensus on a letter elevating some folks' priorities over others. I'd either compile a laundry list of all suggestions or stick to broader procedural points. Best, Bill On 2/3/07 4:39 PM, "Vittorio Bertola" wrote: > Adam Peake ha scritto: >> Good statement (other than the curly quotes :-) > > Thanks. > May I ask everyone to post any proposal for edits before the end of > Wednesday, so that there still are a few days to discuss any remaining > issue with such proposals, and for me to prepare a final version? > > For the rest, I think your comments are good, I only have a remark on a > couple of things that go in the direction of expressing particular > preferences, such as this one: > >> differently), suggest we ask that "Representatives from civil society >> groups who can present a gender perspective [wording?], people with >> disabilities and experts on local access conditions, particularly from >> African and SE Asian regions, would be a positive addition to the >> membership Advisory Group and should be invited to join. IGC would be >> please to work with the Chair and Secretariat on preparing a possible >> list of names for the Secretary General's consideration." > > and this one: > >> Access should be the overarching theme. >> Capacity building a clear priority out of Athens. > > because I think that each of us has different priority issues (for me it > would be rights and information freedom, for example) and different views > on who should be added to the AG (I do feel the need to add individual > users and "hackers", for example). So I would rather state all our > suggestions for important themes without prioritizing them, and, for what > regards the AG, say that we think that we have more perspectives to add > but leave it open about who should be invited to join, also because we > might want to run the usual nomcom process. > >> (related, and I expect >> some caucus members might object to this, but I would like to see a >> sentence saying "The IGC welcomes the recognition of the Internet >> technical community as a fourth stakeholder in the IGF process. >> Information Society and the critical issues of capacity building and >> extending access needs the equal participation of this vital fourth >> stakeholder.") > > Well... I'd be happy to welcome it, but not if it is at the damage of our > own representation. Maybe we can add it, but then add a sentence that > specifies that this doesn't eliminate the need for ample representation of > the "traditional" WSIS civil society folks :) > >> "Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources." >> Which could complement discussions on enhanced cooperation. (I would >> like us to suggest discussing ICANN stuff. So long as it doesn't >> dominate and suck the life from the rest.) > > More views on this one? I'd like to understand whether there is any clear > or rough consensus in the caucus. ____________________________________________________________ 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 Sat Feb 3 12:05:45 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 18:05:45 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Caucus meeting in Geneva Message-ID: <49423.130.132.251.34.1170522345.squirrel@webmail.dynamicfun.com> All, building on Bill's suggestion, I think that we should try to meet, even if briefly, on Feb 13 in Geneva. I don't see many other options than meeting in the lunch break (which seems the better option to me) or meeting at 6pm - what do you think? Agenda would be, IMHO, some strategizing on our next objectives in the process: what do we want to get between here and Rio? (blessing of dynamic coalitions, AG representation, funding for participation, specific issues on the agenda...) Regards, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 drake at hei.unige.ch Sat Feb 3 12:09:52 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2007 18:09:52 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN taxes/fees (was: Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi, On 2/3/07 5:43 PM, "George Sadowsky" wrote: > This may be the wording of the Tunis agenda, but in fact, I believe > that both Nitin desai and Markus Kummer have stressed that the > purpose of the IGF is discussion, and that appears to be the opinion > of members of the advisory committee also. There may have been some > rethinking about the mandate of the IGF after Tunis; I'm not sure. I'm sure. It just wasn't a publicly accessible discussion. > The concept of non-binding recommendations is interesting. I think > even that would lead to a fundamental shift in the IGF milieu. I wouldn't fetishize things by saying that arriving at one possible end point should be the organizing objective from the outset. But it might be nice to have at least one stream of parallel activity being about a particular issue set actually concerning the conduct of Internet governance, and have this among the options available if consensus can be found. That wouldn't preclude moderated panels chatting in another room, or the convening of workshops, so the shift might be less than fundamental. Best, Bill ____________________________________________________________ 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 ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Sat Feb 3 12:13:59 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (l.d.misek-falkoff) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 12:13:59 -0500 Subject: Access Topic Re: [governance] Message-ID: <8cbfe7410702030913s25da04b1t84857e8c747b9c00@mail.gmail.com> Thank you Vittorio, Adam, and All for opportunity to read and comment, with a bit of time to do so. Just as one comment with some detailing rationale - the *access* issue however precisely worded (which is important of course) does seem to be a threshold one. Because only with access into the 'space' where the conversations occur does one find voice and indeed input to one's own thinking, in order for expansion and reconsideration of one's own tenets to blossom. It happens themes of 'rights and duties' (hence of freedoms and their exercise) is one of my prime themes, and I feel fortunate to be 'in the room' to discuss this. The same with disabilities and whether I can physically arrive at and step into a room; in each case might one suggest that *access* is "condition-precedent"; I think that is a flavor of what is being discussed in different demographic groups and much welcome your comments of course. Warm regards, Linda M F. LDMF. Dr. L. D. Misek-Falkoff On 2/3/07, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > Adam Peake ha scritto: > > Good statement (other than the curly quotes :-) > > Thanks. > May I ask everyone to post any proposal for edits before the end of > Wednesday, so that there still are a few days to discuss any remaining > issue with such proposals, and for me to prepare a final version? > > For the rest, I think your comments are good, I only have a remark on a > couple of things that go in the direction of expressing particular > preferences, such as this one: > > > differently), suggest we ask that "Representatives from civil society > > groups who can present a gender perspective [wording?], people with > > disabilities and experts on local access conditions, particularly from > > African and SE Asian regions, would be a positive addition to the > > membership Advisory Group and should be invited to join. IGC would be > > please to work with the Chair and Secretariat on preparing a possible > > list of names for the Secretary General's consideration." > > and this one: > > > Access should be the overarching theme. > > Capacity building a clear priority out of Athens. > > because I think that each of us has different priority issues (for me it > would be rights and information freedom, for example) and different views > on who should be added to the AG (I do feel the need to add individual > users and "hackers", for example). So I would rather state all our > suggestions for important themes without prioritizing them, and, for what > regards the AG, say that we think that we have more perspectives to add > but leave it open about who should be invited to join, also because we > might want to run the usual nomcom process. > > > (related, and I expect > > some caucus members might object to this, but I would like to see a > > sentence saying "The IGC welcomes the recognition of the Internet > > technical community as a fourth stakeholder in the IGF process. > > Information Society and the critical issues of capacity building and > > extending access needs the equal participation of this vital fourth > > stakeholder.") > > Well... I'd be happy to welcome it, but not if it is at the damage of our > own representation. Maybe we can add it, but then add a sentence that > specifies that this doesn't eliminate the need for ample representation of > the "traditional" WSIS civil society folks :) > > > "Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources." > > Which could complement discussions on enhanced cooperation. (I would > > like us to suggest discussing ICANN stuff. So long as it doesn't > > dominate and suck the life from the rest.) > > More views on this one? I'd like to understand whether there is any clear > or rough consensus in the caucus. > -- > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Sat Feb 3 12:20:14 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (l.d.misek-falkoff) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 12:20:14 -0500 Subject: [governance] ICANN taxes/fees (was: Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting) In-Reply-To: References: <20070203140037.3D033E1508@smtp3.electricembers.net> <45C4AE12.8090505@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <8cbfe7410702030920h5e17fd6bh214466417b7e6840@mail.gmail.com> Very enlightening discussion. Surrounding and embedded in the topics as surveyed online and elsewhere are the following (and more) terms: tax tithe service charge operating fee Some comments are that taxes are legislated, tithes are ostensibly voluntary, service charges are variable on discretion, and operating fees can include future forecasts. But that is a brief and spontaneous gathering of terms and comments in order to post query here. Are there more such key ones? Can they be discussed as a batched set of terms? Does it help? Your expertise much appreciated, Linda M F. LDMF. Dr. L. D. Misek-Falkoff On 2/3/07, George Sadowsky wrote: > > Comments inserted below... > > At 4:45 PM +0100 2/3/07, Ralf Bendrath wrote: > >Interesting debate. I have adapted the subject line. > > > >George Sadowsky wrote: > >>IGF is a discussion forum. It has no role ion global public policy > >>making. > >Wait a second. From the Tunis Agenda: > > > >"72.(...) The mandate of the Forum is to: > >a) Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet > >governance > >(...) > >g) Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant > >bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make > recommendations; > >(...) > >k) Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse > of > >the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users; > >(...) > >77. The IGF would have no oversight function and would not replace > >existing arrangements, mechanisms, institutions or organisations, but > >would involve them and take advantage of their expertise. It would be > >constituted as a neutral, non-duplicative and non-binding process. It > >would have no involvement in day-to-day or technical operations of the > >Internet." > > This may be the wording of the Tunis agenda, but in fact, I believe > that both Nitin desai and Markus Kummer have stressed that the > purpose of the IGF is discussion, and that appears to be the opinion > of members of the advisory committee also. There may have been some > rethinking about the mandate of the IGF after Tunis; I'm not sure. > > One of the members of the Advisory Committee pointed out that one > reason that Athens worked so well, and that there was so much > pleasant mixing of people from different sectors, was that there were > no decisions to be made, and no statements that would have to be > crafted. I agree with his assessment. > > So I take your point about the Tunis agenda, but what is happening > contradicts it, and for the best, I think. > > The concept of non-binding recommendations is interesting. I think > even that would lead to a fundamental shift in the IGF milieu. > Consider the United nations, for example, where sovereign nations > generally do not consider UN decisions binding upon them. Yet the > way in which UN resolutions are formulated apparently requires a > highly politicized environment. Further, if you've ever sat in on UN > meetings in New York (I worked there for 13 years), the discussion is > formal, verbose, indirect and generally not conducive to a free and > frank exchange of views. Let's keep the ambience of the IGF the way > it was in Athens. > > > > >So, the IGF can discuss public policy issues, make recommendations, find > >solutions etc. They only are non-binding. But a lot of global public > >policy is being coordinated in a non-binding way nowadays. That's why you > >call it "governance", not "government". > > > > > Hmm... Governance _sometimes_ is binding, at least the way I think of > the term. for example, the pilot of an airplane has governance > responsibility for the plane when it is in the air, and it _is_ > binding. The Pope has governance responsibility for the Catholic > Church, and it is binding on cardinals, bishops, and priests, and > presumably at least morally binding on adherents. > > > > >>>IGF is in any case already financed through the UN which itself is > >>>financed through the taxes we pay.... > >Not exactly: > >"The IGF Secretariat's activities are funded through extra-budgetary > >contributions paid into a Trust Fund administered by the United Nations. > >Pledges and contributions have been received so far from the following > >donors." > >http://www.intgovforum.org/funding.htm > > > Yes, that is correct, and it's only the Secretariat that is financed > in that way. If you look at all the money spent on the IGF, most of > it comes from disparate sources -- organizations, other > governments, industry, etc. Thanks for pointing that out. > > > > >>ICANN uses funds in a manner consistent with its mandate. Please > >>provide examples of use of ICANN funds that are completely > >>inconsistent > >> with its mandate. > >That is not the question (well, of course you could question why > >Californian lawyers have to make a fortune e.g. from applicants for new > >gTLDs, but this is not the issue here). The question was if adding > funding > > for the IGF would be inconsistent with ICANN's mandate. > > ICANN is constantly being criticized for expanding its mandate beyond > the narrow technical purposes that define its boundaries, i.e. > "mission creep." Can you imagine what the diversion of significant > funding from it to the IGF would cause those critics to do? "ICANN > is active in the political arena!" they would comlain, and rightly so. > > > > >Best, Ralf > > > Regards, > > George > > -- > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > George Sadowsky george.sadowsky at attglobal.net > 64 Sweet Briar Road george.sadowsky at gmail.com > Stamford, CT 06905-1514 http://www.georgesadowsky.com/ > tel: +1.203.329.3288 GSM mobile: +1.202.415.1933 > Voice mail & fax: +1.203.547.6020 SKYPE: sadowsky > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 jeanette at wz-berlin.de Sat Feb 3 12:31:47 2007 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2007 18:31:47 +0100 Subject: [governance] Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting In-Reply-To: <49380.130.132.251.34.1170517637.squirrel@webmail.dynamicfun.com> References: <49380.130.132.251.34.1170517637.squirrel@webmail.dynamicfun.com> Message-ID: <45C4C703.6010501@wz-berlin.de> Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Jeanette Hofmann ha scritto: > >>>McTim wrote: >>> >>>A significant portion of which is already used to fund Internet >>>Governance fora. >> >>Exactly, and I am just asking if the IGF could not be one of them. > > > Just for the sake of precision, AFAIK ICANN made significant contributions > to the funding of the IGF in Athens and of various items in the WSIS/WGIG > process. It did or at least budgeted one. For the sake of the IGF's independence, it is not a very good solution to depend on donations from organizations that fall under the IGF's mandate. > > About the idea of making this flow of money compulsory, I see that, and my "refined" proposal was to apply for funding out of the .org profits as distributed by PIR. jeanette I think that it > would be very difficult to make it palatable to those who pay ICANN's > bill, namely registrars and registries, who always complain about any > "political" use of ICANN's money. As there is no authority that can force > all these companies in all these countries to collect money and give it to > the IGF, I don't think it would fly unless you can really convince anyone > that it's a Good Thing. > > This would possibly require having much more concrete plans on who > collects this money, how it is allocated, for what, what decision-making > and management processes and entities are there... I mean, the IGF isn't > even an incorporated entity with a budget, at this point in time. So if > this is something that people really want to put on the table, it should > be much more refined than this; putting it out as a vague "we want money" > cry will only backfire. ____________________________________________________________ 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 Feb 3 12:39:00 2007 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2007 18:39:00 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN taxes/fees In-Reply-To: References: <20070203140037.3D033E1508@smtp3.electricembers.net> <45C4AE12.8090505@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <45C4C8B4.3050109@wz-berlin.de> Hi George, I don't think the secretariat or the advisory group are in the position to reinterpret the mandate of the IGF, their job is to help implementing the mandate. The statement of this caucus, if there will be one, should emphasize the need to take seriously all elements of the IGF's mandate. jeanette George Sadowsky wrote: > Comments inserted below... > > At 4:45 PM +0100 2/3/07, Ralf Bendrath wrote: > >> Interesting debate. I have adapted the subject line. >> >> George Sadowsky wrote: >> >>> IGF is a discussion forum. It has no role ion global public policy >>> making. >> >> Wait a second. From the Tunis Agenda: >> >> "72.(...) The mandate of the Forum is to: >> a) Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet >> governance >> (...) >> g) Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant >> bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make >> recommendations; >> (...) >> k) Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and >> misuse of >> the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users; >> (...) >> 77. The IGF would have no oversight function and would not replace >> existing arrangements, mechanisms, institutions or organisations, but >> would involve them and take advantage of their expertise. It would be >> constituted as a neutral, non-duplicative and non-binding process. It >> would have no involvement in day-to-day or technical operations of the >> Internet." > > > This may be the wording of the Tunis agenda, but in fact, I believe that > both Nitin desai and Markus Kummer have stressed that the purpose of the > IGF is discussion, and that appears to be the opinion of members of the > advisory committee also. There may have been some rethinking about the > mandate of the IGF after Tunis; I'm not sure. > > One of the members of the Advisory Committee pointed out that one reason > that Athens worked so well, and that there was so much pleasant mixing > of people from different sectors, was that there were no decisions to be > made, and no statements that would have to be crafted. I agree with > his assessment. > > So I take your point about the Tunis agenda, but what is happening > contradicts it, and for the best, I think. > > The concept of non-binding recommendations is interesting. I think even > that would lead to a fundamental shift in the IGF milieu. Consider the > United nations, for example, where sovereign nations generally do not > consider UN decisions binding upon them. Yet the way in which UN > resolutions are formulated apparently requires a highly politicized > environment. Further, if you've ever sat in on UN meetings in New York > (I worked there for 13 years), the discussion is formal, verbose, > indirect and generally not conducive to a free and frank exchange of > views. Let's keep the ambience of the IGF the way it was in Athens. > >> >> So, the IGF can discuss public policy issues, make recommendations, find >> solutions etc. They only are non-binding. But a lot of global public >> policy is being coordinated in a non-binding way nowadays. That's why you >> call it "governance", not "government". > > > > > > Hmm... Governance _sometimes_ is binding, at least the way I think of > the term. for example, the pilot of an airplane has governance > responsibility for the plane when it is in the air, and it _is_ > binding. The Pope has governance responsibility for the Catholic > Church, and it is binding on cardinals, bishops, and priests, and > presumably at least morally binding on adherents. > >> >>>> IGF is in any case already financed through the UN which itself is >>>> financed through the taxes we pay.... >> >> Not exactly: >> "The IGF Secretariat's activities are funded through extra-budgetary >> contributions paid into a Trust Fund administered by the United Nations. >> Pledges and contributions have been received so far from the following >> donors." >> http://www.intgovforum.org/funding.htm > > > > Yes, that is correct, and it's only the Secretariat that is financed in > that way. If you look at all the money spent on the IGF, most of it > comes from disparate sources -- organizations, other governments, > industry, etc. Thanks for pointing that out. > >> >>> ICANN uses funds in a manner consistent with its mandate. Please >>> provide examples of use of ICANN funds that are completely inconsistent >>> with its mandate. >> >> That is not the question (well, of course you could question why >> Californian lawyers have to make a fortune e.g. from applicants for new >> gTLDs, but this is not the issue here). The question was if adding >> funding >> for the IGF would be inconsistent with ICANN's mandate. > > > ICANN is constantly being criticized for expanding its mandate beyond > the narrow technical purposes that define its boundaries, i.e. "mission > creep." Can you imagine what the diversion of significant funding from > it to the IGF would cause those critics to do? "ICANN is active in the > political arena!" they would comlain, and rightly so. > >> >> Best, Ralf > > > > Regards, > > George > ____________________________________________________________ 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 veni at veni.com Sat Feb 3 12:39:43 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 12:39:43 -0500 Subject: [governance] Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting In-Reply-To: <20070203140037.3D033E1508@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20070203140037.3D033E1508@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <2aa69fe40702030939k1afdb4d5t6dee0a91ef75d044@mail.gmail.com> I am not sure who wrote that (checking my mai online)... > > The principle of no taxation without representation is fundamental to > > democratic governance. ...but there's something in the last word which bothers me. Perhaps it should have been "governments", not "governance". Because would anyone argue that there were lots of taxes in East Europe before 1989? And although there was in fact democratic governance in the last few years in some of the countries there, hardly would have anyone named the governments there democratic. Yet people somehow wer not represented really in the parliaments, and elections were usually won with 99.1 % (which always made me wonder who were the 0.9 %, but that's another story). So, the principle is fundamental to democratic governments, not to democratic governance. Democratic governance seems like the principle of democratic centralism, which was founding principle of the "developed socialist society". This discussion should be aimed at more pratcical issues, and not so much into academic, or political context. Let's see which countries have started to open towards multistakeholders involvment in the issues, related to Internet Governance since Athens. Or may be since WSIS 2005? veni ____________________________________________________________ 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 Sat Feb 3 13:09:10 2007 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 13:09:10 -0500 Subject: [governance] RE: Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting In-Reply-To: References: <20070203140037.3D033E1508@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: At 9:52 AM -0500 2/3/07, George Sadowsky wrote: >ICANN does not have the power of excluding anyone from the Internet. Sorry, but this simply is not true. By proactive foot-dragging on multi-lingualization, over now quite a number of years, the practical prospect for connection by ~5 billion folks has been effectively evaporated. 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 george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Sat Feb 3 14:06:53 2007 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2007 14:06:53 -0500 Subject: [governance] RE: Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting In-Reply-To: References: <20070203140037.3D033E1508@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: David, You have made an amazing comment. First, let's remember that multilingual documents, as differentiated from domain names, have been around for quite a few years. The UNICODE consortium has been around since 1989, I think, and has worked hard to make a consistent and usable coding for most of the world's scripts. They are in use all over the world. You are imputing to much importance to the IDN issue as opposed to the general multi-script issue. note that links containing domain names are often hidden in documents, and clicking on a piece of text in the user's own script can accomplish the selection of a web page. Second, you accuse ICANN of proactive foot-dragging with respect to internationalizing domain names. I don't see any recognition that this has been a difficult problem to solve, or that the locus for the technical work needed to solve it is primarily the IETF, is an organization to which anyone clueful from any country can contribute. I see no recognition that there are significant stability and security issues in getting a good solution, and that doing it right is preferable to doing too quickly, having it break and then repairing the damage and doing it over. Furthermore, you are imputing motive to ICANN that it really wanted to do this slowly and thereby presumably deny Internet access to a whole lot of people. Do you really believe this? Finally you note that "the practical prospect for connection by ~5 billion folks has been effectively evaporated." Do you mean to imply that when the IDN issue is finally resolved, that even then these 5 billion people are forever banished from such connectivity? Evaporation is generally a one way process after all. Perhaps you'd like to modify your observation, which may have been written a bit emotionally and hastily? Regards, George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 1:09 PM -0500 2/3/07, David Allen wrote: >At 9:52 AM -0500 2/3/07, George Sadowsky wrote: >>ICANN does not have the power of excluding anyone from the Internet. > >Sorry, but this simply is not true. > >By proactive foot-dragging on multi-lingualization, over now quite a >number of years, the practical prospect for connection by ~5 billion >folks has been effectively evaporated. > >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 ____________________________________________________________ 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 Sat Feb 3 17:38:56 2007 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:38:56 -0500 Subject: [governance] RE: Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting In-Reply-To: References: <20070203140037.3D033E1508@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: At 2:06 PM -0500 2/3/07, George Sadowsky wrote: >David, > >You have made an amazing comment. Think that depends on your perspective. >First, let's remember that multilingual documents, as differentiated from domain names, have been around for quite a few years. The UNICODE consortium has been around since 1989, I think, and has worked hard to make a consistent and usable coding for most of the world's scripts. They are in use all over the world. You are imputing to much importance to the IDN issue as opposed to the general multi-script issue. note that links containing domain names are often hidden in documents, and clicking on a piece of text in the user's own script can accomplish the selection of a web page. This gets at the meat of it. I chose, for brevity, not to traipse out the detail, but when we dig, the detail matters. Elites - dealing from a non-Roman script - who are not brought up short by the pesky and puzzling Roman characters at the end of a URL, will have had access. The many billions not so blessed are effectively denied. (Among others, clicking access from within a doc is only possible if you can call up the doc in the first place! That is an unhelpful attempt at diversion from what matters.) Most especially, the point - as we all know - is access, not just for elites, but for all. Now on to the rest of the meal. >Second, you accuse ICANN of proactive foot-dragging with respect to internationalizing domain names. I don't see any recognition that this has been a difficult problem to solve, or that the locus for the technical work needed to solve it is primarily the IETF, is an organization to which anyone clueful from any country can contribute. I see no recognition that there are significant stability and security issues in getting a good solution, and that doing it right is preferable to doing too quickly, having it break and then repairing the damage and doing it over. > >Furthermore, you are imputing motive to ICANN that it really wanted to do this slowly and thereby presumably deny Internet access to a whole lot of people. Do you really believe this? I invite your conversations with knowledgeable folk, among the 5 billion, with quite long experience of the ICANN process and of ML (multilingual). According to reports, early on with 'Net innovators English-speaking, and enough to do about a Roman-scripted 'Net, non-attention to non-Roman scripts was perhaps not surprising. But after that, facts speak far louder than any protestations. I heard firsthand at the ICANN '04 meeting in KL how ML was 'very difficult,' 'we must go slowly,' 'we don't really know what the solution will be.' This, in the face of strongly expressed frustration, in the meeting, from many representatives of the 5 billion, that they had already waited years and they were not interested in waiting more. That discussion was three years ago. It was clear to me, anyway, then, that ICANN's future turned to some significant extent on whether it would be ghettoized to the 1 billion in the developed world, or would it be responsive to the other 80+ percent. At about that time in fact, some three years ago, China was rolling out a fully ML root, to resolve fully Chinese URLs. And it operated seamlessly with the root for the other, Roman-based 1 billion. About a year ago now, the Western world was more than surprised to learn of that development, by then at least a couple of years underway, with by now many tens of millions of users. I was familiar, since I was at least one of those who broke the news to the Western press at the time. That same technology was available to be used three years ago, even on a stopgap basis - at the same time I was hearing at KL that 'we better go slow,' 'who knows if we will find a solution.' And the billion in China had already been waiting some years and were being told by the first billion to wait some more years. In fact the rest of the CJK community had implementations before China did, so the technology was available earlier, in fact, years before. It may be comfortable to say, 'wait,' if you are in the 1 billion with an already-familiar alphabet. Your response may differ if you are in the 5 billion. Along this way, once the reality of the Chinese implementation could not be denied and had finally alarmed ICANN, there were grudging but hasty steps. (Suddenly, 'this is too difficult' disappeared, if the proposal brought forward was ill-conceived.) Barely concealed, there was also an unfortunate effort to allow Western incumbents the fortunes that would flow from registration of ML identities. That of course will, in the end, be thwarted in the workings of geopolitics. But that there was an attempt - once grudging, hasty steps on ML were finally mooted - speaks to capture, non-transparency and non-accountability. How much more profoundly does that message of non-accountability come across, by telling the other 5 billion to 'wait.' If we are about anything, certainly access, then we better work for the non-elite, among the other 5 billion, not to be blocked at the address bar. I will be glad to refer anyone, offlist, to sources, including the central actors in the ML that has been available for some years. >Finally you note that "the practical prospect for connection by ~5 billion folks has been effectively evaporated." Do you mean to imply that when the IDN issue is finally resolved, that even then these 5 billion people are forever banished from such connectivity? Evaporation is generally a one way process after all. Hopefully, despite global warming, there is still a cycle, where that which is evaporated once again condenses ... I sought a word with less sting than 'denied.' Now, by the need for more directness, we are denied the euphemism. >Perhaps you'd like to modify your observation, which may have been written a bit emotionally and hastily? Those who would guide policy development need first and foremost to equip themselves with the facts, rather than impugn those who might convey them. Top of the list in last summer's review of ICANN was a wide and clarion call for transparency and accountability. There was little disagreement on the lack thereof, certainly on the need to bring it inhouse, among even ICANN's closest supporters and even from within ICANN itself. The sad tale I have recounted here resonates with an underline. If this discussion is to be useful, it will be because those contributing to it renew their commitment to, and do contribute to, the transparency and accountability that this disastrous episode shows to be evaporated. >Regards, > >George David > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > >At 1:09 PM -0500 2/3/07, David Allen wrote: >>At 9:52 AM -0500 2/3/07, George Sadowsky wrote: >>>ICANN does not have the power of excluding anyone from the Internet. >> >>Sorry, but this simply is not true. >> >>By proactive foot-dragging on multi-lingualization, over now quite a number of years, the practical prospect for connection by ~5 billion folks has been effectively evaporated. >> >>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 Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Sat Feb 3 19:23:49 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2007 09:23:49 +0900 Subject: Access Topic Re: [governance] In-Reply-To: <8cbfe7410702030913s25da04b1t84857e8c747b9c00@mail.gmail.com> References: <8cbfe7410702030913s25da04b1t84857e8c747b9c00@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <45C52795.4000804@Malcolm.id.au> l.d.misek-falkoff wrote: > It happens themes of 'rights and duties' (hence of freedoms and their > exercise) is one of my prime themes, and I feel fortunate to be 'in the > room' to discuss this. The same with disabilities and whether I can > physically arrive at and step into a room; in each case might one > suggest that /access/ is "condition-precedent"; I think that is a flavor > of what is being discussed in different demographic groups and much > welcome your comments of course. I still feel that it is only one important theme of many. It is important not only that the Internet is as accessible as possible (which will never mean accessible to all, but to be as accessible as a library is a possible objective), but that the Internet to which people have access is one in which, to give just two examples: (a) communications and access to knowledge are neither unreasonably impeded nor intercepted by government, (as in China, Syria, etc) or the private sector (RIAA, etc); (b) by connecting, one does not do (or suffer) more harm than good by falling victim to (or participating in) botnets, spam, malware, phishing, etc. Since one might well be rather ambivalent about having access to a network in which such conditions as these are not satisfied, they might as easily also be regarded as conditions precedent. -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ 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 Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Sat Feb 3 19:53:36 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2007 09:53:36 +0900 Subject: [governance] ICANN taxes/fees In-Reply-To: References: <20070203140037.3D033E1508@smtp3.electricembers.net> <45C4AE12.8090505@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <45C52E90.9020709@Malcolm.id.au> George Sadowsky wrote: >> 77. The IGF would have no oversight function and would not replace >> existing arrangements, mechanisms, institutions or organisations, but >> would involve them and take advantage of their expertise. It would be >> constituted as a neutral, non-duplicative and non-binding process. It >> would have no involvement in day-to-day or technical operations of the >> Internet." > > This may be the wording of the Tunis agenda, but in fact, I believe that > both Nitin desai and Markus Kummer have stressed that the purpose of the > IGF is discussion, and that appears to be the opinion of members of the > advisory committee also. There may have been some rethinking about the > mandate of the IGF after Tunis; I'm not sure. It is not their place to determine that, and it infuriates me that there has been such a concerted attempt to emasculate (sorry to feminists) the IGF's potential. You are right, a trip to Athens to communicate with people from different sectors over coffee was pleasant for all concerned. Rio will be even more pleasant, I'm sure. But that is completely not the point. I would much rather productive conflict than convivial irrelevance. And there are practical ways in which consensual deliberation on public policy issues between and within stakeholder groups can be fostered, but journalist-led panel presentations are not one of them. -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ 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 Sun Feb 4 02:30:34 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 02:30:34 -0500 Subject: [governance] Statement for the Feb 13 meeting In-Reply-To: References: <45C2139F.2050109@bertola.eu> <45C21F43.4020802@bertola.eu> Message-ID: On 2 feb 2007, at 08.58, Adam Peake wrote: > I think there are 46 members of the MAG (can someone check). if i understand correctly, there are 40 'original' Advisory Group members + 6 regional members of the Advisory Group + 6 special advisors to the Chair. making 52. i think. as for the MAG, i am not sure what that is. 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Feb 4 04:36:08 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2007 10:36:08 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] ICANN taxes/fees (was: Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting) References: <20070203140037.3D033E1508@smtp3.electricembers.net> <45C4AE12.8090505@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D0FD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> George: one reason that Athens worked so well, and that there was so much pleasant mixing of people from different sectors, was that there were no decisions to be made, and no statements that would have to be crafted. I agree with his assessment. The concept of non-binding recommendations is interesting. I think even that would lead to a fundamental shift in the IGF milieu. Consider the United nations, for example, where sovereign nations generally do not consider UN decisions binding upon them. Yet the way in which UN resolutions are formulated apparently requires a highly politicized environment. Further, if you've ever sat in on UN meetings in New York (I worked there for 13 years), the discussion is formal, verbose, indirect and generally not conducive to a free and frank exchange of views. Let's keep the ambience of the IGF the way it was in Athens. Wolfgang: I fully agree with George. It was the "liberation" from the need to draft a final document which stimulated the debate. However, in the long run people could ask for more. One compromise could be to send "messages" from the IGF, but not recommendations or non-binding resolutions. Keep it as flexible as possible and let do the real hard part by the institutions and organsiations at the edges of the network/mechanism. They have have a mandate (and duty) to move towards decisions (by listing ot the debates and taking into account the "IGF Messages"). IGF is better positioned to become an "early warning system" then to produce solutions. A new element could come with the dynamic coalitions. Here more imagination and pioneering work is needed. This is much more concreete, issue oriented and brings together the hard core player. These multistakeholder coalitions could be developed into more formal bodies (complementary to the existing onestakeholder groups). Dynamic Colaitions could get over the time a certain legitimicy to work on specific recommendations (to whom it concerned) in their arena of competence. But again, keep the center of the IGF free from such a burden to be the PDP body. . 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sun Feb 4 04:53:50 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 15:23:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] ICANN taxes/fees In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070204095417.1DF25E0CA8@smtp3.electricembers.net> George > Monopoly providers of public utilities in many countries have service > charges, not taxes. They may include monopoly profits, or legislated > guaranteed rates of return, but they are service charges nonetheless. > ICANN's charges -- to those who want domain names, not necessarily to > those who just want access to the Internet -- are used for the > administration of the Domain Name System and to assure its security > and stability. That's a service from which we all benefit. Can you tell me one such monopoly which sets its own charges, makes its own rules, and no have no regulation? Your above statements come in response to that part of my email which says '> > We cant > > call what ICANN collects as normal service charges, because it's a monopoly > >provider with no regulation and sets its own charges. But you chose not to address this point. More monopolistic is a service provider stronger is its regulation in order to ensure public interest objectives. It is only ICANN which both provides the service and does its own public policy. And then it funds some organizations/ activities on public policy matters as long as their outlook seems close to ICANN's own. I have no doubts that the context of information society and IG does need governance innovations, and old systems may be inadequate. What I have strong objection to is to use the new situation to completely upturn all percepts of politics and governance, with their principles of rights, entitlements, equity and social justice towards some models of 'privatized governance' which serve dominant interests. What I have even greater problem is with the use of the civil society cover to achieve these regressive changes. Seeing 'governance as service' is a typical marketisation of governance which is implied in your formulations of what ICANN does, and how, and its justifiability. And this ideology has implication on governance - at global, national and local levels - beyond IG. I had deliberately used the 'tax' terminology to counter the 'service fees' terminology to bring out the deeper issues involved here, which are now being discussed. If ICANN really does not do any governance and only provides a service, then lets put it out of the purview of discussions on Internet GOVERNANCE, and focus on who does the governance part (and find out, first of all, WHO really does governance and public policy in this area, that's one of the biggest IG mysteries, often perpetuated deliberately). And if ICANN does governance and public policy, the tax term is the appropriate one rather than service fees.... If it does both then both terms are meaningful in its context. > ICANN does not have the power of excluding anyone from the Internet. David Allen has already argued how ICANN's policy can have this excluding effect (by not taking multi-lingualisation as a priority). I myself had meant it in the sense that if I am not willing to make any payment a part of which goes to ICANN I cannot own a piece of 'real estate' on the Internet to use it in the manner that I may like to. And there are also more ways by which this exclusion may operate. Coercive power need not always be exercised directly, it is most often exercised indirectly. A tyrant king can always announce that those who do not want to live under his tyrannical rule have the option to go to the jungle and live life not bound by his kingdom's authority. But to say that may not mean a thing. > ICANN uses funds in a manner consistent with its mandate. Please > provide examples of use of ICANN funds that are completely > inconsistent with its mandate. ICANN writes own its own mandate, and that's the issue I am speaking of. In any case, as Ralf pointed out, the more specific issue here is not what the funds are being used for, but that why cant they be used for the IGF, which has more political legitimacy than most organizations/ activities that it is used for at present. > IGF is a discussion forum. It has no role ion global public policy > making. This comment is so shocking especially when coming from a special advisor to the Chair of IGF, and also since in reply to other people's objections to it you have also implicated Nitin, Markus and generally the MAG as having this view, I will comment on it in a separate email. However I do assume that you understand that a 'role in public policy making' does not mean being the signing authority on public policy statements. Tunis Agenda speaks at length about a public policy role for the IGF beyond it being a 'discussion forum', I don't understand on what authority those who are trusted with the governance of IGF can assume that they can decide what IGF is supposed to be... Regards Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] > Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 8:22 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; 'Milton Mueller'; 'Jeanette > Hofmann' > Subject: RE: [governance] Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting > > I have problems with the presentation of this argument. See below. > > At 7:30 PM +0530 2/3/07, Parminder wrote: > >Milton > > > >> Who speaks for the people who pay this tax? What representation, > >> control or accountability do domain name registrants have over the > IGF? > >> (I would suggest: none). > > > >The obvious fact is that a 'tax' is BEING collected by ICANN. We cant > call > >what ICANN collects as normal service charges, because it's a monopoly > >provider with no regulation and sets its own charges. > > Monopoly providers of public utilities in many countries have service > charges, not taxes. They may include monopoly profits, or legislated > guaranteed rates of return, but they are service charges nonetheless. > ICANN's charges -- to those who want domain names, not necessarily to > those who just want access to the Internet -- are used for the > administration of the Domain Name System and to assure its security > and stability. That's a service from which we all benefit. > > > And it has the > >coercive power of excluding anyone from the Internet, > > ICANN does not have the power of excluding anyone from the Internet. > > > if he or she does not > >pay up. If you are on digital territory you are in some way contributing > to > >the ICANN, as per rules set by the ICANN itself. And it does whatever > with > >this collection - deciding to utilizing it for some technical governance > >tasks, and some not so technical. > > Please provide examples of ICANN functions that do not contribute at > all to the above objectives. > > > > > > >The next issue is as you say 'who speaks for the people who pay this tax' > >(which is directly or indirectly all people who use the Internet). I > think > >ICANN has less representative-ness of 'these people' that IGF etc (and > you > >have often argued about the lack of representative-ness, transparency etc > of > >ICANN). > > Neither ICANN nor IGF would claim to be completely representative of > the user population. Both have significant user components in their > composition. > > > > >Public policy activity needs to be financed by taxes - and not > opportunistic > >or pro bono participation (with the political interests often disguised). > >These principals of policy and governance are basic... And we all do set > >some score by IGF's role in global public policy making in the area of > the > >Internet. > > IGF is a discussion forum. It has no role ion global public policy > making. > > > > > > >IGF is in any case already financed through the UN which itself is > financed > >through the taxes we pay.... And if you are not satisfied with > >'representation, control and accountability' of it, we need to engage and > >make it more so. > > > >IGF's purpose is to make ICANN and other IG spaces more accountable, > >stakeholder-controlled, transparent etc - > > IGF is a discussion forum that deals with issues of Internet Governance. > > >so, the tax collected from > >Internet users can and should legitimately be used for funding it. > Starving > >the IGF of such funds and ICANN using the tax it collects in the manner > it > >likes, > > ICANN uses funds in a manner consistent with its mandate. Please > provide examples of use of ICANN funds that are completely > inconsistent with its mandate. > > > is what constitutes a non-fulfillment of the above canons of fair > >governance you speak of. > > > >> The principle of no taxation without representation is fundamental to > >> democratic governance. > > > >I completely agree. That's the problem I have in paying taxes to ICANN. > > > >Parminder > >________________________________________________ > >Parminder Jeet Singh > >IT for Change, Bangalore > >Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > >Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > >Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > >www.ITforChange.net > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > >> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 9:10 PM > >> To: Parminder at ITforChange.net; Jeanette Hofmann > >> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting > >> > >> >>> Parminder at ITforChange.net 2/1/2007 8:06:12 AM >>> > >> >Your suggestions for raising funds are very interesting. A 'tax' > >> >on domain names is a good idea, since the money is to be used > >> >for IG related public policy activity. > >> > >> Who speaks for the people who pay this tax? What representation, > >> control or accountability do domain name registrants have over the > IGF? > >> (I would suggest: none) > >> > >> The principle of no taxation without representation is fundamental to > >> democratic 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 ____________________________________________________________ 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 Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Sun Feb 4 06:49:11 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2007 20:49:11 +0900 Subject: AW: [governance] ICANN taxes/fees In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D0FD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <20070203140037.3D033E1508@smtp3.electricembers.net> <45C4AE12.8090505@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D0FD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <45C5C837.4060906@Malcolm.id.au> Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: > George: > one reason that Athens worked so well, and that there was so much > pleasant mixing of people from different sectors, was that there were > no decisions to be made, and no statements that would have to be > crafted. I agree with his assessment. ... > Wolfgang: > I fully agree with George. It was the "liberation" from the need to > draft a final document which stimulated the debate. However, in the > long run people could ask for more. One compromise could be to send > "messages" from the IGF, but not recommendations or non-binding > resolutions. I would prefer to call a spade a spade. Already we have "dynamic coalitions" when what is really meant is self-organised working groups; next "recommendations" are to become "messages"? Is the idea of multi-stakeholder governance really that challenging? Exactly how ineffectual do we want the IGF to be? Most obviously WGIG, but also, for that matter, UNICTTF, are examples of other UN-affiliated bodies of multi-stakeholder composition that were endowed with the clear authority to make recommendations. Remember how some regressive governments protested about that, in WGIG's case - but it blew over soon enough. So it will with the IGF. For global public policy decisions to be made in a multi-stakeholder forum is very much the new reality of the 21st century international system, and Internet governance is simply one of the vanguards of that new paradigm. We are the last people, of anyone, to be shying away from that fact, and history will not remember us well if we do. -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ 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 Sun Feb 4 10:57:35 2007 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 10:57:35 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: In-Reply-To: <49374.130.132.251.34.1170517162.squirrel@webmail.dynamicfun.com> References: <49374.130.132.251.34.1170517162.squirrel@webmail.dynamicfun.com> Message-ID: At 4:39 PM +0100 2/3/07, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >Adam Peake ha scritto: > >>(related, and I expect some caucus members might object to this, but I would like to see a sentence saying "The IGC welcomes the recognition of the Internet technical community as a fourth stakeholder in the IGF process. Information Society and the critical issues of capacity building and extending access needs the equal participation of this vital fourth stakeholder.") > >Well... I'd be happy to welcome it, but not if it is at the damage of our own representation. Maybe we can add it, but then add a sentence that specifies that this doesn't eliminate the need for ample representation of the "traditional" WSIS civil society folks :) Just a note: Suffice it that I would not support the fourth stakeholder proposal and think it is not the way forward for increased access, among other criteria for deciding how to proceed. 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 ki_chango at yahoo.com Sun Feb 4 12:36:42 2007 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 09:36:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] ICANN taxes/fees In-Reply-To: <20070204095417.1DF25E0CA8@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <734183.95499.qm@web58715.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Wow! I can see that some deep conversations have been going on! Can't get any deeper but I wanted to share with you a piece of another conversation that took place in the GNSO Council which might be related to one aspect of the issue here. The discussion was about new gTLD application costs, and possible applications from entities from non-English speaking and less adavanced/industrialized parts of the world and the possible extra-cost that might be generated for them to have a reasonably competitive application filed before ICANN. As it turned out, the concurrent applicants think it is not up to them to subsidize their competitors, and that makes sense, isn't it? So it appears to me that it's the ICANN institution, including the Internet community as a whole, to address this issue one way or the other. With the background so summerized, I hope the following (posted on Oct 9 to the GNSO council list) makes sense, since I couldn't reproduce the whole conersation here both because it would be unnecessarily too long, and because it started anyway during a facce-to-face meeting last September in Amsterdam. Quote: > 5. It should also be noted that the possible extra-costs that may > > result from the differences in the applicants' working languages > as > > well as legal systems (as opposed to a specific dominant language > and > > legal system) should not be held against them, and be left to the > > expense to the concerned communities. After all, the Internet is > and > > must remain a global facility both from the user and demand side > and > > from the operation and supply side. > > Mawaki - What do you mean by "should not be held against > them"? > If you mean that the fact that extra costs to evaluate their > application > because of legal and/or language issues should not be used in any > negative way to evaluate their application, I would agree with you. > But > if you mean that they should not have to bear the extra costs, I mean both, actually. I'm glad to see we are totally in agreement on this first part. > then that > raises an additional question: who should bear the costs? The RyC > has > communicated that its members do no believe that any applicants > should > have to subsidize application costs for other applicants. Do you > agree > or disagree with this position of the RyC? If you agree, Yes, my turn to agree with you (and the RyC) here. > then are you > suggesting that ICANN should charge the extra costs to such > applicants > or that ICANN should find funds elwewhere in its budget to cover > the > extra costs? > The latter, and let me clarify again. What I'm saying is the whole ICANN as the Internet coordination and governance (or some say regulatory) body could try to secure resources to make these processes as even as possible to all potential players. Or to work harder, and with good will, towards equal real chances (as much as possible, I know it's never perfect) of market entry for those potential players. It clearly has a benefit as well as a cost, either symbolic, material or both, to be the authority that everybody in the industry looks at and often relies on, at one level or the other. We, as ICANN, need to accept to bear that cost toward the whole community, and it may have different flavors depending on the specificties of the various groups of participants, the regions, their top issues and priorities, etc. in connection with ICANN business. To exemplify, let me take the case of a developing Non-English speaking country (and there are many, so I'm virtually talking of regions size-wise). We need to realize that it already has a cost, rather enorm, for them that this whole business is conducted in a language that is not theirs. For many, this will result, among other things, in 8, 10 or more years lagging behind and even locked out of the business. Their poor institutional and economic development doesn't help either, of course, and that's not ICANN's fault. But the result is that it is again those who have less who still get less, falling deeper behind, while paying the same market price as every one if not more because of their poor organization (access, international bandwidth and interconnections, etc.) So are we going to tell them, not only they have to pay the same fees (in absolute value) that is required from their counterparts from markets and economies much much more developed than theirs where the relative value of those fees are unbearable, not only that, but also they will need to hire lawyers with international competence to translate the legal and contractual instruments as well as prepare their application to ICANN in English before they have one slight chance to compete? We in fact don't need to utter or write a word; by just choosing not to address this issue, we may be meaning that in the eyes of people who are concerned, and in the long run (meaning right now, already) the result is the same. End quote Mawaki --- Parminder wrote: > George > > > Monopoly providers of public utilities in many countries have > service > > charges, not taxes. They may include monopoly profits, or > legislated > > guaranteed rates of return, but they are service charges > nonetheless. > > ICANN's charges -- to those who want domain names, not > necessarily to > > those who just want access to the Internet -- are used for the > > administration of the Domain Name System and to assure its > security > > and stability. That's a service from which we all benefit. > > Can you tell me one such monopoly which sets its own charges, makes > its own > rules, and no have no regulation? > > Your above statements come in response to that part of my email > which says > > '> > We cant > > > call what ICANN collects as normal service charges, because > it's a > monopoly > > >provider with no regulation and sets its own charges. > > But you chose not to address this point. More monopolistic is a > service > provider stronger is its regulation in order to ensure public > interest > objectives. It is only ICANN which both provides the service and > does its > own public policy. And then it funds some organizations/ activities > on > public policy matters as long as their outlook seems close to > ICANN's own. > > > I have no doubts that the context of information society and IG > does need > governance innovations, and old systems may be inadequate. What I > have > strong objection to is to use the new situation to completely > upturn all > percepts of politics and governance, with their principles of > rights, > entitlements, equity and social justice towards some models of > 'privatized > governance' which serve dominant interests. What I have even > greater problem > is with the use of the civil society cover to achieve these > regressive > changes. Seeing 'governance as service' is a typical marketisation > of > governance which is implied in your formulations of what ICANN > does, and > how, and its justifiability. And this ideology has implication on > governance > - at global, national and local levels - beyond IG. I had > deliberately used > the 'tax' terminology to counter the 'service fees' terminology to > bring out > the deeper issues involved here, which are now being discussed. > > If ICANN really does not do any governance and only provides a > service, then > lets put it out of the purview of discussions on Internet > GOVERNANCE, and > focus on who does the governance part (and find out, first of all, > WHO > really does governance and public policy in this area, that's one > of the > biggest IG mysteries, often perpetuated deliberately). And if ICANN > does > governance and public policy, the tax term is the appropriate one > rather > than service fees.... If it does both then both terms are > meaningful in its > context. > > > ICANN does not have the power of excluding anyone from the > Internet. > > David Allen has already argued how ICANN's policy can have this > excluding > effect (by not taking multi-lingualisation as a priority). I myself > had > meant it in the sense that if I am not willing to make any payment > a part of > which goes to ICANN I cannot own a piece of 'real estate' on the > Internet to > use it in the manner that I may like to. And there are also more > ways by > which this exclusion may operate. Coercive power need not always be > exercised directly, it is most often exercised indirectly. A tyrant > king can > always announce that those who do not want to live under his > tyrannical rule > have the option to go to the jungle and live life not bound by his > kingdom's > authority. But to say that may not mean a thing. > > > ICANN uses funds in a manner consistent with its mandate. Please > > provide examples of use of ICANN funds that are completely > > inconsistent with its mandate. > > ICANN writes own its own mandate, and that's the issue I am > speaking of. In > any case, as Ralf pointed out, the more specific issue here is not > what the > funds are being used for, but that why cant they be used for the > IGF, which > has more political legitimacy than most organizations/ activities > that it is > used for at present. > > > IGF is a discussion forum. It has no role ion global public > policy > > making. > > This comment is so shocking especially when coming from a special > advisor to > the Chair of IGF, and also since in reply to other people's > objections to it > you have also implicated Nitin, Markus and generally the MAG as > having this > view, I will comment on it in a separate email. > > However I do assume that you understand that a 'role in public > policy > making' does not mean being the signing authority on public policy > statements. Tunis Agenda speaks at length about a public policy > role for the > IGF beyond it being a 'discussion forum', I don't understand on > what > authority those who are trusted with the governance of IGF can > assume that > they can decide what IGF is supposed to be... > > Regards > > Parminder > > ________________________________________________ > Parminder Jeet Singh > IT for Change, Bangalore > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > www.ITforChange.net > > -----Original Message----- > > From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] > > Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 8:22 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; 'Milton Mueller'; > 'Jeanette > > Hofmann' > > Subject: RE: [governance] Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting > > > > I have problems with the presentation of this argument. See > below. > > > > At 7:30 PM +0530 2/3/07, Parminder wrote: > > >Milton > > > > > >> Who speaks for the people who pay this tax? What > representation, > > >> control or accountability do domain name registrants have > over the > > IGF? > > >> (I would suggest: none). > > > > > >The obvious fact is that a 'tax' is BEING collected by ICANN. We > cant > > call > > >what ICANN collects as normal service charges, because it's a > monopoly > > >provider with no regulation and sets its own charges. > > > > Monopoly providers of public utilities in many countries have > service > > charges, not taxes. They may include monopoly profits, or > legislated > > guaranteed rates of return, but they are service charges > nonetheless. > > ICANN's charges -- to those who want domain names, not > necessarily to > > those who just want access to the Internet -- are used for the > > administration of the Domain Name System and to assure its > security > > and stability. That's a service from which we all benefit. > > > > > And it has the > > >coercive power of excluding anyone from the Internet, > > > > ICANN does not have the power of excluding anyone from the > Internet. > > > > > if he or she does not > > >pay up. If you are on digital territory you are in some way > contributing > > to > > >the ICANN, as per rules set by the ICANN itself. And it does > whatever > > with > > >this collection - deciding to utilizing it for some technical > governance > > >tasks, and some not so technical. > > > > Please provide examples of ICANN functions that do not contribute > at > > all to the above objectives. > > > > > > > > > > >The next issue is as you say 'who speaks for the people who pay > this tax' > > >(which is directly or indirectly all people who use the > Internet). I > > think > > >ICANN has less representative-ness of 'these people' that IGF > etc (and > > you > > >have often argued about the lack of representative-ness, > transparency etc > > of > > >ICANN). > > > > Neither ICANN nor IGF would claim to be completely representative > of > > the user population. Both have significant user components in > their > > composition. > > > > > > > >Public policy activity needs to be financed by taxes - and not > > opportunistic > > >or pro bono participation (with the political interests often > disguised). > > >These principals of policy and governance are basic... And we > all do set > > >some score by IGF's role in global public policy making in the > area of > > the > > >Internet. > > > > IGF is a discussion forum. It has no role ion global public > policy > > making. > > > > > > > > > > >IGF is in any case already financed through the UN which itself > is > > financed > > >through the taxes we pay.... And if you are not satisfied with > > >'representation, control and accountability' of it, we need to > engage and > > >make it more so. > > > > > >IGF's purpose is to make ICANN and other IG spaces more > accountable, > > >stakeholder-controlled, transparent etc - > > > > IGF is a discussion forum that deals with issues of Internet > Governance. > > > > >so, the tax collected from > > >Internet users can and should legitimately be used for funding > it. > > Starving > > >the IGF of such funds and ICANN using the tax it collects in the > manner > > it > > >likes, > > > > ICANN uses funds in a manner consistent with its mandate. Please > > provide examples of use of ICANN funds that are completely > > inconsistent with its mandate. > > > > > is what constitutes a non-fulfillment of the above canons of > fair > > >governance you speak of. > > > > > >> The principle of no taxation without representation is > fundamental to > > >> democratic governance. > > > > > >I completely agree. That's the problem I have in paying taxes to > ICANN. > > > > > >Parminder > > >________________________________________________ > > >Parminder Jeet Singh > > >IT for Change, Bangalore > > >Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > >Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > > >Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > > >www.ITforChange.net > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > > >> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 9:10 PM > > >> To: Parminder at ITforChange.net; Jeanette Hofmann > > >> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting > > >> > > >> >>> Parminder at ITforChange.net 2/1/2007 8:06:12 AM >>> > > >> >Your suggestions for raising funds are very interesting. A > 'tax' > > >> >on domain names is a good idea, since the money is to be > used > > >> >for IG related public policy activity. > > >> > > >> Who speaks for the people who pay this tax? What > representation, > > >> control or accountability do domain name registrants have > over the > > IGF? > > >> (I would suggest: none) > > >> > > >> The principle of no taxation without representation is > fundamental to > > >> democratic 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 psg.com Sun Feb 4 13:19:12 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 13:19:12 -0500 Subject: [governance] ICANN taxes/fees In-Reply-To: <734183.95499.qm@web58715.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <734183.95499.qm@web58715.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8ED24374-6137-4754-B6B3-140D976D6087@psg.com> On 4 feb 2007, at 12.36, Mawaki Chango wrote: > As it turned out, the > concurrent applicants think it is not up to them to subsidize their > competitors, and that makes sense, isn't it? not to me. i was advocating a process by which the costs for the applications by those in less developed areas who could not afford the sometimes very steep icann fees would be 'subsidized' from the fees paid by richer applicants. the suggestion was for aggregation of all projected cost in the new gtld process and the administration of a fee reduction program for a certain number those in need of fee reduction. this program could be adjusted to optimality as experience was gained from previous years (i.e. how much does it really cost to process an application, how many applicants can't afford to pay the fee, ...). the suggestion was to try and balance the requirement that the gtld application process be self supporting and the need to make the threshold for entry easier for those from less developed economies. while the council partially accepted the idea that there should be help for those less able to pay, the feeling of most if not all of the council was for those grants to come from other, preferably external, sources. one of the prominent arguments against any subsidy program was (to put it simply, more simply perhaps then it is): if you can't afford (or raise funds for) the fee for a registry then you probably can't afford to run the registry. i disagreed, but not very successfully. i also disagree with the notion that the richer applicants should not support the poorer applicants. 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 Sun Feb 4 13:28:29 2007 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 10:28:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] ICANN taxes/fees In-Reply-To: <20070204095417.1DF25E0CA8@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <642439.87601.qm@web58709.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Now, about Parminder's observations on IG mysteries and "digital enforcement," I just happen to be reading the following from Jack Goldsmith and Tim Wu, "Who Controls the Internet?", 2006, MIT Press. "Not only does the domain name system affect valuable Internet-related property rights, it also has the potential to serve as a powerful tool of Internet enforcementad to shape the nature of the Internet itself. As country clubs and medical associations know well, control over membership is a powerful tool for making people follow rules. Already today, a basic form of such enforcement is used to protect registered trademarks on the Internet. If you somehow managed to register harrypotter.com, Warner Brothers or J.K. Rowling [author of the book] could complain to the Internet naming authority, and you'd quickly lose the name. No court, no trial; simply a direct divestiture of the domain name. It's a prime example of what David Johnson calls "electronic," as opposed to physical, force. The power over domain names and numbers could also be used as broader enforcement tool against other types of unwanted conduct. As we'll see in chapter 5, the U.S. government demands divestiture of domain names and IP addresses for offenses like selling drug paraphernalia or copyright infringement. One can imagine a future where divestiture of IP addresses is a common form of enforcement. As punishment, individuals, institutions, or even whole countries could lose domain names, IP addresses, or even Internet membership. This is why root authority matters. But how exactly does one "get" or "hold" this authority? No one understands the answer to this question completely. Stated most simply, root authority is the power to issue orders respecting domain names and numbers and have those orders obeyed. There are many ways such power might arise: from reputation, from actual administration of the computers in question, or from legal authority. In truth, the system long operated without a clear idea of exactly who held the ultimate power over the root, or why." We probably have a clearer idea now since WSIS, .xxx version 1, etc. Probably even before, from late 1990s, with Jon Postel's misadventures with the "root," the "MoUvement," and the early ISOC attempt to launch an International Council of Registrars as am Internet private-global governance body. Finally, I guess it's no mystery that one of our fellow member, Milton Muller, and his Internet Governance Project have written at length about how the DNS (as a technical system) can be and is used to leverage public policy issues. Regards, Mawaki --- Parminder wrote: > George > > > Monopoly providers of public utilities in many countries have > service > > charges, not taxes. They may include monopoly profits, or > legislated > > guaranteed rates of return, but they are service charges > nonetheless. > > ICANN's charges -- to those who want domain names, not > necessarily to > > those who just want access to the Internet -- are used for the > > administration of the Domain Name System and to assure its > security > > and stability. That's a service from which we all benefit. > > Can you tell me one such monopoly which sets its own charges, makes > its own > rules, and no have no regulation? > > Your above statements come in response to that part of my email > which says > > '> > We cant > > > call what ICANN collects as normal service charges, because > it's a > monopoly > > >provider with no regulation and sets its own charges. > > But you chose not to address this point. More monopolistic is a > service > provider stronger is its regulation in order to ensure public > interest > objectives. It is only ICANN which both provides the service and > does its > own public policy. And then it funds some organizations/ activities > on > public policy matters as long as their outlook seems close to > ICANN's own. > > > I have no doubts that the context of information society and IG > does need > governance innovations, and old systems may be inadequate. What I > have > strong objection to is to use the new situation to completely > upturn all > percepts of politics and governance, with their principles of > rights, > entitlements, equity and social justice towards some models of > 'privatized > governance' which serve dominant interests. What I have even > greater problem > is with the use of the civil society cover to achieve these > regressive > changes. Seeing 'governance as service' is a typical marketisation > of > governance which is implied in your formulations of what ICANN > does, and > how, and its justifiability. And this ideology has implication on > governance > - at global, national and local levels - beyond IG. I had > deliberately used > the 'tax' terminology to counter the 'service fees' terminology to > bring out > the deeper issues involved here, which are now being discussed. > > If ICANN really does not do any governance and only provides a > service, then > lets put it out of the purview of discussions on Internet > GOVERNANCE, and > focus on who does the governance part (and find out, first of all, > WHO > really does governance and public policy in this area, that's one > of the > biggest IG mysteries, often perpetuated deliberately). And if ICANN > does > governance and public policy, the tax term is the appropriate one > rather > than service fees.... If it does both then both terms are > meaningful in its > context. > > > ICANN does not have the power of excluding anyone from the > Internet. > > David Allen has already argued how ICANN's policy can have this > excluding > effect (by not taking multi-lingualisation as a priority). I myself > had > meant it in the sense that if I am not willing to make any payment > a part of > which goes to ICANN I cannot own a piece of 'real estate' on the > Internet to > use it in the manner that I may like to. And there are also more > ways by > which this exclusion may operate. Coercive power need not always be > exercised directly, it is most often exercised indirectly. A tyrant > king can > always announce that those who do not want to live under his > tyrannical rule > have the option to go to the jungle and live life not bound by his > kingdom's > authority. But to say that may not mean a thing. > > > ICANN uses funds in a manner consistent with its mandate. Please > > provide examples of use of ICANN funds that are completely > > inconsistent with its mandate. > > ICANN writes own its own mandate, and that's the issue I am > speaking of. In > any case, as Ralf pointed out, the more specific issue here is not > what the > funds are being used for, but that why cant they be used for the > IGF, which > has more political legitimacy than most organizations/ activities > that it is > used for at present. > > > IGF is a discussion forum. It has no role ion global public > policy > > making. > > This comment is so shocking especially when coming from a special > advisor to > the Chair of IGF, and also since in reply to other people's > objections to it > you have also implicated Nitin, Markus and generally the MAG as > having this > view, I will comment on it in a separate email. > > However I do assume that you understand that a 'role in public > policy > making' does not mean being the signing authority on public policy > statements. Tunis Agenda speaks at length about a public policy > role for the > IGF beyond it being a 'discussion forum', I don't understand on > what > authority those who are trusted with the governance of IGF can > assume that > they can decide what IGF is supposed to be... > > Regards > > Parminder > > ________________________________________________ > Parminder Jeet Singh > IT for Change, Bangalore > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > www.ITforChange.net > > -----Original Message----- > > From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] > > Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 8:22 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; 'Milton Mueller'; > 'Jeanette > > Hofmann' > > Subject: RE: [governance] Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting > > > > I have problems with the presentation of this argument. See > below. > > > > At 7:30 PM +0530 2/3/07, Parminder wrote: > > >Milton > > > > > >> Who speaks for the people who pay this tax? What > representation, > > >> control or accountability do domain name registrants have > over the > > IGF? > > >> (I would suggest: none). > > > > > >The obvious fact is that a 'tax' is BEING collected by ICANN. We > cant > > call > > >what ICANN collects as normal service charges, because it's a > monopoly > > >provider with no regulation and sets its own charges. > > > > Monopoly providers of public utilities in many countries have > service > > charges, not taxes. They may include monopoly profits, or > legislated > > guaranteed rates of return, but they are service charges > nonetheless. > > ICANN's charges -- to those who want domain names, not > necessarily to > > those who just want access to the Internet -- are used for the > > administration of the Domain Name System and to assure its > security > > and stability. That's a service from which we all benefit. > > > > > And it has the > > >coercive power of excluding anyone from the Internet, > > > > ICANN does not have the power of excluding anyone from the > Internet. > > > > > if he or she does not > > >pay up. If you are on digital territory you are in some way > contributing > > to > > >the ICANN, as per rules set by the ICANN itself. And it does > whatever > > with > > >this collection - deciding to utilizing it for some technical > governance > > >tasks, and some not so technical. > > > > Please provide examples of ICANN functions that do not contribute > at > > all to the above objectives. > > > > > > > > > > >The next issue is as you say 'who speaks for the people who pay > this tax' > > >(which is directly or indirectly all people who use the > Internet). I > > think > > >ICANN has less representative-ness of 'these people' that IGF > etc (and > > you > > >have often argued about the lack of representative-ness, > transparency etc > > of > > >ICANN). > > > > Neither ICANN nor IGF would claim to be completely representative > of > > the user population. Both have significant user components in > their > > composition. > > > > > > > >Public policy activity needs to be financed by taxes - and not > > opportunistic > > >or pro bono participation (with the political interests often > disguised). > > >These principals of policy and governance are basic... And we > all do set > > >some score by IGF's role in global public policy making in the > area of > > the > > >Internet. > > > > IGF is a discussion forum. It has no role ion global public > policy > > making. > > > > > > > > > > >IGF is in any case already financed through the UN which itself > is > > financed > > >through the taxes we pay.... And if you are not satisfied with > > >'representation, control and accountability' of it, we need to > engage and > > >make it more so. > > > > > >IGF's purpose is to make ICANN and other IG spaces more > accountable, > > >stakeholder-controlled, transparent etc - > > > > IGF is a discussion forum that deals with issues of Internet > Governance. > > > > >so, the tax collected from > > >Internet users can and should legitimately be used for funding > it. > > Starving > > >the IGF of such funds and ICANN using the tax it collects in the > manner > > it > > >likes, > > > > ICANN uses funds in a manner consistent with its mandate. Please > > provide examples of use of ICANN funds that are completely > > inconsistent with its mandate. > > > > > is what constitutes a non-fulfillment of the above canons of > fair > > >governance you speak of. > > > > > >> The principle of no taxation without representation is > fundamental to > > >> democratic governance. > > > > > >I completely agree. That's the problem I have in paying taxes to > ICANN. > > > > > >Parminder > > >________________________________________________ > > >Parminder Jeet Singh > > >IT for Change, Bangalore > > >Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > >Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > > >Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > > >www.ITforChange.net > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > > >> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 9:10 PM > > >> To: Parminder at ITforChange.net; Jeanette Hofmann > > >> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting > > >> > > >> >>> Parminder at ITforChange.net 2/1/2007 8:06:12 AM >>> > > >> >Your suggestions for raising funds are very interesting. A > 'tax' > > >> >on domain names is a good idea, since the money is to be > used > > >> >for IG related public policy activity. > > >> > > >> Who speaks for the people who pay this tax? What > representation, > > >> control or accountability do domain name registrants have > over the > > IGF? > > >> (I would suggest: none) > > >> > > >> The principle of no taxation without representation is > fundamental to > > >> democratic 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 Sun Feb 4 14:26:40 2007 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 11:26:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] ICANN taxes/fees (was: Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <217843.30177.qm@web58715.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Hi George, > This may be the wording of the Tunis agenda, but in fact, I believe > > that both Nitin desai and Markus Kummer have stressed that the > purpose of the IGF is discussion, and that appears to be the > opinion > of members of the advisory committee also. There may have been > some > rethinking about the mandate of the IGF after Tunis; I'm not sure. I hope you do realize how preoccupying it is that a few individuals, no matter their rank, endeavor to supersede a world summit outcome with their own opinion of what should be done or what is feasable. For if what you're saying is true, as I'm inclined to beleive (knowing you're not exactly the kind of man to say those things lightly,) then it is not even a reinterpretation we are dealing with here, but a simple replacement of a summit outcome by a backdoor-crafted "decision" by a few individuals (to my knowledge no meeting, no matter how restrictive, has been called to that specific effect.) And shall I remind you that the MAG is not even the direct result of a summit decision, as for the WGIG. And I'd find all this amazing, to say the least. Last, IMHO, it is still possible to have a role in policy-making without taking binding decisions. A respected discussion forum can highly and significantly contribute to setting the agenda for final and binding decisions. Best, Mawaki --- George Sadowsky wrote: > Comments inserted below... > > At 4:45 PM +0100 2/3/07, Ralf Bendrath wrote: > >Interesting debate. I have adapted the subject line. > > > >George Sadowsky wrote: > >>IGF is a discussion forum. It has no role ion global public > policy > >>making. > >Wait a second. From the Tunis Agenda: > > > >"72.(...) The mandate of the Forum is to: > >a) Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of > Internet > >governance > >(...) > >g) Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the > relevant > >bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make > recommendations; > >(...) > >k) Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and > misuse of > >the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users; > >(...) > >77. The IGF would have no oversight function and would not replace > >existing arrangements, mechanisms, institutions or organisations, > but > >would involve them and take advantage of their expertise. It would > be > >constituted as a neutral, non-duplicative and non-binding process. > It > >would have no involvement in day-to-day or technical operations of > the > >Internet." > > This may be the wording of the Tunis agenda, but in fact, I believe > > that both Nitin desai and Markus Kummer have stressed that the > purpose of the IGF is discussion, and that appears to be the > opinion > of members of the advisory committee also. There may have been > some > rethinking about the mandate of the IGF after Tunis; I'm not sure. > > One of the members of the Advisory Committee pointed out that one > reason that Athens worked so well, and that there was so much > pleasant mixing of people from different sectors, was that there > were > no decisions to be made, and no statements that would have to be > crafted. I agree with his assessment. > > So I take your point about the Tunis agenda, but what is happening > contradicts it, and for the best, I think. > > The concept of non-binding recommendations is interesting. I think > > even that would lead to a fundamental shift in the IGF milieu. > Consider the United nations, for example, where sovereign nations > generally do not consider UN decisions binding upon them. Yet the > way in which UN resolutions are formulated apparently requires a > highly politicized environment. Further, if you've ever sat in on > UN > meetings in New York (I worked there for 13 years), the discussion > is > formal, verbose, indirect and generally not conducive to a free and > > frank exchange of views. Let's keep the ambience of the IGF the > way > it was in Athens. > > > > >So, the IGF can discuss public policy issues, make > recommendations, find > >solutions etc. They only are non-binding. But a lot of global > public > >policy is being coordinated in a non-binding way nowadays. That's > why you > >call it "governance", not "government". > > > > > Hmm... Governance _sometimes_ is binding, at least the way I think > of > the term. for example, the pilot of an airplane has governance > responsibility for the plane when it is in the air, and it _is_ > binding. The Pope has governance responsibility for the Catholic > Church, and it is binding on cardinals, bishops, and priests, and > presumably at least morally binding on adherents. > > > > >>>IGF is in any case already financed through the UN which itself > is > >>>financed through the taxes we pay.... > >Not exactly: > >"The IGF Secretariat's activities are funded through > extra-budgetary > >contributions paid into a Trust Fund administered by the United > Nations. > >Pledges and contributions have been received so far from the > following > >donors." > >http://www.intgovforum.org/funding.htm > > > Yes, that is correct, and it's only the Secretariat that is > financed > in that way. If you look at all the money spent on the IGF, most > of > it comes from disparate sources -- organizations, other > governments, industry, etc. Thanks for pointing that out. > > > > >>ICANN uses funds in a manner consistent with its mandate. Please > > >>provide examples of use of ICANN funds that are completely > >>inconsistent > >> with its mandate. > >That is not the question (well, of course you could question why > >Californian lawyers have to make a fortune e.g. from applicants > for new > >gTLDs, but this is not the issue here). The question was if adding > funding > > for the IGF would be inconsistent with ICANN's mandate. > > ICANN is constantly being criticized for expanding its mandate > beyond > the narrow technical purposes that define its boundaries, i.e. > "mission creep." Can you imagine what the diversion of significant > > funding from it to the IGF would cause those critics to do? "ICANN > > is active in the political arena!" they would comlain, and rightly > so. > > > > >Best, Ralf > > > Regards, > > George > > -- > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > George Sadowsky > george.sadowsky at attglobal.net > 64 Sweet Briar Road > george.sadowsky at gmail.com > Stamford, CT 06905-1514 > http://www.georgesadowsky.com/ > tel: +1.203.329.3288 GSM mobile: > +1.202.415.1933 > Voice mail & fax: +1.203.547.6020 SKYPE: > sadowsky > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 Sun Feb 4 15:59:11 2007 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 12:59:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] In-Reply-To: <49374.130.132.251.34.1170517162.squirrel@webmail.dynamicfun.com> Message-ID: <688400.26763.qm@web58707.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Re: the Internet technical community as a fourth stakeholder in the IG policy processes. I never seem to receive postings from Adam Peake (all listservs we both seem to belong to, included) so I'm replying based on what I read from Vittorio's. I've attempted to distinguish the technical CS from the rest in an edited document published by Ken's project/organization, CIPACO, "Opening the Internet Governance Forum Debate in Africa," which you may find at http://www.cipaco.org/sources/OpeningIGFdebateAfrica.pdf, or the abstract at http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?page=document&id_rubrique=2&num_doc=307 But as you probably know, borders are always tricky to establish; they always seem to have something arbitrary ;-) so I admit this attempt is still ambiguous ("professional"/technical vs. "general" CS.) Critics are obviously welcome. Mawaki --- Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Adam Peake ha scritto: > > Good statement (other than the curly quotes :-) > > Thanks. > May I ask everyone to post any proposal for edits before the end of > Wednesday, so that there still are a few days to discuss any > remaining > issue with such proposals, and for me to prepare a final version? > > For the rest, I think your comments are good, I only have a remark > on a > couple of things that go in the direction of expressing particular > preferences, such as this one: > > > differently), suggest we ask that "Representatives from civil > society > > groups who can present a gender perspective [wording?], people > with > > disabilities and experts on local access conditions, particularly > from > > African and SE Asian regions, would be a positive addition to the > > membership Advisory Group and should be invited to join. IGC > would be > > please to work with the Chair and Secretariat on preparing a > possible > > list of names for the Secretary General's consideration." > > and this one: > > > Access should be the overarching theme. > > Capacity building a clear priority out of Athens. > > because I think that each of us has different priority issues (for > me it > would be rights and information freedom, for example) and different > views > on who should be added to the AG (I do feel the need to add > individual > users and "hackers", for example). So I would rather state all our > suggestions for important themes without prioritizing them, and, > for what > regards the AG, say that we think that we have more perspectives to > add > but leave it open about who should be invited to join, also because > we > might want to run the usual nomcom process. > > > (related, and I expect > > some caucus members might object to this, but I would like to see > a > > sentence saying "The IGC welcomes the recognition of the Internet > > technical community as a fourth stakeholder in the IGF process. > > Information Society and the critical issues of capacity building > and > > extending access needs the equal participation of this vital > fourth > > stakeholder.") > > Well... I'd be happy to welcome it, but not if it is at the damage > of our > own representation. Maybe we can add it, but then add a sentence > that > specifies that this doesn't eliminate the need for ample > representation of > the "traditional" WSIS civil society folks :) > > > "Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet > resources." > > Which could complement discussions on enhanced cooperation. (I > would > > like us to suggest discussing ICANN stuff. So long as it doesn't > > dominate and suck the life from the rest.) > > More views on this one? I'd like to understand whether there is any > clear > or rough consensus in the caucus. > -- > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu > <-------- > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ > <-------- > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 Sun Feb 4 17:27:28 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 01:27:28 +0300 Subject: [governance] ICANN taxes/fees In-Reply-To: <642439.87601.qm@web58709.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <20070204095417.1DF25E0CA8@smtp3.electricembers.net> <642439.87601.qm@web58709.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Don't believe everything you read (comments inline): On 2/4/07, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Now, about Parminder's observations on IG mysteries and "digital > enforcement," I just happen to be reading the following from Jack > Goldsmith and Tim Wu, "Who Controls the Internet?", 2006, MIT Press. > > "Not only does the domain name system affect valuable > Internet-related property rights, it also has the potential to serve > as a powerful tool of Internet enforcementad to shape the nature of > the Internet itself. As country clubs and medical associations know > well, control over membership is a powerful tool for making people > follow rules. Already today, a basic form of such enforcement is used > to protect registered trademarks on the Internet. If you somehow > managed to register harrypotter.com, Warner Brothers or J.K. Rowling > [author of the book] could complain to the Internet naming authority, They could complain. > and you'd quickly lose the name. not necessarily, what if your name WAS Harry Potter?? > No court, no trial; simply a direct > divestiture of the domain name. It doesn't quite work like that. http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp.htm http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/guide/index.html It's a prime example of what David > Johnson calls "electronic," as opposed to physical, force. > The power over domain names and numbers could also be used as broader > enforcement tool against other types of unwanted conduct. As we'll > see in chapter 5, the U.S. government demands divestiture of domain > names and IP addresses for offenses like selling drug paraphernalia > or copyright infringement. One can imagine a future where divestiture > of IP addresses is a common form of enforcement. As punishment, > individuals, institutions, or even whole countries could lose domain > names, IP addresses, or even Internet membership. This is complete bollocks. There is no mechanism for "divestiture" of IP addresses, and if there were, they are not allocated/assigned on a country by country basis. -- 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 ki_chango at yahoo.com Sun Feb 4 22:44:35 2007 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 19:44:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] ICANN taxes/fees In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <716022.48302.qm@web58714.mail.re1.yahoo.com> --- McTim wrote: > Don't believe everything you read YES, Sir!!! > > On 2/4/07, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > If you somehow > > managed to register harrypotter.com, Warner Brothers or J.K. > Rowling > > [author of the book] could complain to the Internet naming > authority, > > They could complain. > > > and you'd quickly lose the name. > > not necessarily, what if your name WAS Harry Potter?? > Not necessarily so, AND not necessarily not so, isn't it? And btw, if I was called HP, what would be fair (at least from the IPR perspective) is that I amicably negotiate with, or sue, JK Rowling AND Warner Bros. to pay me a share of the royalties for using my name in making money - it wouldn't be enough that they just concede that I register my name as a domain name, would it? > > No court, no trial; simply a direct > > divestiture of the domain name. > > It doesn't quite work like that. > > http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp.htm > > http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/guide/index.html Well, as far as I know, UDRP is not a law (or legal code) and WIPO a courtroom. I mean, I just quoted an excerpt, and make no assumption about what is written there: "no court, no trial." Even though those who have the resources can still challenge the UDRP outcome in court, that is not what is expected by setting up the UDRP mechanism. The points remain: 1) The DNS as a technical system can be and is used to leverage policy issues; 2) Is ICANN or not the governance authority that is currently answerable to those policy issues? If so, there might be some legitimate concerns it may still need to address: for example, try to correct the market failure resulting from information assymetry with regard to the registration market (just to mention an example.) if not, who do we talk to? Mawaki > > It's a prime example of what David > > Johnson calls "electronic," as opposed to physical, force. > > The power over domain names and numbers could also be used as > broader > > enforcement tool against other types of unwanted conduct. As > we'll > > see in chapter 5, the U.S. government demands divestiture of > domain > > names and IP addresses for offenses like selling drug > paraphernalia > > or copyright infringement. One can imagine a future where > divestiture > > of IP addresses is a common form of enforcement. As punishment, > > individuals, institutions, or even whole countries could lose > domain > > names, IP addresses, or even Internet membership. > > This is complete bollocks. There is no mechanism for "divestiture" > of > IP addresses, and if there were, they are not allocated/assigned on > a > country by country basis. > > -- > 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 goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Sun Feb 4 23:24:07 2007 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 20:24:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] ICANN taxes/fees Message-ID: <688141.69659.qm@web54104.mail.yahoo.com> If your name was Harry Potter, there would be a good case of you keeping the domain name harrypotter.whatever, but you would have to have a legitimate use for the domain name. I very much doubt you could trade off the success of the character Harry Potter. Also, if you changed your name by deed poll I reckon you'd still be lucky to keep the domain name. On governance issues, ICANN seemed to refused to get involved in the Spamhaus issue a few months ago, so I don't know if this is an area of interest for them. So ICANN have some responsibilities, but I don't think in the areas you are suggesting Mawaki. On the role of UDRP, there are numerous courts that suggest plaintiffs and complainants (correct terms?) should mediate/arbitrate, and the decision, if accepted by both parties is legally enforceable. Courts are often a last resort in many areas. Family Law is often a case in point. David ----- Original Message ---- From: Mawaki Chango To: McTim ; Governance Sent: Monday, 5 February, 2007 2:44:35 PM Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN taxes/fees --- McTim wrote: > Don't believe everything you read YES, Sir!!! > > On 2/4/07, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > If you somehow > > managed to register harrypotter.com, Warner Brothers or J.K. > Rowling > > [author of the book] could complain to the Internet naming > authority, > > They could complain. > > > and you'd quickly lose the name. > > not necessarily, what if your name WAS Harry Potter?? > Not necessarily so, AND not necessarily not so, isn't it? And btw, if I was called HP, what would be fair (at least from the IPR perspective) is that I amicably negotiate with, or sue, JK Rowling AND Warner Bros. to pay me a share of the royalties for using my name in making money - it wouldn't be enough that they just concede that I register my name as a domain name, would it? > > No court, no trial; simply a direct > > divestiture of the domain name. > > It doesn't quite work like that. > > http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp.htm > > http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/guide/index.html Well, as far as I know, UDRP is not a law (or legal code) and WIPO a courtroom. I mean, I just quoted an excerpt, and make no assumption about what is written there: "no court, no trial." Even though those who have the resources can still challenge the UDRP outcome in court, that is not what is expected by setting up the UDRP mechanism. The points remain: 1) The DNS as a technical system can be and is used to leverage policy issues; 2) Is ICANN or not the governance authority that is currently answerable to those policy issues? If so, there might be some legitimate concerns it may still need to address: for example, try to correct the market failure resulting from information assymetry with regard to the registration market (just to mention an example.) if not, who do we talk to? Mawaki > > It's a prime example of what David > > Johnson calls "electronic," as opposed to physical, force. > > The power over domain names and numbers could also be used as > broader > > enforcement tool against other types of unwanted conduct. As > we'll > > see in chapter 5, the U.S. government demands divestiture of > domain > > names and IP addresses for offenses like selling drug > paraphernalia > > or copyright infringement. One can imagine a future where > divestiture > > of IP addresses is a common form of enforcement. As punishment, > > individuals, institutions, or even whole countries could lose > domain > > names, IP addresses, or even Internet membership. > > This is complete bollocks. There is no mechanism for "divestiture" > of > IP addresses, and if there were, they are not allocated/assigned on > a > country by country basis. > > -- > 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 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 george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Sun Feb 4 23:59:09 2007 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2007 23:59:09 -0500 Subject: [governance] ICANN taxes/fees (was: Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting) In-Reply-To: <217843.30177.qm@web58715.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <217843.30177.qm@web58715.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi, Mawaki, You've provided a rather civilized response (and thanks for that), so I'll try to respond as best I can. First, I should have noted that it is only my impression that both Nitin and Markus have stressed the discussion role of the IGF and not any decision making role. I should leave it to them to say directly what the role of the IGF is, since they have the ultimate responsibility and I am only a special adviser. So I would not assume that they are trying to replace one set of guidelines with another. Of course, they report to the UN Secretary-General, and we do not know the content of their conversations with his office. I do not think that there is any conspiracy here. However, having said this, I think that Athens worked precisely because there was no need to focus on producing decisions, or a report of the meeting, or any document that tried to reach consensus on any of the issues. There is a long term process of convergence going on here, and I think that it is best served by informal discussion as well as by various meetings where people can get to know each other and trade opinions off the record. If there are clear directions identified that would be beneficial for users of the Internet, I think that they will emerge as well from such an environment as from an environment that is more formal and more oriented toward forcing consensus statements. i have trouble with the idea of policy making in the absence of binding decisions. Surely one thing that the IGF can do is to bring to light information and education that will inform the policy making process, and I am all for that. However, consider that the IGF meetings can be attended by anyone and that neither the IGF nor the fora are legal entities. I think the IGF in a good position to provide evidence and opinion, but I cannot see how you get any kind of policy closure out of it. How, for example, would IGF decisions -- assuming that one could even set up a decision making mechanism within a forum -- be enforced, and at what level? Governments? Industries? I just don't see it. It's the wrong instrument for decision making. The next IGF is likely to be equally interesting, and perhaps some of the coalitions that formed in and after Athens will have some interesting things to report. We'll see. Regards, George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 11:26 AM -0800 2/4/07, Mawaki Chango wrote: >Hi George, > >> This may be the wording of the Tunis agenda, but in fact, I believe >> >> that both Nitin desai and Markus Kummer have stressed that the >> purpose of the IGF is discussion, and that appears to be the >> opinion >> of members of the advisory committee also. There may have been >> some >> rethinking about the mandate of the IGF after Tunis; I'm not sure. > >I hope you do realize how preoccupying it is that a few individuals, >no matter their rank, endeavor to supersede a world summit outcome >with their own opinion of what should be done or what is feasable. >For if what you're saying is true, as I'm inclined to beleive >(knowing you're not exactly the kind of man to say those things >lightly,) then it is not even a reinterpretation we are dealing with >here, but a simple replacement of a summit outcome by a >backdoor-crafted "decision" by a few individuals (to my knowledge no >meeting, no matter how restrictive, has been called to that specific >effect.) And shall I remind you that the MAG is not even the direct >result of a summit decision, as for the WGIG. And I'd find all this >amazing, to say the least. > >Last, IMHO, it is still possible to have a role in policy-making >without taking binding decisions. A respected discussion forum can >highly and significantly contribute to setting the agenda for final >and binding decisions. > >Best, > >Mawaki > >--- George Sadowsky wrote: > >> Comments inserted below... >> >> At 4:45 PM +0100 2/3/07, Ralf Bendrath wrote: >> >Interesting debate. I have adapted the subject line. >> > >> >George Sadowsky wrote: >> >>IGF is a discussion forum. It has no role ion global public >> policy >> >>making. >> >Wait a second. From the Tunis Agenda: >> > >> >"72.(...) The mandate of the Forum is to: >> >a) Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of >> Internet >> >governance >> >(...) >> >g) Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the >> relevant >> >bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make >> recommendations; >> >(...) >> >k) Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and >> misuse of >> >the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users; >> >(...) >> >77. The IGF would have no oversight function and would not replace >> >existing arrangements, mechanisms, institutions or organisations, >> but >> >would involve them and take advantage of their expertise. It would >> be >> >constituted as a neutral, non-duplicative and non-binding process. >> It >> >would have no involvement in day-to-day or technical operations of >> the >> >Internet." >> >> This may be the wording of the Tunis agenda, but in fact, I believe >> >> that both Nitin desai and Markus Kummer have stressed that the >> purpose of the IGF is discussion, and that appears to be the >> opinion >> of members of the advisory committee also. There may have been >> some >> rethinking about the mandate of the IGF after Tunis; I'm not sure. >> >> One of the members of the Advisory Committee pointed out that one >> reason that Athens worked so well, and that there was so much >> pleasant mixing of people from different sectors, was that there >> were >> no decisions to be made, and no statements that would have to be >> crafted. I agree with his assessment. >> >> So I take your point about the Tunis agenda, but what is happening >> contradicts it, and for the best, I think. >> >> The concept of non-binding recommendations is interesting. I think >> >> even that would lead to a fundamental shift in the IGF milieu. >> Consider the United nations, for example, where sovereign nations >> generally do not consider UN decisions binding upon them. Yet the >> way in which UN resolutions are formulated apparently requires a >> highly politicized environment. Further, if you've ever sat in on >> UN >> meetings in New York (I worked there for 13 years), the discussion >> is >> formal, verbose, indirect and generally not conducive to a free and >> >> frank exchange of views. Let's keep the ambience of the IGF the >> way >> it was in Athens. >> >> > >> >So, the IGF can discuss public policy issues, make >> recommendations, find >> >solutions etc. They only are non-binding. But a lot of global >> public >> >policy is being coordinated in a non-binding way nowadays. That's >> why you >> >call it "governance", not "government". >> >> >> >> >> Hmm... Governance _sometimes_ is binding, at least the way I think >> of >> the term. for example, the pilot of an airplane has governance >> responsibility for the plane when it is in the air, and it _is_ >> binding. The Pope has governance responsibility for the Catholic >> Church, and it is binding on cardinals, bishops, and priests, and >> presumably at least morally binding on adherents. >> >> > >> >>>IGF is in any case already financed through the UN which itself >> is >> >>>financed through the taxes we pay.... >> >Not exactly: >> >"The IGF Secretariat's activities are funded through >> extra-budgetary >> >contributions paid into a Trust Fund administered by the United >> Nations. >> >Pledges and contributions have been received so far from the >> following >> >donors." >> >http://www.intgovforum.org/funding.htm >> >> >> Yes, that is correct, and it's only the Secretariat that is >> financed >> in that way. If you look at all the money spent on the IGF, most >> of >> it comes from disparate sources -- organizations, other >> governments, industry, etc. Thanks for pointing that out. >> >> > >> >>ICANN uses funds in a manner consistent with its mandate. Please > > >> >>provide examples of use of ICANN funds that are completely >> >>inconsistent >> >> with its mandate. >> >That is not the question (well, of course you could question why >> >Californian lawyers have to make a fortune e.g. from applicants >> for new >> >gTLDs, but this is not the issue here). The question was if adding >> funding >> > for the IGF would be inconsistent with ICANN's mandate. >> >> ICANN is constantly being criticized for expanding its mandate >> beyond >> the narrow technical purposes that define its boundaries, i.e. >> "mission creep." Can you imagine what the diversion of significant >> >> funding from it to the IGF would cause those critics to do? "ICANN >> >> is active in the political arena!" they would comlain, and rightly >> so. >> >> > >> >Best, Ralf >> >> >> Regards, >> >> George >> >> -- >> >> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> George Sadowsky >> george.sadowsky at attglobal.net >> 64 Sweet Briar Road >> george.sadowsky at gmail.com >> Stamford, CT 06905-1514 >> http://www.georgesadowsky.com/ >> tel: +1.203.329.3288 GSM mobile: >> +1.202.415.1933 >> Voice mail & fax: +1.203.547.6020 SKYPE: >> sadowsky >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Mon Feb 5 00:46:05 2007 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 00:46:05 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: ICANN taxes/fees Message-ID: Parminder, I will try to respond to your comments as best I can in this email, and then I will no longer participate in this conversation. I responded initially because I thought that your post had some fundamental errors that should not go unchallenged. i stand by my original responses. But you've said more here, and you deserve a response. My comments are inserted in various places below. Given the general direction of your remarks, I think that we will end up just agreeing to disagree on a variety of issues. I'll let my responses speak for themselves. At 3:23 PM +0530 2/4/07, Parminder wrote: >George > >> Monopoly providers of public utilities in many countries have service >> charges, not taxes. They may include monopoly profits, or legislated >> guaranteed rates of return, but they are service charges nonetheless. >> ICANN's charges -- to those who want domain names, not necessarily to >> those who just want access to the Internet -- are used for the >> administration of the Domain Name System and to assure its security >> and stability. That's a service from which we all benefit. > >Can you tell me one such monopoly which sets its own charges, makes its own >rules, and no have no regulation? At the moment, soft regulation of ICANN is provided by the U.S. Department of Commerce. I think that this is something you would like to do away with. The issue is what will replace it, and that is where the focus of the discussion should be. > > >Your above statements come in response to that part of my email which says > > '> > We cant >> > call what ICANN collects as normal service charges, because it's a >monopoly >> >provider with no regulation and sets its own charges. > >But you chose not to address this point. More monopolistic is a service >provider stronger is its regulation in order to ensure public interest >objectives. It is only ICANN which both provides the service and does its >own public policy. And then it funds some organizations/ activities on >public policy matters as long as their outlook seems close to ICANN's own. It does fund public policy activities, including the WGIG and the IGF. There are a sizeable number of people who think that this is mission creep and that it should be stopped. I have some sympathy with this view. i wouldn't call what ICANN does "public policy." I think that it is their policy with respect to governance of the domain name system and the security and stability of the Internet. That is a necessary function if the Internet is to survive and function. > > >I have no doubts that the context of information society and IG does need >governance innovations, and old systems may be inadequate. What I have >strong objection to is to use the new situation to completely upturn all >percepts of politics and governance, with their principles of rights, >entitlements, equity and social justice towards some models of 'privatized >governance' which serve dominant interests. What I have even greater problem >is with the use of the civil society cover to achieve these regressive >changes. Seeing 'governance as service' is a typical marketisation of >governance which is implied in your formulations of what ICANN does, and >how, and its justifiability. And this ideology has implication on governance >- at global, national and local levels - beyond IG. I had deliberately used >the 'tax' terminology to counter the 'service fees' terminology to bring out >the deeper issues involved here, which are now being discussed. > >If ICANN really does not do any governance and only provides a service, then >lets put it out of the purview of discussions on Internet GOVERNANCE, and >focus on who does the governance part (and find out, first of all, WHO >really does governance and public policy in this area, that's one of the >biggest IG mysteries, often perpetuated deliberately). And if ICANN does >governance and public policy, the tax term is the appropriate one rather >than service fees.... If it does both then both terms are meaningful in its >context. > >> ICANN does not have the power of excluding anyone from the Internet. > >David Allen has already argued how ICANN's policy can have this excluding >effect (by not taking multi-lingualisation as a priority). I myself had >meant it in the sense that if I am not willing to make any payment a part of >which goes to ICANN I cannot own a piece of 'real estate' on the Internet to >use it in the manner that I may like to. And there are also more ways by >which this exclusion may operate. Coercive power need not always be >exercised directly, it is most often exercised indirectly. A tyrant king can >always announce that those who do not want to live under his tyrannical rule >have the option to go to the jungle and live life not bound by his kingdom's >authority. But to say that may not mean a thing. Different people see priorities differently. the threats to the Internet's stability, and in particular the DDOS attacks on root servers and the threats posed by PHARMING might well have been regarded as more serious than IDN developments at some point in time. I don't know; I'm just guessing. ICANN has not had a sufficient budget to attack all of the shortcomings of the Internet in which it could have made a difference. I am not arguing that ICANN is perfect, but I do argue that it is grappling with a host of problems and doing its best to work in the interest of an effective Internet. I think that to characterize ICANN as excluding people from the Internet because of not a high enough priority to IDNs is equivalent to blaming the World Health Organization for condemning people to die of polio because they did not give it a sufficiently high priority. AIDS sufferers might dispute that characterization. There are a lot of things to be improved in the world, by ICANN, by WHO, and by many other organizations. All of the world's problems cannot be fixed overnight. > > >> ICANN uses funds in a manner consistent with its mandate. Please >> provide examples of use of ICANN funds that are completely >> inconsistent with its mandate. > >ICANN writes own its own mandate, and that's the issue I am speaking of. In >any case, as Ralf pointed out, the more specific issue here is not what the >funds are being used for, but that why cant they be used for the IGF, which >has more political legitimacy than most organizations/ activities that it is >used for at present. ICANN's mandate is specified in its bylaws. The use of funds for IGF, as well as for other purposes, is mission creep, and that concerns me. > >> IGF is a discussion forum. It has no role ion global public policy >> making. > >This comment is so shocking especially when coming from a special advisor to >the Chair of IGF, I am an advisor, and I think that I give good advice. The chair and the secretariat have the obligation to consider it and to make their own judgment regarding its value. > and also since in reply to other people's objections to it >you have also implicated Nitin, Markus and generally the MAG as having this >view, I will comment on it in a separate email. I will let Nitin and Markus speak for themselves on this since I do not want to mischaracterize their views. My view, is that it should be a discussion forum. As I pointed out in a separate post to Mawati Chango, IGF in Athens worked precisely because it was a discussion forum and not a decision making body. You may not agree with that. Perhaps the formation of the coalitions corresponds to your idea of the public policy making process. If the coalitions come back and report useful information and/or conclusions, it will be recognized as useful. We will see. > >However I do assume that you understand that a 'role in public policy >making' does not mean being the signing authority on public policy >statements. Tunis Agenda speaks at length about a public policy role for the >IGF beyond it being a 'discussion forum', I don't understand on what >authority those who are trusted with the governance of IGF can assume that >they can decide what IGF is supposed to be... IGF is a dynamic process. It has started as a discussion forum, and my sense is that it was successful. It may change over time, but please beware of unintended consequences. If the IGF is forced to converge to statements of consensus in the foreseeable future, I believe that its value will be severely eroded and it will become an arena for political dispute that will serve no useful purpose. I think that the kinds of arguments that you are advancing do not serve civil society well. I am one of you (see www.internetpolicy.net) and have been for some time (see www.georgesadowsky.com), and I have some work experience in more than 50 developing countries. I believe strongly that the Internet should be for everyone, and you will see that much of my professional life had been dedicated to this task. For civil society (that _is_ the focus of the list that we are on, right?) to be attacking ICANN is to miss, in my opinion, where civil society can do the most good. I think that making the Internet available, accessible, affordable and secure both physically and in terms of guaranteeing fundamental human rights for more of the world's people should be the top priorities, and that civil society should directly address barriers to those conditions, especially where they are stable and reinforced by industrial or governmental policy. In this respect, I believe that ICANN is more of a solution than a problem, and IDNs will come, even though my opinion is that they are of lesser importance than local scripts for local languages,the implementation and use of which are well advanced. That's really all I have to say and will say on these subjects. As I noted above, perhaps we will just agree to disagree on some of these topics. But I think that you should reconsider how and where to redirect your energies and your passions (quite properly held) with regard to these matters. Regards, George > >Regards > >Parminder > >________________________________________________ >Parminder Jeet Singh >IT for Change, Bangalore >Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities >Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 >Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 >www.ITforChange.net >> -----Original Message----- >> From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] >> Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 8:22 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; 'Milton Mueller'; 'Jeanette >> Hofmann' >> Subject: RE: [governance] Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting >> >> I have problems with the presentation of this argument. See below. >> >> At 7:30 PM +0530 2/3/07, Parminder wrote: >> >Milton >> > >> >> Who speaks for the people who pay this tax? What representation, >> >> control or accountability do domain name registrants have over the >> IGF? >> >> (I would suggest: none). >> > >> >The obvious fact is that a 'tax' is BEING collected by ICANN. We cant >> call >> >what ICANN collects as normal service charges, because it's a monopoly >> >provider with no regulation and sets its own charges. >> >> Monopoly providers of public utilities in many countries have service >> charges, not taxes. They may include monopoly profits, or legislated >> guaranteed rates of return, but they are service charges nonetheless. >> ICANN's charges -- to those who want domain names, not necessarily to >> those who just want access to the Internet -- are used for the >> administration of the Domain Name System and to assure its security >> and stability. That's a service from which we all benefit. >> >> > And it has the >> >coercive power of excluding anyone from the Internet, >> >> ICANN does not have the power of excluding anyone from the Internet. >> >> > if he or she does not >> >pay up. If you are on digital territory you are in some way contributing >> to >> >the ICANN, as per rules set by the ICANN itself. And it does whatever >> with >> >this collection - deciding to utilizing it for some technical governance >> >tasks, and some not so technical. >> >> Please provide examples of ICANN functions that do not contribute at >> all to the above objectives. >> >> > >> > > > >The next issue is as you say 'who speaks for the people who pay this tax' >> >(which is directly or indirectly all people who use the Internet). I >> think >> >ICANN has less representative-ness of 'these people' that IGF etc (and >> you >> >have often argued about the lack of representative-ness, transparency etc >> of >> >ICANN). >> >> Neither ICANN nor IGF would claim to be completely representative of >> the user population. Both have significant user components in their >> composition. >> >> > >> >Public policy activity needs to be financed by taxes - and not >> opportunistic >> >or pro bono participation (with the political interests often disguised). > > >These principals of policy and governance are basic... And we all do set >> >some score by IGF's role in global public policy making in the area of >> the >> >Internet. >> >> IGF is a discussion forum. It has no role ion global public policy >> making. >> >> > >> > >> >IGF is in any case already financed through the UN which itself is >> financed >> >through the taxes we pay.... And if you are not satisfied with >> >'representation, control and accountability' of it, we need to engage and >> >make it more so. >> > >> >IGF's purpose is to make ICANN and other IG spaces more accountable, >> >stakeholder-controlled, transparent etc - >> >> IGF is a discussion forum that deals with issues of Internet Governance. >> >> >so, the tax collected from >> >Internet users can and should legitimately be used for funding it. >> Starving >> >the IGF of such funds and ICANN using the tax it collects in the manner >> it >> >likes, >> >> ICANN uses funds in a manner consistent with its mandate. Please >> provide examples of use of ICANN funds that are completely >> inconsistent with its mandate. >> >> > is what constitutes a non-fulfillment of the above canons of fair >> >governance you speak of. >> > >> >> The principle of no taxation without representation is fundamental to >> >> democratic governance. >> > >> >I completely agree. That's the problem I have in paying taxes to ICANN. >> > >> >Parminder >> >________________________________________________ >> >Parminder Jeet Singh >> >IT for Change, Bangalore >> >Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities >> >Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 >> >Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 >> >www.ITforChange.net >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] >> >> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 9:10 PM >> >> To: Parminder at ITforChange.net; Jeanette Hofmann >> >> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > > Subject: Re: [governance] Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting >> >> >> >> >>> Parminder at ITforChange.net 2/1/2007 8:06:12 AM >>> >> >> >Your suggestions for raising funds are very interesting. A 'tax' >> >> >on domain names is a good idea, since the money is to be used >> >> >for IG related public policy activity. >> >> >> >> Who speaks for the people who pay this tax? What representation, >> >> control or accountability do domain name registrants have over the >> IGF? >> >> (I would suggest: none) >> >> >> >> The principle of no taxation without representation is fundamental to > > >> democratic governance. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ George Sadowsky george.sadowsky at attglobal.net 64 Sweet Briar Road george.sadowsky at gmail.com Stamford, CT 06905-1514 http://www.georgesadowsky.com/ tel: +1.203.329.3288 GSM mobile: +1.202.415.1933 Voice mail & fax: +1.203.547.6020 SKYPE: sadowsky ____________________________________________________________ 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 drake at hei.unige.ch Mon Feb 5 03:45:05 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 09:45:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF's forgotten mandate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi George, A couple of comments on your reply to Mawaki. New subject line as it's not about ICANN and 'taxes.' On 2/5/07 5:59 AM, "George Sadowsky" wrote: > First, I should have noted that it is only my impression that both > Nitin and Markus have stressed the discussion role of the IGF and not > any decision making role. I should leave it to them to say directly > what the role of the IGF is, since they have the ultimate > responsibility and I am only a special adviser. So I would not > assume that they are trying to replace one set of guidelines with > another. Of course, they report to the UN Secretary-General, and we > do not know the content of their conversations with his office. I do > not think that there is any conspiracy here. I didn't see that anyone was suggesting a conspiracy. Framing expressions of discontent with IGF's forgotten mandate in this manner may be seem an easy way to dismiss them, but it doesn't lend itself to real dialogue. At the same time, I also don't think that the issue here revolves around the secretariat's preferences. After all, Markus and Nitin were directly involved in developing the WGIG Report's suggestions on the mandate, which the Tunis Agenda simply adapted and extended a little. If there was a real consensus among all stakeholders for the IGF to actually do what the TA said, I assume they'd happily roll with it. The problem is that there never was such a consensus; there are influential players that the IGF needs on board financially and politically that didn't want it to play the roles listed. They opted not to publicly object to the wording in Tunis, which I suppose helped facilitate the closure of the prepcom which anyway ran into the 12th hour, but negating things off line post hoc meant that other parties had no opportunity to weigh in on the discussion. That to me is the issue. One could argue that the mandate as written was poorly conceived and unworkable; McTim and I had a wee debate here on this point a few months ago, and while I don't agree, it's at least a fair argument, one I'd be happy to see debated. But it's an argument that wasn't seriously posed either in WGIG or in the prepcom or vetted publicly thereafter. To have an agreed mandate set aside in a sotto voce back channel manner just isn't a good practice, especially for something that's marketed as embodying open and participatory multistakeholder consensus. And people ought to be able to raise questions about this without being labeled disruptive, conspiracy theorists, etc. > However, having said this, I think that Athens worked precisely > because there was no need to focus on producing decisions, or a > report of the meeting, or any document that tried to reach consensus > on any of the issues. There is a long term process of convergence > going on here, and I think that it is best served by informal > discussion as well as by various meetings where people can get to > know each other and trade opinions off the record. If there are > clear directions identified that would be beneficial for users of the > Internet, I think that they will emerge as well from such an > environment as from an environment that is more formal and more > oriented toward forcing consensus statements. As with "everything's fine" vs. "conspiracy theories," this is a false binary. Why are you sure before the fact that it's a zero sum choice between open dialogue and incremental convergence on the one hand and having the whole thing be about big heavy formal negotiations on the other? Maybe it'd be possible to have different streams of activity. Those who want to have a more focused discussion of some issue could do so, and in the event they arrive at some rough consensus, there could be some mechanism to bring that to plenary for consideration. Same with possible outputs of dynamic coalitions. Again, this doesn't mean starting from "let's adopt recommendations" and then organizing the whole thing like a WSIS prepcom. Maybe in the end it couldn't work, but it'd be useful to have an open discussion to think it through before rejecting it as unworkable. I don't know whether the mAG went through that exercise or not, but there's been nothing visible from the peanut gallery. > i have trouble with the idea of policy making in the absence of > binding decisions. Surely one thing that the IGF can do is to bring > to light information and education that will inform the policy making > process, and I am all for that. However, consider that the IGF > meetings can be attended by anyone and that neither the IGF nor the > fora are legal entities. I think the IGF in a good position to > provide evidence and opinion, but I cannot see how you get any kind > of policy closure out of it. How, for example, would IGF decisions > -- assuming that one could even set up a decision making mechanism > within a forum -- be enforced, and at what level? Governments? > Industries? I just don't see it. It's the wrong instrument for > decision making. Non-binding recommendations are used all the time in other international institutional environments, sometimes effectively. For example, the process of developing them can promote convergence of positions that then feeds back into national policies etc,; they can feed into and catalyze other forums where actual decisions are made; they can provide a baseline for normative pressuring of recalcitrant types to get on board; and they can serve as a framework for follow up programmatic work. It'd be harder to devise any in an annual multistakeholder meeting addressing divisive issues than it is in ongoing intergovernmental or industry processes, but I don't think we can know ex ante that it's impossible. > The next IGF is likely to be equally interesting, and perhaps some of > the coalitions that formed in and after Athens will have some > interesting things to report. We'll see. One hopes. Cheers, Bill ____________________________________________________________ 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Mon Feb 5 06:01:54 2007 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 12:01:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN taxes/fees (was: Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting) In-Reply-To: References: <217843.30177.qm@web58715.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <954259bd0702050301i6807cf79ta823438ce0ac6bca@mail.gmail.com> Hi everybody, Just a few personal comments on this interesting and multi-dimensional thread. 1) The success of the Athens meeting was indeed due to the informal nature of the discussison and avoiding the need to draft a communiqué or resolution. Annual meetings should not turn into drafting exercises. 2) The IGF mandate is broad ranging as per the Tunis para 72 and there is no reason to believe it has been or should be changed. But the way it will fulfill it will be the product of evolution, continuous interaction with other organizations and the future decisions of the community of participants. The IGF is a bootstrapped process in the making. The way it was launched by Nitin Desai and Markus Kummer was rightfully cautious but does not limit in any way what it can achieve in the future. 3) The IGF is not limited to mere annual meetings. The emergence of Dynamic Coalitions points towards a thematic structuring of the IGF intersessional activities, whereby stakeholders with similar issues of concern or interest get together to address them better and feed various processes, including the IGF annual meetings. Dynamic Coalitions will likely organize specific meetings on their own issues and, under certain conditions, could be granted an IGF "label". 4) By bringing actors together, those Dynamic Coalitions can play a key role in, inter alia, "facilitating discourse between bodies dealing with cross-cutting international public policies", "discussing issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body" (para 72b), "interfacing with appropriate intergovernmental and international organizations" (72c) or "identifying emerging issues" (72g), thereby helping the IGF fulfill its mandate. Clarifying working methods for the Dynamic Coalitions will be important but a good balance should be kept between minimum compatibility rules and freedom to experiment various formats. 5) Depending upon the issue, and as the understanding among stakeholders progress, those Dynamic Coalitions are likely to function in different formats, including : - as mere contact/interest groups, for instance to promote concertation on emerging issues and frame the debate around commonly agreed facts and objectives; - as coordination groups, when several processes are already addressing the same issue separately (as seems to be alrethe case for spam), - as working groups, if the need to prepare common guidelines and distribute responsibilities among different actors becomes apparent. 6) The IGF mandate explicitly mentions the possibility of recommendations (cf para 72g for emerging issues). Iterative elaboration processes under the umbrella of the IGF (but not during annual events) could be established in the future to build consensus on such recommendations or even more formalized agreements that could be presented to IGF participants. The IGF is a discussion and debate space, a framework rather than an organization. Its working methods are still to be invented. 7) The non-binding nature of the IGF does not mean that documents elaborated in this context cannot be ultimately binding; it only means that the IGF itself will not have the capacity to make them binding : they will have to be endorsed by individual actors (like non-binding standards) or be adopted/validated formally through other processes, for instance by national governments ro The IGF is not a "decision-making" mechanism but a "decision-shaping" one. 8) Human and financial resources are an important issue. Without proper funding, the IGF will not be able to fulfill its broad-ranging mandate. Without taking position at that stage on the proposals made on that thread, some recurrent financing, linked to the development of the Internet itself, with approrpriate accountability mechanisms, is certainly an option to consider. In addition, decentralized financing of Dynamic Coalitions by actors interested in the issue could provide flexibility, provided adequate transparency is guaranteed. On 2/5/07, George Sadowsky wrote: > > Hi, Mawaki, > > You've provided a rather civilized response (and thanks for that), so > I'll try to respond as best I can. > > First, I should have noted that it is only my impression that both > Nitin and Markus have stressed the discussion role of the IGF and not > any decision making role. I should leave it to them to say directly > what the role of the IGF is, since they have the ultimate > responsibility and I am only a special adviser. So I would not > assume that they are trying to replace one set of guidelines with > another. Of course, they report to the UN Secretary-General, and we > do not know the content of their conversations with his office. I do > not think that there is any conspiracy here. > > However, having said this, I think that Athens worked precisely > because there was no need to focus on producing decisions, or a > report of the meeting, or any document that tried to reach consensus > on any of the issues. There is a long term process of convergence > going on here, and I think that it is best served by informal > discussion as well as by various meetings where people can get to > know each other and trade opinions off the record. If there are > clear directions identified that would be beneficial for users of the > Internet, I think that they will emerge as well from such an > environment as from an environment that is more formal and more > oriented toward forcing consensus statements. > > i have trouble with the idea of policy making in the absence of > binding decisions. Surely one thing that the IGF can do is to bring > to light information and education that will inform the policy making > process, and I am all for that. However, consider that the IGF > meetings can be attended by anyone and that neither the IGF nor the > fora are legal entities. I think the IGF in a good position to > provide evidence and opinion, but I cannot see how you get any kind > of policy closure out of it. How, for example, would IGF decisions > -- assuming that one could even set up a decision making mechanism > within a forum -- be enforced, and at what level? Governments? > Industries? I just don't see it. It's the wrong instrument for > decision making. > > The next IGF is likely to be equally interesting, and perhaps some of > the coalitions that formed in and after Athens will have some > interesting things to report. We'll see. > > Regards, > > George > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > At 11:26 AM -0800 2/4/07, Mawaki Chango wrote: > >Hi George, > > > >> This may be the wording of the Tunis agenda, but in fact, I believe > >> > >> that both Nitin desai and Markus Kummer have stressed that the > >> purpose of the IGF is discussion, and that appears to be the > >> opinion > >> of members of the advisory committee also. There may have been > >> some > >> rethinking about the mandate of the IGF after Tunis; I'm not sure. > > > >I hope you do realize how preoccupying it is that a few individuals, > >no matter their rank, endeavor to supersede a world summit outcome > >with their own opinion of what should be done or what is feasable. > >For if what you're saying is true, as I'm inclined to beleive > >(knowing you're not exactly the kind of man to say those things > >lightly,) then it is not even a reinterpretation we are dealing with > >here, but a simple replacement of a summit outcome by a > >backdoor-crafted "decision" by a few individuals (to my knowledge no > >meeting, no matter how restrictive, has been called to that specific > >effect.) And shall I remind you that the MAG is not even the direct > >result of a summit decision, as for the WGIG. And I'd find all this > >amazing, to say the least. > > > >Last, IMHO, it is still possible to have a role in policy-making > >without taking binding decisions. A respected discussion forum can > >highly and significantly contribute to setting the agenda for final > >and binding decisions. > > > >Best, > > > >Mawaki > > > >--- George Sadowsky wrote: > > > >> Comments inserted below... > >> > >> At 4:45 PM +0100 2/3/07, Ralf Bendrath wrote: > >> >Interesting debate. I have adapted the subject line. > >> > > >> >George Sadowsky wrote: > >> >>IGF is a discussion forum. It has no role ion global public > >> policy > >> >>making. > >> >Wait a second. From the Tunis Agenda: > >> > > >> >"72.(...) The mandate of the Forum is to: > >> >a) Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of > >> Internet > >> >governance > >> >(...) > >> >g) Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the > >> relevant > >> >bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make > >> recommendations; > >> >(...) > >> >k) Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and > >> misuse of > >> >the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users; > >> >(...) > >> >77. The IGF would have no oversight function and would not replace > >> >existing arrangements, mechanisms, institutions or organisations, > >> but > >> >would involve them and take advantage of their expertise. It would > >> be > >> >constituted as a neutral, non-duplicative and non-binding process. > >> It > >> >would have no involvement in day-to-day or technical operations of > >> the > >> >Internet." > >> > >> This may be the wording of the Tunis agenda, but in fact, I believe > >> > >> that both Nitin desai and Markus Kummer have stressed that the > >> purpose of the IGF is discussion, and that appears to be the > >> opinion > >> of members of the advisory committee also. There may have been > >> some > >> rethinking about the mandate of the IGF after Tunis; I'm not sure. > >> > >> One of the members of the Advisory Committee pointed out that one > >> reason that Athens worked so well, and that there was so much > >> pleasant mixing of people from different sectors, was that there > >> were > >> no decisions to be made, and no statements that would have to be > >> crafted. I agree with his assessment. > >> > >> So I take your point about the Tunis agenda, but what is happening > >> contradicts it, and for the best, I think. > >> > >> The concept of non-binding recommendations is interesting. I think > >> > >> even that would lead to a fundamental shift in the IGF milieu. > >> Consider the United nations, for example, where sovereign nations > >> generally do not consider UN decisions binding upon them. Yet the > >> way in which UN resolutions are formulated apparently requires a > >> highly politicized environment. Further, if you've ever sat in on > >> UN > >> meetings in New York (I worked there for 13 years), the discussion > >> is > >> formal, verbose, indirect and generally not conducive to a free and > >> > >> frank exchange of views. Let's keep the ambience of the IGF the > >> way > >> it was in Athens. > >> > >> > > >> >So, the IGF can discuss public policy issues, make > >> recommendations, find > >> >solutions etc. They only are non-binding. But a lot of global > >> public > >> >policy is being coordinated in a non-binding way nowadays. That's > >> why you > >> >call it "governance", not "government". > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Hmm... Governance _sometimes_ is binding, at least the way I think > >> of > >> the term. for example, the pilot of an airplane has governance > >> responsibility for the plane when it is in the air, and it _is_ > >> binding. The Pope has governance responsibility for the Catholic > >> Church, and it is binding on cardinals, bishops, and priests, and > >> presumably at least morally binding on adherents. > >> > >> > > >> >>>IGF is in any case already financed through the UN which itself > >> is > >> >>>financed through the taxes we pay.... > >> >Not exactly: > >> >"The IGF Secretariat's activities are funded through > >> extra-budgetary > >> >contributions paid into a Trust Fund administered by the United > >> Nations. > >> >Pledges and contributions have been received so far from the > >> following > >> >donors." > >> >http://www.intgovforum.org/funding.htm > >> > >> > >> Yes, that is correct, and it's only the Secretariat that is > >> financed > >> in that way. If you look at all the money spent on the IGF, most > >> of > >> it comes from disparate sources -- organizations, other > >> governments, industry, etc. Thanks for pointing that out. > >> > >> > > >> >>ICANN uses funds in a manner consistent with its mandate. Please > > > > >> >>provide examples of use of ICANN funds that are completely > >> >>inconsistent > >> >> with its mandate. > >> >That is not the question (well, of course you could question why > >> >Californian lawyers have to make a fortune e.g. from applicants > >> for new > >> >gTLDs, but this is not the issue here). The question was if adding > >> funding > >> > for the IGF would be inconsistent with ICANN's mandate. > >> > >> ICANN is constantly being criticized for expanding its mandate > >> beyond > >> the narrow technical purposes that define its boundaries, i.e. > >> "mission creep." Can you imagine what the diversion of significant > >> > >> funding from it to the IGF would cause those critics to do? "ICANN > >> > >> is active in the political arena!" they would comlain, and rightly > >> so. > >> > >> > > >> >Best, Ralf > >> > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> George > >> > >> -- > >> > >> > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >> > >> George Sadowsky > >> george.sadowsky at attglobal.net > >> 64 Sweet Briar Road > >> george.sadowsky at gmail.com > >> Stamford, CT 06905-1514 > >> http://www.georgesadowsky.com/ > >> tel: +1.203.329.3288 GSM mobile: > >> +1.202.415.1933 > >> Voice mail & fax: +1.203.547.6020 SKYPE: > >> sadowsky > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> 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 > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères / French Ministry of Foreign Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Mon Feb 5 08:21:08 2007 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 14:21:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] The nice thing about China... (Was: Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting In-Reply-To: References: <20070203140037.3D033E1508@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20070205132108.GA28485@nic.fr> ... is that you can say a lot about what is or isn't done there, with little chance of contradiction :-) On Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 05:38:56PM -0500, David Allen wrote a message of 87 lines which said: > At about that time in fact, some three years ago, China was rolling > out a fully ML root, to resolve fully Chinese URLs. And it operated > seamlessly with the root for the other, Roman-based 1 billion. > About a year ago now, the Western world was more than surprised to > learn of that development, by then at least a couple of years > underway, with by now many tens of millions of users. I was > familiar, since I was at least one of those who broke the news to > the Western press at the time. Since you read Chinese, and I don't, would you be kind enough to translate in French or in English actual *detailed* documents about this so-called "ML root" (which is a nonsense, I assume you mean a "multiscript root")? I would be very interested to read detailed documents about how it works. Until now, I've just seen three-sentences claims, without little practical details. > Along this way, once the reality of the Chinese implementation could > not be denied :-) ____________________________________________________________ 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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Mon Feb 5 13:15:25 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 10:15:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Re: ICANN taxes/fees In-Reply-To: p06200746c1ec6a57f8b5@[10.0.1.53] Message-ID: Gorge, In my humble opinion, I feel the folks of the IGC are really putting the Cart-before-the-Horse. For that matter ICANN itself has always been the Cart-before-the-Horse. So having two (2) Carts-before-the-Horses, really does not simplify the situation. And the suggestion of �Taxes� at this point in time is inappropriate. There will come a time, but now is not the time. Kummer & Company , along with the continuing permutations of previous mail list; Icann�s ALAC, GNSO, IcannAtLarge.com (Joop), IcannAtLarge.org (Jeffsey), WSIS, etc� Lack what all previous concerns have, including ICANN. That is FOCUS. �WE� are in this quagmire because Icann didn�t get Focused on democratic ideologies, but instead journeyed down the road of nearly Strict Capital-Commercialism. That�s not to say that capital-economics is not a requisite underpinning of a democratic system. I�m merely stating that Icann had not developed fully functioning democratic-systems, nor had in focus or in-place, which were vital to Domestic and Global deployment of a number of internet contingencies. The DNS is now a Brokerage system, they might a well rename it the DBS (Domain Brokerage System). The Technical assignments have been balkanized, IPv4 vs. IPv6, IPv9 (China), Packet systems: 64, 128, ??? bit, DNS vs. IDNS, etc� All decided by independent-special-interest under the umbrella of Icann. Compelled by each Actors� capital interest. This balkanization was unintentionally exacerbated further by the U.N. WSIS. Wherein Countries looked toward their own individual interest in relationship to the Actors, rather than focusing on a unitary interest. The likelihood of a majority of these Actor�s to invest in �an-area� such as Africa, Eastern Europe, Occidental Eurasia, and the Southern Americas are very slim. In fact just yesterday the Romanian President commented that: Romania's IT industry was built on 'piracy'. [ http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/archives/2007/02/02/pirating_windows_wor ked_for_us_says_romanias_president.html ] In my humble opinion, that�s a major statement on the breadth and condition of IT equity on the Global scale. People stuck in impoverished areas are wanting to develop viable skills to participate in the Globalized Market Place, at the risk of committing �iCrimes.� However, since there is no �Net-Democracy to facilitate development� in these areas, People are willing to commit these acts. I hold Icann responsible for that. Icann itself would not exist if it were not for a Fabric-of-Democracy too which created it. (Icann owes itself to Democracy) Icann is suffering its own Hypocrisy And when there is a movement toward lateral-equalization, there are those who are there to control it. Milton�s �Ruling the Root: Internet Governance and the Taming of Cyberspace� and Daniel Yergin's �The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power� are works I regret somewhat, because they lend themselves too being instruments of instigation. A war for the Net, a war for Oil. Compelling the economics of a �Have and Have-Not� World. [Milton] It�s not to say that someone else wouldn�t have come along and written the same, it�s done. Icann is a part of this Hypocrisy, and I remain curiously interested in: How the IGF and IGC under wing of the U.N. intend to resolve these present conditions. What Modalities (Vittorio), what Framework (Parminder), are you constructing (not proposing, but actually doing)? I suggest putting the Carts behind the Horse and pulling ourselves out of this rut. So to address threats posed by attacks on; root servers, domains, and individuals et. al.. George, your comments here are vindicated, but as your are an inside-participant of Icann, I would expect you to carry the meaning of the message forth. I appreciate your dedication to �making the Internet available, accessible, affordable and secure both physically and in terms of guaranteeing fundamental human rights for more of the world's people� Thank you George. ____________________________________________________________ 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 peter at echnaton.serveftp.com Mon Feb 5 15:10:08 2007 From: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com (Peter Dambier) Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:10:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] The nice thing about China... (Was: Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting In-Reply-To: <20070205132108.GA28485@nic.fr> References: <20070203140037.3D033E1508@smtp3.electricembers.net> <20070205132108.GA28485@nic.fr> Message-ID: <45C78F20.8040604@echnaton.serveftp.com> Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > ... is that you can say a lot about what is or isn't done there, with > little chance of contradiction :-) > > On Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 05:38:56PM -0500, > David Allen wrote > a message of 87 lines which said: > > >>At about that time in fact, some three years ago, China was rolling >>out a fully ML root, to resolve fully Chinese URLs. And it operated >>seamlessly with the root for the other, Roman-based 1 billion. >>About a year ago now, the Western world was more than surprised to >>learn of that development, by then at least a couple of years >>underway, with by now many tens of millions of users. I was >>familiar, since I was at least one of those who broke the news to >>the Western press at the time. > > > Since you read Chinese, and I don't, would you be kind enough to > translate in French or in English actual *detailed* documents about > this so-called "ML root" (which is a nonsense, I assume you mean a > "multiscript root")? I would be very interested to read detailed > documents about how it works. Until now, I've just seen > three-sentences claims, without little practical details. > > Maybe this can help too. I am watching these nameservers for a couple of years now: Status China Root soa("XN--55QX5D.","2007020512","CDNS3.CNNIC.NET.CN","210.52.214.86"). soa("XN--55QX5D.","2007020512","CDNS4.CNNIC.NET.CN","61.145.114.120"). soa("XN--55QX5D.","2007020512","CDNS5.CNNIC.NET.CN","61.139.76.55"). soa("XN--55QX5D.","2007020512","HAWK2.CNNIC.NET.CN","159.226.6.185"). soa("XN--FIQS8S.","2007020512","CDNS3.CNNIC.NET.CN","210.52.214.86"). soa("XN--FIQS8S.","2007020512","CDNS4.CNNIC.NET.CN","61.145.114.120"). soa("XN--FIQS8S.","2007020512","CDNS5.CNNIC.NET.CN","61.139.76.55"). soa("XN--FIQS8S.","2007020512","HAWK2.CNNIC.NET.CN","159.226.6.185"). soa("XN--IO0A7I.","2007020512","CDNS3.CNNIC.NET.CN","210.52.214.86"). soa("XN--IO0A7I.","2007020512","CDNS4.CNNIC.NET.CN","61.145.114.120"). soa("XN--IO0A7I.","2007020512","CDNS5.CNNIC.NET.CN","61.139.76.55"). soa("XN--IO0A7I.","2007020512","HAWK2.CNNIC.NET.CN","159.226.6.185"). Besides I am watching an Arab Root too: Status Arab Root soa("XN--IGBHZH7GPA.","12","AR-ROOT.NIC.NET.SA","212.26.18.12"). soa("XN--LGBBAT1AD8J.","9","AR-ROOT.NIC.NET.SA","212.26.18.12"). soa("XN--MGB2DDES.","9","AR-ROOT.NIC.NET.SA","212.26.18.12"). soa("XN--MGBA3A5AZCI.","9","AR-ROOT.NIC.NET.SA","212.26.18.12"). soa("XN--MGBA5B5CCEU.","9","AR-ROOT.NIC.NET.SA","212.26.18.12"). soa("XN--MGBAH1A3HJKRD.","9","AR-ROOT.NIC.NET.SA","212.26.18.12"). soa("XN--MGBAXP8FPL.","9","AR-ROOT.NIC.NET.SA","212.26.18.12"). soa("XN--MGBB7FJB.","9","AR-ROOT.NIC.NET.SA","212.26.18.12"). soa("XN--MGBB7FYAB.","9","AR-ROOT.NIC.NET.SA","212.26.18.12"). soa("XN--MGBC0A9AZCG.","9","AR-ROOT.NIC.NET.SA","212.26.18.12"). soa("XN--MGBCPQ6GPA1A.","9","AR-ROOT.NIC.NET.SA","212.26.18.12"). soa("XN--MGBERP4A5D4AR.","4","AR-ROOT.NIC.NET.SA","212.26.18.12"). soa("XN--MGBG8EDVM.","9","AR-ROOT.NIC.NET.SA","212.26.18.12"). soa("XN--MGBU4CHG.","9","AR-ROOT.NIC.NET.SA","212.26.18.12"). soa("XN--NGBEE7IID.","9","AR-ROOT.NIC.NET.SA","212.26.18.12"). soa("XN--WGBL6A.","5","AR-ROOT.NIC.NET.SA","212.26.18.12"). soa("XN--YGBI2AMMX.","9","AR-ROOT.NIC.NET.SA","212.26.18.12"). soa("XN--MGBAAM7A8H.","12655","NS1.UAENIC.AE","213.42.0.226"). soa("XN--MGBAAM7A8H.","12655","NS2.UAENIC.AE","195.229.0.186"). soa("XN--PGBS0DH.","2005062700","NS.ATI.TN","193.95.66.10"). soa("XN--PGBS0DH.","2005062700","NS2.ATI.TN","193.95.67.22"). Kind regards Peter and Karin Dambier -- Peter and Karin Dambier Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana Rimbacher-Strasse 16 D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher +49(6209)795-816 (Telekom) +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com mail: peter at peter-dambier.de http://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ http://www.cesidianroot.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 vb at bertola.eu Mon Feb 5 16:11:40 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 22:11:40 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN taxes/fees (was: Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting) In-Reply-To: References: <217843.30177.qm@web58715.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <45C79D8C.4080006@bertola.eu> George Sadowsky ha scritto: > entities. I think the IGF in a good position to provide evidence and > opinion, but I cannot see how you get any kind of policy closure out of > it. How, for example, would IGF decisions -- assuming that one could > even set up a decision making mechanism within a forum -- be enforced, > and at what level? Governments? Industries? I just don't see it. It's > the wrong instrument for decision making. On the Internet, policy often is not something you have to enforce against someone else - it is something that everyone agrees upon and so everyone (well - almost everyone, i.e. "rough consensus") will implement. That is the kind of "decision" that the IGF could take and release: something that is not binding but is so smart and up to the point of some pressing issue that everyone will find it useful. After all, RFCs work this way - there is usually no law or binding power that forces you to abide by them, but, as there is an advantage for everyone in using them, they are generally followed. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 Mon Feb 5 17:40:03 2007 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 17:40:03 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: The nice thing about China... In-Reply-To: <20070205132108.GA28485@nic.fr> References: <20070203140037.3D033E1508@smtp3.electricembers.net> <20070205132108.GA28485@nic.fr> Message-ID: At 2:21 PM +0100 2/5/07, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >... is that you can say a lot about what is or isn't done there, with little chance of contradiction :-) Unless of course you are among the 1.3 billion (at least) who are born and live there ... a few of whom anyway will be reading these lists. > >On Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 05:38:56PM -0500, > David Allen wrote > a message of 87 lines which said: > >>At about that time in fact, some three years ago, China was rolling out a fully ML root, to resolve fully Chinese URLs. And it operated seamlessly with the root for the other, Roman-based 1 billion. About a year ago now, the Western world was more than surprised to learn of that development, by then at least a couple of years underway, with by now many tens of millions of users. I was familiar, since I was at least one of those who broke the news to the Western press at the time. > >Since you read Chinese, and I don't, Interesting, isn't it, trying to get information when the language you must use seems, for you, like no more than so many squiggles on a page? Imagine if the 'Net had been invented in China and we had to get our computer to put a Chinese character in the browser address bar. You and I may find our way to it. Imagine what it's like for your taxi driver or doorman or building custodian ... or your parents or ... when they would sit down at a machine to get access. Of course, France does have a wonderful education system ... Imagine, more, if the Roman characters we use with ease might actually have been enabled seven years ago, in this counterfactual scenario ... >would you be kind enough to translate in French or in English actual *detailed* documents about this so-called "ML root" (which is a nonsense, I assume you mean a "multiscript root")? I would be very interested to read detailed documents about how it works. Until now, I've just seen three-sentences claims, without little practical details. I could give you an, authoritative, three-sentence overview (have just done so offlist to a query) - but as I read here, that would not be satisfying in the instance. There were some links, back about a year ago when I played my small part bringing the news to the West. I went to dig that out; here you will find one of the better pieces of detective work, still looking in from the outside, so not everything. http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2006/03/01/new-chinese-tlds Certainly, saying "nonsense" is a surefire way to get help, bound to make others think highly of the request. ;-) Yes, ML root is a bit of a shorthand description. Which goes to the overview description we are not doing here. Neat though, isn't it, this confederation of roots with seamless flow between and seamless cross-resolution? In our local library, Concord, MA, USA, for example, my Barbara's head of technical services is native mainland Chinese. She sometimes wants to, and does, connect to fully Chinese domains, from here. _And_, now, 1+ billion more folks don't have to sweat what are in fact for them funny squiggles at the end of the address ... No, I do not speak Chinese either, unfortunately - it is on the list. However as already offered to those interested offlist, the connection will be made to folks with answers in utter detail, the inventors and implementors. That includes for you too, Stephane, coming in a little. > >>Along this way, once the reality of the Chinese implementation could not be denied > >:-) Indeed. :-) 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 ki_chango at yahoo.com Tue Feb 6 01:31:49 2007 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 22:31:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] ICANN taxes/fees (was: Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <337911.74687.qm@web58701.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Thanks George for your clarification on both points, which I understand. I don't necessarily desagree with what you say (or heard someone say) about the success factor of Athens, but the same situation may sometimes equally lead to two opposite outcomes: an intelligent, elegant, and effective collaboration at multiple levels, as well as inertia (or at least nothing to the credit of this process.) So I guess it makes sense that some people are willing to remain vigilant, engaged and questioning. Nothing here is simple: those who are advocating for some change (improvement) are not necessary all calling for a UN-style of administration, or an intergovernmental-dominated solution in response. And, if I can make a comment here (not necesarily for you George but to some who may have been attempted to think otherwise,) posting in a thread titled "ICANN taxes/fees" does not necessarily mean that one does either take position for ICANN or call for governments to crack down on ICANN with taxes. End of the digression... and of the disclaimer, so to speak. Last, your view about flexible and effective collaboration (diplomacy?) for IGF is closer in my view to the style of the "multi-stakeholderism" we've been talking about, as opposed to solemn signatory rituals and the kind of processes that usually lead to them. And at this point, I can only agree wholeheartedly with Bill Drake's response to you about what really matters, eventually, in the form and in the substance. Salut, Mawaki --- George Sadowsky wrote: > Hi, Mawaki, > > You've provided a rather civilized response (and thanks for that), > so > I'll try to respond as best I can. > > First, I should have noted that it is only my impression that both > Nitin and Markus have stressed the discussion role of the IGF and > not > any decision making role. I should leave it to them to say > directly > what the role of the IGF is, since they have the ultimate > responsibility and I am only a special adviser. So I would not > assume that they are trying to replace one set of guidelines with > another. Of course, they report to the UN Secretary-General, and > we > do not know the content of their conversations with his office. I > do > not think that there is any conspiracy here. > > However, having said this, I think that Athens worked precisely > because there was no need to focus on producing decisions, or a > report of the meeting, or any document that tried to reach > consensus > on any of the issues. There is a long term process of convergence > going on here, and I think that it is best served by informal > discussion as well as by various meetings where people can get to > know each other and trade opinions off the record. If there are > clear directions identified that would be beneficial for users of > the > Internet, I think that they will emerge as well from such an > environment as from an environment that is more formal and more > oriented toward forcing consensus statements. > > i have trouble with the idea of policy making in the absence of > binding decisions. Surely one thing that the IGF can do is to > bring > to light information and education that will inform the policy > making > process, and I am all for that. However, consider that the IGF > meetings can be attended by anyone and that neither the IGF nor the > > fora are legal entities. I think the IGF in a good position to > provide evidence and opinion, but I cannot see how you get any kind > > of policy closure out of it. How, for example, would IGF decisions > > -- assuming that one could even set up a decision making mechanism > > within a forum -- be enforced, and at what level? Governments? > Industries? I just don't see it. It's the wrong instrument for > decision making. > > The next IGF is likely to be equally interesting, and perhaps some > of > the coalitions that formed in and after Athens will have some > interesting things to report. We'll see. > > Regards, > > George > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > At 11:26 AM -0800 2/4/07, Mawaki Chango wrote: > >Hi George, > > > >> This may be the wording of the Tunis agenda, but in fact, I > believe > >> > >> that both Nitin desai and Markus Kummer have stressed that the > >> purpose of the IGF is discussion, and that appears to be the > >> opinion > >> of members of the advisory committee also. There may have been > >> some > >> rethinking about the mandate of the IGF after Tunis; I'm not > sure. > > > >I hope you do realize how preoccupying it is that a few > individuals, > >no matter their rank, endeavor to supersede a world summit outcome > >with their own opinion of what should be done or what is feasable. > >For if what you're saying is true, as I'm inclined to beleive > >(knowing you're not exactly the kind of man to say those things > >lightly,) then it is not even a reinterpretation we are dealing > with > >here, but a simple replacement of a summit outcome by a > >backdoor-crafted "decision" by a few individuals (to my knowledge > no > >meeting, no matter how restrictive, has been called to that > specific > >effect.) And shall I remind you that the MAG is not even the > direct > >result of a summit decision, as for the WGIG. And I'd find all > this > >amazing, to say the least. > > > >Last, IMHO, it is still possible to have a role in policy-making > >without taking binding decisions. A respected discussion forum can > >highly and significantly contribute to setting the agenda for > final > >and binding decisions. > > > >Best, > > > >Mawaki > > > >--- George Sadowsky wrote: > > > >> Comments inserted below... > >> > >> At 4:45 PM +0100 2/3/07, Ralf Bendrath wrote: > >> >Interesting debate. I have adapted the subject line. > >> > > >> >George Sadowsky wrote: > >> >>IGF is a discussion forum. It has no role ion global public > >> policy > >> >>making. > >> >Wait a second. From the Tunis Agenda: > >> > > >> >"72.(...) The mandate of the Forum is to: > >> >a) Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of > >> Internet > >> >governance > >> >(...) > >> >g) Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of > the > >> relevant > >> >bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make > >> recommendations; > >> >(...) > >> >k) Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use > and > >> misuse of > >> >the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users; > >> >(...) > >> >77. The IGF would have no oversight function and would not > replace > >> >existing arrangements, mechanisms, institutions or > organisations, > >> but > >> >would involve them and take advantage of their expertise. It > would > >> be > >> >constituted as a neutral, non-duplicative and non-binding > process. > >> It > >> >would have no involvement in day-to-day or technical > operations of > >> the > >> >Internet." > >> > >> This may be the wording of the Tunis agenda, but in fact, I > believe > >> > >> that both Nitin desai and Markus Kummer have stressed that the > >> purpose of the IGF is discussion, and that appears to be the > >> opinion > >> of members of the advisory committee also. There may have been > >> some > >> rethinking about the mandate of the IGF after Tunis; I'm not > sure. > >> > >> One of the members of the Advisory Committee pointed out that > one > >> reason that Athens worked so well, and that there was so much > >> pleasant mixing of people from different sectors, was that > there > >> were > >> no decisions to be made, and no statements that would have to > be > >> crafted. I agree with his assessment. > >> > >> So I take your point about the Tunis agenda, but what is > happening > >> contradicts it, and for the best, I think. > >> > >> The concept of non-binding recommendations is interesting. I > think > >> > >> even that would lead to a fundamental shift in the IGF milieu. > >> Consider the United nations, for example, where sovereign > nations > >> generally do not consider UN decisions binding upon them. Yet > the > >> way in which UN resolutions are formulated apparently requires > a > >> highly politicized environment. Further, if you've ever sat in > on > >> UN > >> meetings in New York (I worked there for 13 years), the > discussion > >> is > >> formal, verbose, indirect and generally not conducive to a free > and > >> > >> frank exchange of views. Let's keep the ambience of the IGF > the > >> way > >> it was in Athens. > >> > >> > > >> >So, the IGF can discuss public policy issues, make > >> recommendations, find > >> >solutions etc. They only are non-binding. But a lot of global > >> public > >> >policy is being coordinated in a non-binding way nowadays. > That's > >> why you > >> >call it "governance", not "government". > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Hmm... Governance _sometimes_ is binding, at least the way I > think > >> of > >> the term. for example, the pilot of an airplane has governance > >> responsibility for the plane when it is in the air, and it _is_ > >> binding. The Pope has governance responsibility for the > Catholic > >> Church, and it is binding on cardinals, bishops, and priests, > and > >> presumably at least morally binding on adherents. > >> > >> > > >> >>>IGF is in any case already financed through the UN which > itself > >> is > >> >>>financed through the taxes we pay.... > >> >Not exactly: > >> >"The IGF Secretariat's activities are funded through > >> extra-budgetary > >> >contributions paid into a Trust Fund administered by the > United > >> Nations. > >> >Pledges and contributions have been received so far from the > >> following > >> >donors." > >> >http://www.intgovforum.org/funding.htm > >> > >> > >> Yes, that is correct, and it's only the Secretariat that is > >> financed > >> in that way. If you look at all the money spent on the IGF, > most > >> of > >> it comes from disparate sources -- organizations, other > >> governments, industry, etc. Thanks for pointing that out. > >> > >> > > >> >>ICANN uses funds in a manner consistent with its mandate. > Please > > > > >> >>provide examples of use of ICANN funds that are completely > >> >>inconsistent > >> >> with its mandate. > >> >That is not the question (well, of course you could question > why > >> >Californian lawyers have to make a fortune e.g. from > applicants > >> for new > >> >gTLDs, but this is not the issue here). The question was if > adding > >> funding > >> > for the IGF would be inconsistent with ICANN's mandate. > >> > >> ICANN is constantly being criticized for expanding its mandate > >> beyond > >> the narrow technical purposes that define its boundaries, i.e. > >> "mission creep." Can you imagine what the diversion of > significant > >> > >> funding from it to the IGF would cause those critics to do? > "ICANN > >> > >> is active in the political arena!" they would comlain, and > rightly > >> so. > >> > >> > > >> >Best, Ralf > >> > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> George > >> > >> -- > >> > >> > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >> > >> George Sadowsky > >> george.sadowsky at attglobal.net > >> 64 Sweet Briar Road > >> george.sadowsky at gmail.com > >> Stamford, CT 06905-1514 > >> http://www.georgesadowsky.com/ > >> tel: +1.203.329.3288 GSM mobile: > >> +1.202.415.1933 > >> Voice mail & fax: +1.203.547.6020 SKYPE: > >> sadowsky > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> 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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org Tue Feb 6 03:10:28 2007 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:10:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: The nice thing about China... In-Reply-To: References: <20070203140037.3D033E1508@smtp3.electricembers.net> <20070205132108.GA28485@nic.fr> Message-ID: <20070206081028.GA23587@nic.fr> On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 05:40:03PM -0500, David Allen wrote a message of 42 lines which said: > Interesting, isn't it, trying to get information when the language > you must use seems, for you, like no more than so many squiggles on > a page? Yes, but this is completely out of scope for ICANN (which, last time I checked does not regulate Web page contents and does not sheperd the HTML format or the HTTP protocol). Multilinguism on the Internet is indeed a very important thing, but it has nothing to do with ICANN (for good or for bad) and little to do with Internet governance. Chinese-speaking people write in Chinese on the Internet for many years. So what? In what way a governance mailing list like this one has anything to do about it? > I could give you an, authoritative, three-sentence overview (have > just done so offlist to a query) Non-public information is ignored. > http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2006/03/01/new-chinese-tlds It says: > There is still some uncertainty on how the new TLDs have been > implemented. Which is a very good understatement. > Certainly, saying "nonsense" is a surefire way to get help, bound to > make others think highly of the request. ;-) Exactly the same process that we often saw with the "alternative root" crowd. "We do not talk with people who disagree with us". Convenient. ____________________________________________________________ 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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Tue Feb 6 11:00:53 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 08:00:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Re: The nice thing about China... In-Reply-To: 20070206081028.GA23587@nic.fr Message-ID: Allen & Bortzmeyer cc: Peter & Karin Dambier F.Y.I.: Please see this technical & descriptive background explanation of the IDN argument: Internationalizing the Internet by Geoff Huston December 2006 http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2006-12/idn.html ____________________________________________________________ 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 Tue Feb 6 11:30:17 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 17:30:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN taxes/fees In-Reply-To: <8ED24374-6137-4754-B6B3-140D976D6087@psg.com> References: <734183.95499.qm@web58715.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <8ED24374-6137-4754-B6B3-140D976D6087@psg.com> Message-ID: <45C8AD19.5040809@bertola.eu> Avri Doria ha scritto: > one of the prominent arguments against any subsidy program was (to put > it simply, more simply perhaps then it is): if you can't afford (or > raise funds for) the fee for a registry then you probably can't afford > to run the registry. i disagreed, but not very successfully. i also > disagree with the notion that the richer applicants should not support > the poorer applicants. I've been raising similar points on the ICANN Board list in the last few weeks, as there was some discussion on new gTLDs. It seems that many people in the ICANN community - both among those who support plenty of new gTLDs, and among those who would create only a few or maybe none at all - cannot imagine any different model for a gTLD than a big company or entity establishing a TLD either to make money, or to represent a big money-making industry (eg .aero or .tel). I think there'd be space for smaller non-profit or community-based TLDs, where perhaps you don't get fully fledged customer service, but where you can experiment or aim at other objectives - think for example of Karl's .ewe anonymous TLD experiment, or of eu.org, which has been giving away free domain names for 10 years now, in quite a reliable manner. There is ample evidence that you don't need serious money to run a TLD, apart from ICANN's application fees. Also, we've been raising several times the point about having differentiated application fees between profits and non-profits, and also dividing the fee in two parts, one to get the concept approved, and the second one, if you're approved, to cover actual contract negotiations. It doesn't make sense that rejected applicants cover the approved applicants' negotiation costs... -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 Tue Feb 6 17:51:16 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 17:51:16 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: ICANN taxes/fees Message-ID: >>> George Sadowsky 2/5/2007 12:46:05 AM >>> >i wouldn't call what ICANN does "public policy." I think that >it is their policy with respect to governance of the domain >name system and the security and stability of the Internet. >That is a necessary function if the Internet is to survive and >function. I'm very surprised that we are still having this debate, after nearly 10 years. I guess eternal vigilence is the price of knowledge as well as freedom. ICANN is a global governance institution; it does public policy. The people who want to say that it doesn't are typically veteran technical people involved in building the early Internet. They are intelligent people and their perspective needs to be respected but they basically have been in a state of denial for nearly a decade. On issue ssuch as .xxx, denial becomes impossible. It would be very difficult for someone like Alejandro, e.g., to explain why he voted aqainst that application on the basis of coordinating the technical parameters of the Internet. The .xxx application technically was no different than any other TLD. Since the DNS root is a monopoly characterized by very strong network externalities, those who would escape ICANN/U.S. DoC's policy authority must meet enormous costs that render most alternatives impossible until and unless there are major technical changes. In the book Ruling the Root I explained how this policy leverage is similar to, indeed directly parallel to the way the U.S. FCC derives policy leverage over the telecommunications industry via its control of the radio spectrum. Control of supply of a resource is a policy decision. IF you control entry into a market -- be it taxicabs, domain name registries, broadcasters, medical practitioners -- you are a regulator. ____________________________________________________________ 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 Tue Feb 6 18:01:44 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 18:01:44 -0500 Subject: [governance] ICANN taxes/fees Message-ID: Vittorio: The way to clear a path for small-scale,nonprofit community oriented TLDs is simply to open entry. Registries are not difficult to run, and the idea that running them badly "destabilizes the Internet" is nonsensical mystification promoted by certain ICANNocrats to legitimize their regulatory power. You don't need subsidies, and indeed I would argue strongly that a central global authority doling out subsidies to "approved" (and of course they would have to be politically acceptable) nonpforit groups is a far greater danger to the viablity and legitimacy of global civil society than any economic barrier posed by the operation of a registry. What you'd do is create a privileged and subsidized group that would then continuously lobby ICANN to maintain its privileged status (hmm, sort of like ALAC, but I digress....) >>> vb at bertola.eu 2/6/2007 11:30:17 AM >>> Avri Doria ha scritto: > one of the prominent arguments against any subsidy program was (to put > it simply, more simply perhaps then it is): if you can't afford (or > raise funds for) the fee for a registry then you probably can't afford > to run the registry. i disagreed, but not very successfully. i also > disagree with the notion that the richer applicants should not support > the poorer applicants. I've been raising similar points on the ICANN Board list in the last few weeks, as there was some discussion on new gTLDs. It seems that many people in the ICANN community - both among those who support plenty of new gTLDs, and among those who would create only a few or maybe none at all - cannot imagine any different model for a gTLD than a big company or entity establishing a TLD either to make money, or to represent a big money-making industry (eg .aero or .tel). I think there'd be space for smaller non-profit or community-based TLDs, where perhaps you don't get fully fledged customer service, but where you can experiment or aim at other objectives - think for example of Karl's .ewe anonymous TLD experiment, or of eu.org, which has been giving away free domain names for 10 years now, in quite a reliable manner. There is ample evidence that you don't need serious money to run a TLD, apart from ICANN's application fees. Also, we've been raising several times the point about having differentiated application fees between profits and non-profits, and also dividing the fee in two parts, one to get the concept approved, and the second one, if you're approved, to cover actual contract negotiations. It doesn't make sense that rejected applicants cover the approved applicants' negotiation costs... -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 veni at veni.com Tue Feb 6 18:17:55 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 18:17:55 -0500 Subject: [governance] ICANN taxes/fees In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20070206231850.4CEA15C82@smtp2.electricembers.net> At 06:01 PM 2/6/2007 -0500, Milton Mueller wrote: >Registries are not difficult to run, Could you continue talking on this subject? Is it based on commercial practices, or on existing registries, or on academic research? Sincerely, Veni Markovski http://www.veni.com check also my blog: http://blog.veni.com The opinions expressed above are those of the author, not of any organizations, associated with or related to the author in any given way. ____________________________________________________________ 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 froomkin at law.miami.edu Tue Feb 6 20:43:39 2007 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 20:43:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] ICANN taxes/fees In-Reply-To: <20070206231850.4CEA15C82@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20070206231850.4CEA15C82@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: It's based on RUNNING CODE. On Tue, 6 Feb 2007, Veni Markovski wrote: > At 06:01 PM 2/6/2007 -0500, Milton Mueller wrote: >> Registries are not difficult to run, > > Could you continue talking on this subject? Is it based on commercial > practices, or on existing registries, or on academic research? > > > Sincerely, > Veni Markovski > http://www.veni.com > > check also my blog: > http://blog.veni.com > > The opinions expressed above are those of the author, > not of any organizations, associated with or related to > the author in any given way. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -- http://www.icannwatch.org Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin at law.tm U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm -->It's warm here.<-- ____________________________________________________________ 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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org Wed Feb 7 05:04:34 2007 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 11:04:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] Running a registry: child play or huge work? (Was: ICANN taxes/fees In-Reply-To: <20070206231850.4CEA15C82@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20070206231850.4CEA15C82@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20070207100434.GB13700@nic.fr> On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 06:17:55PM -0500, Veni Markovski wrote a message of 29 lines which said: > >Registries are not difficult to run, > > Could you continue talking on this subject? Is it based on commercial > practices, or on existing registries, or on academic research? Since I run a registry (do not worry, I am not alone), may I express an opinion? The original sentence "Registries are not difficult to run" is obviously very exaggerated. I would not deserve my salary if registries were easy to run. But I believe that Vittorio explained clearly his views: > I think there'd be space for smaller non-profit or community-based > TLDs, where perhaps you don't get fully fledged customer service, So, to emphasize what Vittorio said, running a registry is neither "easy" or "difficult", it is "it depends on your requirments". Running ".com" is a lot of technical, commercial and legal work. Running ".bortzmeyer" with twenty subdomains for my family and friends and no reliability requirment would be much easier, I could do it on my home PC with a few text (no, XML, we're in 2007) files. I agree with Vittorio and Milton that ICANN should *not* prevent "light" "alternative" registries with no "fully fledged customer service" to run a TLD. There is no reason for such limitation to big companies. ____________________________________________________________ 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 nb at bollow.ch Wed Feb 7 05:52:16 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 11:52:16 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] ICANN taxes/fees In-Reply-To: <45C8AD19.5040809@bertola.eu> (message from Vittorio Bertola on Tue, 06 Feb 2007 17:30:17 +0100) References: <734183.95499.qm@web58715.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <8ED24374-6137-4754-B6B3-140D976D6087@psg.com> <45C8AD19.5040809@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <20070207105216.CA3FE435EF@quill.bollow.ch> Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Also, we've been raising several times the point about having > differentiated application fees between profits and non-profits, and > also dividing the fee in two parts, one to get the concept approved, and > the second one, if you're approved, to cover actual contract > negotiations. It doesn't make sense that rejected applicants cover the > approved applicants' negotiation costs... Is there anything that this Caucus, or perhaps national civil society organisations, could do to support you on this important point? Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch ____________________________________________________________ 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 pr+governance at x0.dk Wed Feb 7 06:12:02 2007 From: pr+governance at x0.dk (Phil Regnauld) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 12:12:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] Running a registry: child play or huge work? (Was: ICANN taxes/fees In-Reply-To: <20070207100434.GB13700@nic.fr> References: <20070206231850.4CEA15C82@smtp2.electricembers.net> <20070207100434.GB13700@nic.fr> Message-ID: <20070207111202.GC30667@vinyl.catpipe.net> Stephane Bortzmeyer (bortzmeyer) writes: > > I agree with Vittorio and Milton that ICANN should *not* prevent > "light" "alternative" registries with no "fully fledged customer > service" to run a TLD. There is no reason for such limitation to big > companies. Agreed. Raising the bar of entry for all TLD applicants is a flawed view of the basis of a perceived market demand -- that of the applicant. Ensuring stability of the root should does equate with with enforcing artificial scarcity of a limitless resource. ____________________________________________________________ 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 pr+governance at x0.dk Wed Feb 7 06:34:13 2007 From: pr+governance at x0.dk (Phil Regnauld) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 12:34:13 +0100 Subject: [governance] Running a registry: child play or huge work? (Was: ICANN taxes/fees In-Reply-To: <20070207111202.GC30667@vinyl.catpipe.net> References: <20070206231850.4CEA15C82@smtp2.electricembers.net> <20070207100434.GB13700@nic.fr> <20070207111202.GC30667@vinyl.catpipe.net> Message-ID: <20070207113413.GF30667@vinyl.catpipe.net> Phil Regnauld (pr+governance) writes: > > Ensuring stability of the root should does equate with with enforcing > artificial scarcity of a limitless resource. Need more coffee before using vi. "Ensuring stability of the root should not equate with enforcing the artificial scarcity of a limitless resource." ____________________________________________________________ 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 veni at veni.com Wed Feb 7 07:25:46 2007 From: veni at veni.com (veni markovski) Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 07:25:46 -0500 Subject: [governance] ICANN taxes/fees In-Reply-To: References: <20070206231850.4CEA15C82@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <45c9c6cd.6e6f5181.56d2.657b@mx.google.com> At 08:43 PM 2/6/2007 -0500, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: >It's based on RUNNING CODE. I think I asked Milton, not Michael :) But then, again, even if what you say is correct (and I don't say it is), that does not respond to the fact on what grounds someone would say that "running registries is not difficult". I have some experience of running companies, and dare to say that it's not an easy job. As for Viittorio's comments - he actually made a good point - this kind of work is already being done, so that's not an argument for the registries, but rather an argument that anyone can do whatever they want today, even without new TLDs. And here's another question: if running registries is easy, and people get "local" domains, what happens when the registry goes out of business, or the person who is running it decides to move in another city, or country, or stops working on computers? What will the users do with all the e-mails they are getting at their "local" domain. veni ____________________________________________________________ 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 pr+governance at x0.dk Wed Feb 7 07:39:12 2007 From: pr+governance at x0.dk (Phil Regnauld) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 13:39:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN taxes/fees In-Reply-To: <45c9c6cd.6e6f5181.56d2.657b@mx.google.com> References: <20070206231850.4CEA15C82@smtp2.electricembers.net> <45c9c6cd.6e6f5181.56d2.657b@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <20070207123912.GJ30667@vinyl.catpipe.net> veni markovski (veni) writes: > > And here's another question: if running registries is easy, and > people get "local" domains, what happens when the registry goes out > of business, or the person who is running it decides to move in > another city, or country, or stops working on computers? What will > the users do with all the e-mails they are getting at their "local" domain. You get what you pay for. At 0 EUR (that is the same value in most currencies, FYI) for a domain in EU.org, you'd be hard pressed to complain about perennity. Still, there are at bit more than 14000 delegations in the EU.org zone. Businesses and organizations who want accountability and "garantees" (quotes needed here) can indeed buy .COM, .ORG or the appropriate ccTLD. But just because it's not run as a large corporation doesn't mean it's unreliable. Very efficient utility services can be run on a cost-recovery basis. Actually, most ccTLDs operate that way, and a few of them still turn more of a profit than they'd like to admit. ____________________________________________________________ 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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org Wed Feb 7 08:17:22 2007 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 14:17:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: ICANN taxes/fees In-Reply-To: <45c9c6cd.6e6f5181.56d2.657b@mx.google.com> References: <20070206231850.4CEA15C82@smtp2.electricembers.net> <45c9c6cd.6e6f5181.56d2.657b@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <20070207131722.GB16792@nic.fr> On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 07:25:46AM -0500, veni markovski wrote a message of 30 lines which said: > And here's another question: if running registries is easy, and > people get "local" domains, what happens when the registry goes out > of business, or the person who is running it decides to move in > another city, or country, or stops working on computers? What will > the users do with all the e-mails they are getting at their "local" > domain. Come on. Every day, in ICANNland, people lose their domains, because they forget to renew (or their registrar forget to tell them) or because the domain was suspended by GoDaddy because MySpace asked so or because they were hit by an UDRP from a big company with many lawyers or because the domain was hijacked. And nobody cares. Tell me rather what would happen if Verisign goes brankrupt. Does the ICANN has a up-to-date copy of the database? (Including the information stored in registrars' bases.) ____________________________________________________________ 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 froomkin at law.miami.edu Wed Feb 7 08:40:39 2007 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 08:40:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] ICANN taxes/fees In-Reply-To: <45c9c6cd.6e6f5181.56d2.657b@mx.google.com> References: <20070206231850.4CEA15C82@smtp2.electricembers.net> <45c9c6cd.6e6f5181.56d2.657b@mx.google.com> Message-ID: We both know people who run registries, perhaps you should talk to someone who runs one and isn't an incumbent (ie with a vested interest in making it sound harder than it is). The technical problem is long-solved. The "companies" part of the problem isn't especially hard either since you have a pretty small number of clients (registrars, rather than the public). I would guess that it's actually much tougher to be a registrar on the companies end. The 'hard' part of being a registry is being sufficiently reliable. But Karl and others tell me the tech problem isn't very interesting or difficult. As for registries that may die, this also is a solved problem intellectually: (1) ICANN can demand that data be escrowed with a trusted third party; (2) Even without (1) we let the market sort it out. If there are many players, one failure isn't a big deal; and if maintaining the data has value, some other player takes it over. On Wed, 7 Feb 2007, veni markovski wrote: > At 08:43 PM 2/6/2007 -0500, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: >> It's based on RUNNING CODE. > > I think I asked Milton, not Michael :) > You asked on a public list... > But then, again, even if what you say is correct (and I don't say it is), > that does not respond to the fact on what grounds someone would say that > "running registries is not difficult". I have some experience of running > companies, and dare to say that it's not an easy job. As for Viittorio's > comments - he actually made a good point - this kind of work is already being > done, so that's not an argument for the registries, but rather an argument > that anyone can do whatever they want today, even without new TLDs. > And here's another question: if running registries is easy, and people get > "local" domains, what happens when the registry goes out of business, or the > person who is running it decides to move in another city, or country, or > stops working on computers? What will the users do with all the e-mails they > are getting at their "local" domain. > > veni > > -- http://www.icannwatch.org Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin at law.tm U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm -->It's warm here.<-- ____________________________________________________________ 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 pr+governance at x0.dk Wed Feb 7 08:58:21 2007 From: pr+governance at x0.dk (Phil Regnauld) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 14:58:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN taxes/fees In-Reply-To: References: <20070206231850.4CEA15C82@smtp2.electricembers.net> <45c9c6cd.6e6f5181.56d2.657b@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <20070207135820.GN30667@vinyl.catpipe.net> Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law (froomkin) writes: > We both know people who run registries, perhaps you should talk to someone > who runs one and isn't an incumbent (ie with a vested interest in making > it sound harder than it is). The technical problem is long-solved. Indeed. The market segment of domain names was partly pulled (Internet boom), partly pushed (the registries) into a zone of highly speculative business, for motivations of profit (the registries and registrars) and security/protection (the complex legal framework of the UDRP and similar agreements) that big businesses wanted in place. Not surprisingly, the debate has since moved to questions of governance, sovereignty and national legislation. It was only a matter of time before those who pointedly ignored, or who were told to ignore, the Internet as a passing fad, suddenly showed interest for this "critical resource". Technically, it's not that much from many other business applications. > The "companies" part of the problem isn't especially hard either since you > have a pretty small number of clients (registrars, rather than the > public). I would guess that it's actually much tougher to be a registrar > on the companies end. Indeed, they take the load of complaints. They're the ones who have to deal with lawsuits and high legal fees as a standard running cost. > The 'hard' part of being a registry is being sufficiently reliable. But > Karl and others tell me the tech problem isn't very interesting or > difficult. It's been solved, like most IT problems, sometime in the 70s. The rest was a question of implementation. > As for registries that may die, this also is a solved problem > intellectually: (1) ICANN can demand that data be escrowed with a trusted > third party; That would be a good thing, but where do you draw the line ? Is it a requirement for gTLDs ? A recommendation for ccTLDs ? > (2) Even without (1) we let the market sort it out. If there > are many players, one failure isn't a big deal; and if maintaining the > data has value, some other player takes it over. Definitely. ____________________________________________________________ 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 jovank at diplomacy.edu Wed Feb 7 12:43:58 2007 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 18:43:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] "Internet and Diplomacy" - Discussion & Reception - 12th February at 18.45 (Graduate Institute of International Studies - Geneva) Message-ID: Dear colleagues, For all of you who will be in Geneva during the IGF I would like to extend an invitation to a discussion on Internet and Diplomacy (followed by a reception) at the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva. The Institute is the oldest international relations institute in the world (established in 1927). Over the last two years the Institute has undergone reform, with the main aim of becoming the leading IR/diplomacy institution in Europe. It has been strengthening its focus on emerging issues in modern diplomacy (e.g. climate change, health, Internet). We are particularly honored that Nitin Desai will reflect on his broad experience both from the IG-process and other multilateral activities. After Nitin Desai's introduction there will be a short presentation of research findings from the Institute's course on "Technology and Diplomacy." The 40-minute programme will be completed by a presentation on the Global Knowledge III conference to be held in Kuala Lumpur (December 2007). The programme will be followed by a reception which will be a good chance to meet some of the Institute's professors, researchers and students. We also expect participation from the Geneva-based diplomatic community. The Institute is located in the park next to the WTO (15 minutes walk from the UN). I hope you will be able to join us. In order to help us with logistics (seats and reception) please let us know if you plan to attend the panel/reception at the Institute. Please confirm by e-mail to yasmeen at diplomacy.edu. Till next week.... with best regards, Jovan INVITATION Monday 12 February 2007, 6:45 - 8:30 pm Auditorium Jacques Freymond (HEI) The Graduate Institute of International Studies (HEI) has the pleasure to invite you to a discussion on: INTERNET AND DIPLOMACY Welcome Address André Liebich, Professor, International History and Politics, HEI What can modern diplomacy learn from the Internet Governance Process? Nitin Desai, Chairman of the Internet Governance Forum Main research findings on the Impact of the Internet on Diplomacy HEI students from "Technology and Diplomacy" course A Key Multistakeholder Partnership Event - Global Knowledge Conference GK3 (December 2007 in Kuala Lumpur). Patrick Kalas, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation A reception will follow. Venue: The Graduate Institute of International Studies (HEI) 132, rue de Lausanne 1202 Geneve For more information please contact Sophie Fleury: Tel: 022 908 57 54/00 E-mail: fleury at hei.unige.ch -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From wsis at ngocongo.org Wed Feb 7 14:11:29 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 20:11:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] Consultation on CSTD - Tuesday 13 February (13:30-15:00) Message-ID: <200702071911.l17JAr9I009550@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, This is a preliminary up date on the preparation of the briefing and consultation meeting on the 10th session of CSTD (Room XXIV, Palais des Nations). It will take place on Tuesday 13 February 2007 during lunchtime (13:30-15:00). Participation will be open mainly to CS entities and to the Private Sector. As previously mentioned, two issues will be addressed: - Briefing on the preparations for the up coming cluster of WSIS related events (CSTD and ALF meetings, May 2007) - Informal Consultation on the multi-year work programme and the methods of work of the CSTD. Participation will be open to all CS participants in the CSTD. For most of you, the registration to the IGF stock taking will allow you to access this meeting. For the other ones, we will make sure that you will be provided a badge (contact us: wsis at ngocongo.org). I think we should come to this briefing with some common understanding of the message we want to deliver to the CSTD Secretariat (and to some of the member States representatives who might pop in during the meeting) about the points which will be addressed. This includes the following main issues: - Preparation for the up coming 10th session of the CSTD and of the WSIS related cluster of events; For your information, the CSTD session will be held on 21-25 May; additionally some 8 ALF meetings might be held around that session. More information will follow. Up dated calendar: http://www.csbureau.info/posttunis.htm - Modalities for NGO/CS participation in the CSTD; - Other CSTD working methods for the follow up to WSIS (including reporting activities and relationship with other UN entities); - Multi-year programme of work of the CSTD. Based on the ECOSOC resolution renewing the CSTD mandate in July 2006, the Commission will work through biennial action cycle. The programme of work is still to be determined and the CSTD Panel in Paris (6-8 Nov. 2006) addressed this issue (see report of the CSTD Panel, http://www.unctad.org/sections/dite_dir/docs/dite_pcbb_stdev0045_en.pdf, read in particular pages 15-16). Please send us your contributions and comments on these issues. We will come back to you with more details. All the best, Philippe Dam CONGO - WSIS CS Secretariat 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: wsis at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org The Conference of NGOs (CONGO) is an international, membership association that facilitates the participation of NGOs in United Nations debates and decisions. Founded in 1948, CONGO's major objective is to ensure the presence of NGOs in exchanges among the world's governments and United Nations agencies on issues of global concern. For more information see our website at www.ngocongo.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From veni at veni.com Wed Feb 7 18:37:54 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 18:37:54 -0500 Subject: [governance] ICANN taxes/fees In-Reply-To: References: <20070206231850.4CEA15C82@smtp2.electricembers.net> <45c9c6cd.6e6f5181.56d2.657b@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <2aa69fe40702071537u77c7e40fi5e171120f6e29e58@mail.gmail.com> On 2/7/07, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: > it sound harder than it is). The technical problem is long-solved. I am not as sure as you are about it. But I am more interested in the business model, not in the technical one. Technically one can probably do anything. But running a business is not that easy, and earlier in the conversation we talked about running a registry, which is running a business, not running a server. Even running a server requires some business qualities - e.g. what kind of machine to get, how to backup, what power supply you'll need, Internet connectivity, UPS, 24x7 staff, backup of the power supply, backup of the Internet connection, staff, payments, social security, registration of a company, running accounting, etc., etc. I didn't hear business arguments. Veni Markovski http://www.veni.com check also my blog: http://blog.veni.com The opinions expressed above are those of the author, not of any organizations, associated with or related to the author in any given way. ____________________________________________________________ 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 aizu at anr.org Wed Feb 7 20:36:11 2007 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 10:36:11 +0900 Subject: [governance] The result of Appeal Team selection Message-ID: Dear list, Sorry for a slight dealy to announce the result, I hoped to finalize it by the extended deadline of Feb 6, yesterday, but we had some communication problem and could not get one final confirmation. Anyway, here is the result: The following five individuals are selected as the Appeals Team members: Name Region Gender Rishi Chawla, Asia, M Willie Currie, Africa, M Avri Doria, North America/Europe, F Nnenna Nwaknma, Africa, F Jeremy Shtern, North America, M Congratulations for the selected members, and thank you for all the contributions and the support from all of our Caucus friends, especially to all those who were nominated and accepted it, and to Avri Doria, without whose dedication, it would not be possible. Finally, it was a good learning opportunity for us all, and it was fun for me indeed. izumi I also attache the Chair's report as RTF file. -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ 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: Appeals Team Selection ReporFeb06F.rtf Type: application/rtf Size: 62084 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca Wed Feb 7 21:57:32 2007 From: jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca (Jeremy Shtern) Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 21:57:32 -0500 Subject: [governance] The result of Appeal Team selection In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45CA919C.8040505@umontreal.ca> Hi everyone, This is just a quick thank you to Izumi for his stewardship of the Appeal Team selection process, to the members of the Nomcom for their time and effort and to everyone who took the time to write up nomination statements. If and when called upon to execute the duties of this position I look forward to collaborating with the other Appeal Team members. Kind Regards, Jeremy Shtern --------------------------------------------------- Researcher: the media at McGill unit for critical communication studies (http://media.mcgill.ca) & PhD candidate (ABD): Université de Montréal, département de communication jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca ---------------------------------------------------- Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear list, > > Sorry for a slight dealy to announce the result, I hoped to > finalize it by the extended deadline of Feb 6, yesterday, > but we had some communication problem and could not > get one final confirmation. > > Anyway, here is the result: > > The following five individuals are selected as the Appeals Team members: > > Name Region Gender > > Rishi Chawla, Asia, M > Willie Currie, Africa, M > Avri Doria, North America/Europe, F > Nnenna Nwaknma, Africa, F > Jeremy Shtern, North America, M > > Congratulations for the selected members, and thank you for all the > contributions and the support from all of our Caucus friends, > especially to all those who were nominated and accepted it, and to > Avri Doria, without whose dedication, it would not be possible. > > Finally, it was a good learning opportunity for us all, and it was fun > for me indeed. > > izumi > > I also attache the Chair's report as RTF file. > -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From froomkin at law.miami.edu Wed Feb 7 22:56:08 2007 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 22:56:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] ICANN taxes/fees In-Reply-To: <2aa69fe40702071537u77c7e40fi5e171120f6e29e58@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070206231850.4CEA15C82@smtp2.electricembers.net> <45c9c6cd.6e6f5181.56d2.657b@mx.google.com> <2aa69fe40702071537u77c7e40fi5e171120f6e29e58@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: And ICANN doesn't need to hear business arguments because it has no competence relevant to weighing them. Its role is technical. (OK, it can demand some minimum capitalization to get rid of frivolity.) There were about 23 million businesses in the USA alone in 2002 [1]. It just can't be all that complex to run one... source: [1] http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=D&-ds_name=SB0200A1&-_lang=en On Wed, 7 Feb 2007, Veni Markovski wrote: > On 2/7/07, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law > wrote: >> it sound harder than it is). The technical problem is long-solved. > > I am not as sure as you are about it. But I am more interested in the > business model, not in the technical one. Technically one can probably > do anything. But running a business is not that easy, and earlier in > the conversation we talked about running a registry, which is running > a business, not running a server. Even running a server requires some > business qualities - e.g. what kind of machine to get, how to backup, > what power supply you'll need, Internet connectivity, UPS, 24x7 staff, > backup of the power supply, backup of the Internet connection, staff, > payments, social security, registration of a company, running > accounting, etc., etc. I didn't hear business arguments. > > Veni Markovski > http://www.veni.com > > check also my blog: > http://blog.veni.com > > The opinions expressed above are those of the author, > not of any organizations, associated with or related to > the author in any given way. > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -- http://www.icannwatch.org Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin at law.tm U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm -->It's warm here.<-- ____________________________________________________________ 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 ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Wed Feb 7 23:31:41 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (l.d.misek-falkoff) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 23:31:41 -0500 Subject: [governance] The result of Appeal Team selection In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8cbfe7410702072031s41e338d4ife900e59400a965d@mail.gmail.com> Congratulations Appeals Team, and to IGF on the excellent panel.. Standing by for future duties too, LDMF. On 2/7/07, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > Dear list, > > Sorry for a slight dealy to announce the result, I hoped to > finalize it by the extended deadline of Feb 6, yesterday, > but we had some communication problem and could not > get one final confirmation. > > Anyway, here is the result: > > The following five individuals are selected as the Appeals Team members: > > Name Region Gender > > Rishi Chawla, Asia, M > Willie Currie, Africa, M > Avri Doria, North America/Europe, F > Nnenna Nwaknma, Africa, F > Jeremy Shtern, North America, M /// -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From rishi at gipi.org.in Thu Feb 8 00:30:20 2007 From: rishi at gipi.org.in (Rishi Chawla) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 11:00:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] The result of Appeal Team selection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Congratulations to all and thanks to Izumi and Avri and the rest of the NomCom. Your hard work is apprecaited. Regards Rishi Chawla -----Original Message----- From: Izumi AIZU [mailto:aizu at anr.org] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 7:06 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] The result of Appeal Team selection Dear list, Sorry for a slight dealy to announce the result, I hoped to finalize it by the extended deadline of Feb 6, yesterday, but we had some communication problem and could not get one final confirmation. Anyway, here is the result: The following five individuals are selected as the Appeals Team members: Name Region Gender Rishi Chawla, Asia, M Willie Currie, Africa, M Avri Doria, North America/Europe, F Nnenna Nwaknma, Africa, F Jeremy Shtern, North America, M Congratulations for the selected members, and thank you for all the contributions and the support from all of our Caucus friends, especially to all those who were nominated and accepted it, and to Avri Doria, without whose dedication, it would not be possible. Finally, it was a good learning opportunity for us all, and it was fun for me indeed. izumi I also attache the Chair's report as RTF file. -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ 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 psg.com Thu Feb 8 00:40:56 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 00:40:56 -0500 Subject: [governance] The result of Appeal Team selection In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <88F0199B-4C6E-4CF7-B7F8-3D8CE05EBC12@psg.com> Hi, I give my thanks to the nomcom and Izumi as well. Though I sincerely hope that this appeal's team is never called into action. On 8 feb 2007, at 00.30, Rishi Chawla wrote: > Congratulations to all and thanks to Izumi and Avri and the rest > of the > NomCom. Your hard work is apprecaited. Just a note, while i helped with some web and program chores around the edge, I was not a participant in the nomcom and had _no_ part in their discussions. 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 nne75 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 8 01:51:51 2007 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 22:51:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] The result of Appeal Team selection Message-ID: <592747.98192.qm@web50209.mail.yahoo.com> My congratulations to the NomCom and to the 'panel of judges' Nnenna Rishi Chawla, Asia, M Willie Currie, Africa, M Avri Doria, North America/Europe, F Nnenna Nwaknma, Africa, F Jeremy Shtern, North America, M ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never Miss an Email Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile. Get started! http://mobile.yahoo.com/services?promote=mail -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From wcurrie at apc.org Thu Feb 8 02:45:06 2007 From: wcurrie at apc.org (wcurrie at apc.org) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 05:45:06 -0200 (BRST) Subject: [governance] The result of Appeal Team selection In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1144.196.211.173.78.1170920706.squirrel@webmail.apc.org> Thanks, Izumi and the NomCom. Congratulations everyone. Best Willie > Congratulations to all and thanks to Izumi and Avri and the rest of the > NomCom. Your hard work is apprecaited. > > Regards > Rishi Chawla > > -----Original Message----- > From: Izumi AIZU [mailto:aizu at anr.org] > Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 7:06 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] The result of Appeal Team selection > > > Dear list, > > Sorry for a slight dealy to announce the result, I hoped to > finalize it by the extended deadline of Feb 6, yesterday, > but we had some communication problem and could not > get one final confirmation. > > Anyway, here is the result: > > The following five individuals are selected as the Appeals Team members: > > Name Region Gender > > Rishi Chawla, Asia, M > Willie Currie, Africa, M > Avri Doria, North America/Europe, F > Nnenna Nwaknma, Africa, F > Jeremy Shtern, North America, M > > Congratulations for the selected members, and thank you for all the > contributions and the support from all of our Caucus friends, > especially to all those who were nominated and accepted it, and to > Avri Doria, without whose dedication, it would not be possible. > > Finally, it was a good learning opportunity for us all, and it was fun > for me indeed. > > izumi > > I also attache the Chair's report as RTF file. > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society > Kumon Center, Tama University > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.org > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 dave at isoc-mu.org Thu Feb 8 02:59:15 2007 From: dave at isoc-mu.org (Dave Kissoondoyal) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 11:59:15 +0400 Subject: [governance] The result of Appeal Team selection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <005201c74b57$0b265d10$1a09090a@TLFMDOM.local> Congratulations to the selected members and thanks for the great work to Avri and Izumi Best regards Dave Kissoondoyal -----Original Message----- From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 5:36 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] The result of Appeal Team selection Dear list, Sorry for a slight dealy to announce the result, I hoped to finalize it by the extended deadline of Feb 6, yesterday, but we had some communication problem and could not get one final confirmation. Anyway, here is the result: The following five individuals are selected as the Appeals Team members: Name Region Gender Rishi Chawla, Asia, M Willie Currie, Africa, M Avri Doria, North America/Europe, F Nnenna Nwaknma, Africa, F Jeremy Shtern, North America, M Congratulations for the selected members, and thank you for all the contributions and the support from all of our Caucus friends, especially to all those who were nominated and accepted it, and to Avri Doria, without whose dedication, it would not be possible. Finally, it was a good learning opportunity for us all, and it was fun for me indeed. izumi I also attache the Chair's report as RTF file. -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ 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 aizu at anr.org Thu Feb 8 03:16:53 2007 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 17:16:53 +0900 Subject: [governance] The result of Appeal Team selection In-Reply-To: <88F0199B-4C6E-4CF7-B7F8-3D8CE05EBC12@psg.com> References: <88F0199B-4C6E-4CF7-B7F8-3D8CE05EBC12@psg.com> Message-ID: Hi, Thank you very much for all the encouraging messages. I quite agree with what Avri said, that this Appeals Team will be best to remain in-active and use our energy into much more positive direction. Having said that, now we have minimum checks and balances system in place in addition to the functioning coordinators, which is good. So that we could make more inputs/outputs in the IGF process. It's a pitty I cannot attend the IGF meeting in Geneva. I miss you all there, but will try to capture some part when webcasted. izumi 2007/2/8, Avri Doria : > Hi, > > I give my thanks to the nomcom and Izumi as well. Though I sincerely > hope that this appeal's team is never called into action. > > > On 8 feb 2007, at 00.30, Rishi Chawla wrote: > > > Congratulations to all and thanks to Izumi and Avri and the rest > > of the > > NomCom. Your hard work is apprecaited. > > Just a note, while i helped with some web and program chores around > the edge, I was not a participant in the nomcom and had _no_ part in > their discussions. > > 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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org Thu Feb 8 04:07:18 2007 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 10:07:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: ICANN taxes/fees In-Reply-To: <2aa69fe40702071537u77c7e40fi5e171120f6e29e58@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070206231850.4CEA15C82@smtp2.electricembers.net> <45c9c6cd.6e6f5181.56d2.657b@mx.google.com> <2aa69fe40702071537u77c7e40fi5e171120f6e29e58@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070208090718.GA3832@nic.fr> On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 06:37:54PM -0500, Veni Markovski wrote a message of 32 lines which said: > Even running a server requires some business qualities - e.g. what > kind of machine to get, how to backup, what power supply you'll > need, Internet connectivity, UPS, 24x7 staff, backup of the power > supply, backup of the Internet connection, Many (probably most) of the TLDs have no 24x7 staff. Many (probably most) of the TLDs have no backup of the Internet connection. ____________________________________________________________ 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 veni at veni.com Thu Feb 8 04:34:51 2007 From: veni at veni.com (veni markovski) Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 04:34:51 -0500 Subject: [governance] ICANN taxes/fees In-Reply-To: References: <20070206231850.4CEA15C82@smtp2.electricembers.net> <45c9c6cd.6e6f5181.56d2.657b@mx.google.com> <2aa69fe40702071537u77c7e40fi5e171120f6e29e58@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <45caef03.7b524e85.39ef.0768@mx.google.com> At 10:56 PM 2/7/2007 -0500, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: >There were about 23 million businesses in the USA alone in 2002 >[1]. It just can't be all that complex to run one... Have you ever run a business that requires the high technical standards a TLD does? Have you had customers who call you only when your systems don't work, because there's not enough power in the whole state, and your UPSes are going down? Or check what happened in New Orleans? Let's try to be more practical, than theoretical? veni ____________________________________________________________ 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 veni at veni.com Thu Feb 8 04:31:25 2007 From: veni at veni.com (veni markovski) Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 04:31:25 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: ICANN taxes/fees In-Reply-To: <20070208090718.GA3832@nic.fr> References: <20070206231850.4CEA15C82@smtp2.electricembers.net> <45c9c6cd.6e6f5181.56d2.657b@mx.google.com> <2aa69fe40702071537u77c7e40fi5e171120f6e29e58@mail.gmail.com> <20070208090718.GA3832@nic.fr> Message-ID: <45caeefa.18952008.39ef.0754@mx.google.com> At 10:07 AM 2/8/2007 +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >Many (probably most) of the TLDs have no 24x7 staff. > >Many (probably most) of the TLDs have no backup of the Internet >connection. Any source for this information? veni ____________________________________________________________ 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 Thu Feb 8 04:42:19 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 10:42:19 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN taxes/fees In-Reply-To: <2aa69fe40702071537u77c7e40fi5e171120f6e29e58@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070206231850.4CEA15C82@smtp2.electricembers.net> <45c9c6cd.6e6f5181.56d2.657b@mx.google.com> <2aa69fe40702071537u77c7e40fi5e171120f6e29e58@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <45CAF07B.6040509@bertola.eu> Veni Markovski ha scritto: > I am not as sure as you are about it. But I am more interested in the > business model, not in the technical one. Technically one can probably > do anything. But running a business is not that easy, and earlier in > the conversation we talked about running a registry, which is running > a business, not running a server. I still don't see why, if the conditions are clear (e.g. no customer service, no SLAs, etc.). There are plenty of non-business DNS services (or pro-bono free offerings by businesses) that have been offering for free, for many years, not just free domain names (www.eu.org), but free DNS servers (http://soa.granitecanyon.com/). Many TLDs are still operated on a free, voluntary basis, either by individuals or with public support. There are plenty of similar services in other fields (e.g. where technical capability and a certain amount of money to support growth are necessary, but the overall concept is a non-profit community getting organized to support the free service) and many of them work well and reliably, even more reliably than commercial counterparts. Did you ever hear about Wikipedia? :) (And what if people were required to pay 250'000$ to open a new language version of Wikipedia, just as an "application processing fee", without even getting servers and hosting in exchange?) Moreover, the idea that, since you can make money with it, no one could or even should do it for free is quite troublesome to me. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 Thu Feb 8 04:42:48 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 10:42:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] The result of Appeal Team selection In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45CAF098.1000806@bertola.eu> Izumi AIZU ha scritto: > Dear list, > > Sorry for a slight dealy to announce the result, I hoped to > finalize it by the extended deadline of Feb 6, yesterday, > but we had some communication problem and could not > get one final confirmation. I'd personally like to thank you and all those who contributed to this process for making it happen successfully :) -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org Thu Feb 8 05:12:02 2007 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 11:12:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: ICANN taxes/fees In-Reply-To: <45caef03.7b524e85.39ef.0768@mx.google.com> References: <20070206231850.4CEA15C82@smtp2.electricembers.net> <45c9c6cd.6e6f5181.56d2.657b@mx.google.com> <2aa69fe40702071537u77c7e40fi5e171120f6e29e58@mail.gmail.com> <45caef03.7b524e85.39ef.0768@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <20070208101202.GA11814@nic.fr> On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 04:34:51AM -0500, veni markovski wrote a message of 25 lines which said: > Have you ever run a business that requires the high technical > standards a TLD does? Who said that there must be "high technical standards" to a TLD, any TLD? Especially one which is clearly announced to its customers as "best effort" or "light"? If we take "high technical standards" in account, I suggest considering to assign L-root to another organization, after what happened on tuesday... ____________________________________________________________ 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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org Thu Feb 8 05:13:36 2007 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 11:13:36 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: ICANN taxes/fees In-Reply-To: <45caeefa.18952008.39ef.0754@mx.google.com> References: <20070206231850.4CEA15C82@smtp2.electricembers.net> <45c9c6cd.6e6f5181.56d2.657b@mx.google.com> <2aa69fe40702071537u77c7e40fi5e171120f6e29e58@mail.gmail.com> <20070208090718.GA3832@nic.fr> <45caeefa.18952008.39ef.0754@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <20070208101336.GB11814@nic.fr> On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 04:31:25AM -0500, veni markovski wrote a message of 12 lines which said: > >Many (probably most) of the TLDs have no 24x7 staff. > > > >Many (probably most) of the TLDs have no backup of the Internet > >connection. > > Any source for this information? Several years spent supporting and helping ccTLDs in several continents? And talking with a lot of people? ____________________________________________________________ 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 pr+governance at x0.dk Thu Feb 8 05:52:28 2007 From: pr+governance at x0.dk (Phil Regnauld) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 11:52:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN taxes/fees In-Reply-To: <45caef03.7b524e85.39ef.0768@mx.google.com> References: <20070206231850.4CEA15C82@smtp2.electricembers.net> <45c9c6cd.6e6f5181.56d2.657b@mx.google.com> <2aa69fe40702071537u77c7e40fi5e171120f6e29e58@mail.gmail.com> <45caef03.7b524e85.39ef.0768@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <20070208105227.GB40193@vinyl.catpipe.net> veni markovski (veni) writes: > > Have you ever run a business that requires the high technical > standards a TLD does? A registry is a primarily administrative workflow. The technical aspects are relatively simple, sorry to demistify things. > Let's try to be more practical, than theoretical? Excuse me ? The reason several participants to this list are dismissing the non-existient complexity of running a registry is because they actually run one -- it's not all that complex. Even with natural catastrophes, offsite backup is a function of the normal workflow of any business, it's not a technical challenge nowadays. I don't get your point, I must say. ____________________________________________________________ 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 pr+governance at x0.dk Thu Feb 8 05:53:43 2007 From: pr+governance at x0.dk (Phil Regnauld) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 11:53:43 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: ICANN taxes/fees In-Reply-To: <20070208101336.GB11814@nic.fr> References: <20070206231850.4CEA15C82@smtp2.electricembers.net> <45c9c6cd.6e6f5181.56d2.657b@mx.google.com> <2aa69fe40702071537u77c7e40fi5e171120f6e29e58@mail.gmail.com> <20070208090718.GA3832@nic.fr> <45caeefa.18952008.39ef.0754@mx.google.com> <20070208101336.GB11814@nic.fr> Message-ID: <20070208105343.GC40193@vinyl.catpipe.net> Stephane Bortzmeyer (bortzmeyer) writes: > > > > Any source for this information? > > Several years spent supporting and helping ccTLDs in several > continents? And talking with a lot of people? I can back Stephane on this. ____________________________________________________________ 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 Feb 8 07:44:37 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 07:44:37 -0500 Subject: [governance] ICANN taxes/fees Message-ID: Dr. Milton Mueller Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://www.digital-convergence.org http://www.internetgovernance.org >>> nb at bollow.ch 02/07/07 5:52 AM >>> >Is there anything that [cut] national civil society >organisations, could do to support you on this >important point? Yes, join the noncommercial users constituency (www.ncdnhc.org) and get involved in ICANN processes. Comment on the new gTLD proposal being developed by ICANN. ____________________________________________________________ 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 Feb 8 08:04:23 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 08:04:23 -0500 Subject: [governance] ICANN taxes/fees Message-ID: Veni: >what happens when the registry goes out >of business, or the person who is running it >decides to move in another city, or country, >or stops working on computers? The answer to these questions are simple. When a registry goes out of business, either someone takes over its administration, or not. In the latter case, the domain ceases to work. In other words, when a registry goes out of business, the same thing happens as when an ISP goes out of business, or a web site with which you have an account, or a hosting service goes out of business. A more interesting question is what policy conclusions one draws from this simple fact. Veni seems to imply that if only he and other ICANN board members were allowed to act as market gatekeepers, that no one approved to enter the business will ever go out of business. Pretty interesting assumption, given that large as well as small businesses often go out of business, and that business such as MCI and KPNQwest that are both large and hold numerous government licenses and approvals, have in fact gone out of business. So some followup questions for my favorite soon-to-be-former ICANN board member and soon-to-be remaining on the ICANN payroll for his loyal service guy: * Should ICANN or some other central global authority decide who can and cannot enter the ISP and web site hosting business? * Speaking from your inside knowledge of the Board, just exactly when did ICANN staff or Board develop special clairvoyant powers to predict the future regarding which businesses will survive and which will waste money, or operate inefficiently, or borrow too much, or misjudge their pricing and consequently die? Have you thought about setting up shop on Temple Street in Hong Kong to compete with the other fortune tellers? ____________________________________________________________ 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 bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Thu Feb 8 08:53:43 2007 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 14:53:43 +0100 Subject: [governance] Caucus meeting in Geneva In-Reply-To: <49423.130.132.251.34.1170522345.squirrel@webmail.dynamicfun.com> References: <49423.130.132.251.34.1170522345.squirrel@webmail.dynamicfun.com> Message-ID: <45CB2B67.6070606@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Vittorio Bertola wrote: > building on Bill's suggestion, I think that we should try to meet, even > if briefly, on Feb 13 in Geneva. I don't see many other options than > meeting in the lunch break In the lunch break we also have the consultations on the CSTD. AFAIK, there are no advisory dinners, diplo receptions, dynamic bar coalitions or whatever planned for tuesday evening yet. Would that be feasable? (some GIGANET members discussed to also meet on Tues evening, but that would to a 100% be a subset of IGC, so we could just split off a bit later.) Ralf ____________________________________________________________ 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 Feb 8 09:32:08 2007 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 06:32:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] ICANN taxes/fees In-Reply-To: <20070207105216.CA3FE435EF@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <77021.57830.qm@web58713.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Avri, Vittorio, Norbert, et al. As you (may) know, the PDP for new gTLDs is not yet concluded by ICANN's GNSO council. Since there seems to be an interest in this topic, I volunteer to start a draft that I will circulate both among the non-commercial user constituency and interested individals - without assuming any one's committment, whether NCUC or you guys. But if you are interested in participating in this drafting effort, please let me know off list, thanks. Mawaki --- Norbert Bollow wrote: > Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > > Also, we've been raising several times the point about having > > differentiated application fees between profits and non-profits, > and > > also dividing the fee in two parts, one to get the concept > approved, and > > the second one, if you're approved, to cover actual contract > > negotiations. It doesn't make sense that rejected applicants > cover the > > approved applicants' negotiation costs... > > Is there anything that this Caucus, or perhaps national civil > society > organisations, could do to support you on this important point? > > Greetings, > Norbert. > > > -- > Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch > President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 nyangkweagien at gmail.com Thu Feb 8 10:36:04 2007 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 16:36:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] The result of Appeal Team selection In-Reply-To: <592747.98192.qm@web50209.mail.yahoo.com> References: <592747.98192.qm@web50209.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Thumbs up to NomCom for coming out with an inclusive Appeal team. This is more so, when we consider that 40 percent of the new Appeal team is feminine and that the same percentage is of African origine. This show how open minded, persons, the team at Nomcom are. This augurs well for the IG process that has to be inclusive in its deliberations. I wish the team good luck and conngratulations to Nenna for sailing through. On 2/8/07, Nnenna wrote: > > My congratulations to the NomCom and to the 'panel of judges' > > Nnenna > > > Rishi Chawla, Asia, M > Willie Currie, Africa, M > Avri Doria, North America/Europe, F > Nnenna Nwaknma, Africa, F > Jeremy Shtern, North America, M > > > > > > ________________________________ > Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President ASAFE Tel. 237 337 50 22 Fax. 237 342 29 70 ____________________________________________________________ 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 Thu Feb 8 10:47:34 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 16:47:34 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Caucus meeting in Geneva References: <49423.130.132.251.34.1170522345.squirrel@webmail.dynamicfun.com> <45CB2B67.6070606@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D12D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> I support this, Friday evening is the only option to discuss both IGC and GIGANET. w ________________________________ Von: Ralf Bendrath [mailto:bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de] Gesendet: Do 08.02.2007 14:53 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: Re: [governance] Caucus meeting in Geneva Vittorio Bertola wrote: > building on Bill's suggestion, I think that we should try to meet, even > if briefly, on Feb 13 in Geneva. I don't see many other options than > meeting in the lunch break In the lunch break we also have the consultations on the CSTD. AFAIK, there are no advisory dinners, diplo receptions, dynamic bar coalitions or whatever planned for tuesday evening yet. Would that be feasable? (some GIGANET members discussed to also meet on Tues evening, but that would to a 100% be a subset of IGC, so we could just split off a bit later.) Ralf ____________________________________________________________ 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 drake at hei.unige.ch Thu Feb 8 11:18:20 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 17:18:20 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Caucus meeting in Geneva In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D12D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: > Von: Ralf Bendrath [mailto:bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de] > AFAIK, there are no advisory dinners, diplo receptions, dynamic bar > coalitions or whatever planned for tuesday evening yet. Would that be > feasable? (some GIGANET members discussed to also meet on Tues evening, >On 2/8/07 4:47 PM, "Wolfgang Kleinwächter" wrote: > I support this, Friday evening is the only option to discuss both IGC and > GIGANET. The dialectic is alive and well, living somewhere between Berlin and Leipzig.... Why don't we just meet outside Rm. XX at 18:00 Tuesday and see if there's critical mass for a meeting, if not then a dynamic bar coalition might suffice... Bill ____________________________________________________________ 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 Thu Feb 8 11:28:48 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 17:28:48 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Caucus meeting in Geneva In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45CB4FC0.7030900@bertola.eu> William Drake ha scritto: > Why don't we just meet outside Rm. XX at 18:00 Tuesday and see if there's > critical mass for a meeting, if not then a dynamic bar coalition might > suffice... This looks like a good idea. Let's go for it. In the meantime, I will try to go through all past messages and prepare a final version of our statement in the weekend. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 veni at veni.com Thu Feb 8 12:01:29 2007 From: veni at veni.com (veni markovski) Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 12:01:29 -0500 Subject: [governance] ICANN taxes/fees In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45cb5aff.62f9fe2a.3559.21fc@mx.google.com> Milton, you have a lot of knowledge on theory - no one questions that. What I bother about is not the businesses, and my question was not what happens to the business, but what happens to the users. Yes, the same ones, which you have tried to represent through the NCDNHC. I see that you care about other issues. I care about the users. I care, because I've been running an ISP for 9 years, and I know what it means to run a business, which has started with 2 people, and have become a 50+ company, in a country, where the legal environment has not been favourable towards private businesses, and where governments have tried to implement licensing on ISPs. I am not a University professor, and therefore I can't argue with you on high academic grounds. But you are not a businessman, and your knowledge keeps you blind about simple things, as for example that when I explain you how difficult it is to run a business, I don't do it to defend a position, but to give you some more knowledge. And comparing ISP business to running a TLD shows also somewhat mixed values and lack of full understanding of what these businesses are. veni P.S. As for your other, personal comments - I've learnt for the last 17 years since I am on line that when someone attacks me on personal grounds, that only shows that his position is not a good one, and he's trying to avoid the conversation, or to bring some doubts. At 08:04 AM 2/8/2007 -0500, Milton Mueller wrote: >Veni: > >what happens when the registry goes out > >of business, or the person who is running it > >decides to move in another city, or country, > >or stops working on computers? > >The answer to these questions are simple. When a registry goes out of >business, either someone takes over its administration, or not. In the >latter case, the domain ceases to work. > >In other words, when a registry goes out of business, the same thing >happens as when an ISP goes out of business, or a web site with which >you have an account, or a hosting service goes out of business. ____________________________________________________________ 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 veni at veni.com Thu Feb 8 11:46:33 2007 From: veni at veni.com (veni markovski) Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 11:46:33 -0500 Subject: [governance] ICANN taxes/fees In-Reply-To: <45CAF07B.6040509@bertola.eu> References: <20070206231850.4CEA15C82@smtp2.electricembers.net> <45c9c6cd.6e6f5181.56d2.657b@mx.google.com> <2aa69fe40702071537u77c7e40fi5e171120f6e29e58@mail.gmail.com> <45CAF07B.6040509@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <45cb5afb.794f2601.3559.21f5@mx.google.com> At 10:42 AM 2/8/2007 +0100, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Many TLDs are still operated on a free, voluntary basis, either by individuals or with public support. Vittorio, could you provide some data for "many TLDs" which are operated on a free basis? >There are plenty of similar services in other fields (e.g. where >technical capability and a certain amount of money to support growth >are necessary, but the overall concept is a non-profit community >getting organized to support the free service) and many of them work >well and reliably, even more reliably than commercial counterparts. >Did you ever hear about Wikipedia? :) (And what if people were >required to pay 250'000$ to open a new language version of >Wikipedia, just as an "application processing fee", without even >getting servers and hosting in exchange?) It's not right to compare apples with pears. Comparing a TLD to Wikipedia could be quite misleading, esp. if we think about Larry Sander, Jimmy Wales, and what would have happened if someone from the current TLDs have decided to split, and split the TLDs:) Sincerely, Veni Markovski http://www.veni.com check also my blog: http://blog.veni.com The opinions expressed above are those of the author, not of any organizations, associated with or related to the author in any given way. ____________________________________________________________ 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 veni at veni.com Thu Feb 8 11:48:57 2007 From: veni at veni.com (veni markovski) Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 11:48:57 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: ICANN taxes/fees In-Reply-To: <20070208101336.GB11814@nic.fr> References: <20070206231850.4CEA15C82@smtp2.electricembers.net> <45c9c6cd.6e6f5181.56d2.657b@mx.google.com> <2aa69fe40702071537u77c7e40fi5e171120f6e29e58@mail.gmail.com> <20070208090718.GA3832@nic.fr> <45caeefa.18952008.39ef.0754@mx.google.com> <20070208101336.GB11814@nic.fr> Message-ID: <45cb5afc.6165ad82.3559.21f7@mx.google.com> At 11:13 AM 2/8/2007 +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 04:31:25AM -0500, > veni markovski wrote > a message of 12 lines which said: > > > >Many (probably most) of the TLDs have no 24x7 staff. > > > > > >Many (probably most) of the TLDs have no backup of the Internet > > >connection. > > > > Any source for this information? > >Several years spent supporting and helping ccTLDs in several >continents? And talking with a lot of people? No, no... Source means data, facts. Many (probably most) means some exact number (e.g. 51%). Give some source, where this statement is proven right. Or if there is no such data, just don't say "many (probably most)". ____________________________________________________________ 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 sylvia.caras at gmail.com Thu Feb 8 12:30:01 2007 From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 09:30:01 -0800 Subject: [governance] The result of Appeal Team selection In-Reply-To: References: <592747.98192.qm@web50209.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Thanks for the balanced work of the nominating committee and congratulations to the Appeals Team. I hope your workload will be light! Sylvia ____________________________________________________________ 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 froomkin at law.miami.edu Thu Feb 8 12:31:58 2007 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 12:31:58 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] Re: ICANN taxes/fees In-Reply-To: <45cb5afc.6165ad82.3559.21f7@mx.google.com> References: <20070206231850.4CEA15C82@smtp2.electricembers.net> <45c9c6cd.6e6f5181.56d2.657b@mx.google.com> <2aa69fe40702071537u77c7e40fi5e171120f6e29e58@mail.gmail.com> <20070208090718.GA3832@nic.fr> <45caeefa.18952008.39ef.0754@mx.google.com> <20070208101336.GB11814@nic.fr> <45cb5afc.6165ad82.3559.21f7@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Personal experience IS data. Even in academia... On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, veni markovski wrote: > At 11:13 AM 2/8/2007 +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 04:31:25AM -0500, >> veni markovski wrote >> a message of 12 lines which said: >> >> > >Many (probably most) of the TLDs have no 24x7 staff. >> > > >> > >Many (probably most) of the TLDs have no backup of the Internet >> > >connection. >> > >> > Any source for this information? >> >> Several years spent supporting and helping ccTLDs in several >> continents? And talking with a lot of people? > > No, no... Source means data, facts. Many (probably most) means some exact > number (e.g. 51%). Give some source, where this statement is proven right. Or > if there is no such data, just don't say "many (probably most)". > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -- http://www.icannwatch.org Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin at law.tm U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm -->It's warm here.<-- ____________________________________________________________ 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 veni at veni.com Thu Feb 8 12:38:28 2007 From: veni at veni.com (veni markovski) Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 12:38:28 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: ICANN taxes/fees In-Reply-To: References: <20070206231850.4CEA15C82@smtp2.electricembers.net> <45c9c6cd.6e6f5181.56d2.657b@mx.google.com> <2aa69fe40702071537u77c7e40fi5e171120f6e29e58@mail.gmail.com> <20070208090718.GA3832@nic.fr> <45caeefa.18952008.39ef.0754@mx.google.com> <20070208101336.GB11814@nic.fr> <45cb5afc.6165ad82.3559.21f7@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <45cb6018.25260065.6ebb.1f97@mx.google.com> At 12:31 PM 2/8/2007 -0500, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: >Personal experience IS data. Even in academia... Sure - about one or two TLDs, or may be dozen. But I see nothing in wrong in saying, "some of the TLDs", instead the unsupported with data "many (probably most". The fact that someone says that most of the TLDs have no 24x7 staff does not make this (that most of them have no staff) a fact. Or you disagree again, just for the sake of the argument, and regardless of the fact that so far no one has shown any data about the "most of the TLDs". ____________________________________________________________ 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 Feb 8 12:45:12 2007 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 12:45:12 -0500 Subject: [governance] ICANN taxes/fees In-Reply-To: <45cb5afb.794f2601.3559.21f5@mx.google.com> References: <20070206231850.4CEA15C82@smtp2.electricembers.net> <45c9c6cd.6e6f5181.56d2.657b@mx.google.com> <2aa69fe40702071537u77c7e40fi5e171120f6e29e58@mail.gmail.com> <45CAF07B.6040509@bertola.eu> <45cb5afb.794f2601.3559.21f5@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <528A958E-3AF0-431C-9E53-46A0077F77BE@acm.org> On 8 feb 2007, at 11.46, veni markovski wrote: > It's not right to compare apples with pears. Comparing a TLD to > Wikipedia in gernal i am not sure that is it not right to compare apples and pears. - they are both fruit and have enough in common that comparing them is sometime reasonable: which is juicer, has more vitamin c, cost more ... now comparing a TLD and a Wikipedia may in some sense be too dismilar. but comparing the business involved in running a TLD to running a Wikipedia might not be. they are after all both businesses, in fact both business that use networks, and computer equipment and storage, trained personnel and ... ture they are dissimilar is several ways too, the product is different, response time is differnet, criticality of correct response is different ... certainly business school have assumed that the case study of one business is often very instructive in understand the principles that might apply to another business. of course this knowledge is always only analogous and it is important to understnad not only the similarities but the differences. once one does an adequate analysis of the similarity/dissimilarity, one then has a basis for knowing to which degree the comparisons made between the apple and the pear are reasonable. to say that no comparison is possible throws out almost all of current business theory. (which sounds like something i am more likely to do then you.) 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 veni at veni.com Thu Feb 8 12:57:45 2007 From: veni at veni.com (veni markovski) Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 12:57:45 -0500 Subject: [governance] ICANN taxes/fees In-Reply-To: <528A958E-3AF0-431C-9E53-46A0077F77BE@acm.org> References: <20070206231850.4CEA15C82@smtp2.electricembers.net> <45c9c6cd.6e6f5181.56d2.657b@mx.google.com> <2aa69fe40702071537u77c7e40fi5e171120f6e29e58@mail.gmail.com> <45CAF07B.6040509@bertola.eu> <45cb5afb.794f2601.3559.21f5@mx.google.com> <528A958E-3AF0-431C-9E53-46A0077F77BE@acm.org> Message-ID: <45cb6496.04b89c37.6ced.4444@mx.google.com> At 12:45 PM 2/8/2007 -0500, Avri Doria wrote: >to say that no comparison is possible throws out almost all of >current business theory. (which sounds like something i am more >likely to do then you.) Well, I try not to compare businesses which are different in their foundation, regardless of the fact that they seem similar. I still have not heard any fact on the "easiness" of running a TLD. I was on my way of writing something more substantive, including asking some of the registries about how "easy" it is, but then I just remembered, that it's not actually an argument or discusison. Milton already has had an opinion that "registries are not difficult to run". So, from then on no arguments will change his opinion. We all made mistakes from time to time, and in this case my mistake was to try to engage him in a conversation, while he's already made his mind. I decided to share some experience how difficult it is to run any business, but then I am being attacked on personal grounds, or on no ground at all. That's almost like Windows - you never know what's gonna happen to you, and it's always not fair. Sincerely, Veni Markovski http://www.veni.com check also my blog: http://blog.veni.com The opinions expressed above are those of the author, not of any organizations, associated with or related to the author in any given way. ____________________________________________________________ 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 Feb 8 13:13:10 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 13:13:10 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: ICANN taxes/fees In-Reply-To: <45cb5afc.6165ad82.3559.21f7@mx.google.com> References: <20070206231850.4CEA15C82@smtp2.electricembers.net> <45c9c6cd.6e6f5181.56d2.657b@mx.google.com> <2aa69fe40702071537u77c7e40fi5e171120f6e29e58@mail.gmail.com> <20070208090718.GA3832@nic.fr> <45caeefa.18952008.39ef.0754@mx.google.com> <20070208101336.GB11814@nic.fr> <45cb5afc.6165ad82.3559.21f7@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <5089EAF5-DD6A-482C-B3F6-C99835A8B0EA@psg.com> On 8 feb 2007, at 11.48, veni markovski wrote: > At 11:13 AM 2/8/2007 +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >> Several years spent supporting and helping ccTLDs in several >> continents? And talking with a lot of people? > No, no... Source means data, facts. Many (probably most) means some > exact number (e.g. 51%). Give some source, where this statement is > proven right. Or if there is no such data, just don't say "many > (probably most)". except for those absolute relativists among us (like me) who argue that there are no facts only impressions and things that seem to work (e.g. running code), most people accept that "fact" comes in several varieties. among those are statistical facts (the 51% fact-type you refer to) and anecdotal (the 'i have seen it with my own eyes' fact- type the SB & PR have been mentioning). And saying there is anecdotal evidence from many is a valid approximation to fact in many cases. often as well as one can do until there is a formal study taking many years and lots of money. do you have statistical facts to back up your position? 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 Thu Feb 8 13:14:22 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:14:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN taxes/fees In-Reply-To: <45cb6496.04b89c37.6ced.4444@mx.google.com> References: <20070206231850.4CEA15C82@smtp2.electricembers.net> <45c9c6cd.6e6f5181.56d2.657b@mx.google.com> <2aa69fe40702071537u77c7e40fi5e171120f6e29e58@mail.gmail.com> <45CAF07B.6040509@bertola.eu> <45cb5afb.794f2601.3559.21f5@mx.google.com> <528A958E-3AF0-431C-9E53-46A0077F77BE@acm.org> <45cb6496.04b89c37.6ced.4444@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <45CB687E.8010708@bertola.eu> veni markovski ha scritto: >> to say that no comparison is possible throws out almost all of >> current business theory. (which sounds like something i am more >> likely to do then you.) > > Well, I try not to compare businesses which are different in their > foundation, regardless of the fact that they seem similar. Ok, I will then clarify my comparison. To run a low-budget, no-frills TLD registry (with no registrars in the middle, such as .eu.org, or such as all those ccTLDs that were still using InterNIC's email forms a few years ago) you possibly need an online set of forms that authenticate end users and let them enter information into a database, which then, whenever someone connects to the servers with a DNS client, is interrogated by pieces of software that automatically generate a DNS reply. All of this with the highest throughput, redundancy and reliability possible. To run Wikipedia, instead, you need an online set of forms that authenticate end users and let them enter information into a database, which then, whenever someone connects to the servers with an HTTP client, is interrogated by pieces of software that automatically generate an HTTP reply. All of this with the highest throughput, redundancy and reliability possible. Assuming that you're doing the service for free and so there is no billing or customer relationships, what's the difference among the two? (I guess that your issue is that you see the two things from a business side, where they appear different, while I am seeing them from the technical side, where they are almost identical; unfortunately, while you can't have the business side without having the technical side attached behind, the fact that you put a business side on top of the technical side is entirely optional.) -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 wsis at ngocongo.org Thu Feb 8 14:16:26 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 20:16:26 +0100 Subject: [governance] RE: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Consultation on CSTD - Tuesday 13 February (13:30-15:00) In-Reply-To: <200702071911.l17JAr9I009550@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Message-ID: <200702081915.l18JFoTN027956@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, Just to complete my previous message, it seems that the CSTD Secretariat is still rather flexible and open on the various issues they want to discuss with NGOs on next Tuesday, in particular for the way to organise the CSTD Multi-Year programme of work, working methods and reporting activities on WSIS follow-up to the CSTD. There is therefore some good ground to influence and make proposals in this regard during this consultation, which might also serve as a brainstorming involving the CSTD Secretariat. The ECOSOC is actually currently meeting for its organisation session in New York, with the view to finalize its previously unfinished business. As regards WSIS related issues, it particularly includes: - Finalization of the transitional measure for the participation of WSIS accredited NGOs in the next two sessions of the CSTD (2007-2008); - Election of the additional 10 members of the CSTD; - Adoption of the report of the 9 th session of the CSTD (May 2006), including its proposed draft decision for adoption of the Council. Decisions on those three points are expected by tomorrow. As regards the multi-year programme of work of the CSTD, relevant paragraph of ECOSOC Resolution 2006/46 provide that “the Commission shall continue working on the basis of biennial action cycles” (para. 9) and that “at its next session the Commission shall develop its agenda and a multi-year work programme” (para. 10). Did anybody start drafting some elements on this issue? Same question regarding the reporting activities to the CSTD. What would be the best way to inform the Commission about the progresses of implementation in a comprehensive manner? How to prepare conclusions on “obstacles and constraints encountered, actions and initiatives to overcome them” (para.6-b)? CONGO is ready to start drafting and to share with you some points on the inclusion of NGOs in the next CSTD sessions. We would still be happy to get some initial views from you. All the best, Philippe Dam CONGO - WSIS CS Secretariat 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: wsis at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org _____ De : plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] De la part de CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam Envoyé : mercredi, 7. février 2007 20:11 À : plenary at wsis-cs.org; bureau at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc : 'Renate Bloem'; 'CONGO - Philippe Dam' Objet : [WSIS CS-Plenary] Consultation on CSTD - Tuesday 13 February (13:30-15:00) Dear all, This is a preliminary up date on the preparation of the briefing and consultation meeting on the 10th session of CSTD (Room XXIV, Palais des Nations). It will take place on Tuesday 13 February 2007 during lunchtime (13:30-15:00). Participation will be open mainly to CS entities and to the Private Sector. As previously mentioned, two issues will be addressed: - Briefing on the preparations for the up coming cluster of WSIS related events (CSTD and ALF meetings, May 2007) - Informal Consultation on the multi-year work programme and the methods of work of the CSTD. Participation will be open to all CS participants in the CSTD. For most of you, the registration to the IGF stock taking will allow you to access this meeting. For the other ones, we will make sure that you will be provided a badge (contact us: wsis at ngocongo.org). I think we should come to this briefing with some common understanding of the message we want to deliver to the CSTD Secretariat (and to some of the member States representatives who might pop in during the meeting) about the points which will be addressed. This includes the following main issues: - Preparation for the up coming 10th session of the CSTD and of the WSIS related cluster of events; For your information, the CSTD session will be held on 21-25 May; additionally some 8 ALF meetings might be held around that session. More information will follow. Up dated calendar: http://www.csbureau.info/posttunis.htm - Modalities for NGO/CS participation in the CSTD; - Other CSTD working methods for the follow up to WSIS (including reporting activities and relationship with other UN entities); - Multi-year programme of work of the CSTD. Based on the ECOSOC resolution renewing the CSTD mandate in July 2006, the Commission will work through biennial action cycle. The programme of work is still to be determined and the CSTD Panel in Paris (6-8 Nov. 2006) addressed this issue (see report of the CSTD Panel, http://www.unctad.org/sections/dite_dir/docs/dite_pcbb_stdev0045_en.pdf, read in particular pages 15-16). Please send us your contributions and comments on these issues. We will come back to you with more details. All the best, Philippe Dam CONGO - WSIS CS Secretariat 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: wsis at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org The Conference of NGOs (CONGO) is an international, membership association that facilitates the participation of NGOs in United Nations debates and decisions. Founded in 1948, CONGO's major objective is to ensure the presence of NGOs in exchanges among the world's governments and United Nations agencies on issues of global concern. For more information see our website at www.ngocongo.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ki_chango at yahoo.com Thu Feb 8 14:39:07 2007 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 11:39:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Re: ICANN taxes/fees In-Reply-To: <5089EAF5-DD6A-482C-B3F6-C99835A8B0EA@psg.com> Message-ID: <466059.45801.qm@web58709.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Hi, --- Avri Doria wrote: > > On 8 feb 2007, at 11.48, veni markovski wrote: > > At 11:13 AM 2/8/2007 +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > >> Several years spent supporting and helping ccTLDs in several > >> continents? And talking with a lot of people? > > > > No, no... Source means data, facts. Many (probably most) means > some > > exact number (e.g. 51%). Give some source, where this statement > is > > proven right. Or if there is no such data, just don't say "many > > (probably most)". > > except for those absolute relativists among us (like me) who argue > > that there are no facts only impressions and things that seem to > work > (e.g. running code), most people accept that "fact" comes in > several > varieties. among those are statistical facts (the 51% fact-type > you > refer to) and anecdotal (the 'i have seen it with my own eyes' > fact- > type the SB & PR have been mentioning). And saying there is > anecdotal > evidence from many is a valid approximation to fact in many cases. Avri, obviously not to someone who beleives that there is a global conspiracy against/in the subject matter, and who whether you say 2% or 98% will obviously not slightly change his mind! Mawaki > > often as well as one can do until there is a formal study taking > many > years and lots of money. > > do you have statistical facts to back up your position? > > 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 peter at echnaton.serveftp.com Thu Feb 8 15:00:44 2007 From: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com (Peter Dambier) Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 21:00:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: ICANN taxes/fees In-Reply-To: <45cb6018.25260065.6ebb.1f97@mx.google.com> References: <20070206231850.4CEA15C82@smtp2.electricembers.net> <45c9c6cd.6e6f5181.56d2.657b@mx.google.com> <2aa69fe40702071537u77c7e40fi5e171120f6e29e58@mail.gmail.com> <20070208090718.GA3832@nic.fr> <45caeefa.18952008.39ef.0754@mx.google.com> <20070208101336.GB11814@nic.fr> <45cb5afc.6165ad82.3559.21f7@mx.google.com> <45cb6018.25260065.6ebb.1f97@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <45CB816C.5050403@echnaton.serveftp.com> veni markovski wrote: > At 12:31 PM 2/8/2007 -0500, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law > wrote: > >> Personal experience IS data. Even in academia... > > > Sure - about one or two TLDs, or may be dozen. But I see nothing in > wrong in saying, "some of the TLDs", instead the unsupported with data > "many (probably most". The fact that someone says that most of the TLDs > have no 24x7 staff does not make this (that most of them have no staff) > a fact. Or you disagree again, just for the sake of the argument, and > regardless of the fact that so far no one has shown any data about the > "most of the TLDs". > > Just to help you a bit with numbers, I have started a scan over the root.zone as published by a.root-servers.net. I did find 65 errors. Most severe I think host_error("BW.","DAISY.EE.UND.AC.ZA.","Host not found"). host_error("GM.","NS2.NIC.GM.","Host not found"). host_error("SO.","MERCURY.ML.ORG.","Host not found"). host_error("VA.","DXMON.CERN.CH.","Host not found"). They are using nameservers that do not even exist. Next severe are things like error("ET.","NS1.GIP.NET.","204.59.144.222","no response"). error("ET.","NS2.GIP.NET.","204.59.1.222","no response"). error("ET.","NS3.GIP.NET.","204.59.64.222","no response"). error("MM.","NS-MM.RIPE.NET.","193.0.12.151","no response"). error("MM.","NS.NET.MM.","202.153.125.17","no dns"). error("MM.","NS0.MPT.NET.MM.","203.81.64.20","no soa"). ; <<>> DiG 9.4.0b4 <<>> -t any mm ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 64525 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 3, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;mm. IN ANY ;; ANSWER SECTION: mm. 50718 IN NS ns-mm.ripe.net. mm. 50718 IN NS ns.NET.mm. mm. 50718 IN NS NS0.MPT.NET.mm. ;; Query time: 8 msec ;; SERVER: 192.168.208.228#53(192.168.208.228) ;; WHEN: Thu Feb 8 20:55:03 2007 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 91 For MM that means you cannot reach them at all. I dont think they show 24 x 7 support but even if they had I dont think ICANN would talk to them. I see only the fellows who are showing errors. But I have seen analyzing root-servers from different root groups e.g. the Cesidian Root that you can run for a very long time without maintainance. So I guess from 65 errors there might be some 50 domains with problems few of them with more than one error but just as many of them with three errors. The domains with bad maintainance should be about five times as many - that is 250. ICANN has 265 domains excluding the root. Take away NET, COM, ORG, AERO, INFO then only 5 ccTLDs show 24 x 7 support. That is practically none. Even if my reasoning is mostly guesswork it suggests there are few ccTLDs that have 24 x 7 support and it is known many of them even have outsourced DNS completely. Kind regards Peter and Karin Dambier -- Peter and Karin Dambier Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana Rimbacher-Strasse 16 D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher +49(6209)795-816 (Telekom) +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com mail: peter at peter-dambier.de http://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ http://www.cesidianroot.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 ca at rits.org.br Thu Feb 8 20:16:39 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 23:16:39 -0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN taxes/fees In-Reply-To: <20070206231850.4CEA15C82@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20070206231850.4CEA15C82@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <45CBCB77.4010607@rits.org.br> Dear people, I have been just a lurker in the list lately, given my workload. Well, the IGF stock-taking meeting is near (starts Monday), and I tried to follow the list in the hope of catching up regarding all the procedural and strategic matters we need to handle towards IGF 2007, since I will be in Geneva for the stock-taking (learned I should go just last Friday). I find the dozens of messages regarding ICANN fees and how hard or how easy is to run a DNS server service, way off-focus in my opinion at least right now. In the meantime, a group of countries tries to get organized to insist that the IGF should be mainly a space for ICANN bashing and/or replacement, while other groups are preparing to propose that the main topics in Rio should be exactly the same as in Athens. A majority (Brazil not included) of GRULAC (the Latin American and Caribbean government group at the UN) members, for example, insist the agenda for Rio should be exactly as it was for Athens -- that generic, almost useless group of four topics: open standards, access, security, diversity... the weather, soccer, who won the lotto... If we continue this trend, we better turn IGF into an international old-timers' chat space (sponsored by the UN!) like the Brazilian Academy of Letters or some other sleepy, tea-soaked thing -- this way we would not need to worry about it anymore. Several post-Athens contributions are worried about format as well as content. My view is that we need a process in each meeting in which we arrive at thematic and procedural resolutions. Plenaries "moderated" (I prefer to say "manipulated") by professional TV hosts do not work well, and even scare some of the panelists (specially some of those whose native idiom is not English). We need thematic specialists as moderators, not "crowd handling" specialists or showmen -- it seemed the purpose here was to keep true debate dissolved into generalities. In my view, we main focus should be on thematic workshops with the goal of presenting a resolution proposal in the final plenary -- the main meetings would be shorter and would work just as "seeds" for the workshops. These would constitute the official set of recommendations from IGF. fraternal regards --c.a. Veni Markovski wrote: > At 06:01 PM 2/6/2007 -0500, Milton Mueller wrote: >> Registries are not difficult to run, > > Could you continue talking on this subject? Is it based on commercial > practices, or on existing registries, or on academic research? > > > Sincerely, > Veni Markovski > http://www.veni.com > > check also my blog: > http://blog.veni.com > > The opinions expressed above are those of the author, > not of any organizations, associated with or related to > the author in any given way. ____________________________________________________________ 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 Feb 9 05:59:10 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 05:59:10 -0500 Subject: [governance] Discussing the Agenda for Rio in Geneva Message-ID: Carlos's message is worth discussing seriously. I have done him the favor of changing the header. Dr. Milton Mueller Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://www.digital-convergence.org http://www.internetgovernance.org >>> ca at rits.org.br 02/08/07 8:16 PM >>> In the meantime, a group of countries tries to get organized to insist that the IGF should be mainly a space for ICANN bashing and/or replacement, while other groups are preparing to propose that the main topics in Rio should be exactly the same as in Athens. A majority (Brazil not included) of GRULAC (the Latin American and Caribbean government group at the UN) members, for example, insist the agenda for Rio should be exactly as it was for Athens -- that generic, almost useless group of four topics: open standards, access, security, diversity... the weather, soccer, who won the lotto... If we continue this trend, we better turn IGF into an international old-timers' chat space (sponsored by the UN!) like the Brazilian Academy of Letters or some other sleepy, tea-soaked thing -- this way we would not need to worry about it anymore. Several post-Athens contributions are worried about format as well as content. My view is that we need a process in each meeting in which we arrive at thematic and procedural resolutions. Plenaries "moderated" (I prefer to say "manipulated") by professional TV hosts do not work well, and even scare some of the panelists (specially some of those whose native idiom is not English). We need thematic specialists as moderators, not "crowd handling" specialists or showmen -- it seemed the purpose here was to keep true debate dissolved into generalities. In my view, we main focus should be on thematic workshops with the goal of presenting a resolution proposal in the final plenary -- the main meetings would be shorter and would work just as "seeds" for the workshops. These would constitute the official set of recommendations from IGF. fraternal regards --c.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 David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Fri Feb 9 12:46:10 2007 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 12:46:10 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: The nice thing about China... In-Reply-To: <20070206081028.GA23587@nic.fr> References: <20070203140037.3D033E1508@smtp3.electricembers.net> <20070205132108.GA28485@nic.fr> <20070206081028.GA23587@nic.fr> Message-ID: At 9:10 AM +0100 2/6/07, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 05:40:03PM -0500, > David Allen wrote > a message of 42 lines which said: > >>Interesting, isn't it, trying to get information when the language you must use seems, for you, like no more than so many squiggles on a page? > >Yes, but this is completely out of scope for ICANN (which, last time I checked does not regulate Web page contents and does not sheperd the HTML format or the HTTP protocol). > >Multilinguism on the Internet is indeed a very important thing, but it has nothing to do with ICANN (for good or for bad) and little to do with Internet governance. Chinese-speaking people write in Chinese on the Internet for many years. So what? In what way a governance mailing list like this one has anything to do about it? Glad you asked, since a quick reading of the earlier posts can miss what matters here. The problem is fully multilingual domains to put in the browser address bar - so ML.ML, all native characters, and not the last bit in Roman characters. The wo/man on the street - the taxi driver or doorman or your parents or the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker ... - sweats the squiggly stuff at the end of the address. Access for non-elites turns upon not having to coax a computer into coughing up a foreign language - foreign from the point of view of that user of course. That the page itself can be read in the native language - if it can be reached in the first place! - only makes foreign script in the address all the more an acute problem. (If by now you have read G Huston, you see in some detail.) How to accommodate this has indeed been a subject at ICANN since its inception meeting Singapore in 1999. Eight years later, now at the present, it is a subject of some activity at ICANN. The original post had to do with the power to exclude folks from the 'Net. That of course is governance. Not to mention that, for Rio IGF it appears that access will be overarching. So yes, the topic is central. This was in the original exchange of posts, if the message was condensed. Considering some of the other assertions made above, a quick review further: Hybrid-IDN (Internationalized Domain Names), that is ML.Roman, have launched in something like 150 plus languages over the past 7 years, to ~3 million end-users, half through Versign dot com and the other half through at least 40 national ccTLDs. But access depends on full ML, not hybrid. China has gone there, for its 1.3 billion. Other language groups are actively headed there, with the technology now fully demonstrated by an 'anchor tenant.' As originally pointed out, when China's work became known in the West, after two years of operation already (illustrating among others seamless interoperation with 'our' root), ICANN became alarmed and so especially active. >>Certainly, saying "nonsense" is a surefire way to get help, bound to make others think highly of the request. ;-) > >Exactly the same process that we often saw with the "alternative root" crowd. "We do not talk with people who disagree with us". Convenient. >>I could give you an, authoritative, three-sentence overview (have just done so offlist to a query) > >Non-public information is ignored. hmmm ... who is 'not talking with people' ... At 8:00 AM -0800 2/6/07, yehudakatz at mailinator.com wrote: >by Geoff Huston >December 2006 > > http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2006-12/idn.html Quite helpful to get the link. Geoff Huston does a first rate job, I think, informed, elegant writing, balanced, sensitive to the range of questions, exhaustive almost. Thanks indeed to him. I will note three additions / exceptions. 1 - The history recounted does not look before the last eight years. Indeed it does not credit the invention of the technology. The technology was available at the first ICANN meeting in Singapore March 1999, but spurned. After a year testbed of the technology set up in Asia, ICANN began active debate November 2000, a year and a half plus after Singapore. Later the technology became the basis for the IETF standard for IDN. It was the basis for hybrid-IDN that ICANN promulgated. It is the technology that has become prominent with China's use and is under active diffusion to other language scripts. Marking the point, only Western references are cited at the end. But the technology came from the East. 2 - The author is not quite correct in his description with 'plugin.' This raises the larger - interesting and pivotal - question of architecture, see below. 3 - The 'http://' issue has become effectively moot, with browsers that fill this in automatically. But these three points do not deflect from the quite significant contribution that Geoff Huston makes here. It is vital to have the resource he has created; he has done a key service. When we back up from it, we see there is a level of detail that some, at least, in the policy debate will not be inclined to engage. Fortunately, there is a level, up from that detail, where discussion can proceed. Certainly, we find key questions about overall architecture, when there is a confederation of roots, as has begun. Architecture gets us to the meat. But I can go only so far; we need someone with full command of the matter. Tan, Tin Wee, and Subbiah are the inventors. Subbiah and his company, i-dns.net, have brought the technology to China and other language groups. They developed the technology in the later 90's, offered it from the initial ICANN meeting on, and have shepherded it since. Subbiah can speak from 'the horse's mouth,' as we say. Some part of what I've posted above is thanks to him. Because a subscription to the list has taken a couple days, the prospect has been delayed. But now, Subbiah, are you there? David [For convenience so links are in one place: the previous link for the excellent detective work from Cambridge University - http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2006/03/01/new-chinese-tlds ] ____________________________________________________________ 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 subbiah at i-dns.net Fri Feb 9 13:37:00 2007 From: subbiah at i-dns.net (subbiah) Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 10:37:00 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: The nice thing about China... In-Reply-To: References: <20070203140037.3D033E1508@smtp3.electricembers.net> <20070205132108.GA28485@nic.fr> <20070206081028.GA23587@nic.fr> Message-ID: <45CCBF4C.7070703@i-dns.net> Hello Stephane and all concerned, As Dave points out, this is Subbiah. Being one of the co-inventors (with Prof. TW Tan and a number of our students in Singapore - I have been at various times co-appointed as a professor at Singapore and Stanford universities) of IDN back in 1997/1998 and incidentally the one who decided on and coined on the term IDN, I can certainly vouch for the mostly accurate recounting of early IDN by history by Dave. I am more than happy to answer any questions of that history or anything else in between since I have been involved all along through our company i-dns.net which together with early non-profit licensing by singapore university is responsible for pretty much all software and incarnations of IDN worldwide - either licensed (like Verisign and the Chinese govt), copied through our putting it in public domain/awareness and many educational workshops worldwide including at ICANN's first one in 2000, or simply stolen. We also chaired for many years the IETF working group that resulted in the IETF-standard of 2003 - which except for one minor formating diffrence was in the main identical to what the Singapore university team and I proposed in 1998/9 to ICANN and IETF and spurned for 2 years, while a 10-country, one year Asian testbed was conducted under the auspicies of APNG (see i-dns.org for testbed details). Cheers Subbiah David Allen wrote: >At 9:10 AM +0100 2/6/07, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > >>On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 05:40:03PM -0500, >>David Allen wrote >>a message of 42 lines which said: >> >> >> >>>Interesting, isn't it, trying to get information when the language you must use seems, for you, like no more than so many squiggles on a page? >>> >>> >>Yes, but this is completely out of scope for ICANN (which, last time I checked does not regulate Web page contents and does not sheperd the HTML format or the HTTP protocol). >> >>Multilinguism on the Internet is indeed a very important thing, but it has nothing to do with ICANN (for good or for bad) and little to do with Internet governance. Chinese-speaking people write in Chinese on the Internet for many years. So what? In what way a governance mailing list like this one has anything to do about it? >> >> > >Glad you asked, since a quick reading of the earlier posts can miss what matters here. > >The problem is fully multilingual domains to put in the browser address bar - so ML.ML, all native characters, and not the last bit in Roman characters. The wo/man on the street - the taxi driver or doorman or your parents or the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker ... - sweats the squiggly stuff at the end of the address. Access for non-elites turns upon not having to coax a computer into coughing up a foreign language - foreign from the point of view of that user of course. That the page itself can be read in the native language - if it can be reached in the first place! - only makes foreign script in the address all the more an acute problem. (If by now you have read G Huston, you see in some detail.) > >How to accommodate this has indeed been a subject at ICANN since its inception meeting Singapore in 1999. Eight years later, now at the present, it is a subject of some activity at ICANN. > >The original post had to do with the power to exclude folks from the 'Net. That of course is governance. Not to mention that, for Rio IGF it appears that access will be overarching. > >So yes, the topic is central. > >This was in the original exchange of posts, if the message was condensed. Considering some of the other assertions made above, a quick review further: > >Hybrid-IDN (Internationalized Domain Names), that is ML.Roman, have launched in something like 150 plus languages over the past 7 years, to ~3 million end-users, half through Versign dot com and the other half through at least 40 national ccTLDs. But access depends on full ML, not hybrid. China has gone there, for its 1.3 billion. Other language groups are actively headed there, with the technology now fully demonstrated by an 'anchor tenant.' As originally pointed out, when China's work became known in the West, after two years of operation already (illustrating among others seamless interoperation with 'our' root), ICANN became alarmed and so especially active. > > > >>>Certainly, saying "nonsense" is a surefire way to get help, bound to make others think highly of the request. ;-) >>> >>> >>Exactly the same process that we often saw with the "alternative root" crowd. "We do not talk with people who disagree with us". Convenient. >> >> > > > >>>I could give you an, authoritative, three-sentence overview (have just done so offlist to a query) >>> >>> >>Non-public information is ignored. >> >> > >hmmm ... who is 'not talking with people' ... > > > >At 8:00 AM -0800 2/6/07, yehudakatz at mailinator.com wrote: > > >>by Geoff Huston >>December 2006 >> >> http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2006-12/idn.html >> >> > >Quite helpful to get the link. > >Geoff Huston does a first rate job, I think, informed, elegant writing, balanced, sensitive to the range of questions, exhaustive almost. Thanks indeed to him. > >I will note three additions / exceptions. > >1 - The history recounted does not look before the last eight years. Indeed it does not credit the invention of the technology. > >The technology was available at the first ICANN meeting in Singapore March 1999, but spurned. After a year testbed of the technology set up in Asia, ICANN began active debate November 2000, a year and a half plus after Singapore. Later the technology became the basis for the IETF standard for IDN. It was the basis for hybrid-IDN that ICANN promulgated. It is the technology that has become prominent with China's use and is under active diffusion to other language scripts. > >Marking the point, only Western references are cited at the end. But the technology came from the East. > >2 - The author is not quite correct in his description with 'plugin.' This raises the larger - interesting and pivotal - question of architecture, see below. > >3 - The 'http://' issue has become effectively moot, with browsers that fill this in automatically. > >But these three points do not deflect from the quite significant contribution that Geoff Huston makes here. It is vital to have the resource he has created; he has done a key service. > >When we back up from it, we see there is a level of detail that some, at least, in the policy debate will not be inclined to engage. Fortunately, there is a level, up from that detail, where discussion can proceed. Certainly, we find key questions about overall architecture, when there is a confederation of roots, as has begun. Architecture gets us to the meat. > >But I can go only so far; we need someone with full command of the matter. > >Tan, Tin Wee, and Subbiah are the inventors. Subbiah and his company, i-dns.net, have brought the technology to China and other language groups. They developed the technology in the later 90's, offered it from the initial ICANN meeting on, and have shepherded it since. Subbiah can speak from 'the horse's mouth,' as we say. > >Some part of what I've posted above is thanks to him. Because a subscription to the list has taken a couple days, the prospect has been delayed. But now, Subbiah, are you there? > >David > >[For convenience so links are in one place: the previous link for the excellent detective work from Cambridge University - http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2006/03/01/new-chinese-tlds ] > > > >____________________________________________________________ >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 > > > -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.28/606 - Release Date: 12/28/2006 ____________________________________________________________ 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 Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Fri Feb 9 21:43:03 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 11:43:03 +0900 Subject: [governance] Stocktaking session synthesis paper released Message-ID: <45CD3137.2020805@Malcolm.id.au> The synthesis paper for the stocktaking session is now available on the IGF Web site, so go grab it. A quote from my commentary on it at http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/synthesis-paper-for-stocktaking-session: "In respect of the role of the IGF, the synthesis paper mischaracterises the position of those who argue (as I did) that the IGF ought to go further in developing a capacity to deliberate in a multi-stakeholder context and to make recommendations upon policy issues, rather than merely discussing them. The paper recounts without comment the erroneous view that this would be an expansion of the IGF's mission as agreed during the WSIS process. In any case, clearly there is no consensus on this point which means that it is likely that the status quo will be preserved. This is a textbook example of how a notionally impartial institution such as the first-appointed Advisory Group can come to exercise ongoing political power through the substantive implications of its early procedural decisions." -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ 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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org Sat Feb 10 04:56:01 2007 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 10:56:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: The nice thing about China... In-Reply-To: <45CCBF4C.7070703@i-dns.net> References: <20070203140037.3D033E1508@smtp3.electricembers.net> <20070205132108.GA28485@nic.fr> <20070206081028.GA23587@nic.fr> <45CCBF4C.7070703@i-dns.net> Message-ID: <20070210095601.GA23619@nic.fr> On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 10:37:00AM -0800, subbiah wrote a message of 159 lines which said: > I am more than happy to answer any questions of that history or > anything else in between since I have been involved all along > through our company i-dns.net which together with early non-profit > licensing by singapore university is responsible for pretty much all > software and incarnations of IDN worldwide ??? There are at least three independant free software IDN implementations (Verisign, GNU libidn and the JPRS kit). > the IETF-standard of 2003 - which except for one minor formating > diffrence was in the main identical to what the Singapore university > team and I proposed in 1998/9 to ICANN and IETF When I see that i-dns.net ships a custom name server (http://www.i-dns.net/support_download/downloads/sysadmin/enabling_unix_ibind.html), I strongly doubt it. The standard IDN, as specified in RFC 3490 is entirely client-side. I do note there is apparently no reference to RFC 3490 or other standards. I suspect that i-dns.net continues what was one of the big reasons for the IDN delay: selling dummy IDN domain names. > under the auspicies of APNG (see i-dns.org for testbed details). While trying to retrieve the URL: http://i-dns.org/ The following error was encountered: Unable to determine IP address from host name for i-dns.org The dnsserver returned: Server Failure: The name server was unable to process this query. This means that: The cache was not able to resolve the hostname presented in the URL. Check if the address is correct. ____________________________________________________________ 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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org Sat Feb 10 05:01:04 2007 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 11:01:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] The DNS root went down... Message-ID: <20070210100104.GA9079@sources.org> Not the ICANN one but ORSN is down since yesterday. The nice thing about alternative roots is that you have more fun than with the boring official root. Zero name server replied. Now, there is only one: % check_soa . There was no response from F.ORSN-SERVERS.NET There is no address for E.ORSN-SERVERS.NET D.ORSN-SERVERS.NET has serial number 2007013100 There is no address for C.ORSN-SERVERS.NET There is no address for B.ORSN-SERVERS.NET There is no address for A.ORSN-SERVERS.NET There is no address for M.ORSN-SERVERS.NET There was no response from L.ORSN-SERVERS.NET There is no address for K.ORSN-SERVERS.NET There was no response from J.ORSN-SERVERS.NET There was no response from H.ORSN-SERVERS.NET A.ORSN-SERVERS.NET, the primary, replies with "Server failure": % dig @A.ORSN-SERVERS.NET SOA . ; <<>> DiG 9.2.4 <<>> @A.ORSN-SERVERS.NET SOA . ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: SERVFAIL, id: 1763 ;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;. IN SOA ;; Query time: 104 msec ;; SERVER: 2001:8d0:0:3::100#53(A.ORSN-SERVERS.NET) ;; WHEN: Sat Feb 10 10:44:06 2007 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 17 Of course, I tried to mail the maintainers: ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- ----- Transcript of session follows ----- 554 5.0.0 MX list for orsn-servers.net. points back to gateway.hilcable.net 554 5.3.5 Local configuration error The Web site boldly says that everything is OK. Moral: managing a root is not so easy as it seems. Setting it up is easy. Maintaining it in the long term is more work (and wakefulness). ____________________________________________________________ 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 peter at echnaton.serveftp.com Sat Feb 10 05:53:34 2007 From: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com (Peter Dambier) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 11:53:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] The DNS root went down... In-Reply-To: <20070210100104.GA9079@sources.org> References: <20070210100104.GA9079@sources.org> Message-ID: <45CDA42E.3080202@echnaton.serveftp.com> I dont know what happened to them Status ORSN SOA error(".","a.orsn-servers.net","217.146.128.77","no response"). error(".","b.orsn-servers.net","62.116.33.87","no response"). error(".","c.orsn-servers.net","212.7.160.13","no response"). soa(".","2007013100","d.orsn-servers.net","195.226.7.66"). error(".","e.orsn-servers.net","213.161.0.90","no response"). error(".","f.orsn-servers.net","193.138.173.218","no response"). error(".","g.orsn-servers.net","82.102.0.9","no response"). soa(".","2007013100","h.orsn-servers.net","213.144.148.130"). error(".","j.orsn-servers.net","193.93.167.222","no response"). soa(".","2007013100","k.orsn-servers.net","217.173.157.225"). soa(".","2007013100","l.orsn-servers.net","192.83.249.100"). soa(".","2007013100","m.orsn-servers.net","213.145.82.34"). but they seem to come back. Thank you for telling them. Kind regards Peter and Karin Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > Not the ICANN one but ORSN is down since yesterday. > > The nice thing about alternative roots is that you have more fun than > with the boring official root. > > Zero name server replied. Now, there is only one: > > % check_soa . > There was no response from F.ORSN-SERVERS.NET > There is no address for E.ORSN-SERVERS.NET > D.ORSN-SERVERS.NET has serial number 2007013100 > There is no address for C.ORSN-SERVERS.NET > There is no address for B.ORSN-SERVERS.NET > There is no address for A.ORSN-SERVERS.NET > There is no address for M.ORSN-SERVERS.NET > There was no response from L.ORSN-SERVERS.NET > There is no address for K.ORSN-SERVERS.NET > There was no response from J.ORSN-SERVERS.NET > There was no response from H.ORSN-SERVERS.NET > > A.ORSN-SERVERS.NET, the primary, replies with "Server failure": > > % dig @A.ORSN-SERVERS.NET SOA . > > ; <<>> DiG 9.2.4 <<>> @A.ORSN-SERVERS.NET SOA . > ;; global options: printcmd > ;; Got answer: > ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: SERVFAIL, id: 1763 > ;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0 > > ;; QUESTION SECTION: > ;. IN SOA > > ;; Query time: 104 msec > ;; SERVER: 2001:8d0:0:3::100#53(A.ORSN-SERVERS.NET) > ;; WHEN: Sat Feb 10 10:44:06 2007 > ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 17 > > Of course, I tried to mail the maintainers: > > ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- > > > ----- Transcript of session follows ----- > 554 5.0.0 MX list for orsn-servers.net. points back to gateway.hilcable.net > 554 5.3.5 Local configuration error > > The Web site boldly says that everything is OK. > > Moral: managing a root is not so easy as it seems. Setting it up is > easy. Maintaining it in the long term is more work (and wakefulness). > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -- Peter and Karin Dambier Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana Rimbacher-Strasse 16 D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher +49(6209)795-816 (Telekom) +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com mail: peter at peter-dambier.de http://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ http://www.cesidianroot.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 peter at echnaton.serveftp.com Sat Feb 10 06:12:38 2007 From: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com (Peter Dambier) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 12:12:38 +0100 Subject: Sorry double post: [governance] The DNS root went down... In-Reply-To: <45CDA42E.3080202@echnaton.serveftp.com> References: <20070210100104.GA9079@sources.org> <45CDA42E.3080202@echnaton.serveftp.com> Message-ID: <45CDA8A6.2010203@echnaton.serveftp.com> Sorry for double posting. Kind regards Peter and Karin -- Peter and Karin Dambier Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana Rimbacher-Strasse 16 D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher +49(6209)795-816 (Telekom) +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com mail: peter at peter-dambier.de http://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ http://www.cesidianroot.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 peter at echnaton.serveftp.com Sat Feb 10 06:42:02 2007 From: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com (Peter Dambier) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 12:42:02 +0100 Subject: Sorry double post: [governance] The DNS root went down... In-Reply-To: <45CDA8A6.2010203@echnaton.serveftp.com> References: <20070210100104.GA9079@sources.org> <45CDA42E.3080202@echnaton.serveftp.com> <45CDA8A6.2010203@echnaton.serveftp.com> Message-ID: <45CDAF8A.2070306@echnaton.serveftp.com> Peter Dambier wrote: > Sorry for double posting. > > Kind regards > Peter and Karin > I am shure I have not sent it three times. I dont know what happened to my mailer. Sorry. -- Peter and Karin Dambier Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana Rimbacher-Strasse 16 D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher +49(6209)795-816 (Telekom) +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com mail: peter at peter-dambier.de http://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ http://www.cesidianroot.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 vb at bertola.eu Sat Feb 10 06:56:41 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 12:56:41 +0100 Subject: [governance] Statement for Feb 13, version 2 Message-ID: <45CDB2F9.60806@bertola.eu> All, this is the second version of the statement, incorporating all suggestions that were made (the ODT version has notes with the sources... and OpenOffice couldn't produce a working RTF so I used PDF). There are a couple of further notes: - I kept the original laundry list approach for themes, adding the "meta-governance" one, and for AG composition (where specifying which CS groups should be represented was objected to). - In the end, there were several objections to our recognition of the fourth stakeholder group, so I didn't add it. - I still don't know what to do about ICANN; I was waiting to see some discussion about the message by Carlos (noted again by Milton) but there was none. I would suggest that those who are strongly "for" or strongly "against" the IGC explicitly supporting "the nature of ICANN" as one of the themes for Rio just say it here, now, and Parminder and I will do a last minute consensus call on Monday. For the moment, I left the original text (which anyway calls for our inclusion in the "enhanced cooperation" process). In the meantime, I remind everyone that we are meeting as a caucus right at the end of the afternoon session (about 6pm) on Tuesday, with "Next steps to Rio" as the agenda. (BTW - does anyone know how could we get a room in the Palais? Otherwise we'll just move to the bar.) Thanks, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ 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: 20070213 - Statement of the IGC (v2).odt Type: application/octet-stream Size: 11577 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 20070213 - Statement of the IGC (v2).pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 41831 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Sat Feb 10 07:40:55 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 21:40:55 +0900 Subject: [governance] Statement for Feb 13, version 2 In-Reply-To: <45CDB2F9.60806@bertola.eu> References: <45CDB2F9.60806@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <45CDBD57.1090901@Malcolm.id.au> Vittorio Bertola wrote: > All, > > this is the second version of the statement, incorporating all > suggestions that were made (the ODT version has notes with the > sources... and OpenOffice couldn't produce a working RTF so I used PDF). Were you intending to make a 48-hour rough consensus call on this document Vittorio, as per the Charter? If so, now's the time. :-) (Thumbs up from me, by the way.) -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ 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 klohento at panos-ao.org Sat Feb 10 07:50:55 2007 From: klohento at panos-ao.org (Ken Lohento) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 13:50:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] Statement for Feb 13, version 2 In-Reply-To: <45CDB2F9.60806@bertola.eu> References: <45CDB2F9.60806@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <45CDBFAF.7040508@panos-ao.org> Hi all Thanks for that Vittorio. 1 quick comment: It's written: >Moreover, we express our dissatisfaction for the very limited representation of civil society in the first instance of the Advisory Group, which amounted to five > or less members over about forty. Why "five or less"? From the CS IG Caucus 5 people were selected and I know another person from Africa who is member of the Advisory Group and who is from civil society. I suggest we say "about 6". KL Vittorio Bertola a écrit : > All, > > this is the second version of the statement, incorporating all > suggestions that were made (the ODT version has notes with the > sources... and OpenOffice couldn't produce a working RTF so I used PDF). > > There are a couple of further notes: > > - I kept the original laundry list approach for themes, adding the > "meta-governance" one, and for AG composition (where specifying which > CS groups should be represented was objected to). > > - In the end, there were several objections to our recognition of the > fourth stakeholder group, so I didn't add it. > > - I still don't know what to do about ICANN; I was waiting to see some > discussion about the message by Carlos (noted again by Milton) but > there was none. I would suggest that those who are strongly "for" or > strongly "against" the IGC explicitly supporting "the nature of ICANN" > as one of the themes for Rio just say it here, now, and Parminder and > I will do a last minute consensus call on Monday. For the moment, I > left the original text (which anyway calls for our inclusion in the > "enhanced cooperation" process). > > In the meantime, I remind everyone that we are meeting as a caucus > right at the end of the afternoon session (about 6pm) on Tuesday, with > "Next steps to Rio" as the agenda. (BTW - does anyone know how could > we get a room in the Palais? Otherwise we'll just move to the bar.) > > 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 From vb at bertola.eu Sat Feb 10 08:26:10 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 14:26:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] Statement for Feb 13, version 2 In-Reply-To: <45CDBD57.1090901@Malcolm.id.au> References: <45CDB2F9.60806@bertola.eu> <45CDBD57.1090901@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <45CDC7F2.4050500@bertola.eu> Jeremy Malcolm ha scritto: > Were you intending to make a 48-hour rough consensus call on this > document Vittorio, as per the Charter? If so, now's the time. :-) Sorry, I forgot to explain how I want to proceed! I wanted to post this version and do double-checking in public (see Ken's note for example). In a couple of hours, if nothing significant happens (and I remind that I asked for suggestions by Wednesday, so I would consider further requests for non-minor edits a bit out of time) I will post a final version and give 48 hours in a formal call for objections. Separately, I have called for people to specifically say whether they are for or against modifying the text for what regards ICANN as a subject for Rio. That will have to be decided by me and Parminder according to the feedback on the list, since there is no time to wait for further discussion and then have a 48-hours call for objections (which can happen only when the coordinators determine that there is rough consensus, while here I would not know which rough consensus to call yet). If there will be significantly more people stating on the list that they are in favour of us saying "we want the ICANN structure discussed in Rio" than those who state they are against, I suppose we will decide to add it into the statement at the very last minute, building on our discretionality. Now to make things even clearer, this is the text that I would add, building on Adam's initial suggestion (more suggestions welcome), if consensus was for "yes": "We think that, as per comma (j) of the IGF mandate, the legal nature and working structure of ICANN should be among the matters discussed in Rio, as long as they do not prevent the IGF from paying adequate attention to all the other themes.". This would replace the part where we say there is no consensus among us on this, while I'd still keep the bit on making the enhanced cooperation process more transparent. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 nursesacrosstheborders at yahoo.com Sat Feb 10 08:30:04 2007 From: nursesacrosstheborders at yahoo.com (NURSES ACROSS THE BORDERS) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 05:30:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] congrats Message-ID: <20070210133004.89753.qmail@web34315.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I hope mine CONGRATULATIONS is not belated? Thanks to the Nom Com for a job well done Pastor Peters OMORAGBON Alumnus-OSI-LGI/MMCP Prgram 2007 National Coordiantor-Nigeria WSIS/ACSIS Executive President/CEO Nurses Across the Borders Humanitarian Initiative-Inc.-(Nigeria & U.S.A) An NGO On Special Consultative Status with The Economic and Social Council of the United Nations-(ECOSOC) Member(OBSERVER),United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 295, IKORODU ROAD, IDIROKO BUS STOP MARYLAND IKEJA LAGOS NIGERIA 350, MAIN STREET, EAST ORANGE NEW JERSEY 07018 U.S.A Tel:+234-1-812-8649, +234-1-818-6494,+234-802-308-5408(Mobile) FAX:+234-1-493-7203 Email:nursesacrosstheborders at yahoo.com URL: www.nursesacrosstheborders.4t.com ----- Original Message ---- From: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Nnenna Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2007 3:36:04 PM Subject: Re: [governance] The result of Appeal Team selection Thumbs up to NomCom for coming out with an inclusive Appeal team. This is more so, when we consider that 40 percent of the new Appeal team is feminine and that the same percentage is of African origine. This show how open minded, persons, the team at Nomcom are. This augurs well for the IG process that has to be inclusive in its deliberations. I wish the team good luck and conngratulations to Nenna for sailing through. On 2/8/07, Nnenna wrote: > > My congratulations to the NomCom and to the 'panel of judges' > > Nnenna > > > Rishi Chawla, Asia, M > Willie Currie, Africa, M > Avri Doria, North America/Europe, F > Nnenna Nwaknma, Africa, F > Jeremy Shtern, North America, M > > > > > > ________________________________ > Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President ASAFE Tel. 237 337 50 22 Fax. 237 342 29 70 ____________________________________________________________ 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 ____________________________________________________________________________________ We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265 ____________________________________________________________ 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 Sat Feb 10 11:02:34 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 17:02:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - Statement for the IGF consultations Message-ID: <45CDEC9A.5080404@bertola.eu> All, I am attaching the (expectedly) final version of our statement for Tuesday, and launching a formal consensus call on it. Please anyone who wishes to express consensus on the statement, or anyone having strong objections to it, say so before Monday, 4pm UTC. (I would ask people to live by the statement if they really do not have strong objections, all in all I think it reflects the discussion so far.) The only changes in this version, in respect to the one posted a few hours ago, are Ken's note on the number of CS members (which became "about five" from "five or less") and two lines by Parminder on IGF funding at the end of the first page (pretty neutral I'd say). Anyway, I left all redlining in respect to version 1. Separately, I am still asking people to state consensus or opposition (if having a clear opinion) on the addition of the sentence "We think that, as per comma (j) of the IGF mandate, the legal nature and working structure of ICANN should be among the matters discussed in Rio, as long as this does not prevent the IGF from paying adequate attention to all the other themes.", in replacement of "Inside civil society, there are different points of view about this matter;", in the second-last para. This will shape another decision by the coordinators on Monday afternoon. Thanks, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ 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: 20070213 - Statement of the IGC (v3).odt Type: application/octet-stream Size: 11733 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 20070213 - Statement of the IGC (v3).pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 42272 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ca at rits.org.br Sat Feb 10 13:48:18 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 16:48:18 -0200 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - Statement for the IGF consultations In-Reply-To: <45CDEC9A.5080404@bertola.eu> References: <45CDEC9A.5080404@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <45CE1372.2020002@rits.org.br> Vittorio and all, I could not participate in the discussions leading to this document (my fault), so I would not try and change much. At least one observation/suggestion however: could we at least elaborate a little on how we envision IGF as a process? It is not satisfactory to just say "we will be pleased to provide more details on request" and say nothing else. I suggest we at least stress the importante of, once the themes are established (and I truly hope these will be stated in more than a single word -- btw, contrary to my view, our document seems satisfied to keep the themes at the most vague level), a work plan is established between meetings to engage specialists in elaborating documentation and proposals in a systematic way. It is not enough to put a sign saying "we are open to contributions" and just wait, like the "process" leading to Athens did. We did this organized elaboration in WGIG and was the only way we managed to arrive at meaningful conclusions at the end of the process. No nice or deep discourse during the meeting in plenaries will replace a previous colaborative work sparked/oriented by specialists' proposals on each theme. Even less if "moderated" (manipulated?) by TV hosts. fraternal regards --c.a. Vittorio Bertola wrote: > All, > > I am attaching the (expectedly) final version of our statement for > Tuesday, and launching a formal consensus call on it. > > Please anyone who wishes to express consensus on the statement, or > anyone having strong objections to it, say so before Monday, 4pm UTC. (I > would ask people to live by the statement if they really do not have > strong objections, all in all I think it reflects the discussion so far.) > > The only changes in this version, in respect to the one posted a few > hours ago, are Ken's note on the number of CS members (which became > "about five" from "five or less") and two lines by Parminder on IGF > funding at the end of the first page (pretty neutral I'd say). Anyway, I > left all redlining in respect to version 1. > > Separately, I am still asking people to state consensus or opposition > (if having a clear opinion) on the addition of the sentence "We think > that, as per comma (j) of the IGF mandate, the legal nature and working > structure of ICANN should be among the matters discussed in Rio, as long > as this does not prevent the IGF from paying adequate attention to all > the other themes.", in replacement of "Inside civil society, there are > different points of view about this matter;", in the second-last para. > This will shape another decision by the coordinators on Monday afternoon. > > Thanks, > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.33/678 - Release Date: 9/2/2007 16:06 -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Carlos A. Afonso diretor de planejamento Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits http://www.rits.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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Sat Feb 10 14:07:32 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 11:07:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Re: Fully Internationalized-Canonical-Order IDNs In-Reply-To: 45CCBF4C.7070703@i-dns.net Message-ID: Hello Subbiah, 1. Could you please tell me if you are aware of an RFC or Other Proposal for the Conical Name Order �EXTENTIONS� for iDNS or Other Formats? [m17n, i18n, L10n or other basis/ e.g.: Internationalization Tag Set (ITS)]. I am looking for a List similar to: Country Codes from ISO 3166 http://www.freesoft.org/CIE/RFC/1700/39.htm Only my list would have the �Conical Internationalized Extension� Like this :( A list of transliterations of: .Com/.Net/.Org - equivalents) Expl.: Big5, CJK, English, etc. Iterations Conical Internationalized Extension� Language/Country Country A 2 A 3 Number ---------------------------------------------------------------------- .COM = CHINA 造字 造字? 156 HONG KONG ?? ??? 344 JAPAN 日本 日本? 392 KOREA, DEM PEOPLE'S Rep OF ?? ??? 408 KOREA, REPUBLIC OF ?? ??? 410 SINGAPORE ?? ??? 702 UNITED STATES N/A COM 840 -- .NET = CHINA 造字 造字? 156 HONG KONG ?? ??? 344 JAPAN 日本 日本? 392 KOREA, DEM PEOPLE'S Rep OF ?? ??? 408 KOREA, REPUBLIC OF ?? ??? 410 SINGAPORE ?? ??? 702 UNITED STATES N/A NET 840 -- .ORG = CHINA 造字 造字? 156 HONG KONG ?? ??? 344 JAPAN 日本 日本? 392 KOREA, DEM PEOPLE'S Rep OF ?? ??? 408 KOREA, REPUBLIC OF ?? ??? 410 SINGAPORE ?? ??? 702 UNITED STATES N/A ORG 840 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 2. Is a fundamental-problem, getting a fully internationalized-canonical-order IDN to work with DNSSEC ? -- Ref.: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2535.html RFC 2535 DNS Security Extensions March 1999 � 8.2 Canonical DNS Name Order For purposes of DNS security, the canonical ordering of owner names is to sort individual labels as unsigned left justified octet strings where the absence of a octet sorts before a zero value octet and upper case letters are treated as lower case letters. Names in a zone are sorted by sorting on the highest level label and then, within those names with the same highest level label by the next lower label, etc. down to leaf node labels. Within a zone, the zone name itself always exists and all other names are the zone name with some prefix of lower level labels. Thus the zone name itself always sorts first. Example: foo.example a.foo.example yljkjljk.a.foo.example Z.a.foo.example zABC.a.FOO.EXAMPLE z.foo.example *.z.foo.example \200.z.foo.example 8.3 Canonical RR Ordering Within An RRset Within any particular owner name and type, RRs are sorted by RDATA as a left justified unsigned octet sequence where the absence of an octet sorts before the zero octet. 8.4 Canonical Ordering of RR Types When RRs of the same name but different types must be ordered, they are ordered by type, considering the type to be an unsigned integer, except that SIG RRs are placed immediately after the type they cover. Thus, for example, an A record would be put before an MX record because A is type 1 and MX is type 15 but if both were signed, the order would be A < SIG(A) < MX < SIG(MX). -- End ____________________________________________________________ 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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Sat Feb 10 14:22:52 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 11:22:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Re: Fully Internationalized-Canonical-Order IDNs In-Reply-To: 45CCBF4C.7070703@i-dns.net Message-ID: [governance] Re: Fully Internationalized-Canonical-Order IDNs Hello Subbiah, 1. Could you please tell me if you are aware of an RFC or Other Proposal for the Conical Name Order �EXTENTIONS� for iDNS or Other Formats? [m17n, i18n, L10n or other basis/ e.g.: Internationalization Tag Set (ITS)]. I am looking for a List similar to: Country Codes from ISO 3166 http://www.freesoft.org/CIE/RFC/1700/39.htm Only my list would have the �Conical Internationalized Extension� Like this :( A list of transliterations of: .Com/.Net/.Org - equivalents) Example: Big5, CJK, English, etc. Iterations Conical Internationalized Extension� Language/Country Country A 2 A 3 Number ---------------------------------------------------------------------- .COM = CHINA 造字 造字? 156 HONG KONG ?? ??? 344 JAPAN 日本 日本? 392 KOREA, DEM PEOPLE'S REP OF ?? ??? 408 KOREA, REPUBLIC OF ?? ??? 410 SINGAPORE ?? ??? 702 UNITED STATES N/A COM 840 -- .NET = CHINA 造字 造字? 156 HONG KONG ?? ??? 344 JAPAN 日本 日本? 392 KOREA, DEM PEOPLE'S REP OF ?? ??? 408 KOREA, REPUBLIC OF ?? ??? 410 SINGAPORE ?? ??? 702 UNITED STATES N/A COM 840 -- .ORG = CHINA 造字 造字? 156 HONG KONG ?? ??? 344 JAPAN 日本 日本? 392 KOREA, DEM PEOPLE'S REP OF ?? ??? 408 KOREA, REPUBLIC OF ?? ??? 410 SINGAPORE ?? ??? 702 UNITED STATES N/A COM 840 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 2. Is a fundamental-problem, getting a fully internationalized IDN to work with DNSSEC ? -- Ref.: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2535.html RFC 2535 DNS Security Extensions March 1999 � 8.2 Canonical DNS Name Order For purposes of DNS security, the canonical ordering of owner names is to sort individual labels as unsigned left justified octet strings where the absence of a octet sorts before a zero value octet and upper case letters are treated as lower case letters. Names in a zone are sorted by sorting on the highest level label and then, within those names with the same highest level label by the next lower label, etc. down to leaf node labels. Within a zone, the zone name itself always exists and all other names are the zone name with some prefix of lower level labels. Thus the zone name itself always sorts first. Example: foo.example a.foo.example yljkjljk.a.foo.example Z.a.foo.example zABC.a.FOO.EXAMPLE z.foo.example *.z.foo.example \200.z.foo.example 8.3 Canonical RR Ordering Within An RRset Within any particular owner name and type, RRs are sorted by RDATA as a left justified unsigned octet sequence where the absence of an octet sorts before the zero octet. 8.4 Canonical Ordering of RR Types When RRs of the same name but different types must be ordered, they are rdered by type, considering the type to be an unsigned integer, except that SIG RRs are placed immediately after the type they cover. Thus, for example, an A record would be put before an MX record because A is type 1 and MX is type 15 but if both were signed, the order would be A < SIG(A) < MX < SIG(MX). -- End ____________________________________________________________ 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 Sat Feb 10 14:46:45 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 22:46:45 +0300 Subject: [governance] Statement for Feb 13, version 2 In-Reply-To: <45CDBFAF.7040508@panos-ao.org> References: <45CDB2F9.60806@bertola.eu> <45CDBFAF.7040508@panos-ao.org> Message-ID: Hi Ken, On 2/10/07, Ken Lohento wrote: > Hi all > > Thanks for that Vittorio. 1 quick comment: > > It's written: > > >Moreover, we express our dissatisfaction for the very limited > representation of civil society in the first instance of the Advisory > Group, which amounted to five > > or less members over about forty. > > Why "five or less"? From the CS IG Caucus 5 people were selected and I > know another person from Africa who is member of the Advisory Group and > who is from civil society. I suggest we say "about 6". How about 12?? I am sure we already had this discussion, and never decided how to decide how to count who was CS and who wasn't. Or was that a parallel universe I visit? How about we drop this para altogether? -- 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 Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Sat Feb 10 18:38:08 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 08:38:08 +0900 Subject: [governance] Statement for Feb 13, version 2 In-Reply-To: <45CDC7F2.4050500@bertola.eu> References: <45CDB2F9.60806@bertola.eu> <45CDBD57.1090901@Malcolm.id.au> <45CDC7F2.4050500@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <45CE5760.8090103@Malcolm.id.au> Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Now to make things even clearer, this is the text that I would add, > building on Adam's initial suggestion (more suggestions welcome), if > consensus was for "yes": "We think that, as per comma (j) of the IGF > mandate, the legal nature and working structure of ICANN should be among > the matters discussed in Rio, as long as they do not prevent the IGF > from paying adequate attention to all the other themes.". This would > replace the part where we say there is no consensus among us on this, > while I'd still keep the bit on making the enhanced cooperation process > more transparent. I am mildly in favour. -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ 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 Feb 10 19:03:13 2007 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 01:03:13 +0100 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - Statement for the IGF consultations In-Reply-To: <45CDEC9A.5080404@bertola.eu> References: <45CDEC9A.5080404@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <45CE5D41.1080704@wz-berlin.de> Hi Vittorio, thank you for drafting the statement. Personally I think it is too epic, I prefer short and concise statements. If we keep it short, chances are better that people read it. I am also not happy with the order of the points made in the statement. For me, one of the crucial points is that the IGF takes seriously all parts of the mandate. In the draft statement, this issue is mentioned only towards the bottom of page two. Im my view, this makes this issue look less important than, for example the lunch break you mention on the first page. Some things I find unclear. For example, what do you mean by "more traditional plenary sessions"? Did we ever discuss this here? Without knowing what you mean by this, I cannot support it. I also don't know how you want to integrate the workshops with the main sessions of the IGF. After all, workshops were suggested bottom up, not top down. The secretariat tried to merge workshops, not always successfully. One cannot really force organizers to merge or to implement the multi-stakeholder principles, can one? The sentence about funding I find a bit preposterous. Could we please delete it? (Trying to secure funding was one of the main activities of the secretariat. They must think we are kidding...) I would also suggest to delete the language about "narrow Internet Governance" as a topic for IGF. As far as I can see, there is no message in it. jeanette Vittorio Bertola wrote: > All, > > I am attaching the (expectedly) final version of our statement for > Tuesday, and launching a formal consensus call on it. > > Please anyone who wishes to express consensus on the statement, or > anyone having strong objections to it, say so before Monday, 4pm UTC. (I > would ask people to live by the statement if they really do not have > strong objections, all in all I think it reflects the discussion so far.) > > The only changes in this version, in respect to the one posted a few > hours ago, are Ken's note on the number of CS members (which became > "about five" from "five or less") and two lines by Parminder on IGF > funding at the end of the first page (pretty neutral I'd say). Anyway, I > left all redlining in respect to version 1. > > Separately, I am still asking people to state consensus or opposition > (if having a clear opinion) on the addition of the sentence "We think > that, as per comma (j) of the IGF mandate, the legal nature and working > structure of ICANN should be among the matters discussed in Rio, as long > as this does not prevent the IGF from paying adequate attention to all > the other themes.", in replacement of "Inside civil society, there are > different points of view about this matter;", in the second-last para. > This will shape another decision by the coordinators on Monday afternoon. > > 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 From mgurst at vcn.bc.ca Sat Feb 10 22:09:52 2007 From: mgurst at vcn.bc.ca (mgurst at vcn.bc.ca) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 19:09:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Statement for Feb 13, version 2 In-Reply-To: <45CDB2F9.60806@bertola.eu> References: <45CDB2F9.60806@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <38017.203.114.48.94.1171163392.squirrel@mail.vcn.bc.ca> Colleagues, I think it is well to recognize that all of these discussions are taking place "in real time", that is, the Internet world is evolving in its own ways and at its own speed irrespective of the deliberations of the IGF etc. and that these discussions would be well advised to take account of these developments and adjust themselves accordingly. I've been travelling/conferencing in Asia for the last several weeks and have had an opportunity to sit in on a variety of discussions/presentations concerning the plans/programs which are emerging in many of the countries in the region. What is evident from these, and what wasn't evident even as recently as WSIS is the degree to which the governments in South Asia (and one would expect similar developments in other LDC's where there is sufficient infrastructure) are moving into electronically enabled e-Government service delivery as significant elements in overall government service (and economic and social development) programming and planning. >From the stupendously ambitious e-services program in India (one e-services centre for every 5000 rural residents--80% of India's (1.2 billion) population is rural), to counterpart programs in Bangla Desh and Sri Lanka and what appear on first glance to be even more pro-active and ambitious programs in Malaysia and the Philippines, major Internet (ICT) enabled developments (of profound local/national significance) are afoot in the region. Issues of data integrity, security and privacy come immediately to mind but perhaps even more important the (perhaps accidental) ambiguity of the term "Internet Governance" comes to the fore. Most of the folks on this list and in the IGF in general seem to have understood that "Internet Governance" referred to the "governance of the Internet". My guess is that in the very near future at least numerically, the issues of "Internet Governance" as "governance by/through the Internet" (and all that that implies) will be of equal or greater importance. The agenda for a forum on "Internet Governance" defined in this latter way would necessarily include issues of for example: * democratic and grassroots participation * multi-lingualism * access/digital/physical/literacy divides * quality standards and controls * evaluation and feedback and ensuring/enforcing accountability and transparency ...among others... These issues are one's which have traditionally engaged civil society and notably civil society is emerging as partners in the variety of these national initiatives (Parminder's home organization, IT for Change being one among a vast number of national NGO players in India, as an example). Any space on the agenda in Rio (or in the caucus statement) for a discussion of any of the multitude of issues arising from any of this? Mike Gurstein Best to all, Mike Gurstein > All, > > this is the second version of the statement, incorporating all > suggestions that were made (the ODT version has notes with the > sources... and OpenOffice couldn't produce a working RTF so I used PDF). > > There are a couple of further notes: > > - I kept the original laundry list approach for themes, adding the > "meta-governance" one, and for AG composition (where specifying which CS > groups should be represented was objected to). > > - In the end, there were several objections to our recognition of the > fourth stakeholder group, so I didn't add it. > > - I still don't know what to do about ICANN; I was waiting to see some > discussion about the message by Carlos (noted again by Milton) but there > was none. I would suggest that those who are strongly "for" or strongly > "against" the IGC explicitly supporting "the nature of ICANN" as one of > the themes for Rio just say it here, now, and Parminder and I will do a > last minute consensus call on Monday. For the moment, I left the > original text (which anyway calls for our inclusion in the "enhanced > cooperation" process). > > In the meantime, I remind everyone that we are meeting as a caucus right > at the end of the afternoon session (about 6pm) on Tuesday, with "Next > steps to Rio" as the agenda. (BTW - does anyone know how could we get a > room in the Palais? Otherwise we'll just move to the bar.) > > Thanks, > -- > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Sat Feb 10 22:28:43 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (l.d.misek-falkoff) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 22:28:43 -0500 Subject: [governance] Statement for Feb 13, version 2 In-Reply-To: <38017.203.114.48.94.1171163392.squirrel@mail.vcn.bc.ca> References: <45CDB2F9.60806@bertola.eu> <38017.203.114.48.94.1171163392.squirrel@mail.vcn.bc.ca> Message-ID: <8cbfe7410702101928r1b4514b3ue0bcd9dad12d8d99@mail.gmail.com> Dear Colleagues and Friends, comment on comments: It is truly nice to see reinstated for possible, that is possible, consideration, some of what others might feel (if they say so) are old-timer chat *thangs.* Actually, at Athens IGF-The-First - oldfogeys and youngfogeys had what seemed a great time together, while midfogeys could be said to be staying rather aloof. If one wanted to say that. BecauseI I qualify on the timers time line, whether i want to or not, a bit more of a note of appreciation. In the main the fundament issues were indeed part of the "Computer Revolution" of 1964. An example of why some topics will be forever rebirthing or at least ash-arising as to network expansions and shrinkings. Of course they aren't the only ones. Life being a spiral not a circle. Recent posts suggesting aspects of what one may tag for the occasion as "self-organizing systems" are terrific reads, and a visit to the *Malcolm*e-terrain (.au) could be an award for performance or at least attendance in various types of contemporary town halls. A 'ticket to ride' to oases of splendid thinking and great family fotos - in real-enuf intervals.. Warm regards, Linda. Dr. L. D. Misek-Falkoff. On 2/10/07, mgurst at vcn.bc.ca wrote: > > Colleagues, > > I think it is well to recognize that all of these discussions are taking > place "in real time", that is, the Internet world is evolving in its own > ways and at its own speed irrespective of the deliberations of the IGF > etc. and that these discussions would be well advised to take account of > these developments and adjust themselves accordingly. > > I've been travelling/conferencing in Asia for the last several weeks and > have had an opportunity to sit in on a variety of > discussions/presentations concerning the plans/programs which are emerging > in many of the countries in the region. > > What is evident from these, and what wasn't evident even as recently as > WSIS is the degree to which the governments in South Asia (and one would > expect similar developments in other LDC's where there is sufficient > infrastructure) are moving into electronically enabled e-Government > service delivery as significant elements in overall government service > (and economic and social development) programming and planning. > > From the stupendously ambitious e-services program in India (one > e-services centre for every 5000 rural residents--80% of India's (1.2 > billion) population is rural), to counterpart programs in Bangla Desh and > Sri Lanka and what appear on first glance to be even more pro-active and > ambitious programs in Malaysia and the Philippines, major Internet (ICT) > enabled developments (of profound local/national significance) are afoot > in the region. > > Issues of data integrity, security and privacy come immediately to mind > but perhaps even more important the (perhaps accidental) ambiguity of the > term "Internet Governance" comes to the fore. Most of the folks on this > list and in the IGF in general seem to have understood that "Internet > Governance" referred to the "governance of the Internet". My guess is that > in the very near future at least numerically, the issues of "Internet > Governance" as "governance by/through the Internet" (and all that that > implies) will be of equal or greater importance. > > The agenda for a forum on "Internet Governance" defined in this latter way > would necessarily include issues of for example: > * democratic and grassroots participation > * multi-lingualism > * access/digital/physical/literacy divides > * quality standards and controls > * evaluation and feedback and ensuring/enforcing accountability and > transparency > ...among others... > > These issues are one's which have traditionally engaged civil society and > notably civil society is emerging as partners in the variety of these > national initiatives (Parminder's home organization, IT for Change being > one among a vast number of national NGO players in India, as an example). > > Any space on the agenda in Rio (or in the caucus statement) for a > discussion of any of the multitude of issues arising from any of this? > > Mike Gurstein > > > > > > Best to all, > > Mike Gurstein > > > All, > > > > this is the second version of the statement, incorporating all > > suggestions that were made (the ODT version has notes with the > > sources... and OpenOffice couldn't produce a working RTF so I used PDF). > > > > There are a couple of further notes: > > > > - I kept the original laundry list approach for themes, adding the > > "meta-governance" one, and for AG composition (where specifying which CS > > groups should be represented was objected to). > > > > - In the end, there were several objections to our recognition of the > > fourth stakeholder group, so I didn't add it. > > > > - I still don't know what to do about ICANN; I was waiting to see some > > discussion about the message by Carlos (noted again by Milton) but there > > was none. I would suggest that those who are strongly "for" or strongly > > "against" the IGC explicitly supporting "the nature of ICANN" as one of > > the themes for Rio just say it here, now, and Parminder and I will do a > > last minute consensus call on Monday. For the moment, I left the > > original text (which anyway calls for our inclusion in the "enhanced > > cooperation" process). > > > > In the meantime, I remind everyone that we are meeting as a caucus right > > at the end of the afternoon session (about 6pm) on Tuesday, with "Next > > steps to Rio" as the agenda. (BTW - does anyone know how could we get a > > room in the Palais? Otherwise we'll just move to the bar.) > > > > Thanks, > > -- > > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 mgurst at vcn.bc.ca Sat Feb 10 23:24:10 2007 From: mgurst at vcn.bc.ca (mgurst at vcn.bc.ca) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 20:24:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Statement for Feb 13, version 2 In-Reply-To: <38017.203.114.48.94.1171163392.squirrel@mail.vcn.bc.ca> References: <45CDB2F9.60806@bertola.eu> <38017.203.114.48.94.1171163392.squirrel@mail.vcn.bc.ca> Message-ID: <35288.203.114.48.94.1171167850.squirrel@mail.vcn.bc.ca> I should also have mentioned that my visit to India was primarily to participate in an extremely interesting event hosted by IT for Change (Parminder, Anita Gurumurthy and their delightful colleagues) in Bangalore on "Development in the Information Society – Exploring a Social Policy Framework" which provided an extra-ordinary window on the very rapidly developing ICT for Development activities in India (and beyond) from a Social Policy perspective. Hopefully the papers from this event will be available soon. This was very nicely complimented by the e-Asia 2007 conference in Kuala Lumpur and particularly the Telecentre track, with the overall event being in part presented as a pre-cursor to Global Knowledge III (to be hosted by the Global Knowledge Partnership in Kuala Lumpur in Dec. 2007). MG > Colleagues, > > I think it is well to recognize that all of these discussions are taking > place "in real time", that is, the Internet world is evolving in its own > ways and at its own speed irrespective of the deliberations of the IGF > etc. and that these discussions would be well advised to take account of > these developments and adjust themselves accordingly. > > I've been travelling/conferencing in Asia for the last several weeks and > have had an opportunity to sit in on a variety of > discussions/presentations concerning the plans/programs which are emerging > in many of the countries in the region. > > What is evident from these, and what wasn't evident even as recently as > WSIS is the degree to which the governments in South Asia (and one would > expect similar developments in other LDC's where there is sufficient > infrastructure) are moving into electronically enabled e-Government > service delivery as significant elements in overall government service > (and economic and social development) programming and planning. > >>From the stupendously ambitious e-services program in India (one > e-services centre for every 5000 rural residents--80% of India's (1.2 > billion) population is rural), to counterpart programs in Bangla Desh and > Sri Lanka and what appear on first glance to be even more pro-active and > ambitious programs in Malaysia and the Philippines, major Internet (ICT) > enabled developments (of profound local/national significance) are afoot > in the region. > > Issues of data integrity, security and privacy come immediately to mind > but perhaps even more important the (perhaps accidental) ambiguity of the > term "Internet Governance" comes to the fore. Most of the folks on this > list and in the IGF in general seem to have understood that "Internet > Governance" referred to the "governance of the Internet". My guess is that > in the very near future at least numerically, the issues of "Internet > Governance" as "governance by/through the Internet" (and all that that > implies) will be of equal or greater importance. > > The agenda for a forum on "Internet Governance" defined in this latter way > would necessarily include issues of for example: > * democratic and grassroots participation > * multi-lingualism > * access/digital/physical/literacy divides > * quality standards and controls > * evaluation and feedback and ensuring/enforcing accountability and > transparency > ...among others... > > These issues are one's which have traditionally engaged civil society and > notably civil society is emerging as partners in the variety of these > national initiatives (Parminder's home organization, IT for Change being > one among a vast number of national NGO players in India, as an example). > > Any space on the agenda in Rio (or in the caucus statement) for a > discussion of any of the multitude of issues arising from any of this? > > Mike Gurstein > > > > > > Best to all, > > Mike Gurstein > >> All, >> >> this is the second version of the statement, incorporating all >> suggestions that were made (the ODT version has notes with the >> sources... and OpenOffice couldn't produce a working RTF so I used PDF). >> >> There are a couple of further notes: >> >> - I kept the original laundry list approach for themes, adding the >> "meta-governance" one, and for AG composition (where specifying which CS >> groups should be represented was objected to). >> >> - In the end, there were several objections to our recognition of the >> fourth stakeholder group, so I didn't add it. >> >> - I still don't know what to do about ICANN; I was waiting to see some >> discussion about the message by Carlos (noted again by Milton) but there >> was none. I would suggest that those who are strongly "for" or strongly >> "against" the IGC explicitly supporting "the nature of ICANN" as one of >> the themes for Rio just say it here, now, and Parminder and I will do a >> last minute consensus call on Monday. For the moment, I left the >> original text (which anyway calls for our inclusion in the "enhanced >> cooperation" process). >> >> In the meantime, I remind everyone that we are meeting as a caucus right >> at the end of the afternoon session (about 6pm) on Tuesday, with "Next >> steps to Rio" as the agenda. (BTW - does anyone know how could we get a >> room in the Palais? Otherwise we'll just move to the bar.) >> >> Thanks, >> -- >> vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- >> --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 > > > !DSPAM:2676,45ce8924149422529114236! > ____________________________________________________________ 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 Sat Feb 10 23:32:31 2007 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 23:32:31 -0500 Subject: [governance] Statement for Feb 13, version 2 Message-ID: I agree with McTim; as written it seems to suggest that civil society must not be technical, which is a strange way of counting and thinking in this Internet space. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> dogwallah at gmail.com 2/10/2007 2:46 PM >>> Hi Ken, On 2/10/07, Ken Lohento wrote: > Hi all > > Thanks for that Vittorio. 1 quick comment: > > It's written: > > >Moreover, we express our dissatisfaction for the very limited > representation of civil society in the first instance of the Advisory > Group, which amounted to five > > or less members over about forty. > > Why "five or less"? From the CS IG Caucus 5 people were selected and I > know another person from Africa who is member of the Advisory Group and > who is from civil society. I suggest we say "about 6". How about 12?? I am sure we already had this discussion, and never decided how to decide how to count who was CS and who wasn't. Or was that a parallel universe I visit? How about we drop this para altogether? -- 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 ____________________________________________________________ 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 klohento at panos-ao.org Sun Feb 11 03:53:50 2007 From: klohento at panos-ao.org (Ken Lohento) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 09:53:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] Statement for Feb 13, version 2 In-Reply-To: References: <45CDB2F9.60806@bertola.eu> <45CDBFAF.7040508@panos-ao.org> Message-ID: <45CED99E.5060500@panos-ao.org> Hi Mc Tim > Hi Ken, > >> Why "five or less"? From the CS IG Caucus 5 people were selected and I >> know another person from Africa who is member of the Advisory Group and >> who is from civil society. I suggest we say "about 6". > > How about 12?? I am sure we already had this discussion, and never > decided how to decide how to count who was CS and who wasn't. Or was > that a parallel universe I visit? > > How about we drop this para altogether? I understand your opinion. If how to count CS is not clear/agreed upon, it's better to just say that there is not sufficient CS representation. One of the problems is to how to treat/understand the technical community in this particular internet universe. KL ____________________________________________________________ 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 drake at hei.unige.ch Sun Feb 11 04:28:04 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 10:28:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] Statement for Feb 13, version 2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi, On 2/10/07 8:46 PM, "McTim" wrote: >>> Moreover, we express our dissatisfaction for the very limited >> representation of civil society in the first instance of the Advisory >> Group, which amounted to five >>> or less members over about forty. >> >> Why "five or less"? From the CS IG Caucus 5 people were selected and I >> know another person from Africa who is member of the Advisory Group and >> who is from civil society. I suggest we say "about 6". > How about 12?? I am sure we already had this discussion, and never > decided how to decide how to count who was CS and who wasn't. Or was > that a parallel universe I visit? We have indeed discussed this repeatedly and there's no need to reconstruct again the historical meaning of the term, the way CS is commonly understood in all other global policy spaces and institutionalized in UN and other processes, or the stratagems that have led to it being rendered problematic and mysterious here, unless the objective is simply to reignite old debates and run out the clock on a caucus statement. I would suggest a simple solution: insert "coalition that came together during the WSIS process" in the statement, i.e. "dissatisfaction [with] the very limited representation of the civil society coalition that came together during the WSIS process." That is after all what Vittorio is really referring to, and it factually uncontestable that ISOC was not part of that coalition and generally promoted positions that were at odds with those of both the caucus and the larger WSIS CS assemblage, most notably on whether there should even be an IGF. With this modification we wouldn't have to get stuck navel gazing on the social ontology of the half of McTim's 12 that come from entities that weren't involved in the CS movement but which of course should be and are well represented in the mAG. More generally, it seems like we are teetering on the edge of the same abyss we've fallen into repeatedly since the above and related fissures blossomed. Throughout WSIS the IGC managed to formulate consensus statements and make useful interventions, some of which arguably affected the process. But unless I'm misremembering, post-WSIS we didn't manage to submit any written inputs for the prior IGF consultations or for Athens. We've repeatedly had texts rushed together at the 11th hour which were then picked apart with person x wanting change to provisions 1, 3, 5 and person y liking 1, 3, 5 but wanting change to 2, 4, etc until we just deadlocked. Everyone can quibble with parts of Vittorio's statement; there's certainly a number of things I'd prefer be changed too, if we had time. Since we don't, can we maybe try to live with something that doesn't perfectly reflect each of our first preferences and get something submitted? It'd be helpful to the IGF's planning for the caucus to raise some concerns, particularly if these are not expressed by other inputs. Maybe just clean up the English a little...? Best, Bill ____________________________________________________________ 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 Sun Feb 11 05:24:29 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 11:24:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] Statement for Feb 13, version 2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45CEEEDD.3000100@bertola.eu> William Drake ha scritto: > unless I'm misremembering, post-WSIS we didn't manage to submit any written > inputs for the prior IGF consultations or for Athens. (except for the Nomcom process to the first AG) > We've repeatedly had > texts rushed together at the 11th hour which were then picked apart with > person x wanting change to provisions 1, 3, 5 and person y liking 1, 3, 5 > but wanting change to 2, 4, etc until we just deadlocked. Everyone can > quibble with parts of Vittorio's statement; there's certainly a number of > things I'd prefer be changed too, if we had time. Since we don't, can we > maybe try to live with something that doesn't perfectly reflect each of our > first preferences and get something submitted? It'd be helpful to the IGF's > planning for the caucus to raise some concerns, particularly if these are > not expressed by other inputs. I agree. This is the first time that I manage this process as coordinator, and everything can be made better, but we had a first draft and comments out there for ten days or so, we had a deadline, then a second draft reflecting the sense of the discussion, and a consensus call. Apart from a couple of minor last minute additions, everything was on the list for some time, even if I understand that we all are very busy, traveling etc. We decided to have a charter exactly to have a formalized process for a number of things, and I'm keen on following it... and if people disagree with our calls, we even have a brand new appeals team :-) In the end, there is an intrinsic value to all of us in making a statement. Possibly it'd also help us to be taken more seriously. > Maybe just clean up the English a little...? Any specific suggestion (in private as well) would be welcome. Thanks, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 drake at hei.unige.ch Sun Feb 11 05:40:00 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 11:40:00 +0100 Subject: [governance] Statement for Feb 13, version 2 In-Reply-To: <45CEEEDD.3000100@bertola.eu> Message-ID: Hi v, On 2/11/07 11:24 AM, "Vittorio Bertola" wrote: > William Drake ha scritto: >> unless I'm misremembering, post-WSIS we didn't manage to submit any written >> inputs for the prior IGF consultations or for Athens. > > (except for the Nomcom process to the first AG) I was referring to substantive imputs, not names. > >> Maybe just clean up the English a little...? > > Any specific suggestion (in private as well) would be welcome. > Thanks, First maybe you could try some teaks to address the concerns raised by Jeanette? Mostly they wouldn't make for fundamental changes, just clarifications. She's online now, perhaps the two of you could pow-wow? When it's stable I could copy edit quickly. BD ____________________________________________________________ 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 Sun Feb 11 08:06:01 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 16:06:01 +0300 Subject: [governance] Statement for Feb 13, version 2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Bill, On 2/11/07, William Drake wrote: > We have indeed discussed this repeatedly and there's no need to reconstruct > again the historical meaning of the term, the way CS is commonly understood > in all other global policy spaces and institutionalized in UN and other > processes, or the stratagems that have led to it being rendered problematic > and mysterious here, unless the objective is simply to reignite old debates > and run out the clock on a caucus statement. I would suggest a simple > solution: insert "coalition that came together during the WSIS process" in > the statement, i.e. "dissatisfaction [with] the very limited representation > of the civil society coalition that came together during the WSIS process." > That is after all what Vittorio is really referring to Well if we want to be truly honest, then why don't we say "dissatisfaction [with] the very limited representation of a like-minded subset of the civil society coalition that came together during the WSIS process." Or to be perfectly frank "we are whinging because not enough of us were chosen" My point was, why don't we just NOT whinge, it sounds like sour grapes, and seems fruitless! , and it factually > uncontestable that ISOC ummm who said anything about them? Perhaps it's from your parallel universe ;-) > was not part of that coalition and generally > promoted positions that were at odds with those of both the caucus and the > larger WSIS CS assemblage, Which doesn't necessarily mean they were wrong at the time. -- 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sun Feb 11 10:14:39 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 20:44:39 +0530 Subject: [governance] Statement for Feb 13, version 2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070211151449.F3206C9626@smtp1.electricembers.net> Seconding Bill, I too call upon members to try and evolve a consensus on the proposed statement. We agree that we could have done better - with more lead time, more discussions etc, and we - as coordinators - will learn our lessons and do better the next time. However, it must be said that the proposed statement was open for comments for quite a few days, and those of us who (rightly) care for our views to be considered for inclusion should respond in good time... We will also try to evolve processes so that people are sounded out more frequently and with more time... The present statement generally consists of such elements that have had some agreement in this group over time... Some may want more to be included, and some of the things to be said with greater force. It will be good to list these points separately (not necessarily for inclusion in the present hopefully consensual statement) and let IGC members who are attending the meeting take them up at the meeting. Apart from its substantive weight, making a statement on the behalf of the caucus is also procedurally important, and we should keep that imperative in mind. Thanks. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] > Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 2:58 PM > To: Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Statement for Feb 13, version 2 > > Hi, > > On 2/10/07 8:46 PM, "McTim" wrote: > > >>> Moreover, we express our dissatisfaction for the very limited > >> representation of civil society in the first instance of the Advisory > >> Group, which amounted to five > >>> or less members over about forty. > >> > >> Why "five or less"? From the CS IG Caucus 5 people were selected and I > >> know another person from Africa who is member of the Advisory Group and > >> who is from civil society. I suggest we say "about 6". > > > How about 12?? I am sure we already had this discussion, and never > > decided how to decide how to count who was CS and who wasn't. Or was > > that a parallel universe I visit? > > We have indeed discussed this repeatedly and there's no need to > reconstruct > again the historical meaning of the term, the way CS is commonly > understood > in all other global policy spaces and institutionalized in UN and other > processes, or the stratagems that have led to it being rendered > problematic > and mysterious here, unless the objective is simply to reignite old > debates > and run out the clock on a caucus statement. I would suggest a simple > solution: insert "coalition that came together during the WSIS process" in > the statement, i.e. "dissatisfaction [with] the very limited > representation > of the civil society coalition that came together during the WSIS > process." > That is after all what Vittorio is really referring to, and it factually > uncontestable that ISOC was not part of that coalition and generally > promoted positions that were at odds with those of both the caucus and the > larger WSIS CS assemblage, most notably on whether there should even be an > IGF. With this modification we wouldn't have to get stuck navel gazing on > the social ontology of the half of McTim's 12 that come from entities that > weren't involved in the CS movement but which of course should be and are > well represented in the mAG. > > More generally, it seems like we are teetering on the edge of the same > abyss > we've fallen into repeatedly since the above and related fissures > blossomed. > Throughout WSIS the IGC managed to formulate consensus statements and make > useful interventions, some of which arguably affected the process. But > unless I'm misremembering, post-WSIS we didn't manage to submit any > written > inputs for the prior IGF consultations or for Athens. We've repeatedly > had > texts rushed together at the 11th hour which were then picked apart with > person x wanting change to provisions 1, 3, 5 and person y liking 1, 3, 5 > but wanting change to 2, 4, etc until we just deadlocked. Everyone can > quibble with parts of Vittorio's statement; there's certainly a number of > things I'd prefer be changed too, if we had time. Since we don't, can we > maybe try to live with something that doesn't perfectly reflect each of > our > first preferences and get something submitted? It'd be helpful to the > IGF's > planning for the caucus to raise some concerns, particularly if these are > not expressed by other inputs. Maybe just clean up the English a > little...? > > Best, > > Bill > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 Sun Feb 11 10:43:34 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 21:13:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - Statement for the IGF consultations In-Reply-To: <45CE5D41.1080704@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <20070211154345.584DCE1719@smtp3.electricembers.net> Jeannette/ Vittorio > I am also not happy with the order of the points made in the statement. > For me, one of the crucial points is that the IGF takes seriously all > parts of the mandate. In the draft statement, this issue is mentioned > only towards the bottom of page two. Im my view, this makes this issue > look less important than, for example the lunch break you mention on the > first page. I agree. I think the IGF mandate part can be taken higher up in the document.... this wouldn't change the statement very substantively. > Some things I find unclear. For example, what do you mean by "more > traditional plenary sessions"? Did we ever discuss this here? Without > knowing what you mean by this, I cannot support it. > > I also don't know how you want to integrate the workshops with the main > sessions of the IGF. After all, workshops were suggested bottom up, not > top down. > We can change the wording, but what is meant I think is regular serious plenaries that are in contact and sync with other proceedings. For example to quote Carlos from a recent email. " Several post-Athens contributions are worried about format as well as content. My view is that we need a process in each meeting in which we arrive at thematic and procedural resolutions. Plenaries "moderated" (I prefer to say "manipulated") by professional TV hosts do not work well, and even scare some of the panelists (specially some of those whose native idiom is not English). We need thematic specialists as moderators, not "crowd handling" specialists or showmen -- it seemed the purpose here was to keep true debate dissolved into generalities." "In my view, we main focus should be on thematic workshops with the goal of presenting a resolution proposal in the final plenary -- the main meetings would be shorter and would work just as "seeds" for the workshops." > The sentence about funding I find a bit preposterous. Could we please > delete it? (Trying to secure funding was one of the main activities of > the secretariat. They must think we are kidding...) Since I proposed the part on funding, I must defend it. I am sure the secretariat would have done their best on funding. But it is wrong to assume that this statement is addressed to the secretariat. It is addressed to all stakeholders at the IGF. And there are those who need to help on funding, but do not do so for political reasons. The funding issue is closely linked to the issue of governance of IGF, as well of the possibility for the IGF to meet its full mandate. > I would also suggest to delete the language about "narrow Internet > Governance" as a topic for IGF. As far as I can see, there is no message > in it. Well, while I am for mentioning that ICANN issues should be discussed at IGF, because there is some conspiracy around that this issue be kept out, I am not in favor of characterizing the 'ICANN oversight' issue as a narrow Internet Governance issue. Because I think this oversight is often the thin side of the IG public policy wedge, therefore in essence not so narrow. Vittorio can do some wordsmith-ing around it. The above are for Vittorio's consideration, who may take the necessary decisions on these relatively minor issues. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wz-berlin.de] > Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 5:33 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Vittorio Bertola > Subject: Re: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - Statement for the IGF > consultations > > Hi Vittorio, > > thank you for drafting the statement. > > Personally I think it is too epic, I prefer short and concise > statements. If we keep it short, chances are better that people read it. > > I am also not happy with the order of the points made in the statement. > For me, one of the crucial points is that the IGF takes seriously all > parts of the mandate. In the draft statement, this issue is mentioned > only towards the bottom of page two. Im my view, this makes this issue > look less important than, for example the lunch break you mention on the > first page. > > Some things I find unclear. For example, what do you mean by "more > traditional plenary sessions"? Did we ever discuss this here? Without > knowing what you mean by this, I cannot support it. > > I also don't know how you want to integrate the workshops with the main > sessions of the IGF. After all, workshops were suggested bottom up, not > top down. > > The secretariat tried to merge workshops, not always successfully. One > cannot really force organizers to merge or to implement the > multi-stakeholder principles, can one? > > The sentence about funding I find a bit preposterous. Could we please > delete it? (Trying to secure funding was one of the main activities of > the secretariat. They must think we are kidding...) > > I would also suggest to delete the language about "narrow Internet > Governance" as a topic for IGF. As far as I can see, there is no message > in it. > > jeanette > > > > Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > All, > > > > I am attaching the (expectedly) final version of our statement for > > Tuesday, and launching a formal consensus call on it. > > > > Please anyone who wishes to express consensus on the statement, or > > anyone having strong objections to it, say so before Monday, 4pm UTC. (I > > would ask people to live by the statement if they really do not have > > strong objections, all in all I think it reflects the discussion so > far.) > > > > The only changes in this version, in respect to the one posted a few > > hours ago, are Ken's note on the number of CS members (which became > > "about five" from "five or less") and two lines by Parminder on IGF > > funding at the end of the first page (pretty neutral I'd say). Anyway, I > > left all redlining in respect to version 1. > > > > Separately, I am still asking people to state consensus or opposition > > (if having a clear opinion) on the addition of the sentence "We think > > that, as per comma (j) of the IGF mandate, the legal nature and working > > structure of ICANN should be among the matters discussed in Rio, as long > > as this does not prevent the IGF from paying adequate attention to all > > the other themes.", in replacement of "Inside civil society, there are > > different points of view about this matter;", in the second-last para. > > This will shape another decision by the coordinators on Monday > afternoon. > > > > 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Feb 11 11:10:33 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 21:40:33 +0530 Subject: [governance] Statement for Feb 13, version 2 In-Reply-To: <45CE5760.8090103@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <20070211161040.70329E16CF@smtp3.electricembers.net> On the issue of mentioning (or not) that ICANN related issues should be taken up by the IGF - as per the precise formulation suggested by Vittorio below - I am in favor of its inclusion. I request more comments on this issue which will help Vittorio to decide if sufficient consensus exists. Parminder ( I apologize for this sudden flurry of emails while not taking part in the discussion for quite some time. I am in an area with extremely poor connectivity, and could not connect earlier) ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au] > Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 5:08 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Statement for Feb 13, version 2 > > Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > Now to make things even clearer, this is the text that I would add, > > building on Adam's initial suggestion (more suggestions welcome), if > > consensus was for "yes": "We think that, as per comma (j) of the IGF > > mandate, the legal nature and working structure of ICANN should be among > > the matters discussed in Rio, as long as they do not prevent the IGF > > from paying adequate attention to all the other themes.". This would > > replace the part where we say there is no consensus among us on this, > > while I'd still keep the bit on making the enhanced cooperation process > > more transparent. > > I am mildly in favour. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor > host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 jeanette at wz-berlin.de Sun Feb 11 11:20:56 2007 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 17:20:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] Statement for Feb 13, version 2 In-Reply-To: <20070211161040.70329E16CF@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20070211161040.70329E16CF@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <45CF4268.1070605@wz-berlin.de> Regarding ICANN and political oversight, I also support the version suggested by Adam. jeanette Parminder wrote: > > On the issue of mentioning (or not) that ICANN related issues should be > taken up by the IGF - as per the precise formulation suggested by Vittorio > below - I am in favor of its inclusion. I request more comments on this > issue which will help Vittorio to decide if sufficient consensus exists. > Parminder > > ( I apologize for this sudden flurry of emails while not taking part in the > discussion for quite some time. I am in an area with extremely poor > connectivity, and could not connect earlier) > > ________________________________________________ > Parminder Jeet Singh > IT for Change, Bangalore > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > www.ITforChange.net > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au] >>Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 5:08 AM >>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>Subject: Re: [governance] Statement for Feb 13, version 2 >> >>Vittorio Bertola wrote: >> >>>Now to make things even clearer, this is the text that I would add, >>>building on Adam's initial suggestion (more suggestions welcome), if >>>consensus was for "yes": "We think that, as per comma (j) of the IGF >>>mandate, the legal nature and working structure of ICANN should be among >>>the matters discussed in Rio, as long as they do not prevent the IGF >>>from paying adequate attention to all the other themes.". This would >>>replace the part where we say there is no consensus among us on this, >>>while I'd still keep the bit on making the enhanced cooperation process >>>more transparent. >> >>I am mildly in favour. >> >>-- >>Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com >>Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor >>host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' >>____________________________________________________________ >>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 nne75 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 11 11:19:12 2007 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 08:19:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - Statement for the IGF consultations In-Reply-To: <20070211154345.584DCE1719@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <594191.43106.qm@web50214.mail.yahoo.com> Dear all, My apologies as I was among those travelling. I have read the text three times. I am in favor of mentioning ICANN. Vittorio, thanks. Here is my suggestion: Divide the text into: The opening - where you present the IGC Athens - say the good, bad. Rio - make recommendations The IGF in general The elements are already there. I have a strong feeling that if you move them around, you will find it easier to cut off some parts and still retain the principle. I do support the raising the fundraising issue. It does not in any way say that the secretariat is not doing its job. It reminds that the problem is still there. Best Nnenna Parminder wrote: Jeannette/ Vittorio > I am also not happy with the order of the points made in the statement. > For me, one of the crucial points is that the IGF takes seriously all > parts of the mandate. In the draft statement, this issue is mentioned > only towards the bottom of page two. Im my view, this makes this issue > look less important than, for example the lunch break you mention on the > first page. I agree. I think the IGF mandate part can be taken higher up in the document.... this wouldn't change the statement very substantively. > Some things I find unclear. For example, what do you mean by "more > traditional plenary sessions"? Did we ever discuss this here? Without > knowing what you mean by this, I cannot support it. > > I also don't know how you want to integrate the workshops with the main > sessions of the IGF. After all, workshops were suggested bottom up, not > top down. > We can change the wording, but what is meant I think is regular serious plenaries that are in contact and sync with other proceedings. For example to quote Carlos from a recent email. " Several post-Athens contributions are worried about format as well as content. My view is that we need a process in each meeting in which we arrive at thematic and procedural resolutions. Plenaries "moderated" (I prefer to say "manipulated") by professional TV hosts do not work well, and even scare some of the panelists (specially some of those whose native idiom is not English). We need thematic specialists as moderators, not "crowd handling" specialists or showmen -- it seemed the purpose here was to keep true debate dissolved into generalities." "In my view, we main focus should be on thematic workshops with the goal of presenting a resolution proposal in the final plenary -- the main meetings would be shorter and would work just as "seeds" for the workshops." > The sentence about funding I find a bit preposterous. Could we please > delete it? (Trying to secure funding was one of the main activities of > the secretariat. They must think we are kidding...) Since I proposed the part on funding, I must defend it. I am sure the secretariat would have done their best on funding. But it is wrong to assume that this statement is addressed to the secretariat. It is addressed to all stakeholders at the IGF. And there are those who need to help on funding, but do not do so for political reasons. The funding issue is closely linked to the issue of governance of IGF, as well of the possibility for the IGF to meet its full mandate. > I would also suggest to delete the language about "narrow Internet > Governance" as a topic for IGF. As far as I can see, there is no message > in it. Well, while I am for mentioning that ICANN issues should be discussed at IGF, because there is some conspiracy around that this issue be kept out, I am not in favor of characterizing the 'ICANN oversight' issue as a narrow Internet Governance issue. Because I think this oversight is often the thin side of the IG public policy wedge, therefore in essence not so narrow. Vittorio can do some wordsmith-ing around it. The above are for Vittorio's consideration, who may take the necessary decisions on these relatively minor issues. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wz-berlin.de] > Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 5:33 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Vittorio Bertola > Subject: Re: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - Statement for the IGF > consultations > > Hi Vittorio, > > thank you for drafting the statement. > > Personally I think it is too epic, I prefer short and concise > statements. If we keep it short, chances are better that people read it. > > I am also not happy with the order of the points made in the statement. > For me, one of the crucial points is that the IGF takes seriously all > parts of the mandate. In the draft statement, this issue is mentioned > only towards the bottom of page two. Im my view, this makes this issue > look less important than, for example the lunch break you mention on the > first page. > > Some things I find unclear. For example, what do you mean by "more > traditional plenary sessions"? Did we ever discuss this here? Without > knowing what you mean by this, I cannot support it. > > I also don't know how you want to integrate the workshops with the main > sessions of the IGF. After all, workshops were suggested bottom up, not > top down. > > The secretariat tried to merge workshops, not always successfully. One > cannot really force organizers to merge or to implement the > multi-stakeholder principles, can one? > > The sentence about funding I find a bit preposterous. Could we please > delete it? (Trying to secure funding was one of the main activities of > the secretariat. They must think we are kidding...) > > I would also suggest to delete the language about "narrow Internet > Governance" as a topic for IGF. As far as I can see, there is no message > in it. > > jeanette > > > > Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > All, > > > > I am attaching the (expectedly) final version of our statement for > > Tuesday, and launching a formal consensus call on it. > > > > Please anyone who wishes to express consensus on the statement, or > > anyone having strong objections to it, say so before Monday, 4pm UTC. (I > > would ask people to live by the statement if they really do not have > > strong objections, all in all I think it reflects the discussion so > far.) > > > > The only changes in this version, in respect to the one posted a few > > hours ago, are Ken's note on the number of CS members (which became > > "about five" from "five or less") and two lines by Parminder on IGF > > funding at the end of the first page (pretty neutral I'd say). Anyway, I > > left all redlining in respect to version 1. > > > > Separately, I am still asking people to state consensus or opposition > > (if having a clear opinion) on the addition of the sentence "We think > > that, as per comma (j) of the IGF mandate, the legal nature and working > > structure of ICANN should be among the matters discussed in Rio, as long > > as this does not prevent the IGF from paying adequate attention to all > > the other themes.", in replacement of "Inside civil society, there are > > different points of view about this matter;", in the second-last para. > > This will shape another decision by the coordinators on Monday > afternoon. > > > > Thanks, > _ > --------------------------------- Need Mail bonding? Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Sun Feb 11 11:37:53 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (l.d.misek-falkoff) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 11:37:53 -0500 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - Statement for the IGF consultations In-Reply-To: <594191.43106.qm@web50214.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20070211154345.584DCE1719@smtp3.electricembers.net> <594191.43106.qm@web50214.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8cbfe7410702110837t50704eean1d05bf9b2e4c4f62@mail.gmail.com> And from here, support for the posted suggestions on topic progression - Structuring from : basic *descriptions* ... positive *evaluations* with comments on factors to strengthen or add (including candid but appreciative critique of what did not work & lessons learned) ... on to the future. Best wishes, Linda. Dr. L. D. Misek-Falkoff. On 2/11/07, Nnenna wrote: > > Dear all, > > My apologies as I was among those travelling. I have read the text three > times. I am in favor of mentioning ICANN. > > Vittorio, thanks. Here is my suggestion: > > Divide the text into: > > The opening - where you present the IGC > Athens - say the good, bad. > Rio - make recommendations > > The IGF in general > The elements are already there. I have a strong feeling that if you move > them around, you will find it easier to cut off some parts and still retain > the principle. > > I do support the raising the fundraising issue. It does not in any way > say that the secretariat is not doing its job. It reminds that the problem > is still there. > > Best > > Nnenna > > > Parminder wrote: > > Jeannette/ Vittorio > > > I am also not happy with the order of the points made in the statement. > > For me, one of the crucial points is that the IGF takes seriously all > > parts of the mandate. In the draft statement, this issue is mentioned > > only towards the bottom of page two. Im my view, this makes this issue > > look less important than, for example the lunch break you mention on the > > first page. > > I agree. I think the IGF mandate part can be taken higher up in the > document.... this wouldn't change the statement very substantively. > > > Some things I find unclear. For example, what do you mean by "more > > traditional plenary sessions"? Did we ever discuss this here? Without > > knowing what you mean by this, I cannot support it. > > > > I also don't know how you want to integrate the workshops with the main > > sessions of the IGF. After all, workshops were suggested bottom up, not > > top down. > > > > We can change the wording, but what is meant I think is regular serious > plenaries that are in contact and sync with other proceedings. For example > to quote Carlos from a recent email. > > " Several post-Athens contributions are worried about format as well as > content. My view is that we need a process in each meeting in which we > arrive at thematic and procedural resolutions. Plenaries "moderated" (I > prefer to say "manipulated") by professional TV hosts do not work well, > and > even scare some of the panelists (specially some of those whose native > idiom > is not English). We need thematic specialists as moderators, not "crowd > handling" specialists or showmen -- it seemed the purpose here was to keep > true debate dissolved into generalities." "In my view, we main focus > should > be on thematic workshops with the goal of presenting a resolution proposal > in the final plenary -- the main meetings would be shorter and would work > just as "seeds" for the workshops." > > > > The sentence about funding I find a bit preposterous. Could we please > > delete it? (Trying to secure funding was one of the main activities of > > the secretariat. They must think we are kidding...) > > Since I proposed the part on funding, I must defend it. I am sure the > secretariat would have done their best on funding. But it is wrong to > assume > that this statement is addressed to the secretariat. It is addressed to > all > stakeholders at the IGF. And there are those who need to help on funding, > but do not do so for political reasons. The funding issue is closely > linked > to the issue of governance of IGF, as well of the possibility for the IGF > to > meet its full mandate. > > > I would also suggest to delete the language about "narrow Internet > > Governance" as a topic for IGF. As far as I can see, there is no message > > in it. > > Well, while I am for mentioning that ICANN issues should be discussed at > IGF, because there is some conspiracy around that this issue be kept out, > I > am not in favor of characterizing the 'ICANN oversight' issue as a narrow > Internet Governance issue. Because I think this oversight is often the > thin > side of the IG public policy wedge, therefore in essence not so narrow. > Vittorio can do some wordsmith-ing around it. > > The above are for Vittorio's consideration, who may take the necessary > decisions on these relatively minor issues. > > Parminder > > ________________________________________________ > Parminder Jeet Singh > IT for Change, Bangalore > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > www.ITforChange.net > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wz-berlin.de] > > Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 5:33 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Vittorio Bertola > > Subject: Re: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - Statement for the IGF > > consultations > > > > Hi Vittorio, > > > > thank you for drafting the statement. > > > > Personally I think it is too epic, I prefer short and concise > > statements. If we keep it short, chances are better that people read it. > > > > I am also not happy with the order of the points made in the statement. > > For me, one of the crucial points is that the IGF takes seriously all > > parts of the mandate. In the draft statement, this issue is mentioned > > only towards the bottom of page two. Im my view, this makes this issue > > look less important than, for example the lunch break you mention on the > > first page. > > > > Some things I find unclear. For example, what do you mean by "more > > traditional plenary sessions"? Did we ever discuss this here? Without > > knowing what you mean by this, I cannot support it. > > > > I also don't know how you want to integrate the workshops with the main > > sessions of the IGF. After all, workshops were suggested bottom up, not > > top down. > > > > The secretariat tried to merge workshops, not always successfully. One > > cannot really force organizers to merge or to implement the > > multi-stakeholder principles, can one? > > > > The sentence about funding I find a bit preposterous. Could we please > > delete it? (Trying to secure funding was one of the main activities of > > the secretariat. They must think we are kidding...) > > > > I would also suggest to delete the language about "narrow Internet > > Governance" as a topic for IGF. As far as I can see, there is no message > > in it. > > > > jeanette > > > > > > > > Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > > All, > > > > > > I am attaching the (expectedly) final version of our statement for > > > Tuesday, and launching a formal consensus call on it. > > > > > > Please anyone who wishes to express consensus on the statement, or > > > anyone having strong objections to it, say so before Monday, 4pm UTC. > (I > > > would ask people to live by the statement if they really do not have > > > strong objections, all in all I think it reflects the discussion so > > far.) > > > > > > The only changes in this version, in respect to the one posted a few > > > hours ago, are Ken's note on the number of CS members (which became > > > "about five" from "five or less") and two lines by Parminder on IGF > > > funding at the end of the first page (pretty neutral I'd say). Anyway, > I > > > left all redlining in respect to version 1. > > > > > > Separately, I am still asking people to state consensus or opposition > > > (if having a clear opinion) on the addition of the sentence "We think > > > that, as per comma (j) of the IGF mandate, the legal nature and > working > > > structure of ICANN should be among the matters discussed in Rio, as > long > > > as this does not prevent the IGF from paying adequate attention to all > > > the other themes.", in replacement of "Inside civil society, there are > > > different points of view about this matter;", in the second-last para. > > > This will shape another decision by the coordinators on Monday > > afternoon. > > > > > > Thanks, > > _ > > > > > > --------------------------------- > Need Mail bonding? > Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers > users.____________________________________________________________ > 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 ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Sun Feb 11 11:50:03 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (l.d.misek-falkoff) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 11:50:03 -0500 Subject: [governance] Statement for Feb 13, version 2 In-Reply-To: <20070211161040.70329E16CF@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <45CE5760.8090103@Malcolm.id.au> <20070211161040.70329E16CF@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <8cbfe7410702110850v371e1dc4wabceaef347cf8adc@mail.gmail.com> Greetings, Could the ICANN matter be embedded in a either slightly (or even greater) general framework? Reflecting Relationship Issues? Matters of domain and scope, in IGF contexts and venues? Best wishes, Linda. Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff For I.D. here: Communications Coordination Committee for the U.N., and Independent Observer. On 2/11/07, Parminder wrote: > > > > On the issue of mentioning (or not) that ICANN related issues should be > taken up by the IGF - as per the precise formulation suggested by Vittorio > below - I am in favor of its inclusion. I request more comments on this > issue which will help Vittorio to decide if sufficient consensus exists. > Parminder > > ( I apologize for this sudden flurry of emails while not taking part in > the > discussion for quite some time. I am in an area with extremely poor > connectivity, and could not connect earlier) > > ________________________________________________ > Parminder Jeet Singh > IT for Change, Bangalore > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > www.ITforChange.net > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au] > > Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 5:08 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: Re: [governance] Statement for Feb 13, version 2 > > > > Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > > Now to make things even clearer, this is the text that I would add, > > > building on Adam's initial suggestion (more suggestions welcome), if > > > consensus was for "yes": "We think that, as per comma (j) of the IGF > > > mandate, the legal nature and working structure of ICANN should be > among > > > the matters discussed in Rio, as long as they do not prevent the IGF > > > from paying adequate attention to all the other themes.". This would > > > replace the part where we say there is no consensus among us on this, > > > while I'd still keep the bit on making the enhanced cooperation > process > > > more transparent. > > > > I am mildly in favour. > > > > -- > > Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com > > Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor > > host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 LMcKnigh at syr.edu Sun Feb 11 11:59:58 2007 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 11:59:58 -0500 Subject: [governance] Statement for Feb 13, version 2 Message-ID: Now I'll agree with Bill that we shouldn;t get distracted. A quick copy edit by Bill and we're done It is historically significant in this universe to get a CS text into the first meeting post-igf I. I'm sure McTim will agree 12 is less than a third of 40, so statistically speaking, including a bit of whining is good politics positioning CS for the next round. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> dogwallah at gmail.com 2/11/2007 8:06 AM >>> Hi Bill, On 2/11/07, William Drake wrote: > We have indeed discussed this repeatedly and there's no need to reconstruct > again the historical meaning of the term, the way CS is commonly understood > in all other global policy spaces and institutionalized in UN and other > processes, or the stratagems that have led to it being rendered problematic > and mysterious here, unless the objective is simply to reignite old debates > and run out the clock on a caucus statement. I would suggest a simple > solution: insert "coalition that came together during the WSIS process" in > the statement, i.e. "dissatisfaction [with] the very limited representation > of the civil society coalition that came together during the WSIS process." > That is after all what Vittorio is really referring to Well if we want to be truly honest, then why don't we say "dissatisfaction [with] the very limited representation of a like-minded subset of the civil society coalition that came together during the WSIS process." Or to be perfectly frank "we are whinging because not enough of us were chosen" My point was, why don't we just NOT whinge, it sounds like sour grapes, and seems fruitless! , and it factually > uncontestable that ISOC ummm who said anything about them? Perhaps it's from your parallel universe ;-) > was not part of that coalition and generally > promoted positions that were at odds with those of both the caucus and the > larger WSIS CS assemblage, Which doesn't necessarily mean they were wrong at the time. -- 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 ____________________________________________________________ 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 Sun Feb 11 13:42:25 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 21:42:25 +0300 Subject: [governance] Statement for Feb 13, version 2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 2/11/07, Lee McKnight wrote: > Now I'll agree with Bill that we shouldn;t get distracted. A quick copy > edit by Bill and we're done > > It is historically significant in this universe to get a CS text into > the first meeting post-igf I. > > I'm sure McTim will agree 12 is less than a third of 40, so > statistically speaking, including a bit of whining is good politics Working in Washington, D.C. for a decade, taught me that whining is never "good politics". Why don't we point out that gov't is over represented instead? -- 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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org Sun Feb 11 16:34:59 2007 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 22:34:59 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Fully Internationalized-Canonical-Order IDNs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20070211213459.GA6700@sources.org> On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 11:07:32AM -0800, yehudakatz at mailinator.com wrote a message of 116 lines which said: > Could you please tell me if you are aware of an RFC or Other > Proposal for the Conical Name Order ?EXTENTIONS? for iDNS or Other > Formats? [m17n, i18n, L10n or other basis/ e.g.: > Internationalization Tag Set (ITS)]. I must confess that it is not very clear for me... > I am looking for a List similar to: > Country Codes from ISO 3166 Unfortunately, no, there is no Unicode equivalent of ISO 3166 and Vint Cerf, among other ICANNers, often used that as a way to delay the introduction of IDNs in the root zone. > http://www.freesoft.org/CIE/RFC/1700/39.htm That list is old! Do not use! > Expl.: Big5, CJK, English, etc. Iterations Again, sorry, but this is undecipherable. > Is a fundamental-problem, getting a fully > internationalized-canonical-order IDN to work with DNSSEC ? No, since DNSSEC signs the ACE (ASCII-compatible encoding) form, anyway. Remember: IDN is completely outside of the DNS. > Ref.: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2535.html Again: very old reference. The RFC on DNSSEC is RFC 4033. ____________________________________________________________ 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 iza at anr.org Sun Feb 11 20:16:32 2007 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:16:32 +0900 Subject: [governance] congrats In-Reply-To: <20070210133004.89753.qmail@web34315.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20070210133004.89753.qmail@web34315.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No never too late. Thanks. The only hope now is that this Appeals Team will not need to work ;-) best, izumi 2007/2/10, NURSES ACROSS THE BORDERS : > > I hope mine CONGRATULATIONS is not belated? > Thanks to the Nom Com for a job well done > > > > Pastor Peters OMORAGBON > Alumnus-OSI-LGI/MMCP Prgram 2007 > National Coordiantor-Nigeria WSIS/ACSIS > Executive President/CEO > Nurses Across the Borders Humanitarian Initiative-Inc.-(Nigeria & U.S.A) > An NGO On Special Consultative Status with The Economic and Social Council > of the United Nations-(ECOSOC) > Member(OBSERVER),United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change > (UNFCCC) > 295, IKORODU ROAD, IDIROKO BUS STOP MARYLAND IKEJA LAGOS NIGERIA > 350, MAIN STREET, EAST ORANGE NEW JERSEY 07018 U.S.A > Tel:+234-1-812-8649, +234-1-818-6494,+234-802-308-5408(Mobile) > FAX:+234-1-493-7203 > Email:nursesacrosstheborders at yahoo.com > URL: www.nursesacrosstheborders.4t.com -------------- 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 Sun Feb 11 23:40:23 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 07:40:23 +0300 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - Statement for the IGF consultations In-Reply-To: <45CDEC9A.5080404@bertola.eu> References: <45CDEC9A.5080404@bertola.eu> Message-ID: VB On 2/10/07, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > All, > > I am attaching the (expectedly) final version of our statement for > Tuesday, and launching a formal consensus call on it. I am ok with the statement generally.... > > The only changes in this version, in respect to the one posted a few > hours ago, are Ken's note on the number of CS members (which became > "about five" from "five or less") (except for the nit in the other thread about this). > > Separately, I am still asking people to state consensus or opposition > (if having a clear opinion) on the addition of the sentence "We think > that, as per comma (j) of the IGF mandate, the legal nature and working > structure of ICANN should be among the matters discussed in Rio, as long > as this does not prevent the IGF from paying adequate attention to all > the other themes.", in replacement of "Inside civil society, there are > different points of view about this matter;", in the second-last para. I am strongly opposed to this change for a number of reasons; a) j is a pretty flimsy rationale IMO for talking about "the legal nature and working structure". I just can't make that leap myself. b) qualifying it with the caveat about it not being distracting is a little strange, as we know from past experience that it is the black hole of discussion topics. c) The mandate is quite clear about being hands off ICANN et. al., so it's discussion without any possibility of resolution. Now, if the intent is to do capacity building, then I'd be happy to lead a discussion on critical resource distribution theory and practice. -- 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 parminder at itforchange.net Mon Feb 12 01:12:26 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:42:26 +0530 Subject: [governance] Discussing the Agenda for Rio in Geneva In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070212061309.35A68C962F@smtp1.electricembers.net> Hi (And, requesting special attention of IGC members who will attend tomorrows meeting) This is outside of the consensus developing exercise for a caucus statement. Like Milton I think Carlos has suggested some good points that may be considered by IGC participants at the meeting. Now that Carlos himself is attending the meeting, he sure will take these up, but what I am attempting here is the possibility that a set of points/proposals can be taken up under some umbrella theme/ideas with collective force of all IGC/ CS participants at the meeting. My point of departure for this is the strong sense that the existing governance structure of IGF has taken a certain attitude (which is very very political, in my view, and not just administrative though that's how it may be passed off) that IGF is to be, more or less, an annual IG conference. George Sadowsky's comments (and he is a special advisor to the chair) are quite forthright on this issue, and he has cited the 'general feeling' in the IGF governance structure and not just his own views. To substantiate his assertion, one only has to note the drift of the synthesis paper prepared by the IGF for this meeting. While the paper does a good work of putting different views together, it does betray the mind of the present IGF governance structure on this issue(As Jeremy has noted). Very strangely, it seems to, in a way, give legitimacy to the view that the Tunis agenda mandated only a 'discussion forum' task for IGF, and anything else will mean going beyond the Tunis agenda. To quote the synthesis paper " Other commentators however emphasize that the IGF should not of itself seek to change or expand its mission, which was the result of careful and lengthy negotiations within the WSIS. They see the role of the IGF as a platform for exchanging information and ideas and sharing best practices in a true multi-stakeholder format." But we all know that the precise opposite is the fact. And we have spent a good amount of energy to repetitively quote the subsections of para 72 in this regard. I think that an important task at this meeting is to politically challenge this 'establishment view' of what is the WSIS mandate for the IGF. It will be good to propose setting aside a complete session to discuss the Tunis agenda para 72 threadbare, and in its light see what formats etc are good for the IGF. I appeal to the members attending the meeting to ask for this special session. It will give political legitimacy and substance to our demands. No one is advocating that we get so much caught into 'substantial outputs' agenda that we get trapped into a typical UN style nitpicking text negotiation rounds. We are aware that that's not what IGF is. But it isnt what the present establishment is making it out to be either. We need to find the balance, and for this first of all to sit with an open mind to all possibilities. Carlos has made some great points, and so have many others on this list. I am in particular enclosing an email of Bertrand's. I am also enclosing my organization's submission for the synthesis paper. One last point, I think we should also insist on more stable and legitimate (and not just private, and pro bono) sources of funding for the IGF, which alone will allow it to fulfill its mandate. Thanks. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 4:29 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Discussing the Agenda for Rio in Geneva > > Carlos's message is worth discussing seriously. I have done him the > favor of changing the header. > > Dr. Milton Mueller > Syracuse University School of Information Studies > http://www.digital-convergence.org > http://www.internetgovernance.org > > >>> ca at rits.org.br 02/08/07 8:16 PM >>> > In the meantime, a group of countries tries to get organized to insist > that the IGF should be mainly a space for ICANN bashing and/or > replacement, while other groups are preparing to propose that the main > topics in Rio should be exactly the same as in Athens. A majority > (Brazil not included) of GRULAC (the Latin American and Caribbean > government group at the UN) members, for example, insist the agenda for > Rio should be exactly as it was for Athens -- that generic, almost > useless group of four topics: open standards, access, security, > diversity... the weather, soccer, who won the lotto... If we continue > this trend, we better turn IGF into an international old-timers' chat > space (sponsored by the UN!) like the Brazilian Academy of Letters or > some other sleepy, tea-soaked thing -- this way we would not need to > worry about it anymore. > > Several post-Athens contributions are worried about format as well as > content. My view is that we need a process in each meeting in which we > arrive at thematic and procedural resolutions. Plenaries "moderated" (I > prefer to say "manipulated") by professional TV hosts do not work well, > and even scare some of the panelists (specially some of those whose > native idiom is not English). We need thematic specialists as > moderators, not "crowd handling" specialists or showmen -- it seemed the > purpose here was to keep true debate dissolved into generalities. > > In my view, we main focus should be on thematic workshops with the goal > of presenting a resolution proposal in the final plenary -- the main > meetings would be shorter and would work just as "seeds" for the > workshops. These would constitute the official set of recommendations > from IGF. > > fraternal regards > > --c.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 -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Bertrand de La Chapelle" Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN taxes/fees (was: Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 16:31:54 +0530 Size: 38458 URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ITfC's contribution to IGF's Stock Taking Meeting Type: application/octet-stream Size: 18178 bytes Desc: not available URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Feb 12 01:27:51 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:57:51 +0530 Subject: [governance] Discussing the Agenda for Rio in Geneva In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070212062758.E50EFC95FE@smtp1.electricembers.net> Sorry, the doc on IT for Change's contribution to the stock taking exercise did not come through with my previous email. I am cut-pasting it below. Parminder ____________________________________________________________________________ Taking stock and the way forward (Contribution by IT for Change, in response to the IGF's questionnaire for the stock taking meeting in Geneva on 13 February 2007) What worked well? The open format without a heavy governmental feel, but with a strong participation of governments nonetheless, worked well. The distributed workshop sessions that were organized by different stakeholders, with all requests for workshops being allowed, gave a sense of ownership to all stakeholders, especially those from civil society who tend to be left out from agenda setting positions in global policy forums. The innovation of setting up 'dynamic coalitions' appears to hold promise to develop constituencies and consensus on certain IG related issues, and to possibly trigger specific activities on these issues. What worked less well? The plenary sessions held in a journalistic mode were perhaps (only perhaps) fine for an opening IGF meeting but this format needs to be revised in subsequent meetings. We need more focused sessions conducted by subject experts, and the panels need to be smaller. They should be able to conduct an informed discussion/ presentation, which no doubt is always a difficult task in huge conference situations like at the IGF. But taking relatively focused subject areas will help greatly. This will increase the topic selection responsibility of the IGF MAG, but with more lead time available for the Rio meeting this can be attempted to be done through a participatory process. However, some crucial decisions may still have to be taken by the MAG. Although the overall thematic focus of the Athens meet was on development, most workshops did not address this issue. This shows the limitations of just opening up a 'facilitative' forum without direct support and action to highlight and discuss such priority issues, when the interested stakeholders may be disadvantaged in capacity on many fronts. This also makes the case for the IGF to evolve into a more proactive organization, apart from such evolution being required by the IGF's mandate listed below. Suggestions for improvement in view of the second IGF meeting? We remain concerned that the IGF in its present shape, as was evident at the Athens meeting, is able to fulfill just a narrow part of its mandate given by the Tunis Agenda (TA). And we see no signs of what is meant to be done regarding the larger part of the mandate which goes beyond IGF's role as a facilitative forum for open discussion, to issues like interacting with different IG related organizations (TA 72 c), facilitating discourse between them (72 b), facilitate the exchange of information and best practices (d), do capacity building (h), promote and assess the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes (i), advice stakeholders (e), identify emerging issues and make recommendations(g) and help find solutions (k). The stock taking meeting should undertake a serious exercise to develop processes and structures in the IGF that can enable it to meet these parts of its mandate. A couple of suggestions in this regard are listed below: 1. All major IG related organizations, like the ICANN, US government, ITU, WIPO/WTO etc, should be invited to hold open forums at the annual IGF meeting to enable a stakeholder dialogue, as also 'facilitating discourse between (among) them' (TA). 2. The IGF must be able to develop elaborate papers and reports on various important themes of IG, employing experts, especially in under-researched areas like developmental aspects of IG. This must be an ongoing exercise. (To cite an example, similar work was done by the UN ICT Task Force.) This will enable the IGF to fulfill its mandate in respect of many of the above listed areas. 3. At its annual meeting, and in the in-between periods, IGF should be able to hold workshops of its own (other than those held by various stakeholders) on key themes - for example, on the issue of promoting and assessing ''the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes' and on development issues in IG. These workshops should also be held in the regional and national contexts. 4. To be able to undertake the above activities, and to fulfill other required responsibilities, IGF must seek to establish a more substantial structure. This requires adequate funding for which a case should be made at this stock taking meeting and the issue taken up with various possible sources of funds. This includes governments who may be interested in promoting fair, open and representative global public policy structures for IG. 5. Since IGF is a global public policy body on IG issues, the money that is collected from Internet domain owners by ICANN which is already used for some IG activities, should also be used for funding IGF. In any case, IGF apparently has a better representation of the full variety of stakeholders who pay for Internet domains, directly or indirectly, than most organizations who at present use earnings from Internet domain allocation. Any other comments or suggestions? Included in above. Did the synthesis paper, which gave an overview of all contributions received and which was translated in all UN languages, meet a real need? Should a similar paper be prepared prior to the next meeting? Yes, it meets a real need, and such papers should continue to be produced. ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 11:42 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Discussing the Agenda for Rio in Geneva > > > Hi > > (And, requesting special attention of IGC members who will attend > tomorrows > meeting) > > This is outside of the consensus developing exercise for a caucus > statement. > > > Like Milton I think Carlos has suggested some good points that may be > considered by IGC participants at the meeting. Now that Carlos himself is > attending the meeting, he sure will take these up, but what I am > attempting > here is the possibility that a set of points/proposals can be taken up > under > some umbrella theme/ideas with collective force of all IGC/ CS > participants > at the meeting. > > My point of departure for this is the strong sense that the existing > governance structure of IGF has taken a certain attitude (which is very > very > political, in my view, and not just administrative though that's how it > may > be passed off) that IGF is to be, more or less, an annual IG conference. > George Sadowsky's comments (and he is a special advisor to the chair) are > quite forthright on this issue, and he has cited the 'general feeling' in > the IGF governance structure and not just his own views. > > To substantiate his assertion, one only has to note the drift of the > synthesis paper prepared by the IGF for this meeting. While the paper does > a > good work of putting different views together, it does betray the mind of > the present IGF governance structure on this issue(As Jeremy has noted). > Very strangely, it seems to, in a way, give legitimacy to the view that > the > Tunis agenda mandated only a 'discussion forum' task for IGF, and anything > else will mean going beyond the Tunis agenda. > > To quote the synthesis paper > > " Other commentators however emphasize that the IGF should not of itself > seek to change or expand its mission, which was the result of careful and > lengthy negotiations within the WSIS. They see the role of the IGF as a > platform for exchanging information and ideas and sharing best practices > in > a true multi-stakeholder format." > > But we all know that the precise opposite is the fact. And we have spent a > good amount of energy to repetitively quote the subsections of para 72 in > this regard. > > I think that an important task at this meeting is to politically challenge > this 'establishment view' of what is the WSIS mandate for the IGF. It will > be good to propose setting aside a complete session to discuss the Tunis > agenda para 72 threadbare, and in its light see what formats etc are good > for the IGF. I appeal to the members attending the meeting to ask for this > special session. It will give political legitimacy and substance to our > demands. > > No one is advocating that we get so much caught into 'substantial outputs' > agenda that we get trapped into a typical UN style nitpicking text > negotiation rounds. We are aware that that's not what IGF is. But it isnt > what the present establishment is making it out to be either. We need to > find the balance, and for this first of all to sit with an open mind to > all > possibilities. > > Carlos has made some great points, and so have many others on this list. I > am in particular enclosing an email of Bertrand's. I am also enclosing my > organization's submission for the synthesis paper. > > One last point, I think we should also insist on more stable and > legitimate > (and not just private, and pro bono) sources of funding for the IGF, which > alone will allow it to fulfill its mandate. > > Thanks. > > Parminder > > > > > > ________________________________________________ > Parminder Jeet Singh > IT for Change, Bangalore > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > www.ITforChange.net > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > > Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 4:29 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: [governance] Discussing the Agenda for Rio in Geneva > > > > Carlos's message is worth discussing seriously. I have done him the > > favor of changing the header. > > > > Dr. Milton Mueller > > Syracuse University School of Information Studies > > http://www.digital-convergence.org > > http://www.internetgovernance.org > > > > >>> ca at rits.org.br 02/08/07 8:16 PM >>> > > In the meantime, a group of countries tries to get organized to insist > > that the IGF should be mainly a space for ICANN bashing and/or > > replacement, while other groups are preparing to propose that the main > > topics in Rio should be exactly the same as in Athens. A majority > > (Brazil not included) of GRULAC (the Latin American and Caribbean > > government group at the UN) members, for example, insist the agenda for > > Rio should be exactly as it was for Athens -- that generic, almost > > useless group of four topics: open standards, access, security, > > diversity... the weather, soccer, who won the lotto... If we continue > > this trend, we better turn IGF into an international old-timers' chat > > space (sponsored by the UN!) like the Brazilian Academy of Letters or > > some other sleepy, tea-soaked thing -- this way we would not need to > > worry about it anymore. > > > > Several post-Athens contributions are worried about format as well as > > content. My view is that we need a process in each meeting in which we > > arrive at thematic and procedural resolutions. Plenaries "moderated" (I > > prefer to say "manipulated") by professional TV hosts do not work well, > > and even scare some of the panelists (specially some of those whose > > native idiom is not English). We need thematic specialists as > > moderators, not "crowd handling" specialists or showmen -- it seemed the > > purpose here was to keep true debate dissolved into generalities. > > > > In my view, we main focus should be on thematic workshops with the goal > > of presenting a resolution proposal in the final plenary -- the main > > meetings would be shorter and would work just as "seeds" for the > > workshops. These would constitute the official set of recommendations > > from IGF. > > > > fraternal regards > > > > --c.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 Mon Feb 12 03:39:39 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 14:09:39 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Consultation on CSTD - Tuesday 13 February (13:30-15:00) In-Reply-To: <200702071911.l17JAr9I009550@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Message-ID: <20070212084152.E72EBE0685@smtp3.electricembers.net> Thanks Philippe, and apologies for responding just a day before the meeting. At the CSTD at its inter-sessional at Paris in November 2006, Renate and I did discuss at length the issues that we will like to push. However, I will still reiterate some points for your consideration to be presented at the CSTD consultations. 1. That CSTD does change its composition, mandate etc suitably and sufficiently to accommodate the IS (information society) agenda. And that fulfilling this new role calls for some fundamental changes in CSTD functioning, including moving from an expertise based to a more political role, which may keep expanding in the future. 2. That the WSIS mandated role of WSIS system wide follow up should be adopted and followed in letter and spirit. And among other things it will require interface with and obtaining/ requesting reports form all UN entities and other bodies which are doing WSIS follow up along different action lines and themes. This process should be formalized at the forth-coming annual meeting of the CSTD, so that all the work of various WSIS follow up and implementation entities has a point of political reporting and coordination. 3. In the above regard, the suggestion of the Brazilian representative at the CSTD, that the commission does less of deep probe activities in any particular area (since the IS arena compassing so many arenas, it is easy to miss the woods for the trees) and do more of 'system wide' political coordination/ supervision/ report-taking. He also suggested that the commission should develop political touch-stones - like the WSIS umbrella concept of a people centred, inclusive and development-oriented IS - and judge various WSIS follow up activities as per these political principles, and make general reports at this level. I think this activity will correspond best to CSTD's WSIS mandate of a system-wide follow up. 4. In the above respect, it is important that CSTD does not take the usual route of developing a work program which is ordered by few pre-decided topics taken up every year. The fast evolving scenario of the IS does not admit of such neat ordering of relevant issues, and the CSTD should be able to take cognizance of key issues as they emerge. (This was stressed at the inter-sessional meeting of CSTD, the issue is reflected in its recommendation, as are several other issues listed here.) 5. It was also stressed, and reflected in the recommendations of the inter-sessional that CSTD coordinates and takes reports from not only the activities on the 11 action lines, but other themes - primarily financial mechanisms, and IG. Hence, it may also request report from the IG as to its progress of meeting its WSIS mandate. 6. Also stressed was the point that CSTD should experiment with new electronic platforms for an inclusive and democratic working. This should be formalized at the annual meeting. 7. And the issue, which I am sure you will present strongly, as Renate did at the Paris meeting, of getting more open with CS participation, and our complete lack of satisfaction with the present level of CS participation. Such participation even if done is presented more as an expertise input and not a political participation on a multi-stakeholder principle of WSIS. We look forward to considerable progress on this issue. The above are the points that come to my mind. I am sorry that they may not be worded too well, and if you are to include any of them in your input papers you may have to clean them up a bit. (I write this from a place with poor connectivity.) Thanks Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net _____ From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] On Behalf Of CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 12:41 AM To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; bureau at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: 'Renate Bloem'; 'CONGO - Philippe Dam' Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Consultation on CSTD - Tuesday 13 February (13:30-15:00) Dear all, This is a preliminary up date on the preparation of the briefing and consultation meeting on the 10th session of CSTD (Room XXIV, Palais des Nations). It will take place on Tuesday 13 February 2007 during lunchtime (13:30-15:00). Participation will be open mainly to CS entities and to the Private Sector. As previously mentioned, two issues will be addressed: - Briefing on the preparations for the up coming cluster of WSIS related events (CSTD and ALF meetings, May 2007) - Informal Consultation on the multi-year work programme and the methods of work of the CSTD. Participation will be open to all CS participants in the CSTD. For most of you, the registration to the IGF stock taking will allow you to access this meeting. For the other ones, we will make sure that you will be provided a badge (contact us: wsis at ngocongo.org). I think we should come to this briefing with some common understanding of the message we want to deliver to the CSTD Secretariat (and to some of the member States representatives who might pop in during the meeting) about the points which will be addressed. This includes the following main issues: - Preparation for the up coming 10th session of the CSTD and of the WSIS related cluster of events; For your information, the CSTD session will be held on 21-25 May; additionally some 8 ALF meetings might be held around that session. More information will follow. Up dated calendar: http://www.csbureau.info/posttunis.htm - Modalities for NGO/CS participation in the CSTD; - Other CSTD working methods for the follow up to WSIS (including reporting activities and relationship with other UN entities); - Multi-year programme of work of the CSTD. Based on the ECOSOC resolution renewing the CSTD mandate in July 2006, the Commission will work through biennial action cycle. The programme of work is still to be determined and the CSTD Panel in Paris (6-8 Nov. 2006) addressed this issue (see report of the CSTD Panel, http://www.unctad.org/sections/dite_dir/docs/dite_pcbb_stdev0045_en.pdf, read in particular pages 15-16). Please send us your contributions and comments on these issues. We will come back to you with more details. All the best, Philippe Dam CONGO - WSIS CS Secretariat 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: wsis at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org The Conference of NGOs (CONGO) is an international, membership association that facilitates the participation of NGOs in United Nations debates and decisions. Founded in 1948, CONGO's major objective is to ensure the presence of NGOs in exchanges among the world's governments and United Nations agencies on issues of global concern. For more information see our website at www.ngocongo.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Mon Feb 12 06:05:37 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:05:37 +0900 Subject: [governance] Discussing the Agenda for Rio in Geneva In-Reply-To: <20070212061309.35A68C962F@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20070212061309.35A68C962F@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <45D04A01.9080509@Malcolm.id.au> Parminder wrote: > My point of departure for this is the strong sense that the existing > governance structure of IGF has taken a certain attitude (which is very very > political, in my view, and not just administrative though that's how it may > be passed off) that IGF is to be, more or less, an annual IG conference. > George Sadowsky's comments (and he is a special advisor to the chair) are > quite forthright on this issue, and he has cited the 'general feeling' in > the IGF governance structure and not just his own views. > > To substantiate his assertion, one only has to note the drift of the > synthesis paper prepared by the IGF for this meeting. While the paper does a > good work of putting different views together, it does betray the mind of > the present IGF governance structure on this issue(As Jeremy has noted). > Very strangely, it seems to, in a way, give legitimacy to the view that the > Tunis agenda mandated only a 'discussion forum' task for IGF, and anything > else will mean going beyond the Tunis agenda. The writing was on the world earlier than that. I have just been going back over the transcripts of the last public consultations, and I came across this gem of an exchange between Brazil and Nitin Desai from May: BRAZIL: Even though we are not going to take decisions in the forum --- that's why we are calling it a forum --- we can have recommendations. ... Non-binding recommendations, but it would be recommendations ... we are going to send back, I suppose, to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and then these recommendations can be delivered to specific bodies that takes decisions on matters. Then my suggestion, Mr Chairman, then we have ... panels, groups, study groups in between, as many as we want, as we decide, as the group decides. Each one producing recommendations on a consensus basis. Of course there will be no votes. Recommendations goes back to the last plenary, and then we approve, and we are ready to go .... DESAI: Consensus between 500 participants from multiple sectors groups. I will put it to the advisory group. It's an interesting thought. I will put it to them and see how they feel about it. -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ 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 nyangkweagien at gmail.com Mon Feb 12 06:15:06 2007 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:15:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - Statement for the IGF consultations In-Reply-To: References: <45CDEC9A.5080404@bertola.eu> Message-ID: Dear All Me think that apart from some proper editing work to be done {line 1 of paragraph 10 must be taken care of with a peoper choice between its and the in the 'itsthe' of the last wordings of that line}, I have no alternative but okaying the statement. Nyangkwe On 2/12/07, McTim wrote: > VB > > On 2/10/07, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > All, > > > > I am attaching the (expectedly) final version of our statement for > > Tuesday, and launching a formal consensus call on it. > > I am ok with the statement generally.... > > > > > The only changes in this version, in respect to the one posted a few > > hours ago, are Ken's note on the number of CS members (which became > > "about five" from "five or less") > > (except for the nit in the other thread about this). > > > > > Separately, I am still asking people to state consensus or opposition > > (if having a clear opinion) on the addition of the sentence "We think > > that, as per comma (j) of the IGF mandate, the legal nature and working > > structure of ICANN should be among the matters discussed in Rio, as long > > as this does not prevent the IGF from paying adequate attention to all > > the other themes.", in replacement of "Inside civil society, there are > > different points of view about this matter;", in the second-last para. > > I am strongly opposed to this change for a number of reasons; > > a) j is a pretty flimsy rationale IMO for talking about "the legal > nature and working > structure". I just can't make that leap myself. > > b) qualifying it with the caveat about it not being distracting is a > little strange, as we know from past experience that it is the black > hole of discussion topics. > > c) The mandate is quite clear about being hands off ICANN et. al., so > it's discussion without any possibility of resolution. Now, if the > intent is to do capacity building, then I'd be happy to lead a > discussion on critical resource distribution theory and practice. > > -- > 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 > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President ASAFE Tel. 237 337 50 22 Fax. 237 342 29 70 ____________________________________________________________ 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 nyangkweagien at gmail.com Mon Feb 12 06:46:10 2007 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:46:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] Discussing the Agenda for Rio in Geneva In-Reply-To: <45D04A01.9080509@Malcolm.id.au> References: <20070212061309.35A68C962F@smtp1.electricembers.net> <45D04A01.9080509@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: Milton's remark on "We need thematic specialists as moderators, not "crowd handling" specialists or showmen -- it seemed the purpose here was to keep true debate dissolved into generalities" to me is alarmist. A TV Host {Journalist} bases his follow up questions on possible feed backs from the populace so as to render participation inclusive. He/she makes sure that answers obtained respond to a certain general appeal - the reasons for such meetings. The situation become different when sessions are moderated by "thematic specialists", in this case, discussions are squared and full of "thematic specialists dogma" that transform other participamts into strangers. I think that we should not arrive at a situation where people are invited to stay as zombies while "speciaists" have their day. BTW no body stops a "thematic specialist" from refocusing a debate when he/she notice that a moderator is taking the discussion towards a desert. My advise is that instead of semonising the host, specialists should henceforth play the proper watch dog, the reasons why ther are invited into many sessions Nyangkwe On 2/12/07, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Parminder wrote: > > My point of departure for this is the strong sense that the existing > > governance structure of IGF has taken a certain attitude (which is very very > > political, in my view, and not just administrative though that's how it may > > be passed off) that IGF is to be, more or less, an annual IG conference. > > George Sadowsky's comments (and he is a special advisor to the chair) are > > quite forthright on this issue, and he has cited the 'general feeling' in > > the IGF governance structure and not just his own views. > > > > To substantiate his assertion, one only has to note the drift of the > > synthesis paper prepared by the IGF for this meeting. While the paper does a > > good work of putting different views together, it does betray the mind of > > the present IGF governance structure on this issue(As Jeremy has noted). > > Very strangely, it seems to, in a way, give legitimacy to the view that the > > Tunis agenda mandated only a 'discussion forum' task for IGF, and anything > > else will mean going beyond the Tunis agenda. > > The writing was on the world earlier than that. I have just been going > back over the transcripts of the last public consultations, and I came > across this gem of an exchange between Brazil and Nitin Desai from May: > > BRAZIL: Even though we are not going to take decisions in the forum --- > that's why we are calling it a forum --- we can have recommendations. > ... Non-binding recommendations, but it would be recommendations ... we > are going to send back, I suppose, to the Secretary-General of the > United Nations, and then these recommendations can be delivered to > specific bodies that takes decisions on matters. Then my suggestion, Mr > Chairman, then we have ... panels, groups, study groups in between, as > many as we want, as we decide, as the group decides. Each one producing > recommendations on a consensus basis. Of course there will be no votes. > Recommendations goes back to the last plenary, and then we approve, and > we are ready to go .... > > DESAI: Consensus between 500 participants from multiple sectors groups. > I will put it to the advisory group. It's an interesting thought. I will > put it to them and see how they feel about it. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor > host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President ASAFE Tel. 237 337 50 22 Fax. 237 342 29 70 ____________________________________________________________ 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 Feb 12 08:05:12 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:05:12 -0300 Subject: [governance] Discussing the Agenda for Rio in Geneva In-Reply-To: References: <20070212061309.35A68C962F@smtp1.electricembers.net> <45D04A01.9080509@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <45D06608.9090801@rits.org.br> That remark was not Milton's, it was mine. The proposal to have moderators and not "showmen" is tied to the idea of a process between IGF meetings in which we have far more precise discussion themes defined and the organized input of specialists (from all sectors) beforehand, so we arrive at the meeting with a far better notion of the issues to be discussed (refined) under each theme. A new idea has emerged in the MAG here in Geneva -- that we have in the plenary meetings the presentation of a few "best practices", which would be a reference for converging the discussions to conclusions, as selected by the preparatory process just indicated. fraternal regards --c.a. Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: > Milton's remark on "We need thematic specialists as > moderators, not "crowd handling" specialists or showmen -- it seemed the > purpose here was to keep true debate dissolved into generalities" to > me is alarmist. > A TV Host {Journalist} bases his follow up questions on possible feed > backs from the populace so as to render participation inclusive. > He/she makes sure that answers obtained respond to a certain general > appeal - the reasons for such meetings. The situation become different > when sessions are moderated by "thematic specialists", in this case, > discussions are squared and full of "thematic specialists dogma" that > transform other participamts into strangers. I think that we should > not arrive at a situation where people are invited to stay as zombies > while "speciaists" have their day. > BTW no body stops a "thematic specialist" from refocusing a debate > when he/she notice that a moderator is taking the discussion towards a > desert. My advise is that instead of semonising the host, specialists > should henceforth play the proper watch dog, the reasons why ther are > invited into many sessions > > Nyangkwe > > > On 2/12/07, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> Parminder wrote: >> > My point of departure for this is the strong sense that the existing >> > governance structure of IGF has taken a certain attitude (which is >> very very >> > political, in my view, and not just administrative though that's how >> it may >> > be passed off) that IGF is to be, more or less, an annual IG >> conference. >> > George Sadowsky's comments (and he is a special advisor to the >> chair) are >> > quite forthright on this issue, and he has cited the 'general >> feeling' in >> > the IGF governance structure and not just his own views. >> > >> > To substantiate his assertion, one only has to note the drift of the >> > synthesis paper prepared by the IGF for this meeting. While the >> paper does a >> > good work of putting different views together, it does betray the >> mind of >> > the present IGF governance structure on this issue(As Jeremy has >> noted). >> > Very strangely, it seems to, in a way, give legitimacy to the view >> that the >> > Tunis agenda mandated only a 'discussion forum' task for IGF, and >> anything >> > else will mean going beyond the Tunis agenda. >> >> The writing was on the world earlier than that. I have just been going >> back over the transcripts of the last public consultations, and I came >> across this gem of an exchange between Brazil and Nitin Desai from May: >> >> BRAZIL: Even though we are not going to take decisions in the forum --- >> that's why we are calling it a forum --- we can have recommendations. >> ... Non-binding recommendations, but it would be recommendations ... we >> are going to send back, I suppose, to the Secretary-General of the >> United Nations, and then these recommendations can be delivered to >> specific bodies that takes decisions on matters. Then my suggestion, Mr >> Chairman, then we have ... panels, groups, study groups in between, as >> many as we want, as we decide, as the group decides. Each one producing >> recommendations on a consensus basis. Of course there will be no votes. >> Recommendations goes back to the last plenary, and then we approve, and >> we are ready to go .... >> >> DESAI: Consensus between 500 participants from multiple sectors groups. >> I will put it to the advisory group. It's an interesting thought. I will >> put it to them and see how they feel about it. >> >> -- >> Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com >> Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor >> host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits http://www.rits.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 LMcKnigh at syr.edu Mon Feb 12 09:27:57 2007 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 09:27:57 -0500 Subject: [governance] Statement for Feb 13, version 2 Message-ID: sure if you prefer that spin, as it is politic to point out the disproportionality. Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> dogwallah at gmail.com 2/11/2007 1:42 PM >>> On 2/11/07, Lee McKnight wrote: > Now I'll agree with Bill that we shouldn;t get distracted. A quick copy > edit by Bill and we're done > > It is historically significant in this universe to get a CS text into > the first meeting post-igf I. > > I'm sure McTim will agree 12 is less than a third of 40, so > statistically speaking, including a bit of whining is good politics Working in Washington, D.C. for a decade, taught me that whining is never "good politics". Why don't we point out that gov't is over represented instead? -- 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 ____________________________________________________________ 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 Mon Feb 12 12:44:43 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 18:44:43 +0100 Subject: [governance] Coordinators' call on the statement for Feb 13 Message-ID: <45D0A78B.3090206@bertola.eu> All, Parminder and I have consulted and have come to a final call on the matter of our statement for tomorrow: 1) There is sufficient support for us to make the statement (as it was put forward for the consensus call). Given that this is the first time, and it was a learning process for us all, I hope that everyone understood that a "consensus call" is not a call for further amendments, but a straw poll to understand whether the work as it stands is sufficiently satisfying to everyone to be released as a group product. In this respect, we saw just one person asking for further significant edits before giving support, while most others seemed to support it in the general sense, and so our call is that there is rough consensus. This does not mean that the changes that were proposed in these 48 hours were not good - personally, I found many of them quite agreeable - but we considered that by incorporating them at this point in time, we would be making our own process moot. So we decided to stick with the process. Perhaps, for the next time, we will try to have more time for the discussion and one more round of editing, but, on the other hand, it's well recognized that we all are busy and tend to mobilize only when very near to deadlines :) However, I think that this still leaves me the freedom to do non-substantial changes such as refining the English, so I'll do that if I can. 2) There is not enough consensus to add the extra text on ICANN. In the end, given the reactions (averagely positive, but with strong objections as well), we decided that it would be better to keep the existing language on such a sensitive matter. This does not prevent all those who spoke strongly in favour or strongly against from doing so tomorrow in their own (or their organizations') capacity. Regards, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 Mon Feb 12 17:26:02 2007 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:26:02 -0500 Subject: [governance] Coordinators' call on the statement for Feb 13 In-Reply-To: <45D0A78B.3090206@bertola.eu> References: <45D0A78B.3090206@bertola.eu> Message-ID: At 6:44 PM +0100 2/12/07, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >a "consensus call" is not a call for further amendments, but a straw poll to understand whether the work as it stands is sufficiently satisfying to everyone to be released as a group product. In this respect, we saw just one person asking for further significant edits before giving support, while most others seemed to support it in the general sense, and so our call is that there is rough consensus. > >This does not mean that the changes that were proposed in these 48 hours were not good - personally, I found many of them quite agreeable - but we considered that by incorporating them at this point in time, we would be making our own process moot. So we decided to stick with the process. Perhaps, for the next time, we will try to have more time for the discussion and one more round of editing, but, on the other hand, it's well recognized that we all are busy and tend to mobilize only when very near to deadlines :) Appreciation, and kudos, for adherence to procedure. That seems the only likely path to better times. May it be that we learn from your leadership, 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 stine at apdip.net Mon Feb 12 21:42:58 2007 From: stine at apdip.net (Stine Loft Rasmussen) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:42:58 +0700 Subject: [governance] Commissioner Lallana to Lead UNDPs Project to Promote Policies for Open Computing Standards in Asia-Pacific Countries In-Reply-To: <1171332611.48824.27.camel@wolverine.inigo-tech.com> References: <20070212022230.163E1617C@hercules.apdip.net> <009c01c74e63$61c75250$510aa8c0@undp.or.th> <1171332611.48824.27.camel@wolverine.inigo-tech.com> Message-ID: <003001c74f18$ac2cb910$510aa8c0@undp.or.th> Commissioner Lallana to Lead UNDPs Project to Promote Policies for Open Computing Standards in Asia-Pacific Countries Monday, 12 February 2007 . Dr. Emmanuel C. Lallana, former Commissioner of the Philippines Commission on Information and Communications Technology joined UNDP Asia-Pacific Development Information Programme (UNDP-APDIP) as Project Adviser of the Government Interoperability Frameworks (GIFs) Project. The GIFs Project is a joint initiative of UNDP-APDIP, IBM, Oracle and the International Open Source Network. It aims to help Asia-Pacific countries share and create strategies, blueprints and policies for adopting the right blend of open standards and technology services. The goal will be for more countries to develop universally compatible applications and networks to make internal and external government services and transactions more automatic, affordable, efficient and service-oriented. According to Dr. Lallana; "The GIF Project meets a growing global interest in interoperability using open standards, recently demonstrated by the submission by 20 government's National Bodies to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) expressing concerns on a standard". As Project Adviser, Dr. Lallana, in coordination with UNDP-APDIPs Programme Coordinator, will manage the overall research work and ensure the timely implementation of the project's activities. Specifically, he will be responsible for leading the review of existing GIFs, the convening of a study group on GIFs, and the writing and publication of a step-by-step guide on GIF formulation and policy recommendations for countries interested in developing their own GIFs. Dr. Lallana has extensive government and research experience. At the Commission on Information and Communications Technology (CICT) - the apex ICT body of the Philippines government, he led the Human Capital Development Group and served as the Chairman of the CICT Working Group on International Affairs from September 2004 to June 2006. Dr. Lallana is also widely published. He wrote the chapter on the "Philippines" and co-wrote the chapter "Social, Political and Cultural Aspects of ICT" in the Digital Review of the Asia Pacific 2005/2006 (in http://www.digital-review.org ). Other recent publications include: An Overview of ICT Policies and e-Strategies of Select Asian Economies (UNDP-APDIP and Elsevier, 2004); SMS in Business and Government (DOST/ICT4D.ph, 2004); State of e-Government in the Philippines 2003-2004 (Congressional Oversight Committee on eCommerce, 2004); and m-Government: Mobile/Wireless Applications in Government (in http://www.egov4dev.org.topic4.htm ). He was the Series Editor of e-Primers for the Information Economy, Society and Polity, vols. 1-7 (online versions at: http://www.apdip.net/elibrary#iesp), which was jointly published by UNDP-APDIP and the e-ASEAN Task Force. For more information on the GIFs Project, please visit http://www.apdip.net/projects/gif -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Tue Feb 13 05:16:49 2007 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:16:49 +0100 Subject: [governance] Coordinators' call on the statement for Feb 13 In-Reply-To: References: <45D0A78B.3090206@bertola.eu> Message-ID: Your statement exhibits strong elements of leadership. I am elated to collaborate with such a strong mind. Kudos. Nyangkwe On 2/12/07, David Allen wrote: > At 6:44 PM +0100 2/12/07, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > >a "consensus call" is not a call for further amendments, but a straw poll to understand whether the work as it stands is sufficiently satisfying to everyone to be released as a group product. In this respect, we saw just one person asking for further significant edits before giving support, while most others seemed to support it in the general sense, and so our call is that there is rough consensus. > > > >This does not mean that the changes that were proposed in these 48 hours were not good - personally, I found many of them quite agreeable - but we considered that by incorporating them at this point in time, we would be making our own process moot. So we decided to stick with the process. Perhaps, for the next time, we will try to have more time for the discussion and one more round of editing, but, on the other hand, it's well recognized that we all are busy and tend to mobilize only when very near to deadlines :) > > Appreciation, and kudos, for adherence to procedure. > > That seems the only likely path to better times. May it be that we learn from your leadership, > > 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 > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President ASAFE Tel. 237 337 50 22 Fax. 237 342 29 70 ____________________________________________________________ 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 iza at anr.org Tue Feb 13 08:59:18 2007 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 22:59:18 +0900 Subject: [governance] Coordinators' call on the statement for Feb 13 In-Reply-To: <45D0A78B.3090206@bertola.eu> References: <45D0A78B.3090206@bertola.eu> Message-ID: Vittorio and Parminder, Many thanks for the great effort to induce the consensus. While it may not be the perfect outcome, it still is far better than not reaching the rough consensus, I would say. As this is the first time for the new coordinators, I think you now have found some challenges as all the predecessors faced. We will collectively learn good lessons to carry forward. It's a pitty that I could not join f2f in Geneva, but remain engaged. izumi 2007/2/13, Vittorio Bertola : > > All, > > Parminder and I have consulted and have come to a final call on the > matter of our statement for tomorrow: > > 1) There is sufficient support for us to make the statement (as it was > put forward for the consensus call). > > Given that this is the first time, and it was a learning process for us > all, I hope that everyone understood that a "consensus call" is not a > call for further amendments, but a straw poll to understand whether the > work as it stands is sufficiently satisfying to everyone to be released > as a group product. In this respect, we saw just one person asking for > further significant edits before giving support, while most others > seemed to support it in the general sense, and so our call is that there > is rough consensus. > > This does not mean that the changes that were proposed in these 48 hours > were not good - personally, I found many of them quite agreeable - but > we considered that by incorporating them at this point in time, we would > be making our own process moot. So we decided to stick with the process. > Perhaps, for the next time, we will try to have more time for the > discussion and one more round of editing, but, on the other hand, it's > well recognized that we all are busy and tend to mobilize only when very > near to deadlines :) > > However, I think that this still leaves me the freedom to do > non-substantial changes such as refining the English, so I'll do that if > I can. > > 2) There is not enough consensus to add the extra text on ICANN. > > In the end, given the reactions (averagely positive, but with strong > objections as well), we decided that it would be better to keep the > existing language on such a sensitive matter. This does not prevent all > those who spoke strongly in favour or strongly against from doing so > tomorrow in their own (or their organizations') capacity. > > Regards, > -- > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From vb at bertola.eu Tue Feb 13 09:28:19 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:28:19 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reminder: Caucus meeting today Message-ID: <45D1CB03.5050601@bertola.eu> For all caucus members who are here in Geneva at the IGF consultations, please remember that we are meeting at the exit of the room as soon as this (afternoon) session ends, to have a brief & informal caucus meeting and discuss our further steps. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 mazzone at ebu.ch Tue Feb 13 09:38:45 2007 From: mazzone at ebu.ch (Mazzone, Giacomo) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:38:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reminder: Caucus meeting today Message-ID: <9BB211A65FCBFD43B95F67BA2485759D09D8EC44@gnvasmail1a.gva.ebu.ch> OK. -----Original Message----- From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] Sent: mardi, 13. février 2007 15:28 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Reminder: Caucus meeting today For all caucus members who are here in Geneva at the IGF consultations, please remember that we are meeting at the exit of the room as soon as this (afternoon) session ends, to have a brief & informal caucus meeting and discuss our further steps. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 ----------------------------------------- ************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway ************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ 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 iza at anr.org Tue Feb 13 10:31:06 2007 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 00:31:06 +0900 Subject: [governance] remote particpation Message-ID: Dear Nitin and all IGFers, Congratulations for all of you who are now in Geneva at IGF consulation meeting and I appreciate your effort to extend the meeting in the remote participation channel. However, sorry to say, that the quality of the webcast is far from pragmatic, the voice was cut so often that it is not possible to keep the concentration and make good understandings of what is going on. I don't mean this is sort of criticism, but just a reality check. I hope the webcast i nRio will be much better in quality Izumi Aizu from Tokyo - local time 0:30 in the morning. -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From sylvia.caras at gmail.com Tue Feb 13 10:45:44 2007 From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 07:45:44 -0800 Subject: [governance] points discussed on the Feb 12th meeting of the Advisory group In-Reply-To: <200702131147.OAA06730@safat.kisr.edu.kw> References: <200702131147.OAA06730@safat.kisr.edu.kw> Message-ID: Thanks for the update. I`m looking forward to the meeting. >location of next IGF meeting in Rio which looked a nice place What is the location? A hotel? A convention centre? Do you have the exact name of the place? Sylvia ____________________________________________________________ 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 Tue Feb 13 13:44:51 2007 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:44:51 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: remote participation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Confirming Izumi's experience. Here we started in the middle of the night, slowing emerging to dawn. When finally the VLC player was identified, at least the stream, so far via Real, ceased to break every 84 seconds, requiring another restart ... Despite VLC, continuing interruptions put a sense of the meeting outside of the grasp. So the transcript is the refuge - Nitin Desai has already noted the joys in reading hours of transcript. So we get to some of the realities that a serious consideration of online participation will engage. David At 12:31 AM +0900 2/14/07, Izumi AIZU wrote: >Dear Nitin and all IGFers, > >Congratulations for all of you who are now in Geneva at IGF consulation meeting and I appreciate your effort to extend the meeting in the remote participation channel. > >However, sorry to say, that the quality of the webcast is far from pragmatic, the voice was cut so often that it is not possible to keep the concentration and make good understandings of what is going on. > >I don't mean this is sort of criticism, but just a reality check. I hope the webcast i nRio will be much better in quality > >Izumi Aizu from Tokyo - local time 0:30 in the morning. > >-- Izumi Aizu << > >Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University >* * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ 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 atanugarai.lists at gmail.com Tue Feb 13 14:49:51 2007 From: atanugarai.lists at gmail.com (atanu garai) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 01:19:51 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: remote participation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I had the opportunity to participate in today's meeting, albeit in the first half only and could see that the developing countries are present only through the government delegations. Of course, the question of funding participation from developing countries were raised several times by various participants, and Mr. Desai wanted to give his reflection, which I did not have the opportunity to learn. At least for the time being, it would be good to have such kind of online space to continue discussions. Then, I propose to further this idea of the setting up of appropriate networking tools involving southern institutions, especially for the CSOs, as the meeting for New Delhi is approaching. Atanu On 14/02/07, David Allen wrote: > > Confirming Izumi's experience. > > Here we started in the middle of the night, slowing emerging to dawn. > > When finally the VLC player was identified, at least the stream, so far > via Real, ceased to break every 84 seconds, requiring another restart > ... Despite VLC, continuing interruptions put a sense of the meeting > outside of the grasp. So the transcript is the refuge - Nitin Desai has > already noted the joys in reading hours of transcript. > > So we get to some of the realities that a serious consideration of online > participation will engage. > > David > > At 12:31 AM +0900 2/14/07, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >Dear Nitin and all IGFers, > > > >Congratulations for all of you who are now in Geneva at IGF consulation > meeting and I appreciate your effort to extend the meeting in the remote > participation channel. > > > >However, sorry to say, that the quality of the webcast is far from > pragmatic, the voice was cut so often that it is not possible to keep the > concentration and make good understandings of what is going on. > > > >I don't mean this is sort of criticism, but just a reality check. I hope > the webcast i nRio will be much better in quality > > > >Izumi Aizu from Tokyo - local time 0:30 in the morning. > > > >-- Izumi Aizu << > > > >Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University > >* * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu Tue Feb 13 15:19:10 2007 From: jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu (John Mathiason) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:19:10 -0500 Subject: [governance] remote particpation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9C052673-9BAE-41BC-A832-377B051B1B46@maxwell.syr.edu> I also tried to get the video of the afternoon session but got an error message (bad request). It would be important to fix these glitches before Rio. I agree with the other posters that if we can make the IGF connected (and this may require different software than was used), we have a reasonable chance of engaging stakeholders who can't afford to travel. Regards, John On Feb 13, 2007, at 10:31 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear Nitin and all IGFers, > > Congratulations for all of you who are now in Geneva at > IGF consulation meeting and I appreciate your effort > to extend the meeting in the remote participation > channel. > > However, sorry to say, that the quality of the webcast > is far from pragmatic, the voice was cut so often that > it is not possible to keep the concentration and > make good understandings of what is going on. > > I don't mean this is sort of criticism, but just a reality > check. I hope the webcast i nRio will be much better > in quality > > Izumi Aizu > from Tokyo - local time 0:30 in the morning. > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society > Kumon Center, Tama University > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.org > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 lists at privaterra.info Tue Feb 13 15:35:26 2007 From: lists at privaterra.info (Mr. Robert Guerra) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:35:26 -0500 Subject: [governance] remote particpation In-Reply-To: <9C052673-9BAE-41BC-A832-377B051B1B46@maxwell.syr.edu> References: <9C052673-9BAE-41BC-A832-377B051B1B46@maxwell.syr.edu> Message-ID: There's an easy fix - why not take a the audio and/or video that's captured locally, and posted to archive.org . More or less easy to do, and there's no cost for the bandwidth. Happy to discuss online - here or elsewhere with others who can try to get this done for future IGF consultations and/or the event in Rio regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 On 13-Feb-07, at 3:19 PM, John Mathiason wrote: > I also tried to get the video of the afternoon session but got an > error message (bad request). It would be important to fix these > glitches before Rio. I agree with the other posters that if we can > make the IGF connected (and this may require different software > than was used), we have a reasonable chance of engaging > stakeholders who can't afford to travel. > > Regards, > > John > On Feb 13, 2007, at 10:31 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> Dear Nitin and all IGFers, >> >> Congratulations for all of you who are now in Geneva at >> IGF consulation meeting and I appreciate your effort >> to extend the meeting in the remote participation >> channel. >> >> However, sorry to say, that the quality of the webcast >> is far from pragmatic, the voice was cut so often that >> it is not possible to keep the concentration and >> make good understandings of what is going on. >> >> I don't mean this is sort of criticism, but just a reality >> check. I hope the webcast i nRio will be much better >> in quality >> >> Izumi Aizu >> from Tokyo - local time 0:30 in the morning. >> >> -- >> >> Izumi Aizu << >> >> Institute for HyperNetwork Society >> Kumon Center, Tama University >> * * * * * >> << Writing the Future of the History >> >> www.anr.org >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Tue Feb 13 16:05:40 2007 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:05:40 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: remote participation In-Reply-To: <9C052673-9BAE-41BC-A832-377B051B1B46@maxwell.syr.edu> References: <9C052673-9BAE-41BC-A832-377B051B1B46@maxwell.syr.edu> Message-ID: Here's a post prepared late in the session, on this subject. (The opening paras ping from comments made earlier in the session. Incidentally, only VLC would pull in the stream for any period of time.) >We were tempted to take advantage of asynchronous options, with a >Geneva morning the middle of the night here. Yes, in remote >participation, time differences are one of the differences. > >And we would take a static connection any time - static, anyway, if >it didn't constantly ask to be re-started. Ain't technology >wonderful?! Especially when it is still a little bit a beta release. > >To be a little more serious: We suggest serious thinking about what >real participation is possible, when participants are remote. To >listen, and even watch (if the link stays up), is a pleasure. It is >a different matter when it comes to making an intervention in the >meeting. Or, when it comes to (wanting to) talk to colleagues in >the corridor. > >Two-way video is an established tool today - and with bandwidth, >even easy to do. But that is a step beyond where we are in IGF >infrastructure. And many would-be remote participants will not have >the bandwidth. > >If we do not go to two-way video - and I would be surprised if we do >- we suggest serious thought about our expectations for remote >participation and just how to configure it. What we actually can enable, for participation, is going to be a useful topic. I expect most are aware that Jeremy Malcolm, with Kieren McCarthy, have got a dynamic coalition on the subject http://igf2006.info/wiki/IGF-OCDC intended to be hands-on and helpful. Kieren presented on the coalition, the first comments in the afternoon. David At 3:19 PM -0500 2/13/07, John Mathiason wrote: >I also tried to get the video of the afternoon session but got an >error message (bad request). It would be important to fix these >glitches before Rio. I agree with the other posters that if we can >make the IGF connected (and this may require different software than >was used), we have a reasonable chance of engaging stakeholders who >can't afford to travel. > >Regards, > >John > >On Feb 13, 2007, at 10:31 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >>Dear Nitin and all IGFers, >> >>Congratulations for all of you who are now in Geneva at >>IGF consulation meeting and I appreciate your effort >>to extend the meeting in the remote participation >>channel. >> >>However, sorry to say, that the quality of the webcast >>is far from pragmatic, the voice was cut so often that >>it is not possible to keep the concentration and >>make good understandings of what is going on. >> >>I don't mean this is sort of criticism, but just a reality >>check. I hope the webcast i nRio will be much better >>in quality >> >>Izumi Aizu >>from Tokyo - local time 0:30 in the morning. >> >>-- >> >> Izumi Aizu << >> >> Institute for HyperNetwork Society >> Kumon Center, Tama University >> * * * * * >> << Writing the Future of the History >> >> www.anr.org >>____________________________________________________________ >>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 lists at privaterra.info Tue Feb 13 16:49:03 2007 From: lists at privaterra.info (Mr. Robert Guerra) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:49:03 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: remote participation In-Reply-To: References: <9C052673-9BAE-41BC-A832-377B051B1B46@maxwell.syr.edu> Message-ID: <1EC09584-7E74-4735-ACC1-DCE22975336D@privaterra.info> I'm subscribed to the coalition list , and don't think i've seen any postings in a while. perhaps i'm not on the list. must check.. regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 On 13-Feb-07, at 4:05 PM, David Allen wrote: > Here's a post prepared late in the session, on this subject. (The > opening paras ping from comments made earlier in the session. > Incidentally, only VLC would pull in the stream for any period of > time.) > >> We were tempted to take advantage of asynchronous options, with a >> Geneva morning the middle of the night here. Yes, in remote >> participation, time differences are one of the differences. >> >> And we would take a static connection any time - static, anyway, >> if it didn't constantly ask to be re-started. Ain't technology >> wonderful?! Especially when it is still a little bit a beta release. >> To be a little more serious: We suggest serious thinking about >> what real participation is possible, when participants are >> remote. To listen, and even watch (if the link stays up), is a >> pleasure. It is a different matter when it comes to making an >> intervention in the meeting. Or, when it comes to (wanting to) >> talk to colleagues in the corridor. >> Two-way video is an established tool today - and with bandwidth, >> even easy to do. But that is a step beyond where we are in IGF >> infrastructure. And many would-be remote participants will not >> have the bandwidth. >> >> If we do not go to two-way video - and I would be surprised if we >> do - we suggest serious thought about our expectations for remote >> participation and just how to configure it. > > What we actually can enable, for participation, is going to be a > useful topic. > > I expect most are aware that Jeremy Malcolm, with Kieren McCarthy, > have got a dynamic coalition on the subject http://igf2006.info/ > wiki/IGF-OCDC intended to be hands-on and helpful. Kieren > presented on the coalition, the first comments in the afternoon. > > David > > At 3:19 PM -0500 2/13/07, John Mathiason wrote: >> I also tried to get the video of the afternoon session but got an >> error message (bad request). It would be important to fix these >> glitches before Rio. I agree with the other posters that if we >> can make the IGF connected (and this may require different >> software than was used), we have a reasonable chance of engaging >> stakeholders who can't afford to travel. >> >> Regards, >> >> John >> On Feb 13, 2007, at 10:31 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> >>> Dear Nitin and all IGFers, >>> >>> Congratulations for all of you who are now in Geneva at >>> IGF consulation meeting and I appreciate your effort >>> to extend the meeting in the remote participation >>> channel. >>> >>> However, sorry to say, that the quality of the webcast >>> is far from pragmatic, the voice was cut so often that >>> it is not possible to keep the concentration and >>> make good understandings of what is going on. >>> >>> I don't mean this is sort of criticism, but just a reality >>> check. I hope the webcast i nRio will be much better >>> in quality >>> >>> Izumi Aizu >>> from Tokyo - local time 0:30 in the morning. >>> >>> -- >>> >> Izumi Aizu << >>> >>> Institute for HyperNetwork Society >>> Kumon Center, Tama University >>> * * * * * >>> << Writing the Future of the History >> >>> www.anr.org >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Tue Feb 13 21:34:14 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:34:14 +0900 Subject: [governance] The seeds of change in the IGF Message-ID: <45D27526.9040104@Malcolm.id.au> I don't know what others thought, but I found yesterday's consultations to mark potentially a bit of a watershed moment. I've blogged about this in more detail at igfwatch.org, but consider: * This is the first time that governments (such as France, Australia, and Germany for the EU) have effectively acknowledged Dynamic Coalitions as the de-facto working groups that many of us had been asking for all along, by calling for the reception of the reports of Dynamic Coalitions as input into the plenary meetings - which also implies the development of processes and procedures for doing that and thereby integrating the Dynamic Coalitions more closely into the IGF as an institution. * This also seems to be the first time *ever* that Nitin Desai has publicly acknowledged that "there is language in paragraph 72 which talks of recommendations as appropriate, and we still do not have a process for figuring out how to get to those recommendations," rather than (well, as well as) repeating his "the IGF has no membership" mantra. We are also told that this has now been explicitly considered by the Advisory Group. Paragraph 72 was also referenced by Brazil, which - someone will correct me if I'm wrong - seems to be the first occasion on which any government has acknowledged the heretofore missing parts of the IGF's mandate. * We have also been assured that criticisms of the transparency of the Advisory Group have been heard and will be addressed to a greater extent between now and the Rio meeting, and that views on the composition of the Advisory Group will be conveyed to the new Secretary-General. Of course, there were dissenting voices as always (though mostly from the private sector, and even civil society, more so than governments), but nonetheless I found these consultations much more promising than any previously held, in suggesting that the IGF can be steered back towards developing into a form that empowers all stakeholders (and those from civil society in particular), rather than remaining as an irrelevant talk-fest controlled by those with vested interests in maintaining the status quo. -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ 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 Tue Feb 13 23:57:27 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 05:57:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] The seeds of change in the IGF In-Reply-To: <45D27526.9040104@Malcolm.id.au> References: <45D27526.9040104@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: hi, On 14 feb 2007, at 03.34, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Of course, there were dissenting voices as always (though mostly > from the private sector, and even civil society, more so than > governments), a small point, just because the governments do not disagree with something in public is no reason to assume they are in agreement. i do not know if they have dissented in the background, but governments are the ones who participate in the UN all the time and the ones who have access to UNSG's office. i am not trying to say they did dissent, but they generally don't do their dissenting too publicly. also, think of all the countries that said nothing or essentially nothing. 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 veni at veni.com Wed Feb 14 06:29:47 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 06:29:47 -0500 Subject: [governance] The seeds of change in the IGF In-Reply-To: References: <45D27526.9040104@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <200702141138.l1EBcaa2023180@mxr.isoc.bg> I join Avri in this. Actually for governments - if they agree, they say it. The "silence approval" is not valid there. veni At 05:57 AM 2/14/2007 +0100, Avri Doria wrote: >hi, > >On 14 feb 2007, at 03.34, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >>Of course, there were dissenting voices as always (though mostly >>from the private sector, and even civil society, more so than >>governments), > > >a small point, just because the governments do not disagree with >something in public is no reason to assume they are in agreement. i >do not know if they have dissented in the background, but governments >are the ones who participate in the UN all the time and the ones who >have access to UNSG's office. > >i am not trying to say they did dissent, but they generally don't do >their dissenting too publicly. also, think of all the countries that >said nothing or essentially nothing. > >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 Sincerely, Veni Markovski http://www.veni.com check also my blog: http://blog.veni.com The opinions expressed above are those of the author, not of any organizations, associated with or related to the author in any given way. ____________________________________________________________ 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 bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Thu Feb 15 07:40:05 2007 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 13:40:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] The seeds of change in the IGF In-Reply-To: <45D27526.9040104@Malcolm.id.au> References: <45D27526.9040104@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <45D454A5.4050104@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I don't know what others thought, but I found yesterday's consultations > to mark potentially a bit of a watershed moment. It was certainly interesting. > * This is the first time that governments (such as France, > Australia, and Germany for the EU) have effectively acknowledged > Dynamic Coalitions as the de-facto working groups Some anecdotal evidence: The Privacy Coalition had a smaller meeting on Monday to prepare the report for the Tuesday consultations, and Markus Kummer was kind enough to get us a room at the UN. When I picked up my badge at the gate, it actually said "UN-DESA, IGF Dynamic Coalition on Privacy" as the event I was registered for. > * This also seems to be the first time *ever* that Nitin Desai has > publicly acknowledged that "there is language in paragraph 72 which > talks of recommendations as appropriate, and we still do not have a > process for figuring out how to get to those recommendations," > rather than (well, as well as) repeating his "the IGF has no > membership" mantra. He started with the "no membership" mantra in his closing remarks (which he surprisingly started already before 17:00), but then a few of us intervened. It was only then that he acknowledged the possibility of recommendations. What I find really fascinating is the way the secretariat is trying to write history here, and by this itself is moving a bit towards IGF outcomes procedures. Look at http://www.intgovforum.org, it says (IIRC for the first time ever): "the Chairman's closing remarks can be downloaded separately for easy access", and they open in an extra rtf document. These closing remarks look like they were done in one piece, while in fact there were the above mentioned interventions by Brazil, Charles Geiger, Jeremy Beale, myself, Carlos Alfonso, Louis Pouzin, Karen Banks, Riaz Tayob (Third World Network), Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Jean-Francois Morfin, and Adam Peake in the middle of the closing remarks by Nitin Desai. So you could argue that - the practice of publishing the chair's closing remarks in an extra document is a step towards formal outcomes, - the debate that took place after his first round of closing remarks was some kind of "informal negotiation / rough consensus-building" on what these outcomes should say. Another interesting thing I noticed: Nitin Desai was completely shying away from saying anything on the "enhanced cooperation", in fact hiding behind the new Secretary-General. Ralf ____________________________________________________________ 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 Feb 15 09:09:04 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:09:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] remote particpation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <37A41EF4-975F-453E-9302-F94A3ED81096@psg.com> (writing while i am on contract as a consultant to the IGF secretariat) Hi, On 13 feb 2007, at 16.31, Izumi AIZU wrote: > However, sorry to say, that the quality of the webcast > is far from pragmatic, the voice was cut so often that > it is not possible to keep the concentration and > make good understandings of what is going on. As others have pointed out RealPlayer did not work, one needed to use VLC. I am told this was because the (LS)3 folks doing the broadcast ( http://streaming.polito.it/ ) had upgraded their software. Actually according to the (LS)3 folks RealPlayer would have worked as long as TurboPlay was disabled. In any case this was discovered at lunch and an announcement was put up on the IGF web site. And while it would have been best if this had been made clear at beginning we did not realize it until we got the first comment. Incidentally, the stream was tested at the beginning of the meeting, but Chengetai uses VLC and it worked fine. I apologize for not thinking to send this list a note about the 'fix' after lunch when i first heard about the problem, but then again no one on this list mentioned it until near the end of the day. I was tracking email and certainly would have responded if anyone had complained sooner. So the moral is: complain as soon as it doesn't work - and someone will fix it - or at least will try to fix it. > > I don't mean this is sort of criticism, but just a reality > check. I hope the webcast i nRio will be much better > in quality Yes, and as was mentioned this is a concern that is being taken very seriously. And the dynamic Coalition is in the position to really contribute to making it work. I hope. Incidentally, while it is a bit late for two way remote participation, recordings of all of yesterday's interventions can be found at: http://intgovforum.info/audiovisual/MPGLANG1/FEB13_Audio.htm 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 iza at anr.org Thu Feb 15 12:13:10 2007 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 02:13:10 +0900 Subject: [governance] remote particpation In-Reply-To: <37A41EF4-975F-453E-9302-F94A3ED81096@psg.com> References: <37A41EF4-975F-453E-9302-F94A3ED81096@psg.com> Message-ID: Thanks Avri for all of your thoughtful comment, As a technical unsophisticated person, I really hope that any technology used for the next Rio meeting for remote two-way participation will not take too much burden on the end-user side at the last minute. I mean, as much as possible, please use the proven standard method for the remote participation. Thanks a lot! izumi 2007/2/15, Avri Doria : > (writing while i am on contract as a consultant to the IGF secretariat) > > Hi, > > On 13 feb 2007, at 16.31, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > > However, sorry to say, that the quality of the webcast > > is far from pragmatic, the voice was cut so often that > > it is not possible to keep the concentration and > > make good understandings of what is going on. > > > As others have pointed out RealPlayer did not work, one needed to use > VLC. I am told this was because the (LS)3 folks doing the broadcast > ( http://streaming.polito.it/ ) had upgraded their software. Actually > according to the (LS)3 folks RealPlayer would have worked as long as > TurboPlay was disabled. > > In any case this was discovered at lunch and an announcement was put > up on the IGF web site. And while it would have been best if this > had been made clear at beginning we did not realize it until we got > the first comment. Incidentally, the stream was tested at the > beginning of the meeting, but Chengetai uses VLC and it worked fine. > > I apologize for not thinking to send this list a note about the 'fix' > after lunch when i first heard about the problem, but then again no > one on this list mentioned it until near the end of the day. I was > tracking email and certainly would have responded if anyone had > complained sooner. > > So the moral is: complain as soon as it doesn't work - and someone > will fix it - or at least will try to fix it. > > > > > I don't mean this is sort of criticism, but just a reality > > check. I hope the webcast i nRio will be much better > > in quality > > Yes, and as was mentioned this is a concern that is being taken very > seriously. And the dynamic Coalition is in the position to really > contribute to making it work. I hope. > > Incidentally, while it is a bit late for two way remote > participation, recordings of all of yesterday's interventions can be > found at: > > http://intgovforum.info/audiovisual/MPGLANG1/FEB13_Audio.htm > > 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 > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ 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 Feb 15 13:02:57 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 19:02:57 +0100 Subject: [governance] remote particpation In-Reply-To: References: <37A41EF4-975F-453E-9302-F94A3ED81096@psg.com> Message-ID: On 15 feb 2007, at 18.13, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Thanks Avri for all of your thoughtful comment, > > As a technical unsophisticated person, I really hope that > any technology used for the next Rio meeting for remote two-way > participation will not take too much burden on the end-user side > at the last minute. I mean, as much as possible, please use the > proven standard method for the remote participation. > > Thanks a lot! > > izumi > Yes, that is a good lesson we should try to learn. Though it is often hard to know what the proven standard is. Reminds me of the old joke about standards - punch line being we each have our favorite standard. In any case, we should try to make sure that if any peculiarities are necessary they are known and tried weeks in advance. My personal hope is that the technology used at the next consultations can be the same that will be used in Rio. That is difficult to guarantee, but it is my hope. 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 goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Thu Feb 15 13:50:23 2007 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:50:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Internet Governance Forum: Is It More Than Talk? by Monika Ermert Message-ID: <20070215185023.46653.qmail@web54115.mail.yahoo.com> Internet Governance Forum: Is It More Than Talk? by Monika Ermert (Intellectual Proprty Watch) Multi-stakeholder “dynamic coalitions” of the UN IGF are pushing to have privacy, intellectual property, open standards and freedom of expression on the agenda of the second meeting in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil next autumn. At a 13 February IGF stocktaking meeting in Geneva, several of the coalitions formed at the first IGF (in Athens in October-November 2006) presented short progress reports. Agenda-setting, the role of the coalitions, the IGF as a whole and the IGF output are still to be debated. IGF activists and organisers also look to New York where the new UN Secretary General has yet to make his first comments on Internet governance issues. http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=533&res=1280_ff&print=0 And don't forget to see my website - http://technewsreview.com.au/ - for regular updates on governance issues and more! --------- 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) "Every time you use fossil fuels, you're adding to the problem. Every time you forgo fossil fuels, you're being part of the solution" - Dr Tim Flannery 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 vb at bertola.eu Fri Feb 16 02:57:34 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 08:57:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] remote particpation In-Reply-To: References: <37A41EF4-975F-453E-9302-F94A3ED81096@psg.com> Message-ID: <45D563EE.6000704@bertola.eu> Izumi AIZU ha scritto: > Thanks Avri for all of your thoughtful comment, > > As a technical unsophisticated person, I really hope that > any technology used for the next Rio meeting for remote two-way > participation will not take too much burden on the end-user side > at the last minute. I mean, as much as possible, please use the > proven standard method for the remote participation. This tends to clash with 1) general lack of funds, and 2) the appropriateness of using proprietary solutions rather than free-as-in-free-speech ones in this environment. Of course any solution used should work, but I expect that there would be loud complaints if the IGF started to employ proprietary commercial solutions for remote participation. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Fri Feb 16 04:29:17 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:29:17 +0900 Subject: [governance] remote particpation In-Reply-To: <45D563EE.6000704@bertola.eu> References: <37A41EF4-975F-453E-9302-F94A3ED81096@psg.com> <45D563EE.6000704@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <45D5796D.1060401@Malcolm.id.au> Vittorio Bertola wrote: >> I mean, as much as possible, please use the >> proven standard method for the remote participation. > > This tends to clash with 1) general lack of funds, and 2) the > appropriateness of using proprietary solutions rather than > free-as-in-free-speech ones in this environment. Does "the proven standard method" have to mean a proprietary implementation? The (LS)3 team are far *more* fastidious about standards compliance than proprietary vendors tend to be. In Athens, only Microsoft Windows users were able to access the webcasting stream. For the latest consultation, it was accessible on all major OS platforms using standards-compliant client software. Even so the (LS)3 team hope to do better next time, and to this end have indicated they intend to join the Online Collaboration Dynamic Coalition to work more closely together with others working on remote participation, to help us out and enlist our help, and to share ideas ahead of the next IGF consultation or meeting. -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ 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 Fri Feb 16 05:55:01 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 19:55:01 +0900 Subject: [governance] points discussed on the Feb 12th meeting of the Advisory group In-Reply-To: References: <200702131147.OAA06730@safat.kisr.edu.kw> Message-ID: >Thanks for the update. I`m looking forward to the meeting. > >>location of next IGF meeting in Rio which looked a nice place > >What is the location? A hotel? A convention centre? Do you have the >exact name of the place? I'm pretty sure this is the location. Brazil promised cheaper nearby hotels, usual shuttle bus service for some. Adam >Sylvia >____________________________________________________________ >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 mueller at syr.edu Fri Feb 16 09:33:41 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 09:33:41 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGP blog entries: wireless internet neutrality and internet resources Message-ID: You may be interested in two new entries on the IGP blog: one by me discussing my research on wireless net neutrality in Europe, and one by Brenden Kuerbis on the debate about whether or not to discuss "critical Internet resources" at the IG Forum. Dr. Milton Mueller Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://www.digital-convergence.org http://www.internetgovernance.org ____________________________________________________________ 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 Fri Feb 16 13:31:50 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 19:31:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] points discussed on the Feb 12th meeting of the Advisory group In-Reply-To: References: <200702131147.OAA06730@safat.kisr.edu.kw> Message-ID: <45D5F896.8070308@bertola.eu> Adam Peake ha scritto: > I'm pretty sure this is the location. > > "Only 18 km from Copacabana"? -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Fri Feb 16 14:19:11 2007 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 20:19:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Location of Rio IGF (was: points discussed on the Feb 12th meeting of the Advisory group) In-Reply-To: <45D5F896.8070308@bertola.eu> References: <200702131147.OAA06730@safat.kisr.edu.kw> <45D5F896.8070308@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <45D603AF.30804@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Vittorio Bertola wrote: >> > "Only 18 km from Copacabana"? We are not going on holiday. This here concerns me more: "Barra da Tijuca is Rio´s most modern living complex and community; sophisticated, vibrant and offering innumerable attractions such as fine bars and restaurants serving world class cuisine, air-conditioned mega shopping malls featuring world famous fashions and designers labels, theme parks, ecological reserves and sports of all types." That sounds like a really expensive neighbourhood. I wonder if we will be able to find cheap accomodation and eating options around.[1] Any clues from our Brazilian colleagues? Ralf [1] Bus shuttles suck and also lead to less networking and collaboration in the evenings, which was really important in Athens. ____________________________________________________________ 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 Fri Feb 16 18:06:23 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 00:06:23 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Location of Rio IGF In-Reply-To: <45D603AF.30804@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <200702131147.OAA06730@safat.kisr.edu.kw> <45D5F896.8070308@bertola.eu> <45D603AF.30804@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <45D638EF.3030807@bertola.eu> Ralf Bendrath ha scritto: > That sounds like a really expensive neighbourhood. I wonder if we will > be able to find cheap accomodation and eating options around.[1] That was actually my point - if it is so far from the city centre and from the most touristic suburbs, it is unlikely that there can be different accommodations than the (likely expensive) ones that are in that area, just like in Vouliagmeni. Anyway, we need to discuss this with someone who knows the area - perhaps there are cheap options there as well. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 Fri Feb 16 18:40:04 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 08:40:04 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Location of Rio IGF (was: points discussed on the Feb 12th meeting of the Advisory group) In-Reply-To: <45D603AF.30804@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <200702131147.OAA06730@safat.kisr.edu.kw> <45D5F896.8070308@bertola.eu> <45D603AF.30804@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: Vittorio, Ralf: I'll ask for clarification on cost and location. Though Carlos may be the most reliable and informed source. Would be good if someone could describe the neighbourhood around the hotel. Last week the advisory group made clear to the Brazilian hosts that there must be low cost quick food available during the meeting, and affordable accommodation is important (I think we can expect Brazil to understand this.) On the location. Looking for facilities capable of holding a meeting or around 2000 people. We need a modern environment that can handle demands for power and Internet access. We want more varied space options than were offered in Athens. The meeting will be free, and like Athens I expect those wishing to hold events (workshops, reasonable side events) will not be charged (I don't know this for a fact, just following what happened in Athens - another thing to check.) So we should be thoughtful when making comments about cost. I think we can expect all IGF locations to be somewhat up-market. The local host is hosting UN meeting with all that entails (including security.) They will be inviting other governments and their representatives, we can expect to see all IGFs anchored around facilities a govt would like to invite other governments to. Highly unlikely any IGF will be located in a "cheap" neighborhood (what conference ever is?) At the same time, because the host will pick up the full cost of the event we shouldn't be surprised if they are not located in prime downtown locations but some smart but cheaper (cheaper for the facility) slightly out of the way place. Athens was an awkward location, but there was an affordable (mid-range -- 80 Euro/$100) hotel 50 meters away, other cheaper places were served by buses. Adam At 8:19 PM +0100 2/16/07, Ralf Bendrath wrote: >Vittorio Bertola wrote: >>> >>"Only 18 km from Copacabana"? >We are not going on holiday. > >This here concerns me more: > >"Barra da Tijuca is Rio´s most modern living >complex and community; sophisticated, vibrant >and offering innumerable attractions such as >fine bars and restaurants serving world class >cuisine, air-conditioned mega shopping malls >featuring world famous fashions and designers >labels, theme parks, ecological reserves and >sports of all types." > >That sounds like a really expensive >neighbourhood. I wonder if we will be able to >find cheap accomodation and eating options >around.[1] > >Any clues from our Brazilian colleagues? > >Ralf > >[1] Bus shuttles suck and also lead to less >networking and collaboration in the evenings, >which was really important in Athens. >____________________________________________________________ >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 Fri Feb 16 19:17:08 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 09:17:08 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Location of Rio IGF (was: points discussed on the Feb 12th meeting of the Advisory group) In-Reply-To: References: <200702131147.OAA06730@safat.kisr.edu.kw> <45D5F896.8070308@bertola.eu> <45D603AF.30804@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: for information. FIRST -- group of security response teams-- held a meeting at the same hotel last year and have some local info Anyone using Google Earth try attached file. I hope this is the same place! 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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2006_Brasil_FIRST_TC_Places.kmz Type: application/octet-stream Size: 12860 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Sat Feb 17 06:45:22 2007 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 11:45:22 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: Location of Rio IGF In-Reply-To: References: <200702131147.OAA06730@safat.kisr.edu.kw> <45D5F896.8070308@bertola.eu> <45D603AF.30804@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <45D6EAD2.4000107@wz-berlin.de> Adam Peake schrieb: > Vittorio, Ralf: > > I'll ask for clarification on cost and location. Though Carlos may be > the most reliable and informed source. Would be good if someone could > describe the neighbourhood around the hotel. I raised this point with Carlos in Geneva. My concern is that security related precautions focus on the expensive conference venue while civil society people have to stay elsewhere. This may cause problems especially for women. The organizers promised shuttle buses. We really need to insist that they run frequently, and that the shuttle service will be organized in a more efficient way than in Tunis. (I remember that night where, after having been driven around for more than an hour, the driver insisted that Izumi leaves the bus because he wasn't in the mood to do an extra tour to his hotel...) jeanette > > Last week the advisory group made clear to the Brazilian hosts that > there must be low cost quick food available during the meeting, and > affordable accommodation is important (I think we can expect Brazil to > understand this.) > > On the location. > > Looking for facilities capable of holding a meeting or around 2000 > people. We need a modern environment that can handle demands for power > and Internet access. We want more varied space options than were > offered in Athens. The meeting will be free, and like Athens I expect > those wishing to hold events (workshops, reasonable side events) will > not be charged (I don't know this for a fact, just following what > happened in Athens - another thing to check.) So we should be > thoughtful when making comments about cost. > > I think we can expect all IGF locations to be somewhat up-market. The > local host is hosting UN meeting with all that entails (including > security.) They will be inviting other governments and their > representatives, we can expect to see all IGFs anchored around > facilities a govt would like to invite other governments to. Highly > unlikely any IGF will be located in a "cheap" neighborhood (what > conference ever is?) At the same time, because the host will pick up the > full cost of the event we shouldn't be surprised if they are not located > in prime downtown locations but some smart but cheaper (cheaper for the > facility) slightly out of the way place. > > Athens was an awkward location, but there was an affordable (mid-range > -- 80 Euro/$100) hotel 50 meters away, other cheaper places were served > by buses. > > Adam > > > > > At 8:19 PM +0100 2/16/07, Ralf Bendrath wrote: >> Vittorio Bertola wrote: >>>> >>> "Only 18 km from Copacabana"? >> We are not going on holiday. >> >> This here concerns me more: >> >> "Barra da Tijuca is Rio´s most modern living complex and community; >> sophisticated, vibrant and offering innumerable attractions such as >> fine bars and restaurants serving world class cuisine, air-conditioned >> mega shopping malls featuring world famous fashions and designers >> labels, theme parks, ecological reserves and sports of all types." >> >> That sounds like a really expensive neighbourhood. I wonder if we will >> be able to find cheap accomodation and eating options around.[1] >> >> Any clues from our Brazilian colleagues? >> >> Ralf >> >> [1] Bus shuttles suck and also lead to less networking and >> collaboration in the evenings, which was really important in Athens. >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 LMcKnigh at syr.edu Sat Feb 17 22:52:25 2007 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 22:52:25 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Location of Rio IGF Message-ID: Hey folks, My wife's Brazilian, without knowing all specifics here's how it sounds to me: the hotel is away from city center, sounds relatively safe, but pricey area. Taxis on the other hand are reasonable in Brazil, but yes price escalation may happen if you act too obviously clueless. Just guessing here, but there should be some downmarket properties out there too, but yeah Rio is a major tourist destination and they make tourists pay world market prices for accommadations. If Carlos doesn;t have specific suggestions a cs type in rio could scout the neigborhood. Or perhaps my pal Antonio Botelho of PUC-Rio could weigh in here on the environs of http://www.windsorhoteis.com.br/en-us/conv.asp?hid=23 ? Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> jeanette at wz-berlin.de 2/17/2007 6:45 AM >>> Adam Peake schrieb: > Vittorio, Ralf: > > I'll ask for clarification on cost and location. Though Carlos may be > the most reliable and informed source. Would be good if someone could > describe the neighbourhood around the hotel. I raised this point with Carlos in Geneva. My concern is that security related precautions focus on the expensive conference venue while civil society people have to stay elsewhere. This may cause problems especially for women. The organizers promised shuttle buses. We really need to insist that they run frequently, and that the shuttle service will be organized in a more efficient way than in Tunis. (I remember that night where, after having been driven around for more than an hour, the driver insisted that Izumi leaves the bus because he wasn't in the mood to do an extra tour to his hotel...) jeanette > > Last week the advisory group made clear to the Brazilian hosts that > there must be low cost quick food available during the meeting, and > affordable accommodation is important (I think we can expect Brazil to > understand this.) > > On the location. > > Looking for facilities capable of holding a meeting or around 2000 > people. We need a modern environment that can handle demands for power > and Internet access. We want more varied space options than were > offered in Athens. The meeting will be free, and like Athens I expect > those wishing to hold events (workshops, reasonable side events) will > not be charged (I don't know this for a fact, just following what > happened in Athens - another thing to check.) So we should be > thoughtful when making comments about cost. > > I think we can expect all IGF locations to be somewhat up-market. The > local host is hosting UN meeting with all that entails (including > security.) They will be inviting other governments and their > representatives, we can expect to see all IGFs anchored around > facilities a govt would like to invite other governments to. Highly > unlikely any IGF will be located in a "cheap" neighborhood (what > conference ever is?) At the same time, because the host will pick up the > full cost of the event we shouldn't be surprised if they are not located > in prime downtown locations but some smart but cheaper (cheaper for the > facility) slightly out of the way place. > > Athens was an awkward location, but there was an affordable (mid-range > -- 80 Euro/$100) hotel 50 meters away, other cheaper places were served > by buses. > > Adam > > > > > At 8:19 PM +0100 2/16/07, Ralf Bendrath wrote: >> Vittorio Bertola wrote: >>>> >>> "Only 18 km from Copacabana"? >> We are not going on holiday. >> >> This here concerns me more: >> >> "Barra da Tijuca is Rio´s most modern living complex and community; >> sophisticated, vibrant and offering innumerable attractions such as >> fine bars and restaurants serving world class cuisine, air-conditioned >> mega shopping malls featuring world famous fashions and designers >> labels, theme parks, ecological reserves and sports of all types." >> >> That sounds like a really expensive neighbourhood. I wonder if we will >> be able to find cheap accomodation and eating options around.[1] >> >> Any clues from our Brazilian colleagues? >> >> Ralf >> >> [1] Bus shuttles suck and also lead to less networking and >> collaboration in the evenings, which was really important in Athens. >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 ____________________________________________________________ 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 Feb 18 10:48:17 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 10:48:17 -0500 Subject: [governance] The seeds of change in the IGF Message-ID: Thanks Ralf and Jeremy for your useful analysis. >>> bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de 2/15/2007 7:40 AM >>> >Another interesting thing I noticed: Nitin Desai was completely >shying away from saying anything on the "enhanced cooperation", >in fact hiding behind the new Secretary-General. Does this mean that the caucus has not received any formal response to its inquiry regarding this? ____________________________________________________________ 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 Tue Feb 20 06:13:04 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 19:13:04 +0800 Subject: [governance] The seeds of change in the IGF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070220111308.B16E2E048E@smtp3.electricembers.net> > Does this mean that the caucus has not received any formal response to > its inquiry regarding this? We have received neither an acknowledgement, nor any response. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 11:48 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de > Subject: Re: [governance] The seeds of change in the IGF > > Thanks Ralf and Jeremy for your useful analysis. > > >>> bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de 2/15/2007 7:40 AM >>> > >Another interesting thing I noticed: Nitin Desai was completely > >shying away from saying anything on the "enhanced cooperation", > >in fact hiding behind the new Secretary-General. > Does this mean that the caucus has not received any formal response to > its inquiry regarding this? > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 Tue Feb 20 06:56:08 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 20:56:08 +0900 Subject: [governance] report on the Athens IGF by Greek govt. Message-ID: Greek govt gave a presentation at the consultation last week reporting on the organization of the Athens IGF. The file's now online A large file, over 7MB. Mainly about logistical arrangements. Not very exciting. 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 jeanette at wz-berlin.de Tue Feb 20 11:22:54 2007 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:22:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] The seeds of change in the IGF In-Reply-To: <20070220111308.B16E2E048E@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20070220111308.B16E2E048E@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <45DB205E.9070805@wz-berlin.de> Parminder wrote: >> Does this mean that the caucus has not received any formal response to >> its inquiry regarding this? > > We have received neither an acknowledgement, nor any response. Parminder From what I read in the transcript of the consultation on last Tuesday, Nitin Desai did mention that "many others" had asked him about the state of things re enhanced cooperation. Since he has no mandate at the moment and as yet hasn't got any instructions from the new SG, he couldn't get say anything more specific. jeanette > ________________________________________________ > Parminder Jeet Singh > IT for Change, Bangalore > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > www.ITforChange.net > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] >> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 11:48 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de >> Subject: Re: [governance] The seeds of change in the IGF >> >> Thanks Ralf and Jeremy for your useful analysis. >> >>>>> bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de 2/15/2007 7:40 AM >>> >>> Another interesting thing I noticed: Nitin Desai was completely >>> shying away from saying anything on the "enhanced cooperation", >>> in fact hiding behind the new Secretary-General. > >> Does this mean that the caucus has not received any formal response to >> its inquiry regarding this? >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 jeanette at wz-berlin.de Tue Feb 20 11:56:03 2007 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:56:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] Host country agreement Message-ID: <45DB2823.3020201@wz-berlin.de> Hi all, the IGF secretariat will negotiate with Brazil a host country agreement for the forum meeting. Perhaps we want to suggest, in bullet point style, some aspects we would like to see covered in the technical annex of the agreement? The caucus statement last week mentioned a few things such as food. Additionally I would find it important to have: * enough shuttles between hotels and conference venue * storage rooms for computers * the possibility to reserve additional rooms, i.e. for meetings of dynamic coalitions * remote participation facilities need specification (this is taken care of elsewhere) What else? 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 vb at bertola.eu Tue Feb 20 12:23:58 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:23:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] Host country agreement In-Reply-To: <45DB2823.3020201@wz-berlin.de> References: <45DB2823.3020201@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <45DB2EAE.7050908@bertola.eu> Jeanette Hofmann ha scritto: > The caucus statement last week mentioned a few things such as food. (and cheap accommodation) > Additionally I would find it important to have: > > * enough shuttles between hotels and conference venue (perhaps also, though of course at a much lesser frequency, to airport and city centre, unless there is adequate public transportation available) > * storage rooms for computers > * the possibility to reserve additional rooms, i.e. for meetings of > dynamic coalitions > * remote participation facilities need specification (this is taken care > of elsewhere) > > What else? * as good wi-fi coverage as possible in the rooms * power outlets in the rooms! * if possible, free/cheap wi-fi or wired Internet connectivity in the hotels as well, maybe as part of the accommodation package. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 Tue Feb 20 13:16:34 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:16:34 -0500 Subject: [governance] Host country agreement In-Reply-To: <45DB2EAE.7050908@bertola.eu> References: <45DB2823.3020201@wz-berlin.de> <45DB2EAE.7050908@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <995781B0-B180-493C-97C8-D169ED7A4D8F@psg.com> Hi, In principle I agree it would be a good idea. In practice, if things go as they have before in IGf and WSIS, the host country agreement will be signed long after the arrangements are pretty solid. So i think it is important to ask, but the fact that they are in the agreement might not be the gating factor. a. On 20 feb 2007, at 12.23, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Jeanette Hofmann ha scritto: >> The caucus statement last week mentioned a few things such as food. > (and cheap accommodation) > >> Additionally I would find it important to have: >> * enough shuttles between hotels and conference venue > (perhaps also, though of course at a much lesser frequency, to > airport and city centre, unless there is adequate public > transportation available) >> * storage rooms for computers >> * the possibility to reserve additional rooms, i.e. for meetings >> of dynamic coalitions >> * remote participation facilities need specification (this is >> taken care of elsewhere) >> What else? > > * as good wi-fi coverage as possible in the rooms > * power outlets in the rooms! > * if possible, free/cheap wi-fi or wired Internet connectivity in > the hotels as well, maybe as part of the accommodation package. > -- > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Tue Feb 20 18:38:28 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (l.d.misek-falkoff) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:38:28 -0500 Subject: [governance] Host country agreement In-Reply-To: <45DB2823.3020201@wz-berlin.de> References: <45DB2823.3020201@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <8cbfe7410702201538v63b4319se7a78ddfe267442e@mail.gmail.com> Dear Jeanette and All, Can you kindly check out *literal accessibility issues* such as physical access to rooms and to various floors where events are to be held. This in addition to matters of information access. This would mean both rooms themselves and transitional areas, whether stairs have hand-rails in case for instance people have computer carts or canes or wheelchairs etc. and whether there are elevators, etc.. If not and this is known in advance perhaps some alternatives might be considered. Thank you and best wishes, Linda M. F. Dr. L. D. Misek-Falkoff On 2/20/07, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > Hi all, > > the IGF secretariat will negotiate with Brazil a host country agreement > for the forum meeting. Perhaps we want to suggest, in bullet point > style, some aspects we would like to see covered in the technical annex > of the agreement? > > The caucus statement last week mentioned a few things such as food. > Additionally I would find it important to have: > > * enough shuttles between hotels and conference venue > * storage rooms for computers > * the possibility to reserve additional rooms, i.e. for meetings of > dynamic coalitions > * remote participation facilities need specification (this is taken care > of elsewhere) > > What else? > > 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From muguet at mdpi.net Wed Feb 21 06:17:47 2007 From: muguet at mdpi.net (Dr. Francis MUGUET) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:17:47 +0100 Subject: [governance] Mother Language Day - Information Society 2.0 event Message-ID: <45DC2A5B.9080604@mdpi.net> English / Français Sorry for cross-posting Hello If you are in Paris, now and next week you are kindly invited to the "Federating Event" Information Society 2.0 http://socinfo.wtis.org Apologies for other languages speakers, but except for the UNESCO MLD celebration and the workshop, Recent Experiences on Measuring Languages in Cyberspace, these are french-speaking only events ( as well as the web site ), it is somewhat of a paradox when striving for linguistic diversity, but they are modest local events. Please note the Celebration of International Mother Language Day 21 Feb 2007 at UNESCO all the complicated links to the UNESCO pages ( including english versions ) are listed on the page http://socinfo.wtis.org/liens.html For registration http://socinfo.wtis.org/inscription.html the authentication code is WSIS-PLEN For UNESCO events, deals directly with UNESCO. Please note the Internet Governance workshop, which is going to be rather timely, after the last IGF stock-taking session last week, where some "dissenting" opinions and suggestions have been set forward. The workshop includes a debriefing session of the IGF in Athens. Meetins at UNESCO and with EUROLINC will also spur some brain-storming activity toward the implementation of the dynamical coalition for "Linguistic and Cultural diversity". Best regards Francis --------------------------------------------- Bonjour Si vous ètes à Paris, actuellement et la semaine prochaine, vous ètes cordialement invités à l' Evénément Fédérateur : Société de l'Information 2.0 http://socinfo.wtis.org dont le site vient juste d'^etre mis en ligne. Pour l'inscription http://socinfo.wtis.org/inscription.html le code d'authentification correspondant à cette liste est WSIS-PLEN A noter l'atelier sur la Gouvernance de l'Internet, qui sera d'actualité après la dernière réunion mouvementée de stock-taking de l'IGF à Génève la semaine dernière. Cet atelier incluera une séance de debriefing de l'IGF d'Athènes. A noter auss la Célébration de la Journée internationale de la langue maternelle , le 21 Février 2007, à L'UNESCO tous les liens compliqués de l'UNESCO sont inclus dans les pages http://socinfo.wtis.org/inscription.html et http://socinfo.wtis.org/liens.html Les réunions à l'UNESCO et chez EUROLINC serviront aussi de réunions de reflexion pour la mise en mouvement de la coalition dynamique "Diversité Linguistique et Culturelle". Cordialement Francis -- ------------------------------------------------------ Francis F. MUGUET Ph.D MDPI Foundation Open Access Journals Associate Publisher http://www.mdpi.org http://www.mdpi.net muguet at mdpi.org muguet at mdpi.net ENSTA Paris, France KNIS lab. Director "Knowledge Networks & Information Society" (KNIS) muguet at ensta.fr http://www.ensta.fr/~muguet World Summit On the Information Society (WSIS) Civil Society Working Groups Scientific Information : http://www.wsis-si.org chair Patents & Copyrights : http://www.wsis-pct.org co-chair Financing Mechanismns : http://www.wsis-finance.org web UNMSP project : http://www.unmsp.org WTIS initiative: http://www.wtis.org ------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ 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 muguet at mdpi.net Wed Feb 21 06:20:20 2007 From: muguet at mdpi.net (Dr. Francis MUGUET) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:20:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] coorection Mother Language Day - Information Society 2.0 event Message-ID: <45DC2AF4.8050306@mdpi.net> English / Français correction the authentification code for this list is IGC Best regards Hello -- ------------------------------------------------------ Francis F. MUGUET Ph.D MDPI Foundation Open Access Journals Associate Publisher http://www.mdpi.org http://www.mdpi.net muguet at mdpi.org muguet at mdpi.net ENSTA Paris, France KNIS lab. Director "Knowledge Networks & Information Society" (KNIS) muguet at ensta.fr http://www.ensta.fr/~muguet World Summit On the Information Society (WSIS) Civil Society Working Groups Scientific Information : http://www.wsis-si.org chair Patents & Copyrights : http://www.wsis-pct.org co-chair Financing Mechanismns : http://www.wsis-finance.org web UNMSP project : http://www.unmsp.org WTIS initiative: http://www.wtis.org ------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ 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 wsis at ngocongo.org Wed Feb 21 13:35:51 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 19:35:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] TR: [GAID Strategy Council] GAID 2006 Progress Report Message-ID: <200702211835.l1LIZKcm016368@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, Find attached the Progress report of the Global Alliance for ICT and Development, as well as Sarbuland Khan’s message in this regard. This progress report will be discussed at the next Strategy Council meeting of the GAID, in Santa Clara (27-28 February 2007). All information on the up coming GAID meeting, including agendas and working documents, is available on the GAID website ( www.un-gaid.org) and on the Strategy Council meeting website ( http://www.intelcorpevents.com/un/). Among the main issues to be addressed during the Strategy Council meeting are the following: - Progresses of the GAID initiatives (in particular Flagship Partnership Initiatives, Partnerships for Advocacy, Communities of Expertise) - Business Plan implementation (including next steps for the development of new initiatives, relationship between GAID and other processes such as CSTD, ALF, ECOSOC) - Preparations for the GAID Global Forum (2007: GAID Global Forum on Youth, discussions are still on going regarding the dates and venue, but it might take place in May or June 2007; 2008: proposed GAID Global Forum on Gender). As CONGO, our main concerns will include: - Need to make GAID a more dynamic and implementation oriented structure; - Need to better involve civil society entities (including funding for CS members of governing structures and outreach to grassroots and field oriented actors); - Need to strengthen information sharing on existing initiatives under the GAID umbrella; We will be happy to receive your comments and contributions on these issues. All the best, Philippe Dam CONGO - WSIS CS Secretariat 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: wsis at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org The Conference of NGOs (CONGO) is an international, membership association that facilitates the participation of NGOs in United Nations debates and decisions. Founded in 1948, CONGO's major objective is to ensure the presence of NGOs in exchanges among the world's governments and United Nations agencies on issues of global concern. For more information see our website at www.ngocongo.org _____ De : council-bounces De la part de Sarbuland Khan Envoyé : vendredi, 16. février 2007 16:14 À : undisclosed-recipients: Objet : [GAID Strategy Council] GAID 2006 Progress Report Dear colleagues, It is my honour, as Executive Coordinator of the Global Alliance for Information and Communication Technologies for Development (GAID), to transmit to you the GAID 2006 Progress Report. Since approval by the Secretary-General in March 2006, GAID has made significant strides. It was officially launched in Kuala Lumpur in June 2006, with the participation of the Malaysian Prime Minister Badawi and the Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations . GAID's governing and advisory bodies are now fully functioning: its areas of priority identified; its business plan approved; its brand is growing in recognition; three Flagship Partnership Initiatives are underway; its regional and stakeholder networks are being formed, as well as its thematic communities of expertise; and its secretariat is already preparing for a full programme of events for 2007. GAID has succeeded in securing the partnership of many competent and committed organizations – among them the World Bank; the Swiss Agency for Development Cooperation; Global Knowledge Partnership; the International Development Research Centre; and the Malaysian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation; and major United Nations agencies and entities – which, among others, are leading the networks and initiatives of the Global Alliance. GAID is now positioned to be a key contributor to the achievement of the outcomes of the WSIS, especially by bringing multi-stakeholder input to the Commission on Science and Technology for Development and the Economic and Social Council. It is well placed to further the United Nations Development Agenda, which includes the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), and to make a meaningful contribution to harnessing the technology-driven WSIS process to support the broader United Nations development goals. It has already emerged as a spring-board and a major platform for the United Nations system, private sector and civil society partnerships in the strategic areas of education, health, entrepreneurship and governance, serving to advance common goals. I am grateful for your commitment and contributions, which have been instrumental in reaching these milestones, and I urge you to continue participating in the work of the Global Alliance for ICT and Development. With my best personal regards, Sarbuland Khan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GAID 2006 progress report.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 67047 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From Mueller at syr.edu Wed Feb 21 14:38:03 2007 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 14:38:03 -0500 Subject: [governance] The seeds of change in the IGF Message-ID: >>> jeanette at wz-berlin.de 2/20/2007 11:22 AM >>> Parminder wrote: >> We have received neither an acknowledgement, >>nor any response. Parminder > > From what I read in the transcript of the consultation on last > Tuesday, Nitin Desai did mention that "many others" had asked >him about the state of things re enhanced cooperation. Since >he has no mandate at the moment and as yet hasn't got any >instructions from the new SG, he couldn't get say anything >more specific. Well, in fact yes he _could_ say something more specific. He could say, "Thank you for your letter. I understand my responsibilities to all stakeholder groups and acknowledge your letter. I would like to respond but have no mandate (whatever the heck THAT means) blah blah.... ____________________________________________________________ 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 kino at iris.se Thu Feb 22 03:47:27 2007 From: kino at iris.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?=) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:47:27 +0100 Subject: SV: [governance] Host country agreement In-Reply-To: <45DB2823.3020201@wz-berlin.de> References: <45DB2823.3020201@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F01033890@ensms02.iris.se> Dear Jeanette, I suggest that the venue also must be accessible for persons with disabilities! Yours Kicki Kicki Nordström World Blind Union (WBU) Immediate Past President Chair, WBU Working Group on UN Issues c/o SRF 122 88 Enskede Sweden Tel: +46 (0)8 399 000 Fax: +46 (0)8 725 99 20 Cell: +46 (0)70 766 18 19 E-mail: kino at iris.se -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wz-berlin.de] Skickat: den 20 februari 2007 17:56 Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org Ämne: [governance] Host country agreement Hi all, the IGF secretariat will negotiate with Brazil a host country agreement for the forum meeting. Perhaps we want to suggest, in bullet point style, some aspects we would like to see covered in the technical annex of the agreement? The caucus statement last week mentioned a few things such as food. Additionally I would find it important to have: * enough shuttles between hotels and conference venue * storage rooms for computers * the possibility to reserve additional rooms, i.e. for meetings of dynamic coalitions * remote participation facilities need specification (this is taken care of elsewhere) What else? 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 Jeanette, I suggest that the venue must also be accessible for persons with disabilities! Yours Kicki ____________________________________________________________ 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 Feb 22 05:40:26 2007 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:40:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] Host country agreement In-Reply-To: <45DB2823.3020201@wz-berlin.de> References: <45DB2823.3020201@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: Hi Jeanette I see someone mentions plugs in the rooms - it would be good to know beforehand what Brazilian hotel plugs look like and distribute this information - doing a google image search, I see at least four different types of plugs. Alternatively for the venue to have adapaters that participants can sign for, as is often (some times?) the practice. Rui On 20/02/07, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > Hi all, > > the IGF secretariat will negotiate with Brazil a host country agreement > for the forum meeting. Perhaps we want to suggest, in bullet point > style, some aspects we would like to see covered in the technical annex > of the agreement? > > The caucus statement last week mentioned a few things such as food. > Additionally I would find it important to have: > > * enough shuttles between hotels and conference venue > * storage rooms for computers > * the possibility to reserve additional rooms, i.e. for meetings of > dynamic coalitions > * remote participation facilities need specification (this is taken care > of elsewhere) > > What else? > > 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 > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Cell (+27) (0) 83-368-1214 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From correia.rui at gmail.com Thu Feb 22 05:48:33 2007 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:48:33 +0200 Subject: [governance] Host country agreement In-Reply-To: References: <45DB2823.3020201@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: Safety and security Brazilian authorities have developed strategies for foreigners to make sure they don't stand out as obvious targets for criminals. I don't have a copy, but I know it includes things like : don't leave anything valuable in your room: use the hotel safe; not wandering off by yourselves unless accompanied by someone who knows the terrain; carry only the very basic and no cameras, expensive watches, ipods, discman/ walkman; blend in - avoid looking like a tourist. "shorts with black socks and closed shoes" has become legendary. etc On 22/02/07, Rui Correia wrote: > > Hi Jeanette > > I see someone mentions plugs in the rooms - it would be good to know > beforehand what Brazilian hotel plugs look like and distribute this > information - doing a google image search, I see at least four different > types of plugs. > Alternatively for the venue to have adapaters that participants can sign > for, as is often (some times?) the practice. > > Rui > > On 20/02/07, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > the IGF secretariat will negotiate with Brazil a host country agreement > > for the forum meeting. Perhaps we want to suggest, in bullet point > > style, some aspects we would like to see covered in the technical annex > > of the agreement? > > > > The caucus statement last week mentioned a few things such as food. > > Additionally I would find it important to have: > > > > * enough shuttles between hotels and conference venue > > * storage rooms for computers > > * the possibility to reserve additional rooms, i.e. for meetings of > > dynamic coalitions > > * remote participation facilities need specification (this is taken care > > of elsewhere) > > > > What else? > > > > 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 > > > > > > -- > ________________________________________________ > > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > 2 Cutten St > Horison > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > South Africa > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > Cell (+27) (0) 83-368-1214 -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Cell (+27) (0) 83-368-1214 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From m.ermert at gmx.de Thu Feb 22 06:43:02 2007 From: m.ermert at gmx.de (Monika Ermert) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:43:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] The seeds of change in the IGF References: Message-ID: Hi all, during the press conference at the IGF stocktaking session I raised the question with Nitin Desai if the results of his report to the Secretary General on the enhanced cooperation consultations he had will be published or if there is the possibilty that it will never be published. He said - again taking one more step backwards - that it was not a "report" but a "reporting back" and this might well be considered as "internal". I confronted several country delegates with this possibility, too and asked about their potential reaction. One country official from a country that had been consulted said that after being consulted they did expect some feedback from the consultation as a whole. Btw, Nitin Desai said he also has consulted with non-governmental/private stakeholders. Best regards, Monika >>>> jeanette at wz-berlin.de 2/20/2007 11:22 AM >>> > Parminder wrote: >>> We have received neither an acknowledgement, >>>nor any response. Parminder >> >> From what I read in the transcript of the consultation on last >> Tuesday, Nitin Desai did mention that "many others" had asked >>him about the state of things re enhanced cooperation. Since >>he has no mandate at the moment and as yet hasn't got any >>instructions from the new SG, he couldn't get say anything >>more specific. > Well, in fact yes he _could_ say something more specific. He could say, > "Thank you for your letter. I understand my responsibilities to all > stakeholder groups and acknowledge your letter. I would like to respond > but have no mandate (whatever the heck THAT means) blah blah.... > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 Feb 22 06:54:00 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 20:54:00 +0900 Subject: [governance] The seeds of change in the IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 12:43 PM +0100 2/22/07, Monika Ermert wrote: >Hi all, > >during the press conference at the IGF stocktaking session there was a press conference?  >I raised the question with Nitin Desai if the >results of his report to the Secretary General >on the enhanced cooperation consultations he had >will be published or if there is the possibilty >that it will never be published. He said - again >taking one more step backwards - that it was not >a "report" but a "reporting back" and this might >well be considered as "internal". > >I confronted several country delegates with this >possibility, too and asked about their potential >reaction. One country official from a country >that had been consulted said that after being >consulted they did expect some feedback from the >consultation as a whole. >Btw, Nitin Desai said he also has consulted with >non-governmental/private stakeholders. He did. I can't remember when, but during one of the meetings in Geneva last year he said he would be staying on in Geneva, had a room in the palais de nations and his door was open for meetings about enhanced cooperation. If people wanted to see him they should get in touch (my memory of this is not good, but that's the gist of it.) I don't know if he actively went to people he saw as experts on the issues, he may have. Adam >Best regards, > >Monika > > > >>>>> jeanette at wz-berlin.de 2/20/2007 11:22 AM >>> >> Parminder wrote: >>>> We have received neither an acknowledgement, >>>>nor any response. Parminder >>> >>> From what I read in the transcript of the consultation on last >>> Tuesday, Nitin Desai did mention that "many others" had asked >>>him about the state of things re enhanced cooperation. Since >>>he has no mandate at the moment and as yet hasn't got any >>>instructions from the new SG, he couldn't get say anything >>>more specific. > >> Well, in fact yes he _could_ say something more specific. He could say, >> "Thank you for your letter. I understand my responsibilities to all >> stakeholder groups and acknowledge your letter. I would like to respond >> but have no mandate (whatever the heck THAT means) blah blah.... > > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org Thu Feb 22 08:00:01 2007 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:00:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Running a registry: child play or huge work? (Was: ICANN taxes/fees In-Reply-To: <20070207100434.GB13700@nic.fr> References: <20070206231850.4CEA15C82@smtp2.electricembers.net> <20070207100434.GB13700@nic.fr> Message-ID: <20070222130001.GA22258@nic.fr> On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 11:04:34AM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote a message of 40 lines which said: > So, to emphasize what Vittorio said, running a registry is neither > "easy" or "difficult", it is "it depends on your requirments". I swear I did not forward it to ICANN :-) http://blog.icann.org/?p=21 What does it take to run a TLD registry? That\u2019s the question that has been reverberating around one of the mailing lists that covers Internet issues. It\u2019s an important question, and once in which we hope our community have some answers - or, at least, some pointers. What does it take to run a Top Level Domain Registry? And what\u2019s more easy to run: a ccTLD or gTLD? ... ____________________________________________________________ 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 m.ermert at gmx.de Thu Feb 22 09:42:44 2007 From: m.ermert at gmx.de (Monika Ermert) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:42:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] The seeds of change in the IGF References: Message-ID: > At 12:43 PM +0100 2/22/07, Monika Ermert wrote: >>Hi all, >> >>during the press conference at the IGF stocktaking session > there was a press conference?  yes, between 2 and 2:30 (plenary break) I got notice of it through journalists accredited with the UN in Geneva. There were 10 journalists from different media including AP attending. Speakers were Nitin Desai and Markus Kummer. >>I raised the question with Nitin Desai if the >>results of his report to the Secretary General >>on the enhanced cooperation consultations he had >>will be published or if there is the possibilty >>that it will never be published. He said - again >>taking one more step backwards - that it was not >>a "report" but a "reporting back" and this might >>well be considered as "internal". >> >>I confronted several country delegates with this >>possibility, too and asked about their potential >>reaction. One country official from a country >>that had been consulted said that after being >>consulted they did expect some feedback from the >>consultation as a whole. >>Btw, Nitin Desai said he also has consulted with >>non-governmental/private stakeholders. > He did. I can't remember when, but during one of > the meetings in Geneva last year he said he would > be staying on in Geneva, had a room in the palais > de nations and his door was open for meetings > about enhanced cooperation. If people wanted to > see him they should get in touch (my memory of > this is not good, but that's the gist of it.) I > don't know if he actively went to people he saw > as experts on the issues, he may have. > Adam >>Best regards, >> >>Monika >> >> >> >>>>>> jeanette at wz-berlin.de 2/20/2007 11:22 AM >>> >>> Parminder wrote: >>>>> We have received neither an acknowledgement, >>>>>nor any response. Parminder >>>> >>>> From what I read in the transcript of the consultation on last >>>> Tuesday, Nitin Desai did mention that "many others" had asked >>>>him about the state of things re enhanced cooperation. Since >>>>he has no mandate at the moment and as yet hasn't got any >>>>instructions from the new SG, he couldn't get say anything >>>>more specific. >> >>> Well, in fact yes he _could_ say something more specific. He could say, >>> "Thank you for your letter. I understand my responsibilities to all >>> stakeholder groups and acknowledge your letter. I would like to respond >>> but have no mandate (whatever the heck THAT means) blah blah.... >> >> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 shailam at yahoo.com Thu Feb 22 11:11:04 2007 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 08:11:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Hotels in RIo and UN CSW in NY In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <762972.44416.qm@web54309.mail.yahoo.com> HI All I have been following the discussions so far with great interest. I apologize for not participating in sharing an opinion. My comment is that WSIS in Tunisia was very hard , particularly for the women . It was not quite safe and we were all spread out .It took one and a half hour each way from Hamamat to Kram . We were all exhausted. My suggestion is to have of course a central and closer place for all. But ALSO to have the availability for the women register in a couple three hotels so at least we are together. Secondly I am attending the UN , Commission on Status of Women In New York Feb 26 to Mar 8,2007. I will be speaking on Trafficking and Violence Against Girls . Is any one attending ? Please contact me and you are invited to attend on Monday at 4.00 at the Church Center across from the UN regards to all. Shaila Rao Mistry IFUW California if you obey all the rules....you miss all the fun...... heck!!! ..... make it up.... as you go along..... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Thu Feb 22 11:54:33 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (l.d.misek-falkoff) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 11:54:33 -0500 Subject: [governance] Hotels in RIo and UN CSW in NY In-Reply-To: <762972.44416.qm@web54309.mail.yahoo.com> References: <762972.44416.qm@web54309.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8cbfe7410702220854q5385b591ge114d1ad0a99cf2d@mail.gmail.com> Yes to these good suggestions; hope to meet you, LDMF. On 2/22/07, shaila mistry wrote: > > > HI All > I have been following the discussions so far with great interest. I > apologize for not participating in sharing an opinion. > > My comment is that WSIS in Tunisia was very hard , particularly for the > women . It was not quite safe and we were all spread out .It took one and a > half hour each way from Hamamat to Kram . We were all exhausted. > > My suggestion is to have of course a central and closer place for all. But > ALSO to have the availability for the women register in a couple three > hotels so at least we are together. > > Secondly > I am attending the UN , Commission on Status of Women In New York Feb 26 > to Mar 8,2007. I will be speaking on Trafficking and Violence Against Girls > . Is any one attending ? Please contact me and you are invited to attend on > Monday at 4.00 at the Church Center across from the UN > > regards to all. > > Shaila Rao Mistry > IFUW > California > > > if you obey all the rules....you miss all the fun...... heck!!! ..... > make it up.... as you go along..... > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 jeanette at wz-berlin.de Thu Feb 22 12:04:46 2007 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 18:04:46 +0100 Subject: SV: [governance] Host country agreement In-Reply-To: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F01033890@ensms02.iris.se> References: <45DB2823.3020201@wz-berlin.de> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F01033890@ensms02.iris.se> Message-ID: <45DDCD2E.4060908@wz-berlin.de> Hi Kicki, I agree. This is a very important point. It concerns the main hall for the plenary sessions but also the rooms for workshops. jeanette Kicki Nordström wrote: > Dear Jeanette, > > I suggest that the venue also must be accessible for persons with disabilities! > Yours > Kicki > > > Kicki Nordström > World Blind Union (WBU) > Immediate Past President > Chair, WBU Working Group on UN Issues > c/o SRF > 122 88 Enskede > Sweden > Tel: +46 (0)8 399 000 > Fax: +46 (0)8 725 99 20 > Cell: +46 (0)70 766 18 19 > E-mail: kino at iris.se > > > -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- > Från: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wz-berlin.de] > Skickat: den 20 februari 2007 17:56 > Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Ämne: [governance] Host country agreement > > Hi all, > > the IGF secretariat will negotiate with Brazil a host country agreement for the forum meeting. Perhaps we want to suggest, in bullet point style, some aspects we would like to see covered in the technical annex of the agreement? > > The caucus statement last week mentioned a few things such as food. > Additionally I would find it important to have: > > * enough shuttles between hotels and conference venue > * storage rooms for computers > * the possibility to reserve additional rooms, i.e. for meetings of dynamic coalitions > * remote participation facilities need specification (this is taken care of elsewhere) > > What else? > > 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 > Jeanette, > > I suggest that the venue must also be accessible for persons with disabilities! > Yours > Kicki > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 Mueller at syr.edu Thu Feb 22 16:55:17 2007 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:55:17 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGP Alert - Will the "UN Take Over the Internet" Through ICANN? Message-ID: ================================= Internet Governance Project Alert ================================= 22 February, 2007 WILL THE "UN TAKE OVER THE INTERNET" THROUGH ICANN? ============================================ Will the "UN Take over the Internet" Through ICANN? ============================================ Eight years after its creation, ICANN is finally closing in on defining a process for adding new top level domains to the root. But the procedure it is putting into place threatens to give any individual government complete veto power over the words, concepts or symbols ICANN permits to be used as a top level domain. ICANN's policy development task force has put forward as an overriding principle the notion that "[proposed TLD] strings should not be contrary to public policy as set out in advice from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC)." What does "contrary to public policy" mean? ICANN's government committee has developed an answer. Its draft contains a long list of free expression-unfriendly criteria. And if there is any doubt about how to interpret those provisions, GAC claims the right to stop any application: Section 2.13 "...If the GAC or individual GAC members express formal concerns about a specific new gTLD application, ICANN should defer from proceeding with the said application until GAC concerns have been addressed to the GAC's or the respective government's satisfaction." This provision gives any individual government in GAC effective veto power over any TLD application. Anti-free expression governments would have the right to target any proposal they wished. Thus, for example, a new top level domain devoted to human rights in China could be vetoed using this provision, if China joined the GAC. Robin Gross, a dissenting member of the task force developing the policy from the Noncommercial Users Constituency, said that the draft "essentially proposes that ICANN be deputized the 'word police' for the Internet." Isn't it ironic? During the World Summit on the Information Society, US oversight of the Internet was sold to us as an alternative to a "UN Takeover of the Internet." We were told that any loosening of or internationalization of US control would put the Internet at the mercy of authoritarian countries who allegedly dominate the UN General Assembly. But now ICANN is bringing about those threatened results far more effectively than the UN, whose power is limited by the principle of national sovereignty, ever could. ICANN's complete and exclusive control over the root of Internet identifiers allows its decisions to be comprehensive and globally enforced. IGP asks you to help us defend the principle of free expression on the Internet. Write to ICANN Board members and your own government GAC representative and tell them to oppose Section 2.13 of the proposed GAC principles. The policy is still being developed and has not yet been approved by GAC or the Board. There is still time to change it. If you are in the United States, express your opposition to the US Commerce Department, representative on ICANN's GAC, Ms. Suzanne Sene, SSene at ntia.doc.gov GAC members from other countries are listed here: http://gac.icann.org/web/contact/reps/index.shtml You are also encouraged to communicate with ICANN's Board, which is listed here: http://www.icann.org/general/board.html Board chair Vinton G. Cerf can be reached at this email address: vint at google.com ICANN's Draft Policy on new gTLDs so far: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/GNSO-PDP-Dec05-FR13-FEB07.htm The GAC Draft Public Policy Principles http://gac.icann.org/web/meetings/mtg26/gTLDs_principles_on_public_policy_draft_17_oct_2006.doc NCUC Statement http://www.ipjustice.org/ICANN/NCUC_Comments_on_New_gTLDs.pdf Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org ____________________________________________________________ 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 subbiah at i-dns.net Fri Feb 23 01:53:03 2007 From: subbiah at i-dns.net (subbiah) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:53:03 -0800 Subject: [governance] Response to Stephane Bortzmeyer on IDN Message-ID: <45DE8F4F.6040405@i-dns.net> Dear All, I don't know where to begin my response to the claims made by Stephane about 10 days ago ( some personal matters prevent me from “living on email”). This will be long. Given the many false facts I see in the response, I will attempt to address the key points for the sake of the many here who may not be "IDN history experts" and have no time to conduct extensive personal history research. I have tried to keep it short, but the history is so long and complex that even so-called self-described experts on "IDN" routinely get the history wrong. And I felt that while I do not expect to be successful in re-educating the strongly biased ignorant, I could at least attempt to educate the many eminent people who participate in this forum with both very public facts and my own personal memories and involvement with IDN. I Leave it up to you make your judgments. I probably will not write any more emails on the matter UNLESS someone other than the current biased gentleman cares to ask a specific question of me. As for Stephane, I guess the "holocaust did not happen either" and so I do not have the slightest expectation that I will change his mind and in fact have no real desire to do so. Also it is rather disturbing to be invited to participate in a community of Internet eminents interested in the governance of the Virtual World labeled as the "Civil Society", to receive as his first email a note that is neither "civil" nor be described as "sociable". Let me address the points in this email and then send 2 other emails as Appendices with links to hundreds of publications and facts etc. as public evidence. (1) I am sorry for the fact that the link that I claimed to have the historical record of the 10+ Asian-country 1 year test-bed in 1998/1999 conducted by APNG (the Asian "ICANN" that preceded ICANN by several years and still functions with annual meetings they conduct of some 5000 Internet folks in Asia-Pacific and the parent of APNIC) did not work at "i-dns.org". It was working the last I checked a year ago and has been continually working since 1998/9. After I ran the test bed personally and it was closed in 1999, I have not been responsible for maintaining it. I have now further checked. It appears that it was always forwarding to a web page within the APNG main web-site archives – i.e. the actual contents of the test bed report was never hosted directly at "i-dns.org" but rather at another location within the APNG web-site. And for some lack of oversight/technical reasons the "forwarding mechanism" has been switched off. Meanwhile I give you the actual underlying link, which has been and is still now identical at http://www.apng.org/old/commission/idns/ (2) You claim a revisionist history, that the East had nothing to do with early invention and promotion while in actuality the West, ICANN included, was strongly disinterested. Your view would seem to be at great odds with the details at wikipedia under "IDN" or "Internationalized Domain Names" which has been around for a number of years and modified or edited by all with interest. The link is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internationalized_domain_name but I am also sending you the relevant “Early History of IDN “ section as a cut/paste in a following email entitled as Appendix 1. You may note the connections between my company i-dns.net and the origins of IDN at the National University of Singapore and the many introductory workshops (some a few days long) that our then student, James Seng, gave under my direction at KRNIC, JPNIC (the precursor of JPRS), Academia Sinica (precursor of TWNIC) etc. Also you may note Prof. Tan Tin Wee conducted a BOF (Birds of a Feather workshop) at INET 1998 in Geneva. In particular this history describes many publications along the way with one of the earliest by Prof. Tan Tin Wee in 1998 in Connect-World where he devotes an entire section titled - Crossing the Linguistic Barrier: iDNS - to IDN testing in the Asian community. http://www.connect-world.com/articles/old_articles/Dr-TanTinWee.htm Another early publication in the "West" was an article in the very prominent journal (that reports extensively on ITU etc) "Communications Week" after the APRICOT March 99 Singapore IDN workshop (attended by 300+ Asian delegates and immediately after ICANN's first meeting which happened to be in Singapore too) by Ken Cukier featuring our IDN work and our then-student James Seng, with a prominent photo of him I believe on the cover page. This is the same Ken who later became European editor of Red Herring (the dot-com boom era VC bible-magazine that still continues), then a stint at Harvard University (a PhD on Internet history including IDN I think) and now tech-journalist at the Economist who has since written about IDN for the Economist too. In fact there were also a number of newspaper articles in prominent Chinese computer journals published by the Chinese Ministry of Information Industry in Beijing when Prof. Tan visited CNNIC in 1998 and demonstrated Chinese IDN publicly. I believe there is even a photo of him with the current director general of CNNIC, Mao Wei. If necessary I could dig them up as hardcopy and scan into Jpeg for posting. But based on Stephane’s earlier comments, I guess since these articles are in "Chinese" and not in English they cannot possibly be true and there would be no point in my doing so. (3) As for my own Company's involvement and having no connection to essentially all the versions of IDN software out there today here are a number of facts. Actually about a 1000 publications in almost a 100 countries - in pretty much the top newspapers of each country - suggest otherwise. Since the printed output of all these articles - in publications like Asahi Shimbun of Japan, Far Eastern Economic Review, The Hindu and Business Times of India, Straits Times, People's Daily of China, Haaretz (Israel), Wall Street Journal, CNBC, Cnet etc etc from Egypt to Australia - the bulk in 2000 but many in the years since - will be thousands of pages , I cut/paste a partial list of the "titles ", date and publication name from i-dns.net's company web-site at the bottom of this email as Appendix 2. The actual contents can all be visited by simply going to the company web site at "www.i-dns.net" and exploring the extensive archives under "Visit the Press Room". I would like to add that a number of these publications featured photos of local ministers of communication etc. launching commercial full IDN service in local languages in 1999-2001 - from Taiwan, to Israel to India. In some of these there are even pictures of myself co-launching as in the case with the man who was more or less the previous Deputy Prime Minister of India. (4) Stephane claims that there are a few versions of IDN that are available that could not possibly have anything to do with my company or Singapore etc. (a) Verisign : Verisign approached me personally in January 2000 and eventually made a multi-million dollar investment in our company to license/acquire all the IDN technology which they then used in November 2000 for the ICANN-Test bed of IDN.com etc. in well over a 100 languages and they sold commercially some 1 million names (mostly Chinese, Japanese and Korean) for around $70M end-user revenue in just 4 weeks or so. The fact of this investment was detailed all over Wall Street by analysts at that time. Moreover there were dozens of worldwide publications, mostly in the West, that reported on this partnership - I attach a few links, including a Press Release by Verisign itself and others in August 2000 where Verisign’s and Network Solution’s spokespeople are quoted about licensing technology from i-DNS.net. (The actual content is on www.i-dns.net under “Visit Press Room”). Note that the publications include Yahoo, Forbes, ComputerWorld, Infoworld, CNET that Stephane may have heard of, even though the news was reported as far as away in India, China, Thailand, Hong Kong etc. Also note the media reports which detail that the dot TV and dot cc cctld commercially-operated registries, which have since 2002 been purchased by Verisign, also independently licensed IDN technology from I-DNS.net in 2000. • i-DNS in pact with Network Solutions Registry India, The Financial Express, 31 August 2000 • Multi-language domains on horizon Online, IDG.com.hk, 29 August 2000 • i-DNS.net International joins NSI Thailand, Krungthep Turakij, 28 August 2000 • iDNS makes way for multilingual domain names Online, ZDNet.com, 26 August 2000 • i-DNS.net and NSI Offers Multilingual Domain Name Registration Services China, China Byte, 25 August 2000 • i-DNS.net Deploys Multilingual DNS Technology with NSI Online, hk.myinfoage.com, 25 August 2000 • i-DNS to provide technology for multilingual domain names Online, itdaily.com, 25 August 2000 • NSI To Test Multilingual Domain Name System Online, Computer World, 23 August 2000 *• i-DNS.net International Announces Agreement With Network Solutions Registry General, i-DNS.net International, 23 August 2000* • Multilingual domain names promoted Online, infoworld.com, 22 August 2000 • VeriSign's Network Solutions Unit to Add Web Names Online, CNET.com, 22 August 2000 • Network Solutions Registry Announces Statement of Direction On Multilingual Domain Names Online, Forbes.com, 22 August 2000 • Network Solutions Registry Announces Statement of Direction On Multilingual Domain Names Online, yahoo.com, 22 August 2000 • NSI Registry to Work With i-DNS.net To Enable Multilingual Domain Names on the Internet USA, Network Solutions Inc., 22 August 2000 *• dotTV Partners With i-DNS.net To Offer Multilingual Domain Names General, i-DNS.net International, 25 September 2000*** • eNIC Corporation Becomes First Registry to Offer Domain Names in Asian Languages Online, yahoo.com, 15 August 2000 (b) JPRS, Japan In 1998 I personally co-signed a license to test our Singapore University software with the Research Institute related to JPNIC which was then run by Prof. Goto-San. Their student Yoneya spent a few years afterwards implementing and testing our technology at JPNIC. JPNIC tested it starting in 1998 itself and gave many reports at various international meetings, starting with APRICOT 1999, 2000 etc. in front of thousands of attendees. A gentleman by the name of Hiro Hotta of NTT Japan, who came to learn of IDN partly thru me at INET 1999 San Jose, and who had been seconded to JPNIC from NTT also got involved in this Japanese effort reproducing/improving what we gave them. Later JPNIC spun-off its registry - in essence JPNIC became a commercial private vehicle with Hotta moving to lead the IDN effort within JPRS. Today he is on all prominent ICANN IDN Committees, often leading them like the ICANN cctld IDN group now and the previous ICANN IDN.ascii policy committee for years. Further our company - i-dns.net- assisted JPRS itself finally launch a commercial service in 2003/4 using our plug-ins – at the time of the launch they used 2 plug-ins – one from us directly and the other from Verisign (indirectly from us). (c) CNNIC, China. I personally flew in December 1998 with a Singapore student whose god-uncle happened to be at the time the Minister of Science in China - to visit the Minister and also visit CNNIC to first sign a license for them to test the university-version of the IDN software in preparation for the Asian IDN test bed of 1998/1999. After having launched a commercial version in Taiwan with the Taiwanese Minister of Communication (see press articles in Taiwan press in Appendix 2) in December 1999, we continued to assist the mainland Chinese technically for years, from the university and later thru our company, i-dns.net. Eventually we helped them re-launch in 2004 the full Chinese. Chinese IDN service that they operate today after signing a further for-profit licensing agreement with them in 2003. While little known to the West or ICANN, this service (with roots in a 2000 original launch) was re-started in a big way in 2004, with by late 2005 many tens of millions of plug-ins distributed and most major ISPs (basically all ISPs are controlled by Ministry) patched. This service was well publicized in all major newspapers and by the communist party and ministers in keynote speeches within China in 2004, 2005 etc but hardly noticed in the West. By March 2006 when it was "discovered" by Western reporters and ICANN (100’s of articles in all major Western papers – in many of which I was quoted) , virtually all Internet users in China (now numbering 140Million) were IDN-enabled and tens of thousands of IDN names sold and operational for a number of years. Of course Stephane has already suggested that if its “not reported” in English than it simply does not exist. (c) GNU version. Since 1998 we (Singapore University and the University incubator company after that which I ran, BIX and the subsequent spin-off I-dns.net) have aggressively taught the world about IDN - all technical details etc and helped people re-implement. Most major Asian NICs were the benefactors of Singapore-paid detailed workshops on IDN in 1998/9 - China, Taiwan, Singapore, Korea, and Japan etc. When ICANN and IETF chose to show no interest for almost two years - we helped create Asian forums to discuss this - the Asian test bed, Asian meetings-APRICOT and also MINC - the Multi-Lingual Internet Consortium (MINC) created to promote IDN worldwide (its 7-year history is at http://archive.minc.org/about/history/ ). Then at the June 1998 INET meeting at San Jose, I was personally asked by Patrick Fahlstrom - then a key figure at IETF and later a co-author of IDN standards and now on the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and its principal guy for IDN - to help form an IETF working group on IDN, which we obliged with. I then funded James Seng, our CTO of i-dns.net by then, to chair it for the 4 years it took to finally publish the public IDNA standard.. Later when ICANN was forced to enter IDN after Verisign threatened to launch the-IDN they bought from us, without ICANN blessing - ICANN immediately asked my company and MINC to create a last minute workshop at the ICANN November 2000 meeting in LA to introduce IDN, which we did - and it was an 500+ person standing room audience only success. This was then quickly followed by requests to my company directly and via MINC in 2000 and following years to arrange workshops for ITU and WIPO on IDN. This is how these organizations learnt about IDN. In fact even as 10 months ago in April 2006, ITU and UNESCO had their first very significant IDN/multilingual conference - the bulk of the speakers on the topic was provided by MINC and I co-led the worldwide speaker-recruitment. I think it’s clear we at Singapore University and later at the i-dns.net company did a very good job in publicizing IDN and in all its gory detail and sheperding it to a global IDNA standard. So much so that GNU and other public versions have come to be available widely by simply copying what we have detailed over and over again worldwide since 1998 or simply the final IDNS standard. This is not rocket science and anyway we repeatedly published the blueprints for the rocket for a decade. (d) Microsoft IE7 built-in IDN. James Seng and I recruited a low-level Microsoft Unicode engineer to attend our IDN meetings in Asia back in 1999. They have continued to attend or keep an eye on IDN since. Later unsuccessful attempts to persuade Microsoft to adopt IDN were conducted in 2000/2001 at executive level by our VC investors - at top 10 people at Microsoft level. Since 2002 we (and others like Verisign) have had on-off discussions with Microsoft. And finally while Microsoft was beta-testing and implementing it about 12 months ago, I personally had some conference calls to the technical team-head that was implementing it with my company's engineers. (e) Mozilla/Netscape built-in plug-ins of 2 years ago. One of my and Prof. Tan' Singapore students (now at Princeton) was sent by us to work at Netscape in Silicon Valley when they first developed their non-English browsers in 1996 etc. Bob Jung who essentially headed the International tech team at Netscape when Netscape was less than 20 employees or so used our student to program the first Chinese-capable Netscape browser while I supervised the student's time in Silicon Valley (I was a Professor at Stanford University as well). Years later in 2001, Bob bundled our i-dns.net company’s IDN plug-in into early Mozilla that was being distributed. The plans he had for inclusion in Netscape, as well as directly into the browser were shelved because Netscape was beginning to go bankrupt because of Microsoft. Eventually after the future of Mozilla and Netscape was settled via the open source community, both included IDN into the core browser itself. Bob Jung has been for the past year the CTO of all things international at Google and occasionally consults me on multilingual matters. (f) IBM version. Back in 2001, some researchers at IBM participated in our IDN forums we conducted and started developing freeware. It should be noted that from 2000 to 2002, Irving-Berger Wladowsky was one of the 5 Board of Director’s of our company – I-dns.net. From then until now he was probably in the top 5 executives at IBM and their main strategy guru with a further additional official role then as IBM’s “Internet Czar” and in recent years as its “Open Source and Linux Czar”. (5) I think its clear that we at Singapore and later at the i-dns,.net company did a very good job of educating and popularizing this freely to one and all (while losing many tens of millions of dollars to do so) – even those like that ICANN and IETF that were utterly disinterested for years - that now the whole world, particularly the likes of the Western world, thinks it was invented in the West. With revisionist IDN experts like Stephane insisting for now that Verisign, IBM etc. and the West having invented it, it won’t be long before the Western-controlled ICANN (as it already has so far) awards full IDN business rights to the Western-dominated commercial registries to sell the “Eastern” people’s names in their own languages at high speculative prices back to them. And when asked why, the West will reply – “because remember, we invented it”. Finally, having I believe addressed all of Stephane’s “facts”, I would like to end by discussing something very serious that the Civil Society group at large may care about. For the past two years good old speculation in English domain names is back under the new label “investment”. Every week thousands of English names trade second-hand for in excess of $20000 and a handful a week trade above a $1M each (with a few hitting $10M) in the secondary market. Given that there are 112 million ASCII names selling initially for $10 to $20 dollars a year, the original market is only about $2 to $3Billion. However assuming there are 1M “very good names”, and 10M valuable names (any company would pay $1000 for its domain) based on auction-asset values being seen, the current asset value of ASCII domain names is likely to be in excess of half a trillion dollars – you can buy all of Africa and parts of South America for that or 5% of all physical Real Estate in USA. Roger Collins, the founder/owner of Afternic, the major player that created (together with Sedo) the modern auction – secondary market for domains (which has 1M domains listed for prices upwards of a few thousand dollars each), thought that my estimates were credible and likely to continue rising. Moreover, ICANN in its wisdom has recently renegotiated its contracts with all major gtld registries (save Verisign which wants the same privilege but for now is only gettingh 10% automatic yearly increase on $5 price) to theoretically allow them to charge ANY price for even renewals. While the registries will slowly push for traffic-based pricing for domain renewals ( Gee, you get a lot of traffic – guess your domain is worth $20 000 a year to renew), ICANN already launched the new TLD .mobi where on Day 1 they were allowed to auction 10 reserved names for upwards $200 000 each. They probably made more money on those few auctioned names then on selling regularly priced 100 000 names at launch. So speculative (oops investment) prices will not only be in secondary market, it has already started in primary market and sanctioned by ICANN. Well the auction-action is now moving to IDN and at places like IDN-Forum, people who made money on recent ASCII domain speculation, are fast buying up IDN – mostly western people since the Ethiopians and Laotians have not heard of the availability (the major Western registries do not have the money to educate but do have the resources to conduct sales J ) of their IDN names under global TLDs and even if they did they do not have the money to pay any more than the $10 etc. In my estimate, since IDN-capability will be in 1.5 Billion Internet user-browsers by end of 2007, and maybe 90% of global adults within 5 to 10 years, within a few years there will be maybe 100M or more IDN names (there are already close to 3M half-baked IDN.ascii ones) worth the better part of a trillion dollars owned by rich Western folk, who would be happy to resell it to the native folk. And they would have bought it from rich Western companies, authorized by ICANN. And this would be morally acceptable since according to even the “non-profit oriented” experts like Stephane from the “civil society” it was after all “invented by the West”. Anyway, I apologize for the tone and length of my reply. But a “language colonization” of the same extent in dollar and cultural terms as the original European land-based one is likely to happen shortly and self-appointed IDN experts like Stephane are intentionally or unintentionally abetting it as we speak. And I have every right to feel awful about it, since I helped invent it (and even coined the term IDN) and was instrumental in raising the first $50M for popularizing it for almost a decade with the mistaken pride that here was an invention that I could feel good about – one that by its very nature helped the ethnic poor first, before the globalised “Western rich”. Stupid me. Cheers Subbiah -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.412 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/696 - Release Date: 2/21/2007 ____________________________________________________________ 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 subbiah at i-dns.net Fri Feb 23 01:58:40 2007 From: subbiah at i-dns.net (subbiah) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:58:40 -0800 Subject: [governance] Response to Stephane Bortzmeyer on IDN - Appendix 1 Message-ID: <45DE90A0.7080008@i-dns.net> Appendix 1 – The “early History” portion of Wikipedia entry for IDN and Internationalized Domain Name has been cut/paste below. Full details at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internationalized_domain_name History of IDN * 12/96: Martin Duerst's original Internet Draft proposing UTF5 (the first incarnation of what is known today as ACE)- UTF-5 was first defined by Martin Duerst at the University of Zürich in [3] [4] [5] ( Subbiah comments: a precursor idea that was never implemented and would not have worked as proposed. Martin later collaborated with the Singapore team which was not aware of his previous suggestion til much later)) * 03/98: Early Research on IDN at National University of Singapore (NUS), Center for Internet Research (formerly Internet Research and Development Unit - IRDU) led by Prof. Tan Tin Wee (IDN Project team - Lim Juay Kwang and Leong Kok Yong)and subsequently continued under a team at Bioinformatrix Pte. Ltd. (BIX Pte. Ltd.) - a NUS spin-off company led by Prof. S. Subbiah. * July 98: Geneva INET'98 conference with a BoF discussion on iDNS and APNG General Meeting and Working Group meeting. * 07/98: Asia Pacific Networking Group (APNG, now still in existence [6] and distinct from a gathering known as APSTAR [7] ) iDNS Working Group formed. [8] * 10/98: James Seng was recruited to lead further IDN development at BIX Pte. Ltd. by Prof. S. Subbiah. * 02/99: iDNS Testbed launched by BIX Pte. Ltd. under the auspicies of APNG with participation from CNNIC , JPNIC , KRNIC, TWNIC, THNIC, HKNIC and SGNIC led by James Seng [9] * 02/99: Presentation of Report on IDN at Joint APNG-APTLD meeting, at APRICOT'99 * 03/99: Endorsement of the IDN Report at APNG General Meeting 1 March 1999. * 06/99: Grant application by APNG jointly with the Centre for Internet Research (CIR), National University of Singapore, to the International Development Research Center (IDRC), a Canadian Government funded international organisation to work on IDN for IPv6. This APNG Project was funded under the Pan Asia R&D Grant administered on behalf of IDRC by the Canadian Committee on Occupational Health and Safety (CCOHS). Principal Investigator: Tan Tin Wee of National University of Singapore. [10] * 07/99 Tout, Walid R. (WALID Inc.) Filed IDNA patent application number US1999000358043 Method and system for internationalizing domain names. Published 2001-01-30 [11] * 07/99: [12] ; Renewed 2000 [13] Internet Draft on UTF5 by James Seng, Martin Duerst and Tan Tin Wee. * 08/99: APTLD and APNG forms a working group to look into IDN issues chaired by Kilnam Chon. [14] * 10/99: BIX Pte. Ltd. and National University of Singapore together with New York Venture Capital investors, General Atlantic Partners, spun-off the IDN effort into 2 new Singapore companies - i-DNS.net International Inc. and i-Email.net Pte. Ltd. that created the first commercial implementation of an IDN Solution for both domain names and IDN email addresses respectively. * 11/99: IETF IDN Birds-of-Feather in Washington was initiated by i-DNS.net at the request of IETF officials. * 12/99: i-DNS.net InternationalPte. Ltd. launched the first commercial IDN. It was in Taiwan and in Chinese characters under the top-level IDN TLD ".gongsi" (meaning loosely ".com") with endorsement by the Minister of Communications of Taiwan and some major Taiwanese ISPs with reports of over 200 000 names sold in a week in Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, China, Australia and USA. * Late 1999: Kilnam Chon initiates Task Force on IDNS which led to formation of MINC, the Multilingual Internet Names Consortium. [15] * 01/2000: IETF IDN Working Group formed chaired by James Seng and Marc Blanchet * 01/2000: The second ever commercial IDN launch was IDN TLDs in the Tamil Language, corresponding to .com, .net, .org, and .edu. These were launched in India with IT Ministry support by i-DNS.net International. * 02/2000: Multilingual Internet Names Consortium(MINC) Proposal BoF at IETF Adelaide. [16] * 03/2000: APRICOT 2000 Multilingual DNS session [17] * 04/2000: WALID Inc. (with IDNA patent pending application 6182148) started Registration & Resolving Multilingual Domain Names. * 05/2000: Interoperability Testing WG, MINC meeting. San Francisco, chaired by Bill Manning and Y.Yoneya 12 May 2000. [18] * 06/2000: Inaugural Launch of the Multilingual Internet Names Consortium (MINC) in Seoul [19] to drive the collaborative roll-out of IDN starting from the Asia Pacific. [20] * 07/2000: Joint Engineering TaskForce (JET) initiated in Yokohama to study technical issues led by JPNIC (K.Konishi) * 07/2000: Official Formation of CDNC Chinese Domain Name Consortium to resolve issues related to and to deploy Han Character domain names, founded by CNNIC, TWNIC, HKNIC and MONIC in May 2000. [21] [22] * 03/01: ICANN Board IDN Working Group formed * 07/01: Japanese Domain Name Association : JDNA Lauch Ceremony (July 13, 2001) in Tokyo, Japan. * 07/01: Urdu Internet Names System (July 28, 2001) in Islamabad, Pakistan, Organised Jointly by SDNP and MINC. [23] * 07/01: Presentation on IDN to the Committee Meeting of the Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, National Academies USA (JULY 11-13, 2001)at University of California School of Information Management and Systems, Berkeley, CA. [24] * 08/01: MINC presentation and outreach at the Asia Pacific Advanced Network annual conference, Penang, Malaysia 20th August 2001 * 10/01: Joint MINC-CDNC Meeting in Beijing 18-20 October 2001 * 11/01: ICANN IDN Committee formed * 12/01: Joint ITU-WIPO Symposium on Multilingual Domain Names organised in association with MINC, 6-7 Dec 2001, International Conference Center, Geneva. * 01/03: Free implementation of StringPrep, Punycode, and IDNA release in GNU Libidn. * 03/03: Publication of RFC 3454 , RFC 3490 , RFC 3491 and RFC 3492 * 06/03: Publication of ICANN IDN Guidelines for registries * 05/04: Publication of RFC 3743 , Joint Engineering Team (JET) Guidelines for Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) Registration and Administration for Chinese, Japanese, and Korean * March 2005: First Study Group 17 of ITU-T meeting on Internationalized Domain Names [25] * April 2006: Study Group 17 meeting in Korea gave final approval to the Question on Internationalized Domain Names [26] * December 2006: ICANN meeting at São Paulo discusses status of lab tests of IDNs within the root. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.412 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/696 - Release Date: 2/21/2007 ____________________________________________________________ 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 subbiah at i-dns.net Fri Feb 23 02:00:27 2007 From: subbiah at i-dns.net (subbiah) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 23:00:27 -0800 Subject: [governance] Response to Stephane Bortzmeyer on IDN - Appendix 2 Message-ID: <45DE910B.30707@i-dns.net> Appendix 2 - Titles of Press articles from November 1999 to December 2001 about I-DNS.net the company and its pioneering IDN (The actual content of these articles and the titles/contents of other Articles from 2002 onwards are at www.i-dns.net under Press Release). December 1999 • Lingua Franker Online, AsiaWeek, 24 December 1999 • New registry offers Chinese domain names Hong Kong, South China Morning Post (Technology), 14 December 1999 • Users register Chinese domain names Online, Computer World, 8 December 1999 • i-DNS signs up Taiwan ISP Online, CNET.com, 7 December 1999 • Timenet Chinese domain names special access Taiwan, Daily Economic News, 7 December 1999 • Rush on Chinese domain names Online, IDG.net, 7 December 1999 • Chinese Domain Name Space opened for Registration [.com] in Chinese to Kick Start Online, ZDNet.com, 4 December 1999 • Timenet officially appointed registrar for i-DNS Taiwan, Daily Economic Times, 4 December 1999 • Chinese Domain Name Space for global Information Network Taiwan, Lian He Xin Wen Wang, 3 December 1999 • TimeNet appointed registrar for Singapore's i-DNS Taiwan, Daily Economic News, 3 December 1999 • is no longer a far-fetched idea Taiwan, Lian He Bao, 3 December 1999 • TimeNet appointed registrar for i-DNS Registration for Chinese domain names now open Taiwan, eBNews, 3 December 1999 *• World's First - Taiwan ISP Launches Registration Of Multilingual Domain Names General, i-DNS.net International, 3 December 1999* • Multilingual Service Asian Entrepreneur, December 1999 Back to top November 1999 • Get ready for multi-lingual Internet domains Online, CNET.com, 6 November 1999 • Domain names in Chinese and other languages Singapore, Lian He Zao Bao, 2 November 1999 *• National University Of Singapore Announces The Launch Of The Home-Grown High-Tech Internet Company, i-DNS.net, Pioneer Of The Global Multilingual Domain Name System General, i-DNS.net International, 1 November 1999* December 2000 • DomainTheNet And i-DNS.net Launch Domain Names In Hebrew Online, Internet.com, 27 December 2000 *• A Revolutionary Innovation That Empowers Internet Users To Surf And Access Web Addresses In Hebrew General, i-DNS.net International, 26 December 2000* • First Hebrew Domain Name Will Be Inaugurated Tomorrow Online, israel.com, 25 December 2000 • Revolutionary Innovation: From Now It Is Possible To Register Internet Addresses Names In Hebrew Online, Sivan.com, 25 December 2000 • Starting Tomorrow It Will Be Possible To Register Internet Domain Names In Hebrew.com Online, ioe.co.il, 25 December 2000 *• i-DNS.net Announces A Technology And Registrar Partnership With NJStar Software Corporation General, i-DNS.net International, 18 December 2000* • MII: no objections to foreign participation in Chinese domain name registration Hong Kong, HK Economic Times, 14 December 2000 • Shortcomings of English domain names China, Xing Hua News Agency, 10 December 2000 • Cultural identity crisis solved India, Business Line, 6 December 2000 Back to top November 2000 *• i-DNS.net Appoints Inplaza.net As Registrar For Korean Domain Names General, i-DNS.net International, 20 November 2000* • The Net Ain't Just for English USA, www.wired.com, 13 November 2000 • Asian Languages Are Dot-OK USA, www.wired.com, 9 November 2000 • Asian Domain Names Go Online - Update Online, newsbytes.com, 9 November 2000 • Building The Tower Of Babel: The Web Goes Global Online, techweb.com, 6 November 2000 • The War of Chinese Domain Names Intensifies China, Beijing Economic Daily, 6 November 2000 • Register.com to Launch Registration for Multilingual Domain Names Online, CNN Financial Network Industry Watch, 6 November 2000 • CNNIC deprives people of the right to use Chinese language? China, Sohu.com, 4 November 2000 • Dot-Mlsr Domains General, PC World, November 2000 Back to top October 2000 *• i-DNS.net International & interQ Inc. Partner To Provide Japanese Domain Names General, i-DNS.net International, 31 October 2000* • dotTV now handles multilingual domain name registrations Hong Kong, Hi-TechWeekly, 30 October 2000 • For the first time in Egypt and the Middle East A new protocol for writing web site names in Arabic language Egypt, Watani, 29 October 2000 • Slangsoft And i-DNS Push For Multilingual Domain Names Online, dc.internet.com, 25 October 2000 • NSI launches registration services for domain names in Japanese, Korean and Simplified and Traditional Chinese Hong Kong, Sing Tao Daily, 25 October 2000 • Introducing Non-English Domain Name Registration Service On First Come, First Serve Basis NSI Projects 120,000 Chinese Domain Name Registrations In A Span Of 2 Years Hong Kong, The Sun, 25 October 2000 • An analysis of Chinese Domain Name strategies Hong Kong, HK Economic Journal, 25 October 2000 • Domain Name Rush in Mainland China Hong Kong, HongKongGlobe, 25 October 2000 *• i-DNS.net & Slangsoft Team Up To Empower Multilingualization Of The Internet General, i-DNS.net International, 25 October 2000* *• i-DNS.net International Partners K.Y. Corporation To Provide Japanese Domain Name Registration Service General, i-DNS.net International, 24 October 2000* • NSI launches universal domain name registration services tomorrow Hong Kong, HK Economic Journal, 23 October 2000 • Internet Domains Go Multilingual USA, WinPlanet.com, 23 October 2000 *• Leading Multilingual Solutions Provider Ropes In Registry Management Expert General, i-DNS.net International, 23 October 2000* • Heated competition for Chinese domain names Hong Kong, HK Economic Journal, 20 October 2000 • China Channel Initiate Rights-Protection Campaign for Chinese Domain Names Online, CCID.net, 20 October 2000 • China Channel offers Registration Services for Chinese Domain Name and Email Services China, Xing Hua News Agency, 19 October 2000 • Mainland target for i-DNS.net Specialist in ventures to make multilingual e-mail addresses and domain-name software a standard in the market Hong Kong, South China Morning Post (Technology), 17 October 2000 • i-DNS unveils new service India, Express Computers (All India edition), 16 October 2000 • Domain Names And Email Addresses In Chinese Characters China, Popular Computer Week, 16 October 2000 • i-DNS.net Announces Strategic Partnership with New Cyber Online, IDG.com.hk, 13 October 2000 • New Cyber, i-DNS.net venture into Chinese domain registration Online, ZDNetAsia.com, 12 October 2000 • Lone Ranger Alliances against Union of Four -- i-DNS.net Seeks Conciliatory Standardization Hong Kong, Oriental Daily News, 12 October 2000 • New Cyber, i-DNS.net venture into Chinese domain registration Hong Kong, South China Morning Post (Technology), 12 October 2000 • Domain Names And Email Addresses In Chinese Characters China, Market Daily, 12 October 2000 • i-DNS.net Partners New Cyber to Offer Chinese Domain Name Registration in China. Hong Kong, HK Economic Journal, 12 October 2000 • i-DNS.net and New Cyber to Increase Number of Chinese Domain Name Registrations to 100,000 Hong Kong, Wen Wei Po, 12 October 2000 • i-DNS.net and New Cyber Offers Chinese Domain Name Registration Services Hong Kong, Sing Tao Daily, 12 October 2000 • i-DNS.net Expects Standard Chinese Domain Name System by Year-End Hong Kong, HK Economic Times, 12 October 2000 • New cyber, i-DNS.net venture into Chinese domain registration Hong Kong, South China Morning Post (Technology), 12 October 2000 • i-DNS.net and New Cyber Offers Registration Services for Domain Names Ending With [] Hong Kong, Apple Daily News, 12 October 2000 • New Cyber Offers Registration Services for Domain Names Ending With [] Hong Kong, The Sun, 12 October 2000 • Chinese Domain Name Registration Industry Taps Into China Market Hong Kong, Ta Kung Pao, 12 October 2000 • Internet becomes popular in Asia NSI competes in non-English domain name market Hong Kong, The Sun, 11 October 2000 • China Channel Launches Registration Services for Chinese Domain Names and Chinese Email Addresses - Use Chinese Domain Names, Write Chinese Email Addresses China, Super Shopping Guide, 11 October 2000 • i-DNS.net and New Cyber to Offer Multilingual Domain Name Registration Services Online, CNET.com, 11 October 2000 • Growing Strength of i-DNS.net Registrars Adopt Two-Way Approach Into Chinese Domain Name Market Online, Tom.com, 11 October 2000 *• i-DNS.net Announces Strategic Partnership With New Cyber General, i-DNS.net International, 11 October 2000* • Surfing suavely on the net in Chinese China, Xiamen Economic Daily, 10 October 2000 • China Channel Offers Registration Services for Chinese Domain Names and Email Addresses. China, Super Shopping Guide, 10 October 2000 • Registration Operator Signs Deal Hong Kong, China Daily, 9 October 2000 • Domain Names And Email Addresses In Chinese Characters China, China Network World, 9 October 2000 • Operable Chinese Domain Names And Email Addresses Online, CCID.net, 9 October 2000 • It Is Now Possible to Register for Domain Names in Chinese Language China, Beijing Economic Daily, 9 October 2000 • China Channel launches Chinese Domain Names China, SecuritesTimes, 8 October 2000 • China Channel Becomes First Registrar for Domain Names and Email Addresses in Chinese Language China, China Enterprises News, 6 October 2000 • Chinese domain name: Expanding your horizon China, Xiamen Economic Daily, 5 October 2000 • Software offers Asian domain names Singapore, The Straits Times, 5 October 2000 • Domo Arigato Mr. Domain-o Online, Internet.com, 5 October 2000 • i-DNS.net and register.com Team Up to Offer Multilingual Domain Names Online, Register.com, 4 October 2000 • Use Chinese Language for Domain Names and Email Addresses China, Beijing Youth Daily, 4 October 2000 • Registration operator signs deal China, China Daily 8, 4 October 2000 • i-DNS.net and register.com Team Up to Offer Multilingual Domain Names Online, yahoo.com, 4 October 2000 *• i-DNS.net And Register.com Team Up To Offer Multilingual Domain Names General, i-DNS.net International, 4 October 2000* • Domain Names Getting Localized China, Guang Ming Daily, 2 October 2000 Back to top September 2000 • 'i-DNS PARTNERS MELBOURNE IT FOR MULTI-LANGUAGE DN' Thailand, itsoft, 31 September 2000 • China Channel Launches Chinese Domain Name Registration Services China, China Byte, 29 September 2000 • China Channel becomes First Registrar to Offer Chinese Domain Name Registration Services China, International Trade News, 29 September 2000 • Domain Names And Email Addresses In Chinese Characters Online, CNET.com, 28 September 2000 • i-DNS.net eyes Indian multilingual Internet market India, ZDNetIndia, 27 September 2000 • i-DNS.net offers new service India, The Hindu, 27 September 2000 • China Channel Launches Registration Services for Chinese Domain Names Suffixed with .com - Chinese domain names and Chinese Email Addresses Becomes Trendy Online, www.asuslife.com, 27 September 2000 • China Channel Provides Doorplates of Chinese Internet China, 21dnn.com, 27 September 2000 • DOMAIN NAMES AND EMAIL ADDRESSES IN CHINESE CHARACTERS Online, Sina.com.cn, 27 September 2000 • i-DNS.net Launches ccTLD India, Free Press Journal (Mumbai Edition), 26 September 2000 *• Multilingual Internet Solution Providers Forge Alliance General, i-DNS.net International, 26 September 2000* • Secure Site Technology Launches Chinese Domain Name Registration Services Hong Kong, PC Weekly, 26 September 2000 • Vying for the Chinese DNS Throne Hong Kong, Apple Daily News, 26 September 2000 • Multilingual Domain Name System Supports 20 Languages Taiwan, Hi-Tech Weekly, 26 September 2000 • Domain Names and Email Addresses in Chinese Language to Serve Our Countrymen China, Beijing Youth Weekly, 25 September 2000 • International Domain Name Service offers $1.2 Million in Free Name Registries for U.S. Public Companies Online, PR NewsWire, 25 September 2000 *• China’s Largest ICANN-Accredited Registrar To Offer Multilingual Domain Names General, i-DNS.net International, 25 September 2000* *• dotTV Partners With i-DNS.net To Offer Multilingual Domain Names General, i-DNS.net International, 25 September 2000* • Registry operator outsourcing service launched Online, ZDNet.com, 22 September 2000 • i-DNS.net to Facilitate Open Standard for IDN India, Free Press Journal (Mumbai Edition), 21 September 2000 • i-DNS.net to localise domain names India, The Observer of B & P, 20 September 2000 • Enter the arena of internationalized multilingual domain name technology China, Science&Technology Daily, 20 September 2000 • Internet domain names en route to localisation Online, CMPNetAsia.com, 15 September 2000 • i-DNS.net Paves Way for China's Enterprises China, SportlightTimes, 13 September 2000 *• i-DNS.net Partners Egypt's IDSC To Launch Arabic Domain Names Ending In General, i-DNS.net International, 13 September 2000* • Have You Registered For Your Chinese Domain Name? China, China Electronic News, 12 September 2000 • i-DNS Urges for a Standard for Domain Name System Hong Kong, Sing Pao Daily News, 12 September 2000 • i-DNS.net Sings Praises for Chinese Domain Name System Hong Kong, Apple Daily News, 11 September 2000 • Does your domain speak my language? Online, CMPNetAsia.com, 11 September 2000 *• i-DNS.net International Launches Registry Operator Outsourcing Service General, i-DNS.net International, 11 September 2000* • i-DNS.net Makes Technology Exoteric Does Not View Numeric Domain Name a Threat Online, Tom.com, 8 September 2000 • The decline of the Web's Roman Empire Online, CNN.com, 7 September 2000 • i-DNS.net Makes International Allies Chinese Domain Name Registrations A Success China, Business Daily, 7 September 2000 • i-DNS.net To Become Engine of Chinese Domain Name System Online, infoworld.com, 7 September 2000 • 3GNIC tries to grab initiative in Chinese domain name wrangle Online, itdaily.com, 6 September 2000 • 3GNIC deal means Chinese domains could soon become universal Online, myinfoage.com, 6 September 2000 • i-DNS Awaits Thai Language Decision Online, Internet.com, 6 September 2000 • Good Prospects for Internationalized Domain Names China, China Byte, 4 September 2000 • i-DNS.net and NSI in Joint Promotion of Internationalized Domain Names China, eNet, 4 September 2000 • Domain Name Registration No Longer An English Domain Chinese DNS Announces Entry with a Flourish China, China Netizen News, 4 September 2000 • i-DNS.net International Looks Forward to Disseminate iDNS with CNNIC Hong Kong, HK Economic Journal, 4 September 2000 • DNS for System Compatibility Hong Kong, HK Economic Journal, 4 September 2000 • Thai language standard Online, TheNation, 4 September 2000 • U.S. losing domination of the Net, report shows Hong Kong, Globe & Mail, 2 September 2000 • Partners Offers Chinese Domain Name Registration Services China, Market and Computer, September 2000 • Techonomics: Outside ASCII Online, CMPNetAsia.com, 1 September 2000 Back to top August 2000 • i-DNS in pact with Network Solutions Registry India, The Financial Express, 31 August 2000 • Multi-language domains on horizon Online, IDG.com.hk, 29 August 2000 *• i-DNS.net Announces Technology Position On Internationalized Domain Names General, i-DNS.net International, 29 August 2000* • i-DNS.net Launches DNS in Hindi India, Express Computers (All India edition), 28 August 2000 • i-DNS.net International joins NSI Thailand, Krungthep Turakij, 28 August 2000 • i-DNS's multilingual solution Hong Kong, China Post, 28 August 2000 • ICANN Supports Foreign Language Domain Names In Principle Online, newsbytes.com, 28 August 2000 • eNIC Corporation Offers Domains in Additional Languages Online, yahoo.com, 28 August 2000 • For the first time: Domain names on the Internet in Arabic language. Egypt, Al Alam El Youm, 27 August 2000 • iDNS makes way for multilingual domain names Online, ZDNet.com, 26 August 2000 • i-DNS.net and NSI Offers Multilingual Domain Name Registration Services China, China Byte, 25 August 2000 • i-DNS.net Deploys Multilingual DNS Technology with NSI Online, hk.myinfoage.com, 25 August 2000 • Domain Names Are Becoming Non-English Hong Kong, HK Economic Journal, 25 August 2000 • i-DNS.net Launches Aggressive Introduction of Chinese Domain Name Registration Service - Technology yet to be named Global Standard Hong Kong, HK Economic Times, 25 August 2000 • i-DNS to provide technology for multilingual domain names Online, itdaily.com, 25 August 2000 • i-DNS.net Launches Net Domain Names in Hindi India, The Navhind Times, 24 August 2000 • CEOcast: Interview with Mr. Michael Ng, CEO i-DNS.net Int'l. Online, CEOcast.com, 24 August 2000 • NSI To Test Multilingual Domain Name System Online, Computer World, 23 August 2000 *• i-DNS.net International Announces Agreement With Network Solutions Registry General, i-DNS.net International, 23 August 2000* • Si Habla Domains? Online, dc.internet.com, 22 August 2000 • Multilingual domain names promoted Online, infoworld.com, 22 August 2000 • VeriSign's Network Solutions Unit to Add Web Names Online, CNET.com, 22 August 2000 • Network Solutions Registry Announces Statement of Direction On Multilingual Domain Names Online, Forbes.com, 22 August 2000 • Network Solutions Registry Announces Statement of Direction On Multilingual Domain Names Online, yahoo.com, 22 August 2000 • NSI Registry to Work With i-DNS.net To Enable Multilingual Domain Names on the Internet USA, Network Solutions Inc., 22 August 2000 • Registration of domain names in Hindi India, Bombay Times (Mumbai Edition), 21 August 2000 • Domain registration in Hindi India, Economic Times, 20 August 2000 • iDNS to offer expanded service India, Free Press Journal (Mumbai Edition), 19 August 2000 • Domain name registration in Hindi India, The New Indian Express, 19 August 2000 • Hindi domain names from i-DNS.net India, hindubusinessline.com, 18 August 2000 • iDNS.net to offer Hindi domain names Online, Ciol.com, 18 August 2000 • Net Domain Registration in Hindi Launched India, The Hindustan Times, 17 August 2000 *• Hindi Domain Names Now Available General, i-DNS.net International, 16 August 2000* • eNIC Launches Multi-lingual Domain Name Registry Program Online, dc.internet.com, 15 August 2000 • i-DNS.net JOINS eNIC TO PROVIDE MULTI-LANGUAGE DOMAIN NAME SERVICE IN USA Thailand, Econnews, 15 August 2000 • eNIC Corporation Becomes First Registry to Offer Domain Names in Asian Languages Online, yahoo.com, 15 August 2000 • Building The Tower Of Babel: The Web Goes Truly Global Online, techweb.com, 11 August 2000 • Internationalized Domain Names How Much Do You Know? Online, CCID.net, 11 August 2000 • Unveiling the technology behind Chinese Domain Names and Email Addresses Online, CNET.com, 8 August 2000 • i-DNS EXPANDS NETWORK OF DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION Thailand, Thai Post, 7 August 2000 • Risk E-Business: Seizing the Opportunity of Global E-Readiness mcconnellinternational.com, August 2000 • i-DNS.net Partners Melbourne IT Asian Entrepreneur, August 2000 Back to top July 2000 • Internationalisation of the Domain Name System: The Next Big Step in a Multilingual Internet India, TamilNation.org, 24 July 2000 • Domain Registrar to face competition Online, www.f2.com.au, 18 July 2000 • Asian-language domain names now available Online, IDG.net, 17 July 2000 • INWW To Offer Chinese Character Domains Online, dc.internet.com, 12 July 2000 • eNIC Dot-CC to Offer Domain Names in Asian Languages Online, yahoo.com, 11 July 2000 *• i-DNS.net International Partners eNIC Corporation General, i-DNS.net International, 11 July 2000* • INWW To Offer Chinese-Language Domain Names Online, newsbytes.com, 6 July 2000 • Melbourne IT Wins Right to Chinese Character Domains Online, Internet.com, 6 July 2000 • Melbourne IT Plans To Expand Range Of Web Registry Asian Wall Street Journal, 6 July 2000 • Melbourne IT to register Chinese domain names Singapore, The Business Times, 6 July 2000 • IT group cracks wall of China Online, theAge.com, 6 July 2000 *• i-DNS.net International Announces Strategic Partnership with Melbourne IT Ltd General, i-DNS.net International, 5 July 2000* • Multilingual domain names promise to create a truly local Internet. Multilingual Computing & Technology, July 2000 Back to top June 2000 • The Service of Registering Domain Names and Sites in Arabic on the Internet Enters Egypt Egypt, Al Ahram Weekly, 17 June 2000 *• Participation Of i-DNS.net International In MINC General, i-DNS.net International, 14 June 2000* Back to top May 2000 • Site Names can be in Telugu too India, Business Standard, 31 May 2000 • eNamaskar launches Telugu domain names India, hindubusinessline.com, 30 May 2000 • The Service of Registering Domain Names and Sites in Arabic on the Internet Enters Egypt Egypt, Al Ahram, 30 May 2000 *• The World Wide Web Now Accessible To The Telugu Speaking Population General, i-DNS.net International, 30 May 2000* • Internet revolution blows in the Arab World Egypt, Al Alam El Youm, 29 May 2000 • For The First Time in Egypt -- A New Technology that Bridges the Gap Between Those Who Do Not Speak English and the Internet Egypt, Al Ahram Al Iktissadi, 29 May 2000 • For the First Time: Internet Sites in Arabic Egypt, Al Goumhourya, 28 May 2000 • Multilingual domain name benefits more net users Singapore, Lian He Zao Bao, 28 May 2000 • i-DNS.net Press Conference - Cairo May 24th 2000 Egypt, The Egyptian Gazette, 26 May 2000 • Start of Internet Site Registration in Arabic Egypt, Al Alam El Youm, 25 May 2000 • Egyptian-American Agreement for Internet Sites in Arabic Egypt, Al Hayat, 25 May 2000 • For the First Time in Egypt: The Internet in Arabic Egypt, Al Akhbar, 25 May 2000 • Service for Arabic Internet Domain Names Initiated Egypt, The Egyptian Gazette, 25 May 2000 *• i-DNS.net International Announces Launch of Arabic Internet Domain Names General, i-DNS.net International, 24 May 2000* • Enter into the arena of internationalised multilingualdomain name technology China, Computer Business Information, 23 May 2000 • Easy net-surfing with Chinese domain name China, China Electronic News, 23 May 2000 • i-DNS launches "internationalised multilingual domain name" service China, China Network World, 22 May 2000 • Enter the arena of internationalised multilingual domain name technology China, Networking China, 22 May 2000 • Guangdong Data Telecom actively promotes Chinese domain name registration service China, Super Shopping Guide, 19 May 2000 • There's Chinese domain name on the Net China, Shanghai Wenhui Daily, 18 May 2000 • Chinese can be used for registering web addresses China, Beijing Economic Daily, 18 May 2000 • Verification of Chinese domain name - Seize the opportunity Taiwan, Gong Shang Shi Bao, 18 May 2000 • i-DNS Debuts J-Language Domain Registration Online, Internet.com, 16 May 2000 *• Chinese Domain Names For The Chinese General, i-DNS.net International, 15 May 2000* • US-based i-DNS.net launches Japanese only Domain Name Service Japan, Nikkei Industrial News, 15 May 2000 • Domain names going local Japan, Nikkei Weekly, 15 May 2000 • Japanese OK'd for Web address registrations Japan, The Daily Yomiuri, 12 May 2000 • Key Person Online, ASCII24, 12 May 2000 • US Company developed new technology to enable Japanese Internet Address Online, Mycom Online, 11 May 2000 • Domain names to be registered in Japanese Online, Ananova.com, 11 May 2000 • i-DNS.net to offer Net Addresses Written in Japanese Characters Online, The Wall Street Journal Interactive, 11 May 2000 • Home page address can now be changed from ".com" to ".KAISHA" Japan, Nihon Keizai Shimbun, 11 May 2000 *• Launch Of Hiragana, Katakana, Kanji Web Address Registration And Internet Use General, i-DNS.net International, 10 May 2000* *• Launch Of Chinese Internet Domain Names In The United States General, i-DNS.net International, 9 May 2000* Back to top April 2000 • NUS develops multilingual Internet domain name technology - It's easy to register domain name in Asian Singapore, Lian He Zao Bao, 11 April 2000 *• i-DNS.Net International Launches Multilingual Domain Name Services In Singapore General, i-DNS.net International, 5 April 2000* Back to top March 2000 • Chinese Domain Name Registration Service Popular Hong Kong, Ta Kung Pao, 23 March 2000 • HKNet to Launch Chinese Domain Names Hong Kong, The Sun, 13 March 2000 • Internet Domain Names in Tamil India, Computer Ulakam, March 2000 • Domain Names Need not be Registered only in English Boom in Registration Service Businesses Expected? Hong Kong, HK Economic Times, 1 March 2000 • i-DNS Bridges Gap between Languages on the Web Infropro, March 2000 Back to top February 2000 • i-DNS.net with Tamil Internet Domain Names India, Dhinath Thanthi, 23 February 2000 • Tamil Domain Names Introduced India, Malaimurasu, 22 February 2000 • What's in a Name? Far Eastern Economic Review, 17 February 2000 • Registration of Tamil Domain Names Launched at Chennai India, Dhina Malar, 11 February 2000 • You can name your Internet Domain in Tamil itself India, Kaalaikkathi / Varththaka kathir, 11 February 2000 • i-DNS.net launches Tamil Internet Domain Names India, Dinamani, 8 February 2000 • A New facility offered by a Singapore company India, Maalai Chudar, 8 February 2000 • A new facility for those who do not know English to obtain information from Internet. India, Makkal Kural, 8 February 2000 • i-DNS launches domain names in Tamil India, Trinity Mirror, 7 February 2000 • i-DNS.net provides Internet Domain Names in Tamil India, Thina Boomi, 6 February 2000 • Tamil Net domain names with i-DNS India, The Hindu, 6 February 2000 • Domain names in Tamil India, News Today, 6 February 2000 *• i-DNS.net International Proudly Announces The Launch Of Internet Domain Names In Tamil General, i-DNS.net International, 6 February 2000* • i-DNS targets Internet in Thai domain name market Thailand, Thai Rath, 4 February 2000 • i-DNS.net joins three ISPs to take registration of Thai Domain Names Thailand, Krungthep Turakij, 3 February 2000 *• Leading Thai ISPs Launch Registration Of Multilingual Domain Names With The Latest i-DNS Technology General, i-DNS.net International, 2 February 2000* • Henceforth, Domain Names in Tamil too ...... India, Thozhil Ulagam, February 2000 *• MD Of KPMG Consulting Joins Local Internet Start-Up i-DNS.net International General, i-DNS.net International, 1 February 2000* Back to top January 2000 • Move afoot to support foreign domain names Online, Network World, 31 January 2000 • The Internet shows true character Online, www.f2.com.au, 25 January 2000 • Registration should enforce Stricter Regulations on Chinese Domain Names to curb Speculations Hong Kong, Sing Tao Daily, 21 January 2000 • Companies market Web addresses in variety of languages Hong Kong, South China Morning Post (Technology), 18 January 2000 • HK firms start registering Chinese domain names Online, IDG.net, 18 January 2000 • CMC Appointed Registrar for Chinese Domain Name Registration Taiwan, Gong Shang Shi Bao, 15 January 2000 • CMC Switched Investment to set up Chinese Registration Company Online, DigiTimes, 15 January 2000 • HKNet to provide registration service for multilingual domain name Online, Technology Press, 14 January 2000 • HKNet Launches Chinese Domain Name Registration Hong Kong, Ming Bao Daily News, 14 January 2000 • HKNet Opened Up Chinese Domain Name Space Hong Kong, HK Daily News, 14 January 2000 • HKNet partners iDNS.net International to Launch Chinese Domain Name Registration Hong Kong, Sing Pao Daily News, 14 January 2000 • HKNet Launched Multilingual Domain Name Hong Kong, HK Commercial Daily, 14 January 2000 • CCT Telecom Holdings Launched Chinese Domain Name Registration Service Hong Kong, HK Economic Journal, 14 January 2000 • Hong Kong's first Chinese Domain Name Registration Launched Hong Kong, The Sun, 14 January 2000 • Breaking through the English Language Barrier Hong Kong, Apple Daily News, 14 January 2000 • HKNet partners i-DNS.net in Registration Service Launch Hong Kong, Oriental Daily News, 14 January 2000 • HKNet Partners i-DNS.net to Launch First Chinese Domain Name Space Hong Kong, Sing Tao Daily, 14 January 2000 • 3GNIC, HKNet Launch Competing Chinese Domain-Name Schemes Online, Internet.com, 14 January 2000 • HKNet & i-DNS.net Introduces Chinese Domain Names to HK Online, HKNet, 13 January 2000 *• Hong Kong's Second Largest ISP Launches Registration Of Multilingual Domain Names. General, i-DNS.net International, 13 January 2000* • CMC Steps into Chinese Domain Name Registration Taiwan, Gong Shang Shi Bao, 10 January 200 December 2001 • IETF Wrapping Up Internationalized Domain Work Online, Network World, 17 December 2001 • One Internet, Many Voices Online, www.itu.org, 14 December 2001 *• i-DNS.net International Launches In The Middle East General, i-DNS.net International, 12 December 2001* Back to top November 2001 • A Domain By Any Other Name General, Smart Computing, November 2001 Back to top October 2001 *• i-DNS.net Announces Corporate Position Paper General, i-DNS.net International, 15 October 2001* • Internationalisation and Localisation of the Internet Singapore, Synthesis, October 2001 Back to top September 2001 • Universal-Names Joins i-DNS.net’s Registrar Network USA, Universal Names, Inc, 17 September 2001 *• i-DNS.net Announces Cultural Awareness Initiative General, i-DNS.net International, 17 September 2001* *• i-DNS.net Begins Campaign To Raise Awareness Of Arabic Domain Names In The Gulf General, i-DNS.net International, 16 September 2001* • Unicode Globalization Conference in San Jose Online, PR NewsWire, 4 September 2001 Back to top August 2001 • Chinese-Language Multilingual Domain Name System Now In Operation Singapore, Lian He Zao Bao, 9 August 2001 Back to top July 2001 • Web Name System Has International Problem USA, United Press International, 27 July 2001 • IETF stays course on international domain names Online, Network World, 9 July 2001 Back to top June 2001 • Lycos Asia Offers Add-on Services to Increase Revenue and to Meet Users’ Needs Hong Kong, HK-Lycos, 22 June 2001 • Lycos Asia offers email addresses in Chinese Singapore, Singapore.CNET.com, 22 June 2001 • E-mail Address In Chinese Singapore, InfoTech, June 2001 • Lycos Asia Launches Chinese Email Address Service Hong Kong, HongKong.CNET.com, 21 June 2001 • ejapanDNS Launches Breakthrough Advertising Campaign For Domain Name Products In Japan Japan, ejapanDNS, 19 June 2001 Back to top May 2001 • Free i-DNS Domain Name Software Development Kit Available Online, CMPNetAsia.com, 28 May 2001 • i-DNS.net International Ships Internationalized Domain Name Software Development Kit Online, yahoo.com, 22 May 2001 *• i-DNS.net International Ships Internationalized Domain Name Software Development Kit General, i-DNS.net International, 22 May 2001* • A Revolutionary Innovation Enabling The Use Of Full Russian Web Address On The Internet Russia, Regtime.net Limited, 22 May 2001 • The INTERFAX site has a Russian name now. Russia, INTERFAX, 18 May 2001 • e-Lux Corporation launches ejapanDNS Japan, e-Lux Corporation, 17 May 2001 • GA the hands-on venture capitalist Online, CNN Financial Network Industry Watch, 16 May 2001 Back to top April 2001 • i-DNS.net International & Dotster Announce Strategic Partnership Online, www.insidechina.com, 18 April 2001 • I-DNS.net International & Dotster Announce Strategic Partnership Online, yahoo.com, 18 April 2001 *• i-DNS.net International & Dotster Announce Strategic Partnership General, i-DNS.net International, 18 April 2001* • i-DNS.net Akamaizes^SM iClient^TM Online, www.zdii.com, 17 April 2001 • i-DNS.net Akamaizes^SM iClient^TM Online, yahoo.com, 17 April 2001 *• i-DNS.net Akamaizes^SM iClient^TM General, i-DNS.net International, 17 April 2001* • Language Barriers Preventing Many People From Going Online Online, www.bbc.co.uk, 10 April 2001 • Toughies Through Turbulent Times - Companies That Have Survived The Internet Bubble Singapore, iLifemagazine, April 2001 • e-Lux Corporation introduces .AI and .EC domains for Japan’s Internet market Japan, e-Lux Corporation, 9 April 2001 • e-Lux Corporation And i-DNS.net International Partner To Launch Japanese Domain Names Online, yahoo.com, 5 April 2001 • e-Lux Corporation And i-DNS.net International Partner To Launch Japanese Domain Names Online, Internet Wire, 5 April 2001 • Japanese domain name registration begins in Q2 Online, Total Telecom, 5 April 2001 *• e-Lux Corporation And i-DNS.net International Partner To Launch Japanese Domain Names General, i-DNS.net International, 5 April 2001* • i-DNS.net Forges Ahead In Korea With Whois Co., Ltd. Online, yahoo.com, 3 April 2001 *• i-DNS.net Forges Ahead In Korea With Whois Co., Ltd. General, i-DNS.net International, 3 April 2001* Back to top March 2001 • Participation of i-DNS.net International in the Arabic Internet Names Consortium (AINC) Online, yahoo.com, 26 March 2001 • Participation of i-DNS.net International in the Arabic Internet Names Consortium (AINC) Online, PR NewsWire, 26 March 2001 *• Participation Of i-DNS.net International In The Arabic Internet Names Consortium (AINC) General, i-DNS.net International, 26 March 2001* • Changes afoot at the IETF Online, Network World, 21 March 2001 • Arabic Internet Names Consortium sets founders meeting Saudi Arabia, Arabia.com, 20 March 2001 • The Dominance of English USA, Scan360 Globalism, 15 March 2001 • E-mail interview with Dr Tan Tin Wee of the Multilingual Internet Names Consortium USA, Scan360 Globalism, 15 March 2001 • World's First Offering of Full Cyrillic Web Addresses I-DNS.net and RegTime.net Announces Upcoming Availability in Russia Online, www.russiatoday.com, 12 March 2001 • World's First Offering of Full Cyrillic Web Addresses i-DNS.net and RegTime.net Announces Upcoming Availability in Russia Online, PR NewsWire, 12 March 2001 • Russian Language Domain Names Available In April Online, techweb.com, 12 March 2001 • World's First Offering of Full Cyrillic Web Addresses i-DNS.net and RegTime.net Announces Upcoming Availability in Russia Online, yahoo.com, 12 March 2001 *• World's First Offering Of Full Cyrillic Web Addresses General, i-DNS.net International, 12 March 2001* • i-DNS.net's Registrar Services Division Launches Registrar-in-a-Box(TM) Online, PR NewsWire, 9 March 2001 • i-DNS.net's Registrar Services Division Launches Registrar-in-a-Box(TM) Online, ZDNet.com, 9 March 2001 *• i-DNS.net's Registrar Services Division Launches Registrar-In-a-Box^™ General, i-DNS.net International, 9 March 2001* Back to top February 2001 *• i-DNS.net Appoints 7DC, Inc. As Registrar For Korean Domain Names General, i-DNS.net International, 27 February 2001* • VeriSign joins multilingual domain name party Online, The Register, 26 February 2001 • Multilingual Domain Names Now Available In Saudi Arabia Online, www.domainsmagazine.com, 26 February 2001 *• Multilingual Domain Names Now Available In Saudi Arabia General, i-DNS.net International, 24 February 2001* • State Standard for Chinese Domain Names Being Tried Out China, People's Daily, 15 February 2001 *• i-DNS.net Appoints HANGANG Systems Inc. As Registrar For Korean Domain Names General, i-DNS.net International, 8 February 2001* • Domain Names Go Hollywood: The launch of .LA. Online, thedomainstreet.com, 1 February 2001 Back to top January 2001 • MINC Board Member Y J Park appointed as Deputy CEO of MINC Online, www.minc.org, 31 January 2001 • When can we write URLs in Arabic?! The Language Barrier Holds Most Of The Arab Users From Using the Internet Egypt, Etisalat Alyoum, 29 January 2001 • i-DNS.net International Launches Japan Domain Name Corporation Online, yahoo.com, 25 January 2001 *• i-DNS.net International Launches Japan Domain Name Corporation General, i-DNS.net International, 25 January 2001* • VeriSign Releases Latest Multilingual Client Online, dc.internet.com, 23 January 2001 • VeriSign and i-DNS.net Announce Availability of iClient^™ v3.0 Multilingual Resolution Client USA, VeriSign Inc., 23 January 2001 *• Bridging The Digital Divide General, i-DNS.net International, 23 January 2001* • VeriSign and i-DNS.net International Announce Strategic Technology Relationship for Multilingual Domain Name Support USA, GApartners.com, 9 January 2001 • VeriSign and i-DNS.net International Announce Strategic Technology Relationship for Multilingual Domain Name Support Online, yahoo.com, 9 January 2001 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.412 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/696 - Release Date: 2/21/2007 ____________________________________________________________ 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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org Fri Feb 23 03:38:02 2007 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 09:38:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Response to Stephane Bortzmeyer on IDN In-Reply-To: <45DE8F4F.6040405@i-dns.net> References: <45DE8F4F.6040405@i-dns.net> Message-ID: <20070223083802.GA25298@nic.fr> On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 10:53:03PM -0800, subbiah wrote a message of 436 lines which said: > As for Stephane, I guess the "holocaust did not happen either" You earned well your Godwin degree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law). ____________________________________________________________ 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 kierenmccarthy at gmail.com Fri Feb 23 04:21:53 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 09:21:53 -0000 Subject: [governance] Host country agreement In-Reply-To: <995781B0-B180-493C-97C8-D169ED7A4D8F@psg.com> References: <45DB2823.3020201@wz-berlin.de> <45DB2EAE.7050908@bertola.eu> <995781B0-B180-493C-97C8-D169ED7A4D8F@psg.com> Message-ID: <003001c7572c$0f5ed840$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Wrt to the wireless access issue. What would be really good is if civil society could get together a small group of network engineers who specialize in wireless access, and have some experience of the strange laws that exist once you get past 20 people on a wireless network, and offer them to the Secretariat as a consultancy. They could knock up some basic rules to follow, or infrastructural approaches, give them to the Brazilians and then turn up a day or two before the actual meeting to test the network and clear out any bugs. I've always thought the world is crying out for a Wiki-booklet on Wi-Fi conference access and another on conference Webcasting. You see the same mistakes again and again across the world. Kieren -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 6:17 PM To: Vittorio Bertola Cc: Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] Host country agreement Hi, In principle I agree it would be a good idea. In practice, if things go as they have before in IGf and WSIS, the host country agreement will be signed long after the arrangements are pretty solid. So i think it is important to ask, but the fact that they are in the agreement might not be the gating factor. a. On 20 feb 2007, at 12.23, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Jeanette Hofmann ha scritto: >> The caucus statement last week mentioned a few things such as food. > (and cheap accommodation) > >> Additionally I would find it important to have: >> * enough shuttles between hotels and conference venue > (perhaps also, though of course at a much lesser frequency, to > airport and city centre, unless there is adequate public > transportation available) >> * storage rooms for computers >> * the possibility to reserve additional rooms, i.e. for meetings >> of dynamic coalitions >> * remote participation facilities need specification (this is >> taken care of elsewhere) >> What else? > > * as good wi-fi coverage as possible in the rooms > * power outlets in the rooms! > * if possible, free/cheap wi-fi or wired Internet connectivity in > the hotels as well, maybe as part of the accommodation package. > -- > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 ca at rits.org.br Fri Feb 23 06:46:10 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 08:46:10 -0300 Subject: [governance] Host country agreement In-Reply-To: <003001c7572c$0f5ed840$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> References: <45DB2823.3020201@wz-berlin.de> <45DB2EAE.7050908@bertola.eu> <995781B0-B180-493C-97C8-D169ED7A4D8F@psg.com> <003001c7572c$0f5ed840$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <45DED402.9080607@rits.org.br> I am temporarily in a meeting out of town, hard to follow the discussion, but I can respond to this. The ICANN meeting in São Paulo was the first in a row of meetings since at least Luxembourg in which wi-fi worked, even in a room with more than 150 laptops connected simultaneously. Techies from CGI.br were responsible for the Internet acess project at the venue, and we will count on them for IGF Rio and the related meetings. They could write the book Kieren is suggesting. ;) frt rgds --c.a. Kieren McCarthy wrote: > Wrt to the wireless access issue. > > What would be really good is if civil society could get together a small > group of network engineers who specialize in wireless access, and have some > experience of the strange laws that exist once you get past 20 people on a > wireless network, and offer them to the Secretariat as a consultancy. > > They could knock up some basic rules to follow, or infrastructural > approaches, give them to the Brazilians and then turn up a day or two before > the actual meeting to test the network and clear out any bugs. > > I've always thought the world is crying out for a Wiki-booklet on Wi-Fi > conference access and another on conference Webcasting. You see the same > mistakes again and again across the world. > > > > Kieren > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 6:17 PM > To: Vittorio Bertola > Cc: Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: [governance] Host country agreement > > > > Hi, > > In principle I agree it would be a good idea. In practice, if things > go as they have before in IGf and WSIS, the host country agreement > will be signed long after the arrangements are pretty solid. > > So i think it is important to ask, but the fact that they are in the > agreement might not be the gating factor. > > a. > > > > On 20 feb 2007, at 12.23, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > >> Jeanette Hofmann ha scritto: >>> The caucus statement last week mentioned a few things such as food. >> (and cheap accommodation) >> >>> Additionally I would find it important to have: >>> * enough shuttles between hotels and conference venue >> (perhaps also, though of course at a much lesser frequency, to >> airport and city centre, unless there is adequate public >> transportation available) >>> * storage rooms for computers >>> * the possibility to reserve additional rooms, i.e. for meetings >>> of dynamic coalitions >>> * remote participation facilities need specification (this is >>> taken care of elsewhere) >>> What else? >> * as good wi-fi coverage as possible in the rooms >> * power outlets in the rooms! >> * if possible, free/cheap wi-fi or wired Internet connectivity in >> the hotels as well, maybe as part of the accommodation package. >> -- >> vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- >> --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 > > > -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Carlos A. Afonso diretor de planejamento Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits http://www.rits.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 jeanette at wz-berlin.de Fri Feb 23 07:32:04 2007 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 13:32:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] Host country agreement In-Reply-To: <45DED402.9080607@rits.org.br> References: <45DB2823.3020201@wz-berlin.de> <45DB2EAE.7050908@bertola.eu> <995781B0-B180-493C-97C8-D169ED7A4D8F@psg.com> <003001c7572c$0f5ed840$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <45DED402.9080607@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <45DEDEC4.2070601@wz-berlin.de> Hi, such a booklet would be a nice practical outcome of the next forum meeting. jeanette Carlos Afonso wrote: > I am temporarily in a meeting out of town, hard to follow the > discussion, but I can respond to this. The ICANN meeting in São Paulo > was the first in a row of meetings since at least Luxembourg in which > wi-fi worked, even in a room with more than 150 laptops connected > simultaneously. > > Techies from CGI.br were responsible for the Internet acess project at > the venue, and we will count on them for IGF Rio and the related > meetings. They could write the book Kieren is suggesting. ;) > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > Kieren McCarthy wrote: >> Wrt to the wireless access issue. >> >> What would be really good is if civil society could get together a small >> group of network engineers who specialize in wireless access, and have >> some >> experience of the strange laws that exist once you get past 20 people >> on a >> wireless network, and offer them to the Secretariat as a consultancy. >> >> They could knock up some basic rules to follow, or infrastructural >> approaches, give them to the Brazilians and then turn up a day or two >> before >> the actual meeting to test the network and clear out any bugs. >> >> I've always thought the world is crying out for a Wiki-booklet on Wi-Fi >> conference access and another on conference Webcasting. You see the same >> mistakes again and again across the world. >> >> >> >> Kieren >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 20, >> 2007 6:17 PM >> To: Vittorio Bertola >> Cc: Governance Caucus >> Subject: Re: [governance] Host country agreement >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> In principle I agree it would be a good idea. In practice, if things >> go as they have before in IGf and WSIS, the host country agreement >> will be signed long after the arrangements are pretty solid. >> >> So i think it is important to ask, but the fact that they are in the >> agreement might not be the gating factor. >> >> a. >> >> >> >> On 20 feb 2007, at 12.23, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >> >>> Jeanette Hofmann ha scritto: >>>> The caucus statement last week mentioned a few things such as food. >>> (and cheap accommodation) >>> >>>> Additionally I would find it important to have: >>>> * enough shuttles between hotels and conference venue >>> (perhaps also, though of course at a much lesser frequency, to >>> airport and city centre, unless there is adequate public >>> transportation available) >>>> * storage rooms for computers >>>> * the possibility to reserve additional rooms, i.e. for meetings of >>>> dynamic coalitions >>>> * remote participation facilities need specification (this is taken >>>> care of elsewhere) >>>> What else? >>> * as good wi-fi coverage as possible in the rooms >>> * power outlets in the rooms! >>> * if possible, free/cheap wi-fi or wired Internet connectivity in >>> the hotels as well, maybe as part of the accommodation package. >>> -- >>> vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- >>> --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ 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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org Fri Feb 23 08:09:10 2007 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:09:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Response to Stephane Bortzmeyer on IDN In-Reply-To: <45DE8F4F.6040405@i-dns.net> References: <45DE8F4F.6040405@i-dns.net> Message-ID: <20070223130910.GA1447@nic.fr> On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 10:53:03PM -0800, subbiah wrote a message of 436 lines which said: > Given the many false facts I see in the response, I will attempt to > address the key points for the sake of the many here who may not be > "IDN history experts" and have no time to conduct extensive personal > history research. Since the author of this message seems to be engaged in a race with Jefsey Morfin on "the longest email ever written", I take the liberty to summarize the issue a bit. Indeed, the Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internationalized_domain_name#History_of_IDN is a good start for those who want pointers to everything and who have time. http://www.imc.org/idn/entire-arch.txt, the entire archive of the IETF Working Group is nice, too (on-topic governance issue: that's why everything in the governance field must be done in writing and publicly). For those who are in hurry, let's synthetize: IDN (the general idea, unlike "IDNA" which is a specific solution, the only standard one, and specified in RFC 3490) is a very old idea, probably as old as the naming of machines. There have been many talks, many discussions, many proposals (most of them so lacking practical details that they have been rightfully abandoned). Many people participated. It was often very confusing. Only one proposal was done in a cooperative way, in an open forum, with the intent of being a standard, the IETF IDN Working Group, which, after many painful years, arrived in march 2003 to RFC 3490 and its friends. Most (all?) of the other ways were done by small companies whose intent was not to suggest a workable and realistic way but to make money fast by selling IDN to people gullible enough to buy them. (Not only small companies, after all, Verisign was in it, too.) These small companies, like i-dns.net, were very eager to file patents but much less ready to work with other people on a common standard. Most of the other ways were technically very different and typically involved custom name servers, like the ones sold by the company already mentioned. > I think it?s clear we at Singapore University and later at the > i-dns.net company did a very good job in publicizing IDN and in all > its gory detail and sheperding it to a global IDNA standard. So much > so that GNU and other public versions have come to be available > widely by simply copying what we have detailed over and over again > worldwide since 1998 or simply the final IDNS standard. This is not > rocket science and anyway we repeatedly published the blueprints for > the rocket for a decade. I still wait for pointers to practical descriptions of IDN, before RFC 3490 and others, which can be said to have been "blueprints". I've read many PowerPoint presentations but few IDN proponents condescended to write actual workable plans. PS: you forgot to file a patent for "A device to get in outer space by the means of ejecting the result of internal combustion". ____________________________________________________________ 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 pr+governance at x0.dk Fri Feb 23 08:43:59 2007 From: pr+governance at x0.dk (Phil Regnauld) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:43:59 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Response to Stephane Bortzmeyer on IDN In-Reply-To: <20070223130910.GA1447@nic.fr> References: <45DE8F4F.6040405@i-dns.net> <20070223130910.GA1447@nic.fr> Message-ID: <20070223134359.GH16110@vinyl.catpipe.net> Stephane Bortzmeyer (bortzmeyer) writes: > money fast by selling IDN to people gullible enough to buy them. (Not > only small companies, after all, Verisign was in it, too.) Don't underestimate Verisign's greed. They're the ones who came up with the wildcard DNS redirects, and the immense popularity they acquired with it. ____________________________________________________________ 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 drake at hei.unige.ch Fri Feb 23 09:10:35 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 15:10:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] Workshop Report: Toward a Development Agenda for Internet Governance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Perhaps of interest to someone not on the GigaNet list... ------ Forwarded Message From: William Drake Reply-To: William Drake Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 15:06:54 +0100 To: Conversation: Workshop Report: Toward a Development Agenda for Internet Governance Subject: [GIGANET-MEMBERS] Workshop Report: Toward a Development Agenda for Internet Governance Hello, Last week I decided to take advantage of the fact that people were in Geneva for the IGF consultation and organized a little workshop on development issues in Internet governance. I wrote up a little summary for the web, but as we¹re presently without a webmaster it might not get posted for awhile, so I¹m passing along the text in case anyone¹s interested. I¹d like to propose this as a possible focus for the Rio symposium. There¹s not been a lot of systematic academic research on the matter, and at least some developing country government people (at the workshop and elsewhere) have expressed a desire for scholars to step up and provide some food for thought and debate. Given that 1) it¹s rare for earthlings to actually express an interest in academic scribblings; 2) development aspects really haven¹t been analyzed seriously in the IG debates to date; and 3) we¹ll be in Rio, which presumably increases the chances of involving some scholars from the global South, I would think this is a good thematic for the symposium. If we got a solid set of papers, there could even be a noteworthy book here. Any thoughts on this possibility? Best, Bill ----- Workshop Report Toward a Development Agenda for Internet Governance Wednesday 14 February 2007, 14:00-17:00 Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance Program for the Study of International Organization(s) Graduate Institute for International Studies Geneva http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/projectDrake.html Background & Objectives In recent years, developing countries, civil society organizations, and concerned academics have sought to promote broad development agendas in the international institutions and policy debates dealing with such issues as trade, debt, and intellectual property. But in the field of Internet governance, no parallel initiative has taken shape. Development concerns were raised during the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) process, but they were not systematically explored as elements of a coherent development agenda. Moreover, in the post-WSIS environment, discussions of development have tended to focus on capacity building, rather than on the substantive policies and institutional measures that may be needed. Accordingly, the purpose of this workshop was to begin a multistakeholder dialogue on the nature of a possible development agenda in Internet governance. Leaving aside the challenges of capacity building, the workshop explored such questions as: 1) Which of the many issues involved in Internet governance should be given priority in the near-term? 2) Would any substantive changes in the governance of these issues be both desirable and realistically achievable in the current environment? 3) Could new approaches to these individual issues collectively constitute a holistic and coherent development agenda, and what would be the benefits and risks of pursuing such a framework? 4) How can these concerns best be taken forward within the distributed array of governmental, intergovernmental, private sector, and multistakeholder governance mechanisms? The workshop considered these and related questions both generally and with respect to the two main initiatives launched by WSIS---enhanced cooperation, and the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). Program 14:00-15:00 Enhanced Cooperation and Internet Core Resources 15:00-16:00 Other Priority Issues from a Development Perspective 16:00-17:00 Advancing Development Concerns in the IGF and Other Forums 17:00-18:00 Reception at the Villa Barton Summary of the Discussion The workshop began with a discussion of the notion of a Development Agenda. There was broad agreement that development should be viewed in a holistic manner and as a transversal issue of relevance to all Internet governance mechanisms. One participant suggested that the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society embodies this view and provides a foundation for a Development Agenda. This is particularly true of Paragraph 65, which states that, ³We underline the need to maximise the participation of developing countries in decisions regarding Internet Governance, which should reflect their interests, as well as in development and capacity-building. Clearly though, much more analysis and dialogue would be needed to determine precisely what such broad normative prescriptions might actually mean in practice within any given governance mechanism. It was suggested that an overarching principle of a Development Agenda should be something akin to developing countries¹ right to ³special and differential² (S&D) treatment under international trade rules. In the World Trade Organization, S&D treatment includes: giving longer time periods for implementing agreements and commitments; measures designed to enhance developing countries¹ trading opportunities; requirements that all member countries safeguard developing country interests; technical support to help developing countries build the skills and institutional infrastructure for negotiations, dispute management, and the implementation of standards; and special provisions to assist the Least Developed Countries. Participants expressed interest in the concept, and one noted by way of example that the regional registries do have a special program for developing countries with respect to the distribution of IP addresses. But more generally, it was as yet unclear whether a similar principle could be relevant across the board in the Internet governance context. In a number of cases, the functional issues and collective action problems involved are qualitatively different in ways that might render inapplicable at least some elements of S&D treatment as it understood in the trade environment. The group pointed to several obstacles that would need to be overcome in order to elaborate a meaningful framework. One developing country participant noted that there is very little scholarly literature on the developmental implications of Internet governance, and argued that concerned governments and stakeholders would benefit by having systematic research at their disposal when considering the issues. Another person averred that there is a ³paradigm gap² between experts in development policy and experts in global information and communication technology (ICT) policy, including those working on Internet governance issues. As the differing analytical and programmatic orientations of these two communities could impede efforts to mainstream development concerns into Internet governance processes, he suggested that it would be useful to organize meetings and other dialogues between them. At the same time, several participants added that care should be taken to avoid excessively blurring the boundary line between general ICT for development (or ICT4D) issues and the narrower realm of Internet governance for development issues. As has already been demonstrated in the post-WSIS context, it can be difficult to keep focused on governance per se, and addressing relatively distinct ICT4D matters that are being worked on elsewhere could dilute the discussion and impede progress. Not surprisingly, there was a rather lively discussion about the governance of core resources. One thread of the conversation pertained to another boundary question, namely the criteria for selecting issues for inclusion in a possible Development Agenda. A participant argued that anything developing countries deem to be a development issue is by definition a development issue. Others saw a distinction between political issues, such as some countries¹ calls for intergovernmental ³oversight,² and cases in which governance mechanisms could be clearly demonstrated to functionally constrain development opportunities. A number of participants maintained that there is no concrete evidence that the existing frameworks for root servers, names and numbers, and protocols actually limit development, and no reason to believe that institutional changes would promote development more effectively. In response, it was suggested that the experiences of Cuba and Iran indicated that the root server system was open to abuse, which would imply that political and functional issues cannot always be easily delineated. But another developing country participant took a different view, stating bluntly that most of the problems are at the national level, where the requisite skills, flexible and multistakeholder policy processes, and mobilized business and civil society constituents are often in short supply. Given these capacity problems, developing country governments have taken the easier route of issuing political demands for intergovernmental control in order to obtain an equal seat at the table for possible future use. In a similar vein, a participant argued that the existing arrangements inhibit participation by governments and other stakeholders from developing countries. A second agreed, stating that the transfer of skills has been limited by the extant structures. Others felt the arrangements were in fact quite open to developing countries¹ participation, but acknowledged that more could be done to facilitate their productive engagement. In this context, there also was discussion of the cultural barriers to participation in some of the relevant forums. For example, one person noted that in the Internet Engineering Task Force, the vigorous exchange of ideas in the course of problem solving means a participant ³has to be prepared to be told you¹re stupid;² such a prospect might not be enticing to people from some cultural and professional backgrounds. This would seem to be a generalized problem; the style and mechanics of interaction within other technical and operational organizations as well may be off-putting to people who are accustomed to the more formal and procedural environment of intergovernmental organizations. In sum, all participants were in agreement that there is a pressing need to enhance the participation of developing country stakeholders, whether through capacity building or the reduction of any informal barriers. Per usual, the extended discussion of core resources left less time for focused consideration of other governance issues, such as those concerning infrastructure and the Internet¹s use for information, communication, and commerce. This was ironic, since it would seem easier to reach agreement on a Development Agenda encompassing issues. That is, in cases like international interconnection, security, intellectual property, networked trade and global electronic commerce, consumer protection, spam, cultural diversity, and privacy, it may be easier to demonstrate the existing governance arrangements, or at times the weakness or lack thereof, inhibit development opportunities in identifiable ways. Moreover, in some of these cases, such as intellectual property and networked trade, the S&D principle as defined in the WTO could be directly applicable. Participants variously took note of these and related issues and indicated that further consideration of them would be merited. There were two concrete suggestions on how the notion of a Development Agenda could be taken forward. One participant suggested that to avoid reinventing the wheel, there could be a stock taking exercise to cull insights from prior analyses and dialogues on the developmental aspects of Internet governance. Another idea was to explore the issues in more depth at the next annual symposium of the Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet), to be held on the eve of the November 2007 Internet Governance Forum (IGF) meeting in Rio de Janeiro. A discussion based on a good set of papers by academics from around the world would at least partially redress the abovementioned shortage of usable scholarly research, and could help to facilitate multistakeholder dialogue in the IGF and elsewhere on the potential utility and substance of a Development Agenda. The members of the GigaNet Start Up Group in attendance agreed to explore this possibility with their colleagues in the period to follow. Participants Amr Aljowaily First Secretary, Permanent Mission of Egypt; Geneva Qusai Al-Shatti Deputy Chairman, Kuwait Information Technology Society; Kuwait Karen Banks Network Development Manager, Association for Progressive Communications; United Kingdom Ralf Bendrath Researcher, University of Bremen; Germany Philippe Dam Program Officer, Conference of NGOs in Consultative Relationship with the United Nations; Geneva Avri Doria Research Consultant, Luleå University of Technology; Sweden William J. Drake Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance, PSIO/HEI; Geneva Geneviève Féraud Head, ICT and E-Business Branch, UN Conference on Trade and Development; Geneva Ingrid Martinez Galindo First Secretary, Permanent Mission of Guatemala; Geneva Charles Geiger Special Adviser, UN Conference on Trade and Development and former Executive Director, World Summit on the Information Society; Geneva Gonzalo Jordan Secretary of Embassy, Permanent Mission of Argentina; Geneva Jean W. Kimani First Counsellor (political), Permanent Mission of Kenya; Geneva Wolfgang Kleinwächter Professor of International Communications, University of Aarhus; Denmark Markus Kummer Executive Coordinator, Internet Governance Forum; Geneva Christopher Marsden Senior Analyst, Information Society, RAND Europe; United Kingdom Chengetai Masango Consultant, Internet Governance Forum; Geneva Boyke Nurdin Second Secretary, Permanent Mission of Indonesia; Geneva Adam Peake Senior Research Fellow, GLOCOM; Japan Alejandro Pisanty Professor of Chemistry and Director of Computing Academic Services, National University of Mexico, and former Vice-Chairman of the Board, ICANN; Mexico David Souter Managing Director, ict Development Associates, and former CEO, Commonwealth Telecommunications Organization; United Kingdom Riaz K. Tayob Representative, Third World Network; Geneva Vicente Paolo Yu Coordinator, Global Governance for Development Programme, South Centre; Geneva ******************************************************* William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO Graduate Institute for International Studies Geneva, Switzerland http://www.cpsr.org/Members/wdrake ******************************************************* ------ End of Forwarded Message -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From peter at echnaton.serveftp.com Fri Feb 23 09:14:53 2007 From: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com (Peter Dambier) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 15:14:53 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Response to Stephane Bortzmeyer on IDN In-Reply-To: <20070223130910.GA1447@nic.fr> References: <45DE8F4F.6040405@i-dns.net> <20070223130910.GA1447@nic.fr> Message-ID: <45DEF6DD.4090603@echnaton.serveftp.com> Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > For those who are in hurry, let's synthetize: IDN (the general idea, > unlike "IDNA" which is a specific solution, the only standard one, and > specified in RFC 3490) is a very old idea, probably as old as the > naming of machines. There have been many talks, many discussions, many > proposals (most of them so lacking practical details that they have > been rightfully abandoned). Many people participated. It was often > very confusing. > > Only one proposal was done in a cooperative way, in an open forum, > with the intent of being a standard, the IETF IDN Working Group, > which, after many painful years, arrived in march 2003 to RFC 3490 and > its friends. > > Most (all?) of the other ways were done by small companies whose > intent was not to suggest a workable and realistic way but to make > money fast by selling IDN to people gullible enough to buy them. (Not > only small companies, after all, Verisign was in it, too.) These small > companies, like i-dns.net, were very eager to file patents but much > less ready to work with other people on a common standard. > > Most of the other ways were technically very different and typically > involved custom name servers, like the ones sold by the company > already mentioned. > Small companies like Status China Root soa("XN--55QX5D.","2007022304","CDNS3.CNNIC.NET.CN","210.52.214.86"). soa("XN--55QX5D.","2007022304","CDNS4.CNNIC.NET.CN","61.145.114.120"). soa("XN--55QX5D.","2007022304","CDNS5.CNNIC.NET.CN","61.139.76.55"). soa("XN--55QX5D.","2007022304","HAWK2.CNNIC.NET.CN","159.226.6.185"). soa("XN--FIQS8S.","2007022304","CDNS3.CNNIC.NET.CN","210.52.214.86"). soa("XN--FIQS8S.","2007022303","CDNS4.CNNIC.NET.CN","61.145.114.120"). soa("XN--FIQS8S.","2007022304","CDNS5.CNNIC.NET.CN","61.139.76.55"). soa("XN--FIQS8S.","2007022304","HAWK2.CNNIC.NET.CN","159.226.6.185"). soa("XN--IO0A7I.","2007022304","CDNS3.CNNIC.NET.CN","210.52.214.86"). soa("XN--IO0A7I.","2007022304","CDNS4.CNNIC.NET.CN","61.145.114.120"). soa("XN--IO0A7I.","2007022304","CDNS5.CNNIC.NET.CN","61.139.76.55"). soa("XN--IO0A7I.","2007022304","HAWK2.CNNIC.NET.CN","159.226.6.185"). http://CNNIC.NET.CN/en/index/index.htm And the costum namesever here is bind 9.4.0 rc2. It used to work with earlier bind too and it runs with djbdns too. Kind regards Peter and Karin Dambier -- Peter and Karin Dambier Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana Rimbacher-Strasse 16 D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher +49(6209)795-816 (Telekom) +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com mail: peter at peter-dambier.de http://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ http://www.cesidianroot.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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org Fri Feb 23 09:44:22 2007 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 15:44:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Response to Stephane Bortzmeyer on IDN In-Reply-To: <45DEF6DD.4090603@echnaton.serveftp.com> References: <45DE8F4F.6040405@i-dns.net> <20070223130910.GA1447@nic.fr> <45DEF6DD.4090603@echnaton.serveftp.com> Message-ID: <20070223144422.GA22419@nic.fr> On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 03:14:53PM +0100, Peter Dambier wrote a message of 76 lines which said: > >Most (all?) of the other ways were done by small companies [...] > >Most of the other ways were technically very different and typically > >involved custom name servers, > soa("XN--55QX5D.","2007022304","CDNS3.CNNIC.NET.CN","210.52.214.86"). It looks like standard IDNA (TLD "U+516c U+53f8", except it should be in lower case but it may be a bug in your tool) and therefore have nothing to do with what I said. Please read before replying. ____________________________________________________________ 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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org Fri Feb 23 17:10:48 2007 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 23:10:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] Impending publication: Reflections on Internet Transparency Message-ID: <20070223221048.GA13396@sources.org> Last opportunity to comment on this important document from the IAB. Do note it talks also about DNS on things like "alternative roots" and access providers adding wildcards in their DNS resolvers. Subject: Impending publication: draft-iab-net-transparent-03.txt From: Leslie Daigle To: IETF Announcement list Cc: iab at ietf.org Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 15:22:14 -0500 The IAB is ready to ask the RFC-Editor to publish Reflections on Internet Transparency as an Informational RFC. This document reiterates the general principle and benefits of network transparency, identifying further transparency issues not addressed in previous IAB statements. Networks that provide transparent (oblivious) transport enable the deployment of new services without requiring changes to the core. It is this flexibility which is perhaps both the Internet's most essential characteristic as well as one of the most important contributors to its success. The IAB solicits comments by March 23, 2007. Please send comments to the IAB (iab at iab.org). The document can be found at http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iab-net-transparent-03.txt From the Abstract: This document provides a review of previous IAB statements on Internet transparency, as well a discussion of new transparency issues. Far from having lessened in relevance, technical implications of intentionally or inadvertently impeding network transparency play a critical role in the Internet's ability to support innovation and global communication. This document provides some specific illustrations of those potential impacts. Leslie Daigle, For the IAB. ____________________________________________________________ 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 peter at echnaton.serveftp.com Fri Feb 23 17:49:40 2007 From: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com (Peter Dambier) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 23:49:40 +0100 Subject: [governance] Impending publication: Reflections on Internet Transparency In-Reply-To: <20070223221048.GA13396@sources.org> References: <20070223221048.GA13396@sources.org> Message-ID: <45DF6F84.1040903@echnaton.serveftp.com> As far as I can see draft-iab-net-transparent-03.txt is a draft only. Racines Libres or Liberated Roots are a reality and wont go away because of a draft that does not even mention their existence. I am glad the bind nameserver as published by the ISC is able to cope with more than a single root even when two or more of them are in the Inclusive Namespace. I dont think a root that prevents people from using other languages than english and other alphabeths than latin is appropriate for a mostly nonenglish speaking world that mostly writes nonlatin alphabeth. I remember even french, german, spanish or portuguese writers cannot express themselves in that subset of latin used. Kind regards Peter and Karin Dambier Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > Last opportunity to comment on this important document from the > IAB. Do note it talks also about DNS on things like "alternative > roots" and access providers adding wildcards in their DNS resolvers. > > Subject: Impending publication: draft-iab-net-transparent-03.txt > From: Leslie Daigle > To: IETF Announcement list > Cc: iab at ietf.org > Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 15:22:14 -0500 > > The IAB is ready to ask the RFC-Editor to publish > > Reflections on Internet Transparency > > > > as an Informational RFC. This document reiterates > the general principle and benefits of network transparency, > identifying further transparency issues not addressed > in previous IAB statements. Networks that provide transparent > (oblivious) transport enable the deployment of new services without > requiring changes to the core. It is this flexibility which is perhaps > both the Internet's most essential characteristic as well as one of the > most important contributors to its success. > > > The IAB solicits comments by March 23, 2007. Please send > comments to the IAB (iab at iab.org). > > The document can be found at > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iab-net-transparent-03.txt > > From the Abstract: > > This document provides a review of previous IAB statements on > Internet transparency, as well a discussion of new transparency > issues. Far from having lessened in relevance, technical > implications of intentionally or inadvertently impeding network > transparency play a critical role in the Internet's ability to > support innovation and global communication. This document provides > some specific illustrations of those potential impacts. > > > > Leslie Daigle, > For the IAB. > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -- Peter and Karin Dambier Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana Rimbacher-Strasse 16 D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher +49(6209)795-816 (Telekom) +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com mail: peter at peter-dambier.de http://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ http://www.cesidianroot.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 nb at bollow.ch Sat Feb 24 05:58:21 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 11:58:21 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] The seeds of change in the IGF In-Reply-To: (message from Monika Ermert on Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:43:02 +0100) References: Message-ID: <20070224105821.934FB360B51@quill.bollow.ch> Monika Ermert wrote: > Btw, Nitin Desai said he also has consulted with > non-governmental/private stakeholders. I would be very interested in knowing who these were and how they were selected. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch ____________________________________________________________ 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 shailam at yahoo.com Sat Feb 24 12:15:44 2007 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 09:15:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] The seeds of change in the IGF In-Reply-To: <20070224105821.934FB360B51@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <419499.79713.qm@web54303.mail.yahoo.com> Hi All I too would like to know which companies in the private sector he consulted with., If indeed he did, then we are seeing seeds of change! Does any one know ? Shaila Rao Mistry Norbert Bollow wrote: Monika Ermert wrote: > Btw, Nitin Desai said he also has consulted with > non-governmental/private stakeholders. I would be very interested in knowing who these were and how they were selected. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch ____________________________________________________________ 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 if you obey all the rules....you miss all the fun...... heck!!! ..... make it up.... as you go along..... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From db at dannybutt.net Tue Feb 27 01:39:26 2007 From: db at dannybutt.net (Danny Butt) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 16:39:26 +1000 Subject: [governance] Re: Response to Stephane Bortzmeyer on IDN In-Reply-To: <20070223130910.GA1447@nic.fr> References: <45DE8F4F.6040405@i-dns.net> <20070223130910.GA1447@nic.fr> Message-ID: <1D23D208-435E-48B9-8910-0860BE44554E@dannybutt.net> Stephane, there are so many value judgements you're making in your historiography. While I don't have the knowledge or experience to vouch for or critique all of Subbiah's points, I can say that your characterisation of *all* the work done by alternative navigation providers as "selling dummy IDN domain names", when there were also clearly other factors at play, perfectly illustrates why much of the world outside the Euro-US technical community holds little faith in existing governance regimes. The IETF's "cooperation" and the "openness" of its forum has at times been limited. Especially for those who believed that their own language groups should be able to use internetworking technologies without waiting around for English-language speakers to sort out all the problems in a theoretically ideal system. I think that if those associated with IETF/ICANN are serious about seeing the Internet become a truly global facility would do well to take a more nuanced and less patronising view of the history of alternative naming systems, especially in the Asian region. Regards Danny On 23/02/2007, at 11:09 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > Only one proposal was done in a cooperative way, in an open forum, > with the intent of being a standard, the IETF IDN Working Group, > which, after many painful years, arrived in march 2003 to RFC 3490 and > its friends. > > Most (all?) of the other ways were done by small companies whose > intent was not to suggest a workable and realistic way but to make > money fast by selling IDN to people gullible enough to buy them. -- Danny Butt db at dannybutt.net | http://www.dannybutt.net Suma Media Consulting | http://www.sumamedia.com Private Bag MBE P145, Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand Ph: +64 21 456 379 | Fx: +64 21 291 0200 ____________________________________________________________ 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 qshatti at safat.kisr.edu.kw Thu Feb 1 13:39:31 2007 From: qshatti at safat.kisr.edu.kw (Qusai Al-Shatti) Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 21:39:31 +0300 Subject: [governance] Caucus at IGF? Message-ID: <200702011839.VAA21229@safat.kisr.edu.kw> Dear William: I think this will be a good opportunity to meet and discuss our shared views and possibly making a statement too. Qusai --- Message Header --- The following message was sent by William Drake on Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:23:11 +0100. --- Original Message --- > Hi, > > Offhand I know of at least eight people who�ve been active in the caucus > and > will be in Geneva for the IGF consultation Feb. 13. Maybe there are others > from the list who will be here as well? While the caucus doesn�t have an > input document, it might be the case that the folks in attendance have some > shared views worth expressing at the event. Is there any interest in > meeting the evening prior to see whether that might be the case, or no? > > Best, > > Bill > > > ******************************************************* > William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch > Director, Project on the Information > Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO > Graduate Institute for International Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > http://www.cpsr.org/Members/wdrake > ******************************************************* > > > Hi, > > Offhand I know of at least eight people who�ve been active in the caucus > and > will be in Geneva for the IGF consultation Feb. 13. Maybe there are others > from the list who will be here as well? While the caucus doesn�t have an > input document, it might be the case that the folks in attendance have some > shared views worth expressing at the event. Is there any interest in > meeting the evening prior to see whether that might be the case, or no? > > Best, > > Bill > > > ******************************************************* > William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch > Director, Project on the Information > Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO > Graduate Institute for International Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > http://www.cpsr.org/Members/wdrake > ******************************************************* > > > ____________________________________________________________ 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 qshatti at safat.kisr.edu.kw Tue Feb 13 06:47:34 2007 From: qshatti at safat.kisr.edu.kw (Qusai Al-Shatti) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:47:34 +0300 Subject: [governance] points discussed on the Feb 12th meeting of the Advisory group Message-ID: <200702131147.OAA06730@safat.kisr.edu.kw> Hi all: These are some of the points that were discussed during the IGF advisory group meeting that took place on February 12 prior to the open consultation: - There was a general consent that the Athens meeting was a success in terms of level of participation, substance and organization. The Advisory group members all thanked the government of Greece for organizing the event. - There was a general agreement that the plenary sessions were too long and should be shorter in time for the next IGF meetings. This will help in avoiding long ineffective discussions, would make it more concise and focused, and would allow the participants to attend some of the workshops. - There were also some comments on the number of speakers at the plenary sessions regarding the noticeable difference in their numbers and the fact that some plenary sessions had a big number of speakers. There was a general consent that their numbers should be consistent for the next meetings and that some of them should talk about best practices and national experience. - There was a general concern that some of the stakeholders were noticeably absent or did actively participate in the dialogue (mainly governments). Since the IGF is a place of dialogue for all stakeholders, it is expected that all of them should be involved in active dialogue (this point was mentioned in Jeanette Hoffman�s statement at the final session of IGF meeting in Athens). - There was a general agreement on the importance of remote participation that would allow the biggest number of people to follow and contribute to the policy dialogue especially from developing countries. There was a discussion on having a more effective and stable setup and what types remote service that can be available (Streaming, text based, Multimedia). Nitin Desai made a good suggestion in having companies like Skype to handle remote participation as a contribution to the IGF. - The Advisory group supported the continuation of the main themes into the next meeting but with a clearer sub-topics under each theme. There was a concern on how effective was the emerging issues plenary and that it should be restructured in order to be more useful. There was a general agreement that the plenary sessions and the workshops should be more focused on the IG issues and not to mix ICT development issues with IG issues. A member from Brazil wanted to add cybercrime and cyber terrorism as subtopics under the security theme. It was also suggested that the Issue of national IG should be discussed in the next meeting. Nitin Desai suggested that the �setting the scene� theme should transformed into what progress was made in the Internet related to IG issues since the last IGF meeting. This suggestion was supported by most the advisory group members. A representative from Russia suggested that the International Internet Resources management should be also discussed as a! ! main issue in the Rio meeting. - There was a general agreement and emphasis on the important role of the Dynamic Coalitions in making the IGF meetings successful whether it is in contributing to the plenary sessions, organizing workshops, initiating thematic meetings or encouraging active participation of all stakeholders. It was praised that the Dynamic Coalitions became multi-stakeholders bodies. There was a discussion on from where the term dynamic coalitions came, however the advisory group members expressed there support of the term and find it suitable for the IGF activities. - A representative from Brazil made a presentation on the location of next IGF meeting in Rio which looked a nice place and can handle the expected big number of attendees. - As stated in the synthesis paper, Nitin Desai mentioned that the mandate of the advisory group has ended and that he will submit a report to the UN secretary general on the IGF and advisory group activities. It will be up to the UN secretary general to make a decision on this matter. Regards, Qusai Al-Shatti ____________________________________________________________ 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 qshatti at safat.kisr.edu.kw Tue Feb 13 06:51:50 2007 From: qshatti at safat.kisr.edu.kw (Qusai Al-Shatti) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:51:50 +0300 Subject: [governance] points discussed on the Feb 12th meeting of the Advisory group Message-ID: <200702131151.OAA06993@safat.kisr.edu.kw> Hi all: These are some of the points that were discussed during the IGF advisory group meeting that took place on February 12 prior to the open consultation: - There was a general consent that the Athens meeting was a success in terms of level of participation, substance and organization. The Advisory group members all thanked the government of Greece for organizing the event. - There was a general agreement that the plenary sessions were too long and should be shorter in time for the next IGF meetings. This will help in avoiding long ineffective discussions, would make it more concise and focused, and would allow the participants to attend some of the workshops. - There were also some comments on the number of speakers at the plenary sessions regarding the noticeable difference in their numbers and the fact that some plenary sessions had a big number of speakers. There was a general consent that their numbers should be consistent for the next meetings and that some of them should talk about best practices and national experience. - There was a general concern that some of the stakeholders were noticeably absent or did actively participate in the dialogue (mainly governments). Since the IGF is a place of dialogue for all stakeholders, it is expected that all of them should be involved in active dialogue (this point was mentioned in Jeanette Hoffman�s statement at the final session of IGF meeting in Athens). - There was a general agreement on the importance of remote participation that would allow the biggest number of people to follow and contribute to the policy dialogue especially from developing countries. There was a discussion on having a more effective and stable setup and what types remote service that can be available (Streaming, text based, Multimedia). Nitin Desai made a good suggestion in having companies like Skype to handle remote participation as a contribution to the IGF. - The Advisory group supported the continuation of the main themes into the next meeting but with a clearer sub-topics under each theme. There was a concern on how effective was the emerging issues plenary and that it should be restructured in order to be more useful. There was a general agreement that the plenary sessions and the workshops should be more focused on the IG issues and not to mix ICT development issues with IG issues. A member from Brazil wanted to add cybercrime and cyber terrorism as subtopics under the security theme. It was also suggested that the Issue of national IG should be discussed in the next meeting. Nitin Desai suggested that the �setting the scene� theme should transformed into what progress was made in the Internet related to IG issues since the last IGF meeting. This suggestion was supported by most the advisory group members. A representative from Russia suggested that the International Internet Resources management should be also discussed as a! ! main issue in the Rio meeting. - There was a general agreement and emphasis on the important role of the Dynamic Coalitions in making the IGF meetings successful whether it is in contributing to the plenary sessions, organizing workshops, initiating thematic meetings or encouraging active participation of all stakeholders. It was praised that the Dynamic Coalitions became multi-stakeholders bodies. There was a discussion on from where the term dynamic coalitions came, however the advisory group members expressed there support of the term and find it suitable for the IGF activities. - A representative from Brazil made a presentation on the location of next IGF meeting in Rio which looked a nice place and can handle the expected big number of attendees. - As stated in the synthesis paper, Nitin Desai mentioned that the mandate of the advisory group has ended and that he will submit a report to the UN secretary general on the IGF and advisory group activities. It will be up to the UN secretary general to make a decision on this matter. Regards, Qusai Al-Shatti ____________________________________________________________ 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