From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Tue Jul 31 23:04:53 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 20:04:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SV: [governance] Fundamentally broken design of society In-Reply-To: 20070731162309.459DC2202EF@quill.bollow.ch Message-ID: Gr�zi Herr Bollow, Ich habe auch ein paar Ideen, glaube aber dass dies nicht der richtige Ort ist. Ich werde etwas arangieren. Gr�sse ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jul 31 23:06:34 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 20:06:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Fundamentally broken design of society In-Reply-To: 20070731162309.459DC2202EF@quill.bollow.ch Message-ID: Gr�zi Herr Bollow, Ich habe auch ein paar Ideen, glaube aber dass dies nicht der richtige Ort ist. Ich werde etwas arangieren. Gr�sse ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jul 1 04:57:21 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2007 10:57:21 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF Development Agenda Workshop Proposal Message-ID: Joining the parade... BD --------- Question 1: Provide a concise formulation for the proposed workshop theme. The full name of the workshop, which does not fit the space allocation on the form, would be, "Toward a Development Agenda for Internet Governance" In recent years, developing countries, civil society organizations, and concerned academics have worked to promote broad ³development agendas² 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 holistic, multi-institutional agenda. Moreover, there was no broad consensus as to what kinds of governance initiatives would most directly promote development, as opposed to satisfying political objectives. And in the post-WSIS period, development generally has been discussed in relation to capacity building, rather than substantive policies and institutional design. To help fill the void, this workshop would foster multistakeholder dialogue on the potential utility and outlines of a development agenda, and would explore such questions as: € What are the potential risks and rewards of pursuing a holistic development agenda? What challenges would need to be met in order to have a positive, constructive dialogue? € Are there lessons to be learned from development agendas in other international arenas? € In which of the many arrangements involved in governing the Internet and its usage can we identify specific substantive and procedural measures that promote development? Can we identify good or even best practices of generalizable applicability? What could governmental and nongovernmental mechanisms learn from each other in this regard? € In which of the many Internet governance arrangements can we identify specific substantive and procedural barriers to development? If such barriers can be clearly identified, are there functionally and politically feasible options for reform? € What is the relationship between development and the implementation of the WSIS principles, e.g. transparency and inclusive participation in Internet governance? How might cooperation be enhanced in this arena? € How could a development agenda best be taken forward given the distributed architecture of Internet governance? What roles could the Internet Governance Forum and related groupings play in such an effort? The workshop would build on the research papers and panel discussion on the same topic to be presented at the 11 November Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet) symposium http://www.intgovforum.org/May_contributions/GigaNet07CFP.pdf; and on the February 2007 brainstorming meeting held at the Graduate Institute for International Studies in Geneva http://hei.unige.ch/psio/fichiers/drake_report_14-02-07.doc. Question 2: Provide the Name of the Organizer(s) of the workshop and their Affiliation to various stakeholder groups. Describe how you will take steps to adhere to the multi-stakeholder principle, including geographical diversity. € Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance, Program for the Study of International Organization(s), Graduate Institute for International Studies, Geneva [academic/civil society] € Federal Office of Communication, Government of Switzerland [government] € Brazilian Internet Steering Committee [government, business, civil society, academia] € Consultative Committee on UN Information Technology, China Association for Science and Technology [academic/civil society] € Internet Society of China [technical community] € Association for Progressive Communications [civil society] € Center for Global Communications, International University of Japan [academic/civil society] Other co-sponsors may be added later. The event will adhere to the multi-stakeholder principle, including geographical diversity, in two ways. First, the co-sponsors are from four stakeholder communities: government, business, civil society/academia, and technical. They are geographically diverse, and include individuals and organizations from the USA, Switzerland, Brazil, China, South Africa/global, and Japan. Second, the speakers on the panel will be equally diverse, if not more so, in both dimensions. Probably there will representatives from most of of the co-sponsoring organizations, as well as people from other stakeholder groups like international organizations and business. A variety of perspectives will be represented on the panel. Question 3: Why do you think the proposed theme is important? In the course of the WSIS and IGF processes, there have been frequent invocations of the linkages between Internet governance and development. But invocations are not the same thing as serious analysis and focused dialogue, nor are political demands necessarily the same thing as actual development promoting measures. In reality, there has been no effort to systematically parse the issues in order to identify strengths and weaknesses, challenges and opportunities, best practices to build on and missteps to avoid in the conduct of Internet governance from a development perspective. Given that development is a central guiding concern of the Tunis Agenda and the IGF mandate, beginning to fill the gaps between Internet governance and development is patently important. Question 4: Describe the workshop¹s conformity with the Tunis Agenda in terms of substance and the mandate of the IGF. Many paragraphs of the Tunis agenda link development and Internet governance. Four are particularly relevant: 31. We recognise that Internet governance, carried out according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a people-centred, inclusive, development oriented and non-discriminatory Information Society. 52. In order to ensure effective participation in global Internet governance, we urge international Organisations, including inter-governmental Organisations, where relevant, to ensure that all stakeholders, particularly from developing countries, have the opportunity to participate in policy decision-making relating to Internet Governance, and to promote and facilitate such participation. 65. We 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. 66. In view of the continuing internationalization of the Internet and the principle of universality, we agree to implement the Geneva Principles regarding Internet Governance. As for the TA 72 mandate, it states, inter alia, that the IGF should: c) Interface with appropriate inter-governmental organisations and other institutions on matters under their purview; d) Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, and in this regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific and technical communities; e) Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world; f) Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing and/or future Internet Governance mechanisms, particularly those from developing countries; h) Contribute to capacity-building for Internet Governance in developing countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise; i) Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes; Question 5: Provide the Name and Affiliation of the panellists you are planning to invite. The co-sponsors have not yet begun to discuss specific panelists, but will do so in July with an eye to providing names prior to the advisory group's deadline for deciding on proposals. Per previous, the panel will be multistakeholder, diverse in geographical and other dimensions, and embody a range of viewpoints. Question 6: Describe the main actors in the field. Have you approached them and asked whether they would be willing to participate in proposed workshop? There are a great many "main actors in the field" of Internet governance as it was defined during the WSIS process. Some are involved in this workshop as co-sponsors, others will be invited to participate. Question 7: List similar events you have organized in the past. Most if not all of the co-sponsors have extensive experience organizing events similar in format and/or substance. Moreover, per the answer to #1, the lead organizer held a multistakeholder workshop on the same topic in February, and the GigaNet symposium will address the same topic with academic papers. So there are potentially strong synergies to be realized by having two linked events, one with scholarly analyses, the other with views from policy practitioners/stakeholders. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From karenb at gn.apc.org Sun Jul 1 10:06:49 2007 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2007 15:06:49 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF proposals on IGC wiki In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20070701140706.597FB1B6BDE@mail.gn.apc.org> hi all I've just added the *8* proposals posted the list to date to the wiki robert created for the IGF some time ago (thanks for that robert) the wiki is here: https://secure.privaterra.org/igcaucus/index.php?title=Main_Page you'll need to create your own login details before you can access pages (i assume) the proposals are listed here once you get in: https://secure.privaterra.org/igcaucus/index.php?title=Workshop_proposals so, hopefully 'parading' can lead to better awareness and integration between the proposals ;) i'm happy to do some work on the wiki for any other proposals, but the beauty of this is of course, that you can all do your own thing.. (and no giggling meryem!) karen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Sun Jul 1 12:08:39 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 18:08:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF proposals on IGC wiki In-Reply-To: <20070701140706.597FB1B6BDE@mail.gn.apc.org> References: <20070701140706.597FB1B6BDE@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <37862128-638E-4D06-BABA-DA1F3E3ED965@ras.eu.org> Hi Karen and all, Le 1 juil. 07 à 16:06, karen banks a écrit : > I've just added the *8* proposals posted the list to date to the > wiki robert created for the IGF some time ago (thanks for that robert) Thanks for this. Parminder's workshop ("Governance of Critical Internet Resources - Exploring Commons and Public Interest Based Frameworks") seems to be missing on the wiki. Regarding the IGC workshop, I haven't had the opportunity to react on time. I hope that this consensual version will provide room to discuss the need for an assessment of the overall process. > you'll need to create your own login details before you can access > pages (i assume) It seems that login is not required to access or even edit pages. > (and no giggling meryem!) Advice from a venerable member of the giggling club:) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bnkuerbi at syr.edu Mon Jul 2 09:16:07 2007 From: bnkuerbi at syr.edu (Brenden Kuerbis) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 09:16:07 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGP Workshop on DNSSEC Message-ID: <28cfc1a40707020616x7a527c31u881954f44740863f@mail.gmail.com> Hi everyone, Below you'll find another workshop proposal from IGP, I have also put it on the wiki. Best, Brenden Question 1: Provide a concise formulation for the proposed workshop theme. DNSSEC: Securing a critical Internet resource The theme of this workshop is Internet governance and cyber security, and particularly DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC). The workshop will focus on the tensions and complementarities between global and national policy making, and the pursuit of global governance solutions to cyber security problems. Powerful national governments can often exert international influence over policy related to cyber security. However, the Internet is a global infrastructure and effective policy often requires a globally coordinated effort. DNSSEC is an IETF technical standard that could improve the security of the global DNS and reduce criminal or disruptive acts. A critical step in deploying DNSSEC widely is the signing of the root zone file, a critical Internet resource. The procedure for signing the root, and more importantly, determining the authorities who control the digital signing of this critical Internet resource has yet to be decided. Arguably, current Internet governance institutions are unprepared for this cyber security challenge. What kinds of institutions and coordination are needed to secure the root and ensure demand for DNSSEC services? Are there specific and complimentary roles that governments, international organizations, non-governmental organizations, and the private sector can or should play? This session brings together experts to address these questions. Question 2: Provide the Name of the Organizer(s) of the workshop and their Affiliation to various stakeholder groups. Describe how you will take steps to adhere to the multi-stakeholder principle, including geographical diversity. Internet Governance Project (civil society/academic) TBD (private sector) TBD (government) [Government of Brazil has expressed interest in workshop] Additional governmental and private sector organizations are being approached, however, it is too early to gauge level of commitment. Our choice of speakers and co-sponsors has been guided by stakeholder diversity. Question 3: Why do you think the proposed theme is important? Cyber security problems and the need for coordination between governments, the private sector and civil society in order to resolve them are at the forefront of issues confronting the Internet. This workshop provides an opportunity for encouraging broader understanding of DNS Security Extensions, including a technically informed discussion of the policy dimensions surrounding DNSSEC, DNS root signing, and its impact on the private sector, governments, and civil society. Question 4: Describe the workshop's conformity with the Tunis Agenda in terms of substance and the mandate of the IGF. The deployment of DNSSEC is intended to improve the security of the Internet's Domain Name System. The Tunis Agenda highlights "the importance of the security, continuity and stability of the Internet, and the need to protect the Internet and other ICT networks from threats and vulnerabilities." (45) Signatories "affirm the need for a common understanding of the issues of Internet security, and for further cooperation to facilitate outreach, the collection and dissemination of security-related information and exchange of good practice among all stakeholders on measures to combat security threats, at national and international levels." (45) Question 5: Provide the Name and Affiliation of the panellists you are planning to invite. We have yet to finalize our panelists for the workshop, but have initiated conversations with several individuals: Tricia Drakes, Chair ISOC-England; founder International Banking Information Systems; former ICANN Board member (invited, to be confirmed) Bernard Turcotte, President, Canadian Internet Registration Authority (invited, to be confirmed) Sabine Dolderer, former Director and member of the Executive Board at DENIC eG (invited, to be confirmed) Scott Rose, US Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (invited, to be confirmed) In addition, we anticipate contacting (or are already in the process) other individuals from the technical community including IETF, IANA, RIPE; private sector including financial services and information security sectors, ISPs; governments and IGOs; and civil society. Question 6: Describe the main actors in the field. Have you approached them and asked whether they would be willing to participate in proposed workshop? The United States government has been extremely active in the development of the DNSSEC standard, including participating in an IETF Working Group and the release by the US Department of Homeland Security of draft specifications for signing the root. We have invited a representative from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Representatives from some ccTLD organizations were consulted during the development of US-DHS specifications; however, several individuals affiliated with ccTLDs have expressed concern about DNSSEC and root signing at recent ICANN meetings. We have invited these individuals. A critical piece in the successful deployment of DNSSEC is demand for secure DNS services. The financial services sector seems a likely candidate for these services. We have invited panelists familiar with the sector's initiatives. The Internet technical community is involved in developing the standard and is aware of the implementation issues and problems. We have invited several technical experts. Question 7: List similar events you have organized in the past. IGP has organized several symposia for policy makers and/or academics, including two very successful, well-attended workshops at the Athens IGF. Recently, the IGP organized a Symposium on Internet Governance and Security: Exploring Global and National Solutions and panel on DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) at the Swiss Embassy in Washington DC. Several recognized technical experts from the private sector, ICANN and the US government discussed the deployment of DNSSEC, and in particular the policy dimensions of digitally signing the Internet's root zone file. The audience of nearly 80 people included Department of Commerce officials, US government contractors, policy-makers, public-interest advocates and graduate students. The discussion highlighted major technical challenges facing DNSSEC deployment, and the effects of root signing on tld zone operators and the Internet's Domain Name System (DNS). -- Brenden Kuerbis 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 wsis at ngocongo.org Tue Jul 3 06:26:53 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 12:26:53 +0200 Subject: [governance] GAID - Panel discussion during UN ECOSOC Session - 5 July 2007 Message-ID: <200707031026.l63AQF0R002134@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, This is to inform you that a Panel discussion on new perspectives for post-WSIS scenarios will be organised this Thursday 5 July in Geneva, jointly by GAID, UN CSTD and OCCAM. This will be a side event to the annual substantial session of ECOSOC. Find flyer and list of panellists attached. This meeting is informal and can therefore be attended by civil society entities in consultative status with ECOSOC and also by entities that were accredited to WSIS. Participants who do not have a badge to enter the Palais des Nations should get in touch with Mr. Charles Geiger so that they could get a one day visitor's badge for this meeting. All the best, Philippe 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Panel of 5 July.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 609792 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Tue Jul 3 08:46:33 2007 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 05:46:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IGF still searching for something to govern Message-ID: <933712.39471.qm@web54108.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Burke Hansen writing in The Register on the IGF at the ICANN meeting concludes his article by saying: "Although this topic looked appetizing on the schedule, it's clear that the IGF has a lot of work to do if it is to be considered anything more than a highly vocal yet castrated version of ICANN. Indeed, the IGF bares an uncanny resemblance to that other impotent, internationalized and highly vocal institution, the UN General Assembly. That's not to say that it does not have value - it's just the political equivalent to a visit to the therapist's office. We all need to get stuff off our chest from time to time." Regards, David --------- David Goldstein address: 4/3 Abbott Street COOGEE NSW 2034 AUSTRALIA email: Goldstein_David @yahoo.com.au phone: +61 418 228 605 (mobile); +61 2 9665 5773 (home) "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 ____________________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo!7 Mail has just got even bigger and better with unlimited storage on all webmail accounts. http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.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 bnkuerbi at syr.edu Tue Jul 3 08:47:05 2007 From: bnkuerbi at syr.edu (Brenden N Kuerbis) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 08:47:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGP Workshop on DNSSEC Message-ID: <47A63D8907C4DE419BE33AEA2DF95BB34C7912@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Hi everyone, Adding to the string of great workshop proposals submitted, here's another. I've also posted it to the wiki. Best, Brenden -- Brenden Kuerbis Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org Question 1: Provide a concise formulation for the proposed workshop theme. DNSSEC: Securing a critical Internet resource The theme of this workshop is Internet governance and cyber security, and particularly DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC). The workshop will focus on the tensions and complementarities between global and national policy making, and the pursuit of global governance solutions to cyber security problems. Powerful national governments can often exert international influence over policy related to cyber security. However, the Internet is a global infrastructure and effective policy often requires a globally coordinated effort. DNSSEC is an IETF technical standard that could improve the security of the global DNS and reduce criminal or disruptive acts. A critical step in deploying DNSSEC widely is the signing of the root zone file, a critical Internet resource. The procedure for signing the root, and more importantly, determining the authorities who control the digital signing of this critical Internet resource has yet to be decided. Arguably, current Internet governance institutions are unprepared for this cyber security challenge. What kinds of institutions and coordination are needed to secure the root and ensure demand for DNSSEC services? Are there specific and complimentary roles that governments, international organizations, non-governmental organizations, and the private sector can or should play? This session brings together experts to address these questions. Question 2: Provide the Name of the Organizer(s) of the workshop and their Affiliation to various stakeholder groups. Describe how you will take steps to adhere to the multi-stakeholder principle, including geographical diversity. Internet Governance Project (civil society/academic) TBD (private sector) TBD (government) [Government of Brazil has expressed interest in workshop] Additional governmental and private sector organizations are being approached, however, it is too early to gauge level of commitment. Our choice of speakers and co-sponsors has been guided by stakeholder diversity. Question 3: Why do you think the proposed theme is important? Cyber security problems and the need for coordination between governments, the private sector and civil society in order to resolve them are at the forefront of issues confronting the Internet. This workshop provides an opportunity for encouraging broader understanding of DNS Security Extensions, including a technically informed discussion of the policy dimensions surrounding DNSSEC, DNS root signing, and its impact on the private sector, governments, and civil society. Question 4: Describe the workshop's conformity with the Tunis Agenda in terms of substance and the mandate of the IGF. The deployment of DNSSEC is intended to improve the security of the Internet's Domain Name System. The Tunis Agenda highlights "the importance of the security, continuity and stability of the Internet, and the need to protect the Internet and other ICT networks from threats and vulnerabilities." (45) Signatories "affirm the need for a common understanding of the issues of Internet security, and for further cooperation to facilitate outreach, the collection and dissemination of security-related information and exchange of good practice among all stakeholders on measures to combat security threats, at national and international levels." (45) Question 5: Provide the Name and Affiliation of the panellists you are planning to invite. We have yet to finalize our panelists for the workshop, but have initiated conversations with several individuals: Tricia Drakes, Chair ISOC-England; founder International Banking Information Systems; former ICANN Board member (invited, to be confirmed) Bernard Turcotte, President, Canadian Internet Registration Authority (invited, to be confirmed) Sabine Dolderer, former Director and member of the Executive Board at DENIC eG (invited, to be confirmed) Scott Rose, US Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (invited, to be confirmed) In addition, we anticipate contacting (or are already in the process) other individuals from the technical community including IETF, IANA, RIPE; private sector including financial services and information security sectors, ISPs; governments and IGOs; and civil society. Question 6: Describe the main actors in the field. Have you approached them and asked whether they would be willing to participate in proposed workshop? The United States government has been extremely active in the development of the DNSSEC standard, including participating in an IETF Working Group and the release by the US Department of Homeland Security of draft specifications for signing the root. We have invited a representative from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Representatives from some ccTLD organizations were consulted during the development of US-DHS specifications; however, several individuals affiliated with ccTLDs have expressed concern about DNSSEC and root signing at recent ICANN meetings. We have invited these individuals. A critical piece in the successful deployment of DNSSEC is demand for secure DNS services. The financial services sector seems a likely candidate for these services. We have invited panelists familiar with the sector's initiatives. The Internet technical community is involved in developing the standard and is aware of the implementation issues and problems. We have invited several technical experts. Question 7: List similar events you have organized in the past. IGP has organized several symposia for policy makers and/or academics, including two very successful, well-attended workshops at the Athens IGF. Recently, the IGP organized a Symposium on Internet Governance and Security: Exploring Global and National Solutions and panel on DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) at the Swiss Embassy in Washington DC. > Several recognized technical experts from the private sector, ICANN and the US government discussed the deployment of DNSSEC, and in particular the policy dimensions of digitally signing the Internet's root zone file. The audience of nearly 80 people included Department of Commerce officials, US government contractors, policy-makers, public-interest advocates and graduate students. The discussion highlighted major technical challenges facing DNSSEC deployment, and the effects of root signing on tld zone operators and the Internet's Domain Name System (DNS). -------------- 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 Jul 3 09:05:27 2007 From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 09:05:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGP Workshop on DNSSEC In-Reply-To: <47A63D8907C4DE419BE33AEA2DF95BB34C7912@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <47A63D8907C4DE419BE33AEA2DF95BB34C7912@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <0864BDCD-E285-45F0-8AC1-C396C5DC45D2@privaterra.info> Brenden: I'm now a member of ICANN's security and stability Advisory committee (SSAC). SSAC has been doing a lot of work (and yes workshops) on DNSEC and it might be good to have them on the workshop panel you proposal. If you are open to the proposal, then let me know so that I can sent your earlier note to the SSAC list.. regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 On 3-Jul-07, at 8:47 AM, Brenden N Kuerbis wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Adding to the string of great workshop proposals submitted, here's > another. I've also posted it to the wiki. > > Best, > > Brenden > > -- > Brenden Kuerbis > Internet Governance Project > http://internetgovernance.org > > > > Question 1: Provide a concise formulation for the proposed workshop > theme. > > DNSSEC: Securing a critical Internet resource > > The theme of this workshop is Internet governance and cyber security, > and particularly DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC). The workshop will > focus on the tensions and complementarities between global and > national policy making, and the pursuit of global governance solutions > to cyber security problems. Powerful national governments can often > exert international influence over policy related to cyber security. > However, the Internet is a global infrastructure and effective policy > often requires a globally coordinated effort. > > DNSSEC is an IETF technical standard that could improve the security > of the global DNS and reduce criminal or disruptive acts. A critical > step in deploying DNSSEC widely is the signing of the root zone file, > a critical Internet resource. The procedure for signing the root, and > more importantly, determining the authorities who control the digital > signing of this critical Internet resource has yet to be decided. > Arguably, current Internet governance institutions are unprepared for > this cyber security challenge. What kinds of institutions and > coordination are needed to secure the root and ensure demand for > DNSSEC services? Are there specific and complimentary roles that > governments, international organizations, non-governmental > organizations, and the private sector can or should play? This > session brings together experts to address these questions. > > Question 2: Provide the Name of the Organizer(s) of the workshop and > their Affiliation to various stakeholder groups. Describe how you will > take steps to adhere to the multi-stakeholder principle, including > geographical diversity. > > Internet Governance Project (civil society/academic) > > TBD (private sector) > > TBD (government) [Government of Brazil has expressed interest in > workshop] > > Additional governmental and private sector organizations are being > approached, however, it is too early to gauge level of commitment. Our > choice of speakers and co-sponsors has been guided by stakeholder > diversity. > > Question 3: Why do you think the proposed theme is important? > > Cyber security problems and the need for coordination between > governments, the private sector and civil society in order to resolve > them are at the forefront of issues confronting the Internet. This > workshop provides an opportunity for encouraging broader understanding > of DNS Security Extensions, including a technically informed > discussion of the policy dimensions surrounding DNSSEC, DNS root > signing, and its impact on the private sector, governments, and civil > society. > > Question 4: Describe the workshop's conformity with the Tunis Agenda > in terms of substance and the mandate of the IGF. > > The deployment of DNSSEC is intended to improve the security of the > Internet's Domain Name System. The Tunis Agenda highlights "the > importance of the security, continuity and stability of the Internet, > and the need to protect the Internet and other ICT networks from > threats and vulnerabilities." (45) Signatories "affirm the need for a > common understanding of the issues of Internet security, and for > further cooperation to facilitate outreach, the collection and > dissemination of security-related information and exchange of good > practice among all stakeholders on measures to combat security > threats, at national and international levels." (45) > > Question 5: Provide the Name and Affiliation of the panellists you are > planning to invite. > > We have yet to finalize our panelists for the workshop, but have > initiated conversations with several individuals: > > Tricia Drakes, Chair ISOC-England; founder International Banking > Information Systems; former ICANN Board member (invited, to be > confirmed) > > Bernard Turcotte, President, Canadian Internet Registration Authority > (invited, to be confirmed) > > Sabine Dolderer, former Director and member of the Executive Board at > DENIC eG (invited, to be confirmed) > > Scott Rose, US Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards > and Technology (NIST) (invited, to be confirmed) > > In addition, we anticipate contacting (or are already in the process) > other individuals from the technical community including IETF, IANA, > RIPE; private sector including financial services and information > security sectors, ISPs; governments and IGOs; and civil society. > > Question 6: Describe the main actors in the field. Have you approached > them and asked whether they would be willing to participate in > proposed workshop? > > The United States government has been extremely active in the > development of the DNSSEC standard, including participating in an IETF > Working Group and the release by the US Department of Homeland > Security of draft specifications for signing the root. We have > invited a representative from the National Institute of Standards and > Technology (NIST). > > Representatives from some ccTLD organizations were consulted during > the development of US-DHS specifications; however, several individuals > affiliated with ccTLDs have expressed concern about DNSSEC and root > signing at recent ICANN meetings. We have invited these individuals. > > A critical piece in the successful deployment of DNSSEC is demand for > secure DNS services. The financial services sector seems a likely > candidate for these services. We have invited panelists familiar with > the sector's initiatives. > > The Internet technical community is involved in developing the > standard and is aware of the implementation issues and problems. We > have invited several technical experts. > > Question 7: List similar events you have organized in the past. > > IGP has organized several symposia for policy makers and/or academics, > including two very successful, well-attended workshops at the Athens > IGF. Recently, the IGP organized a Symposium on Internet Governance > and Security: Exploring Global and National Solutions and panel on DNS > Security Extensions (DNSSEC) at the Swiss Embassy in Washington DC. > 2007/6/28/3053616.html> > Several recognized technical experts from the private sector, ICANN > and the US government discussed the deployment of DNSSEC, and in > particular the policy dimensions of digitally signing the Internet's > root zone file. The audience of nearly 80 people included Department > of Commerce officials, US government contractors, policy-makers, > public-interest advocates and graduate students. The discussion > highlighted major technical challenges facing DNSSEC deployment, and > the effects of root signing on tld zone operators and the Internet's > Domain Name System (DNS). > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Tue Jul 3 09:22:56 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 06:22:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IGF still searching for something to govern In-Reply-To: 933712.39471.qm@web54108.mail.re2.yahoo.com Message-ID: Amen Padre 'Where have all the Cowboys gone? ... Pilgrim' John Wayne ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jul 3 09:43:29 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 09:43:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGP Workshop on DNSSEC In-Reply-To: <0864BDCD-E285-45F0-8AC1-C396C5DC45D2@privaterra.info> References: <47A63D8907C4DE419BE33AEA2DF95BB34C7912@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <0864BDCD-E285-45F0-8AC1-C396C5DC45D2@privaterra.info> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9473715@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> I think we will be having Patrik Faltstrom on the panel. _____ From: lists at privaterra.info [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 9:05 AM To: Milton L Mueller; WSIS Internet Governance Caucus; lists at privaterra.info Subject: Re: [governance] IGP Workshop on DNSSEC Brenden: I'm now a member of ICANN's security and stability Advisory committee (SSAC). SSAC has been doing a lot of work (and yes workshops) on DNSEC and it might be good to have them on the workshop panel you proposal. If you are open to the proposal, then let me know so that I can sent your earlier note to the SSAC list.. regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 On 3-Jul-07, at 8:47 AM, Brenden N Kuerbis wrote: Hi everyone, Adding to the string of great workshop proposals submitted, here's another. I've also posted it to the wiki. Best, Brenden -- Brenden Kuerbis Internet Governance Project HYPERLINK "http://internetgovernance.org/" \nhttp://internetgovernance.org Question 1: Provide a concise formulation for the proposed workshop theme. DNSSEC: Securing a critical Internet resource The theme of this workshop is Internet governance and cyber security, and particularly DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC). The workshop will focus on the tensions and complementarities between global and national policy making, and the pursuit of global governance solutions to cyber security problems. Powerful national governments can often exert international influence over policy related to cyber security. However, the Internet is a global infrastructure and effective policy often requires a globally coordinated effort. DNSSEC is an IETF technical standard that could improve the security of the global DNS and reduce criminal or disruptive acts. A critical step in deploying DNSSEC widely is the signing of the root zone file, a critical Internet resource. The procedure for signing the root, and more importantly, determining the authorities who control the digital signing of this critical Internet resource has yet to be decided. Arguably, current Internet governance institutions are unprepared for this cyber security challenge. What kinds of institutions and coordination are needed to secure the root and ensure demand for DNSSEC services? Are there specific and complimentary roles that governments, international organizations, non-governmental organizations, and the private sector can or should play? This session brings together experts to address these questions Question 2: Provide the Name of the Organizer(s) of the workshop and their Affiliation to various stakeholder groups. Describe how you will take steps to adhere to the multi-stakeholder principle, including geographical diversity. Internet Governance Project (civil society/academic) TBD (private sector) TBD (government) [Government of Brazil has expressed interest in workshop] Additional governmental and private sector organizations are being approached, however, it is too early to gauge level of commitment. Our choice of speakers and co-sponsors has been guided by stakeholder diversity. Question 3: Why do you think the proposed theme is important? Cyber security problems and the need for coordination between governments, the private sector and civil society in order to resolve them are at the forefront of issues confronting the Internet. This workshop provides an opportunity for encouraging broader understanding of DNS Security Extensions, including a technically informed discussion of the policy dimensions surrounding DNSSEC, DNS root signing, and its impact on the private sector, governments, and civil society. Question 4: Describe the workshop's conformity with the Tunis Agenda in terms of substance and the mandate of the IGF. The deployment of DNSSEC is intended to improve the security of the Internet's Domain Name System. The Tunis Agenda highlights "the importance of the security, continuity and stability of the Internet, and the need to protect the Internet and other ICT networks from threats and vulnerabilities." (45) Signatories "affirm the need for a common understanding of the issues of Internet security, and for further cooperation to facilitate outreach, the collection and dissemination of security-related information and exchange of good practice among all stakeholders on measures to combat security threats, at national and international levels." (45) Question 5: Provide the Name and Affiliation of the panellists you are planning to invite. We have yet to finalize our panelists for the workshop, but have initiated conversations with several individuals: Tricia Drakes, Chair ISOC-England; founder International Banking Information Systems; former ICANN Board member (invited, to be confirmed) Bernard Turcotte, President, Canadian Internet Registration Authority (invited, to be confirmed) Sabine Dolderer, former Director and member of the Executive Board at DENIC eG (invited, to be confirmed) Scott Rose, US Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (invited, to be confirmed) In addition, we anticipate contacting (or are already in the process) other individuals from the technical community including IETF, IANA, RIPE; private sector including financial services and information security sectors, ISPs; governments and IGOs; and civil society. Question 6: Describe the main actors in the field. Have you approached them and asked whether they would be willing to participate in proposed workshop? The United States government has been extremely active in the development of the DNSSEC standard, including participating in an IETF Working Group and the release by the US Department of Homeland Security of draft specifications for signing the root. We have invited a representative from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Representatives from some ccTLD organizations were consulted during the development of US-DHS specifications; however, several individuals affiliated with ccTLDs have expressed concern about DNSSEC and root signing at recent ICANN meetings. We have invited these individuals. A critical piece in the successful deployment of DNSSEC is demand for secure DNS services. The financial services sector seems a likely candidate for these services. We have invited panelists familiar with the sector's initiatives. The Internet technical community is involved in developing the standard and is aware of the implementation issues and problems. We have invited several technical experts. Question 7: List similar events you have organized in the past. IGP has organized several symposia for policy makers and/or academics, including two very successful, well-attended workshops at the Athens IGF. Recently, the IGP organized a Symposium on Internet Governance and Security: Exploring Global and National Solutions and panel on DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) at the Swiss Embassy in Washington DC. Several recognized technical experts from the private sector, ICANN and the US government discussed the deployment of DNSSEC, and in particular the policy dimensions of digitally signing the Internet's root zone file. The audience of nearly 80 people included Department of Commerce officials, US government contractors, policy-makers, public-interest advocates and graduate students. The discussion highlighted major technical challenges facing DNSSEC deployment, and the effects of root signing on tld zone operators and the Internet's Domain Name System (DNS). - -____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: HYPERLINK "mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org"governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: HYPERLINK "mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org"governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: HYPERLINK "http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance"http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.14/884 - Release Date: 7/2/2007 3:35 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.14/884 - Release Date: 7/2/2007 3:35 PM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From drake at hei.unige.ch Tue Jul 3 09:54:15 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 15:54:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: GAID - Panel discussion during UN ECOSOC Session - 5 July 2007 In-Reply-To: <200707031058.l63AwlqT030837@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Message-ID: Hi, FWIW, it looks like Philippe inadvertently sent out an old version of the program. There current version is below. Charles Geiger is at charles.geiger at unctad.org if anyone is looking for a pass. Bill GLOBAL ALLIANCE FOR ICT AND DEVELOPMENT UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FOR DEVELOPMENT OBSERVATORY FOR CULTURAL AND AUDIOVISUAL COMMUNICATION Panel discussion on ³Information Society: New Perspectives for Post-WSIS Scenarios?² 5 July 2007, Palais des Nations, Geneva, Switzerland Conference Room XXVI 3.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. DRAFT AGENDA 3:00 ­ 6:00 Welcome by Mr. Sarbuland Khan, Executive Coordinator of the Global Alliance for ICT and Development Opening Remarks Mr. Hamadoun Touré, Secretary-General of ITU Moderator Mr. Philippe Mottaz, World Radio Geneva Lead discussant Mr. Alain Clerc, Executive Secretary, Digital Solidarity Fund Panelists Mr. Talal Abu-Ghazaleh, Chairman and CEO, Talal Abu-Ghazaleh Organization (TAGO) Mr. John Gage, Chief Researcher and Vice-President of the Science Office, Sun Microsystems Ambassador Janis Karklins, Vice-Chair, United Nations Commission on Science and Technology for Development Mr. Carlo Ottaviani, President, ST Microelectronics Foundation Mr. Supachai Panitchpakdi, Secretary-General of UNCTAD Mr. Gerolf Weigel, Head of ICT4D Division, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation Mr. Pierpaolo Saporito, President, OCCAM and Infopoverty Programme Respondent Mr. William J. Drake, Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance, Graduate Institute for International Studies, Geneva, Switzerland -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From bnkuerbi at syr.edu Tue Jul 3 11:09:43 2007 From: bnkuerbi at syr.edu (Brenden Kuerbis) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 11:09:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGP Workshop on DNSSEC In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9473715@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <47A63D8907C4DE419BE33AEA2DF95BB34C7912@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <0864BDCD-E285-45F0-8AC1-C396C5DC45D2@privaterra.info> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9473715@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <28cfc1a40707030809j33fc394egb4bc4a96df2a4d60@mail.gmail.com> AFAIK, Patrik is not on ICANN's SSAC, but he obviously follows these issues, and DNSSEC, quite closely. Thanks Robert for the offer of assistance, I'm aware of the workshops SSAC has put on and virtually attended all of them (or at least read the transcripts). We've had a flurry of activity with potential panelists over the past few days, but please do forward notice of the workshop. If anyone is interested please have them get in touch with me. Best, Brenden On 7/3/07, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > > I think we will be having Patrik Faltstrom on the panel. > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: lists at privaterra.info [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] > Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 9:05 AM > To: Milton L Mueller; WSIS Internet Governance Caucus; > lists at privaterra.info > Subject: Re: [governance] IGP Workshop on DNSSEC > > > > > Brenden: > > > > > > I'm now a member of ICANN's security and stability Advisory committee > (SSAC). SSAC has been doing a lot of work (and yes workshops) on DNSEC and > it might be good to have them on the workshop panel you proposal. If you are > open to the proposal, then let me know so that I can sent your earlier note > to the SSAC list.. > > > > > > > > regards, > > > > > > Robert > > > --- > > > Robert Guerra > > > Managing Director, Privaterra > > > Tel +1 416 893 0377 > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 3-Jul-07, at 8:47 AM, Brenden N Kuerbis wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > Adding to the string of great workshop proposals submitted, here's another. > I've also posted it to the wiki. > > Best, > > Brenden > > > > > > -- > Brenden Kuerbis > Internet Governance Project > http://internetgovernance.org > > > > Question 1: Provide a concise formulation for the proposed workshop theme. > > DNSSEC: Securing a critical Internet resource > > The theme of this workshop is Internet governance and cyber security, > and particularly DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC). The workshop will > focus on the tensions and complementarities between global and > national policy making, and the pursuit of global governance solutions > to cyber security problems. Powerful national governments can often > exert international influence over policy related to cyber security. > However, the Internet is a global infrastructure and effective policy > often requires a globally coordinated effort. > > DNSSEC is an IETF technical standard that could improve the security > of the global DNS and reduce criminal or disruptive acts. A critical > step in deploying DNSSEC widely is the signing of the root zone file, > a critical Internet resource. The procedure for signing the root, and > more importantly, determining the authorities who control the digital > signing of this critical Internet resource has yet to be decided. > Arguably, current Internet governance institutions are unprepared for > this cyber security challenge. What kinds of institutions and > coordination are needed to secure the root and ensure demand for > DNSSEC services? Are there specific and complimentary roles that > governments, international organizations, non-governmental > organizations, and the private sector can or should play? This > session brings together experts to address these questions > > Question 2: Provide the Name of the Organizer(s) of the workshop and > their Affiliation to various stakeholder groups. Describe how you will > take steps to adhere to the multi-stakeholder principle, including > geographical diversity. > > Internet Governance Project (civil society/academic) > > TBD (private sector) > > TBD (government) [Government of Brazil has expressed interest in workshop] > > Additional governmental and private sector organizations are being > approached, however, it is too early to gauge level of commitment. Our > choice of speakers and co-sponsors has been guided by stakeholder > diversity. > > Question 3: Why do you think the proposed theme is important? > > Cyber security problems and the need for coordination between > governments, the private sector and civil society in order to resolve > them are at the forefront of issues confronting the Internet. This > workshop provides an opportunity for encouraging broader understanding > of DNS Security Extensions, including a technically informed > discussion of the policy dimensions surrounding DNSSEC, DNS root > signing, and its impact on the private sector, governments, and civil > society. > > Question 4: Describe the workshop's conformity with the Tunis Agenda > in terms of substance and the mandate of the IGF. > > The deployment of DNSSEC is intended to improve the security of the > Internet's Domain Name System. The Tunis Agenda highlights "the > importance of the security, continuity and stability of the Internet, > and the need to protect the Internet and other ICT networks from > threats and vulnerabilities." (45) Signatories "affirm the need for a > common understanding of the issues of Internet security, and for > further cooperation to facilitate outreach, the collection and > dissemination of security-related information and exchange of good > practice among all stakeholders on measures to combat security > threats, at national and international levels." (45) > > Question 5: Provide the Name and Affiliation of the panellists you are > planning to invite. > > We have yet to finalize our panelists for the workshop, but have > initiated conversations with several individuals: > > Tricia Drakes, Chair ISOC-England; founder International Banking > Information Systems; former ICANN Board member (invited, to be > confirmed) > > Bernard Turcotte, President, Canadian Internet Registration Authority > (invited, to be confirmed) > > Sabine Dolderer, former Director and member of the Executive Board at > DENIC eG (invited, to be confirmed) > > Scott Rose, US Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards > and Technology (NIST) (invited, to be confirmed) > > In addition, we anticipate contacting (or are already in the process) > other individuals from the technical community including IETF, IANA, > RIPE; private sector including financial services and information > security sectors, ISPs; governments and IGOs; and civil society. > > Question 6: Describe the main actors in the field. Have you approached > them and asked whether they would be willing to participate in > proposed workshop? > > The United States government has been extremely active in the > development of the DNSSEC standard, including participating in an IETF > Working Group and the release by the US Department of Homeland > Security of draft specifications for signing the root. We have > invited a representative from the National Institute of Standards and > Technology (NIST). > > Representatives from some ccTLD organizations were consulted during > the development of US-DHS specifications; however, several individuals > affiliated with ccTLDs have expressed concern about DNSSEC and root > signing at recent ICANN meetings. We have invited these individuals. > > A critical piece in the successful deployment of DNSSEC is demand for > secure DNS services. The financial services sector seems a likely > candidate for these services. We have invited panelists familiar with > the sector's initiatives. > > The Internet technical community is involved in developing the > standard and is aware of the implementation issues and problems. We > have invited several technical experts. > > Question 7: List similar events you have organized in the past. > > IGP has organized several symposia for policy makers and/or academics, > including two very successful, well-attended workshops at the Athens > IGF. Recently, the IGP organized a Symposium on Internet Governance > and Security: Exploring Global and National Solutions and panel on DNS > Security Extensions (DNSSEC) at the Swiss Embassy in Washington DC. > > Several recognized technical experts from the private sector, ICANN > and the US government discussed the deployment of DNSSEC, and in > particular the policy dimensions of digitally signing the Internet's > root zone file. The audience of nearly 80 people included Department > of Commerce officials, US government contractors, policy-makers, > public-interest advocates and graduate students. The discussion > highlighted major technical challenges facing DNSSEC deployment, and > the effects of root signing on tld zone operators and the Internet's > Domain Name System (DNS). > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.14/884 - Release Date: 7/2/2007 > 3:35 PM > > > > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.14/884 - Release Date: 7/2/2007 > 3:35 PM > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- Brenden Kuerbis 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue Jul 3 11:12:46 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 17:12:46 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] IGP Workshop on DNSSEC References: <47A63D8907C4DE419BE33AEA2DF95BB34C7912@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <0864BDCD-E285-45F0-8AC1-C396C5DC45D2@privaterra.info> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9473715@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <28cfc1a40707030809j33fc394egb4bc4a96df2a4d60@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D60A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Look into the letter RIPE wrote to ICANN. The letter was rather ignored during the recent San Juan meeting. I would propose to invite Axel Pawlik or Daniel Kerrenberg from RIPE to the panel. Best wishes (and I will certainly be in the audience) wolfgang ________________________________ Von: bkuerbis at gmail.com im Auftrag von Brenden Kuerbis Gesendet: Di 03.07.2007 17:09 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller; Robert Guerra Betreff: Re: [governance] IGP Workshop on DNSSEC AFAIK, Patrik is not on ICANN's SSAC, but he obviously follows these issues, and DNSSEC, quite closely. Thanks Robert for the offer of assistance, I'm aware of the workshops SSAC has put on and virtually attended all of them (or at least read the transcripts). We've had a flurry of activity with potential panelists over the past few days, but please do forward notice of the workshop. If anyone is interested please have them get in touch with me. Best, Brenden On 7/3/07, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > > I think we will be having Patrik Faltstrom on the panel. > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: lists at privaterra.info [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] > Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 9:05 AM > To: Milton L Mueller; WSIS Internet Governance Caucus; > lists at privaterra.info > Subject: Re: [governance] IGP Workshop on DNSSEC > > > > > Brenden: > > > > > > I'm now a member of ICANN's security and stability Advisory committee > (SSAC). SSAC has been doing a lot of work (and yes workshops) on DNSEC and > it might be good to have them on the workshop panel you proposal. If you are > open to the proposal, then let me know so that I can sent your earlier note > to the SSAC list.. > > > > > > > > regards, > > > > > > Robert > > > --- > > > Robert Guerra > > > Managing Director, Privaterra > > > Tel +1 416 893 0377 > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 3-Jul-07, at 8:47 AM, Brenden N Kuerbis wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > Adding to the string of great workshop proposals submitted, here's another. > I've also posted it to the wiki. > > Best, > > Brenden > > > > > > -- > Brenden Kuerbis > Internet Governance Project > http://internetgovernance.org > > > > Question 1: Provide a concise formulation for the proposed workshop theme. > > DNSSEC: Securing a critical Internet resource > > The theme of this workshop is Internet governance and cyber security, > and particularly DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC). The workshop will > focus on the tensions and complementarities between global and > national policy making, and the pursuit of global governance solutions > to cyber security problems. Powerful national governments can often > exert international influence over policy related to cyber security. > However, the Internet is a global infrastructure and effective policy > often requires a globally coordinated effort. > > DNSSEC is an IETF technical standard that could improve the security > of the global DNS and reduce criminal or disruptive acts. A critical > step in deploying DNSSEC widely is the signing of the root zone file, > a critical Internet resource. The procedure for signing the root, and > more importantly, determining the authorities who control the digital > signing of this critical Internet resource has yet to be decided. > Arguably, current Internet governance institutions are unprepared for > this cyber security challenge. What kinds of institutions and > coordination are needed to secure the root and ensure demand for > DNSSEC services? Are there specific and complimentary roles that > governments, international organizations, non-governmental > organizations, and the private sector can or should play? This > session brings together experts to address these questions > > Question 2: Provide the Name of the Organizer(s) of the workshop and > their Affiliation to various stakeholder groups. Describe how you will > take steps to adhere to the multi-stakeholder principle, including > geographical diversity. > > Internet Governance Project (civil society/academic) > > TBD (private sector) > > TBD (government) [Government of Brazil has expressed interest in workshop] > > Additional governmental and private sector organizations are being > approached, however, it is too early to gauge level of commitment. Our > choice of speakers and co-sponsors has been guided by stakeholder > diversity. > > Question 3: Why do you think the proposed theme is important? > > Cyber security problems and the need for coordination between > governments, the private sector and civil society in order to resolve > them are at the forefront of issues confronting the Internet. This > workshop provides an opportunity for encouraging broader understanding > of DNS Security Extensions, including a technically informed > discussion of the policy dimensions surrounding DNSSEC, DNS root > signing, and its impact on the private sector, governments, and civil > society. > > Question 4: Describe the workshop's conformity with the Tunis Agenda > in terms of substance and the mandate of the IGF. > > The deployment of DNSSEC is intended to improve the security of the > Internet's Domain Name System. The Tunis Agenda highlights "the > importance of the security, continuity and stability of the Internet, > and the need to protect the Internet and other ICT networks from > threats and vulnerabilities." (45) Signatories "affirm the need for a > common understanding of the issues of Internet security, and for > further cooperation to facilitate outreach, the collection and > dissemination of security-related information and exchange of good > practice among all stakeholders on measures to combat security > threats, at national and international levels." (45) > > Question 5: Provide the Name and Affiliation of the panellists you are > planning to invite. > > We have yet to finalize our panelists for the workshop, but have > initiated conversations with several individuals: > > Tricia Drakes, Chair ISOC-England; founder International Banking > Information Systems; former ICANN Board member (invited, to be > confirmed) > > Bernard Turcotte, President, Canadian Internet Registration Authority > (invited, to be confirmed) > > Sabine Dolderer, former Director and member of the Executive Board at > DENIC eG (invited, to be confirmed) > > Scott Rose, US Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards > and Technology (NIST) (invited, to be confirmed) > > In addition, we anticipate contacting (or are already in the process) > other individuals from the technical community including IETF, IANA, > RIPE; private sector including financial services and information > security sectors, ISPs; governments and IGOs; and civil society. > > Question 6: Describe the main actors in the field. Have you approached > them and asked whether they would be willing to participate in > proposed workshop? > > The United States government has been extremely active in the > development of the DNSSEC standard, including participating in an IETF > Working Group and the release by the US Department of Homeland > Security of draft specifications for signing the root. We have > invited a representative from the National Institute of Standards and > Technology (NIST). > > Representatives from some ccTLD organizations were consulted during > the development of US-DHS specifications; however, several individuals > affiliated with ccTLDs have expressed concern about DNSSEC and root > signing at recent ICANN meetings. We have invited these individuals. > > A critical piece in the successful deployment of DNSSEC is demand for > secure DNS services. The financial services sector seems a likely > candidate for these services. We have invited panelists familiar with > the sector's initiatives. > > The Internet technical community is involved in developing the > standard and is aware of the implementation issues and problems. We > have invited several technical experts. > > Question 7: List similar events you have organized in the past. > > IGP has organized several symposia for policy makers and/or academics, > including two very successful, well-attended workshops at the Athens > IGF. Recently, the IGP organized a Symposium on Internet Governance > and Security: Exploring Global and National Solutions and panel on DNS > Security Extensions (DNSSEC) at the Swiss Embassy in Washington DC. > > Several recognized technical experts from the private sector, ICANN > and the US government discussed the deployment of DNSSEC, and in > particular the policy dimensions of digitally signing the Internet's > root zone file. The audience of nearly 80 people included Department > of Commerce officials, US government contractors, policy-makers, > public-interest advocates and graduate students. The discussion > highlighted major technical challenges facing DNSSEC deployment, and > the effects of root signing on tld zone operators and the Internet's > Domain Name System (DNS). > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.14/884 - Release Date: 7/2/2007 > 3:35 PM > > > > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.14/884 - Release Date: 7/2/2007 > 3:35 PM > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- Brenden Kuerbis 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jul 3 11:22:38 2007 From: veni at veni.com (veni markovski) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 11:22:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGP Workshop on DNSSEC In-Reply-To: <28cfc1a40707030809j33fc394egb4bc4a96df2a4d60@mail.gmail.co m> References: <47A63D8907C4DE419BE33AEA2DF95BB34C7912@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <0864BDCD-E285-45F0-8AC1-C396C5DC45D2@privaterra.info> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9473715@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <28cfc1a40707030809j33fc394egb4bc4a96df2a4d60@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <468a6a86.1d1d640a.6e95.0b29@mx.google.com> Hi, Brenden! I am wondering though, wasn't this better to be proposed to the SSAC to organize it, instead of first throwing the proposal, and then looking for participants? Just seems strange to have a proposal with no speakers. At 11:09 7/3/2007 -0400, Brenden Kuerbis wrote: >Thanks Robert for the offer of assistance, I'm aware of the workshops >SSAC has put on and virtually attended all of them (or at least read >the transcripts). We've had a flurry of activity with potential >panelists over the past few days, but please do forward notice of the >workshop. If anyone is interested please have them get in touch with >me. Sincerely, Veni Markovski, President and Chairman of the Board, Internet Society - Bulgaria -------------- 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 Tue Jul 3 11:35:12 2007 From: veni at veni.com (veni markovski) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 11:35:12 -0400 Subject: AW: [governance] IGP Workshop on DNSSEC References: <47A63D8907C4DE419BE33AEA2DF95BB34C7912@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <0864BDCD-E285-45F0-8AC1-C396C5DC45D2@privaterra.info> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9473715@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <28cfc1a40707030809j33fc394egb4bc4a96df2a4d60@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <468a6cde.1235640a.32aa.1eac@mx.google.com> At 17:12 7/3/2007 +0200, KleinwДchter, Wolfgang wrote: >Look into the letter RIPE wrote to ICANN. The >letter was rather ignored during the recent San >Juan meeting. I would propose to invite Axel >Pawlik or Daniel Kerrenberg from RIPE to the panel. The letter is here http://www.icann.org/correspondence/pawlik-to-cerf-07jun12.pdf . Wolfgang, do you know how many of the European ccTLDs are using DNSsec? Actually, is there someone on our list, who is expert in the field? 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 bnkuerbi at syr.edu Tue Jul 3 12:52:15 2007 From: bnkuerbi at syr.edu (Brenden Kuerbis) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 12:52:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGP Workshop on DNSSEC In-Reply-To: <468a6a86.1d1d640a.6e95.0b29@mx.google.com> References: <47A63D8907C4DE419BE33AEA2DF95BB34C7912@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <0864BDCD-E285-45F0-8AC1-C396C5DC45D2@privaterra.info> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9473715@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <28cfc1a40707030809j33fc394egb4bc4a96df2a4d60@mail.gmail.com> <468a6a86.1d1d640a.6e95.0b29@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <28cfc1a40707030952l28ff4abcxaa54de6f536add50@mail.gmail.com> On 7/3/07, veni markovski wrote: > > Hi, Brenden! > > I am wondering though, wasn't this better to be proposed to the SSAC to > organize it, Hi Veni, I didn't realize that IGF proposals had to go thru the corporate office. ;-) >instead of first throwing the proposal, and then looking for > participants? > > Just seems strange to have a proposal with no speakers. > Don't worry, there are plenty of informed people outside of SSAC who can/want to say something on DNSSEC. We're supposed to be broadening understanding of IG issues, right? Obviously there are a lot of good people on SSAC, if someone from there is interested they're more than welcome to contact me. Best, Brenden > > > At 11:09 7/3/2007 -0400, Brenden Kuerbis wrote: > > Thanks Robert for the offer of assistance, I'm aware of the workshops > SSAC has put on and virtually attended all of them (or at least read > the transcripts). We've had a flurry of activity with potential > panelists over the past few days, but please do forward notice of the > workshop. If anyone is interested please have them get in touch with > me. > > > > Sincerely, > > Veni Markovski, > President and Chairman of the Board, > Internet Society - Bulgaria > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- Brenden Kuerbis 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Jul 3 12:53:57 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 19:53:57 +0300 Subject: AW: [governance] IGP Workshop on DNSSEC In-Reply-To: <468a6cde.1235640a.32aa.1eac@mx.google.com> References: <47A63D8907C4DE419BE33AEA2DF95BB34C7912@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <0864BDCD-E285-45F0-8AC1-C396C5DC45D2@privaterra.info> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9473715@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <28cfc1a40707030809j33fc394egb4bc4a96df2a4d60@mail.gmail.com> <468a6cde.1235640a.32aa.1eac@mx.google.com> Message-ID: On 7/3/07, veni markovski wrote: > At 17:12 7/3/2007 +0200, KleinwДchter, Wolfgang wrote: > http://www.icann.org/correspondence/pawlik-to-cerf-07jun12.pdf > . Wolfgang, do you know how many of the European > ccTLDs are using DNSsec? 1 AFAIK Actually, is there > someone on our list, who is expert in the field? Stephane is quite knowledgeable, McTim probably to a lesser extent, as I have only done DNSSEC implementations in a lab. It's not something I recommend to my ISP clients, as the holes it fills are not the biggest security problems they face. -- 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 LMcKnigh at syr.edu Tue Jul 3 14:46:53 2007 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 14:46:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGP Workshop on DNSSEC Message-ID: Veni, My IGP colleagues are playing coy, there are speakers not to worry. Offers of co-sponsors and more suggestions for speakers I suspect are both welcome though - sent to Brenden. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> veni at veni.com 7/3/2007 11:22 AM >>> Hi, Brenden! I am wondering though, wasn't this better to be proposed to the SSAC to organize it, instead of first throwing the proposal, and then looking for participants? Just seems strange to have a proposal with no speakers. At 11:09 7/3/2007 -0400, Brenden Kuerbis wrote: >Thanks Robert for the offer of assistance, I'm aware of the workshops >SSAC has put on and virtually attended all of them (or at least read >the transcripts). We've had a flurry of activity with potential >panelists over the past few days, but please do forward notice of the >workshop. If anyone is interested please have them get in touch with >me. Sincerely, Veni Markovski, President and Chairman of the Board, Internet Society - Bulgaria ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jul 4 05:47:15 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO - Philippe Dam) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 11:47:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] E-Governance event in Geneva - 19 July 2007 Message-ID: <200707040947.l649l6wX031991@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, This is to announce you another Information Society related event taking place during the ECOSOC session in Geneva: The EPFL Executive Master in e-Governance (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) will organise in cooperation with the CSTD Secretariat, GAID and the SDC a side event on “Building a Knowledge Society for All”. This high level roundtable will be informal and open to civil society and the private sector. More information is available on line: http://egov.epfl.ch/default.aspx?id=56 &subof=41&mid=57&ttl=19%20July%202007 Date: 19 July 2007 Time: 14:00-18:30 Venue: Palais des Nations, Room IX (Geneva) Register on line before 12 July 2007 (http://inform.epfl.ch/?form=eGov_Jul07_Event) so that EPFL process with the UN access badge request. All the best, Philippe -------------- 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 Wed Jul 4 08:00:20 2007 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 14:00:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGP Workshop on DNSSEC In-Reply-To: <468a6cde.1235640a.32aa.1eac@mx.google.com> References: <47A63D8907C4DE419BE33AEA2DF95BB34C7912@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <0864BDCD-E285-45F0-8AC1-C396C5DC45D2@privaterra.info> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9473715@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <28cfc1a40707030809j33fc394egb4bc4a96df2a4d60@mail.gmail.com> <468a6cde.1235640a.32aa.1eac@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <20070704120020.GA20950@nic.fr> On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 11:35:12AM -0400, veni markovski wrote a message of 26 lines which said: > Wolfgang, do you know how many of the European ccTLDs are using > DNSsec? Two, ".se" (http://www.iis.se/english/dinadomaner/dnssec.shtml?lang=en) and a ccTLD for a country I've never been but that you may have heard about, ".bg" (https://www.register.bg/user/). ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Jul 4 09:05:08 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 16:05:08 +0300 Subject: [governance] IGP Workshop on DNSSEC In-Reply-To: <20070704120020.GA20950@nic.fr> References: <47A63D8907C4DE419BE33AEA2DF95BB34C7912@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <0864BDCD-E285-45F0-8AC1-C396C5DC45D2@privaterra.info> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9473715@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <28cfc1a40707030809j33fc394egb4bc4a96df2a4d60@mail.gmail.com> <468a6cde.1235640a.32aa.1eac@mx.google.com> <20070704120020.GA20950@nic.fr> Message-ID: On 7/4/07, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 11:35:12AM -0400, > veni markovski wrote > a message of 26 lines which said: > > > Wolfgang, do you know how many of the European ccTLDs are using > > DNSsec? > > Two, ".se" > (http://www.iis.se/english/dinadomaner/dnssec.shtml?lang=en) and a > ccTLD for a country I've never been but that you may have heard about, > ".bg" (https://www.register.bg/user/). > Well, great. I gave a training on DNSSEC 3 years ago in Bulgaria, glad to see they have implemented it! -- 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 Wed Jul 4 10:40:33 2007 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 16:40:33 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: IGP Workshop on DNSSEC In-Reply-To: References: <47A63D8907C4DE419BE33AEA2DF95BB34C7912@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <0864BDCD-E285-45F0-8AC1-C396C5DC45D2@privaterra.info> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9473715@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <28cfc1a40707030809j33fc394egb4bc4a96df2a4d60@mail.gmail.com> <468a6cde.1235640a.32aa.1eac@mx.google.com> <20070704120020.GA20950@nic.fr> Message-ID: <20070704144033.GA13856@nic.fr> On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 04:05:08PM +0300, McTim wrote a message of 30 lines which said: > >Two, ".se" > >(http://www.iis.se/english/dinadomaner/dnssec.shtml?lang=en) and a > >ccTLD for a country I've never been but that you may have heard about, > >".bg" (https://www.register.bg/user/). > > > > Well, great. I gave a training on DNSSEC 3 years ago in Bulgaria, glad > to see they have implemented it! Warning, AFAIK, ".bg" signs the zone but does not delegate (no DS in the zone), unlike ".se". A model for the root, signing just the NS and the SOA? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jul 5 07:07:35 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 16:37:35 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF workshop proposal In-Reply-To: <20070630172057.1E09AA6CDE@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20070705110742.A77A8E1B53@smtp3.electricembers.net> Hi All The IGC's workshop on 'Fulfilling the Mandate of 'IGF' needs your help for getting 1. Co-sponsors - especially from the private sector, Internet community, governments 2. Right and good speakers Pl suggest co-sponsors including contacting them on IGC's behalf. We have little or no constraints on co-sponsorship, so all are welcome. And also speakers. I expect that in case of speakers - where we constrained in terms of a final list of 4-5 - we will need to be mindful in our suggestions as to the possibility of the majority of the list approving our choices. We should aim at getting a good range of views during the workshop. I don't think we shd go for a consensus vote for the speakers list. This may be left to the co-coordinators to go by what they think is the list with most support. During the workshop, we may try to keep most of the time for comments from the floor. Such suggestions about the format etc are also welcome. 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: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2007 10:51 PM To: 'IGF' Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] IGF workshop proposal Dear Sir Please find enclosed a workshop proposal on 'Fulfilling the mandate of IGF' on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. We will soon submit additional information, as mentioned in the proposal. We did try online submission, but the system does not look like it is working. A word of acknowledgement will be appreciated. Thanks, and best regards Parminder Jeet Singh Co-coordinator, Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. Workshop Proposal from the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus for IGF, Rio Workshop Title: Fulfilling the mandate of IGF 1. Provide a concise formulation for the proposed workshop theme The Tunis Agenda for the Information Society mandates the IGF to perform the following functions: a) Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet Governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet; b) Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body; c) Interface with appropriate inter-governmental organisations and other institutions on matters under their purview; d) Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, and in this regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific and technical communities; e) Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world; f) Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing and/or future Internet Governance mechanisms, particularly those from developing countries; g) Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations; h) Contribute to capacity-building for Internet Governance in developing countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise; i) Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes; j) Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources; k) Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse of the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users; l) Publish its proceedings. Based on the experience of the Athens conference and the draft program outline for the Rio conference, it could be argued that the IGF is contributing to the realization of some of these objectives. However, other items in the list are more difficult to promote solely through annual conferences comprising main sessions with panels of speakers and an assortment of workshops. Accordingly, it would be useful to have an open, inclusive, positive and constructive dialogue about what additional steps, if any, could be taken on a consensual, multistakeholder basis to help the IGF community achieve the mandate. To that end, the workshop would consider such matters as: A. The thinking behind the formulation of the mandate, which derives from the WGIG Report and the discussions held during Prep-Com 3 of the WSIS Tunis phase; B. Whether some or all of the functions enumerated in the mandate are important, value-adding, activities that are not being performed elsewhere, would benefit the global community, and are uniquely suited to the IGF; C. Operationally practical steps that could be pursued on a consensual, multistakeholder basis by the IGF community in order to perform those functions identified in B, above. 2. Provide the Name of the Organizer(s) of the workshop and their Affiliation to various stakeholder groups. Describe how you will take steps to adhere to the multi-stakeholder principle, including geographical diversity. The Internet Governance Caucus comprises a diverse range of individual and organizational civil society actors who are committed to the promotion of global public interest objectives in Internet governance decision-making. The caucus was created in early 2003 and played a leading role on Internet governance issues for the broad civil society coalition that participated in the WSIS process. Some of its members were early proponents of an IGF and active participants in the WGIG, and in the current IGF Advisory Group. The caucus strongly supported the WGIG's proposal of an IGF, as well as the mandate given to it by the Tunis Agenda. The caucus has many connections to all relevant stakeholder groups. For example, a number of caucus members are employed in the private sector; and many members, and indeed the caucus itself, have had productive collaborative relationships with international organization, government, and business representatives in the course of the WSIS and IGF processes, as well as in other Internet governance-related contexts. The caucus has every intention of organizing a multistakeholder panel of speakers representing all groupings involved in the IGF and diverse range of views on the subject matter. The caucus would warmly welcome the co-sponsorship of any stakeholder entity that would like to participate. 3. Why do you think the proposed theme is important? The theme concerns the purpose and possibilities of the IGF. 4. Describe the workshop's conformity with the Tunis Agenda in terms of substance and the mandate of the IGF. The proposed workshop is about the Tunis Agenda's mandate for the IGF. 5. Provide the Name and Affiliation of the panelists you are planning to invite. We are soliciting panelists, and a list will be submitted in the next 2-3 weeks. The panel would comprise known representatives from the international organization, government, business, technical and administrative, and civil society communities who are well informed about the mandate, have a diversity of perspectives on the issues, and can engage in a constructive and collegial dialogue. 6. Describe the main actors in the field. Have you approached them and asked whether they would be willing to participate in proposed workshop? See # 5, above. 7. List similar events you have organized in the past. Caucus members have organized many related panel discussions during the WSIS process (including workshops on the nature and mandate of the then proposed IGF), at the Athens conference, and elsewhere, and are involved in various proposals for the Rio conference as well. ________________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jul 5 07:20:29 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 16:50:29 +0530 Subject: [governance] workshop on critical internet resources Message-ID: <20070705112035.4AB7BA6C1A@smtp2.electricembers.net> We are also seeking co-sponsorship / participation in the proposed workshop on 'governance of critical internet resources - exploring commons and public interest framework'. As said earlier it is already co-sponsored by APC, and RITS apart from IT for Change. We especially welcome private sector and Internet community participation. Can any IGC member put me in contact with/ or direct me to the appropriate person in ICANN for this. Is ALAC and/or NCUC willing to co-sponsor. Anyone from the private sector... Thanks Parminder IGF Workshop Proposal Governance of Critical Internet Resources - Exploring Commons and Public Interest Based Frameworks 1. Provide a concise formulation for the proposed workshop theme. Issues and mechanisms of public policy regarding critical Internet resources was a key concern at the WSIS, and remains an issue that is still a work-in-progress. Part of the reason may be that the various parties involved in this matter have remained most focused on who, rather than what. This issue remains dominated by concerns of whether private governance systems are better; or governments should have a greater role; or an international organization should step in; or whether the multi-stakeholder principle is appropriate, and to what extent, and in what manner, it can be applied in an area of substantive policy decisions. It may be better to approach the problem from a different direction, focusing on what should drive and inform public policy regarding critical Internet resources rather than who. This will entail an examination of the normative principles which determines and/or should determine the governance of critical Internet resources. Stability and security are the more obvious issues here; development of the Internet may be an issue that requires greater elaboration, and may involve policy trade-offs; and, beyond these, there are many other issues of public interest that need to elaborated and articulated in the context of IG . The proposed workshop will seek to explore the normative basis of present systems of governance of critical Internet resources, and also alternative normative bases or frameworks - like ones based on the 'commons' principle, public interest principle, 'public nature' or 'public-ness' of the Internet principle, and such. Obviously, such an exploration will also go into examining what constitutes public interest in Internet Governance (IG), and which publics are involved here. 2. Why do you think the proposed theme is important? Exploring the normative basis of governance of resources critical to what has become perhaps the most important social, economic and political infrastructure of the world - the Internet - is obviously important. Taking up such an exercise in a public forum, with full and open participation for all, will help in the use and development of the Internet in the best public interest. 3. Describe the workshop's conformity with the Tunis Agenda in terms of substance and the mandate of the IGF. Tunis Agenda in paragraph 72 outlining the role and mandate of the IGF, in part (j) mentions its role to 'discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources'. Tunis Agenda also speaks of the need for developing public policy principles with regard to governance of critical Internet resources. ________________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ca at rits.org.br Thu Jul 5 09:04:47 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2007 10:04:47 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGF workshop proposal In-Reply-To: <20070705110742.A77A8E1B53@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20070705110742.A77A8E1B53@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <468CEC6F.2020603@rits.org.br> Hi Parminder, Is there a non-official list of all (or most) workshops proposed so far? frt rgds --c.a. Parminder wrote: > Hi All > > > > > > The IGC's workshop on 'Fulfilling the Mandate of 'IGF' needs your help for > getting > > > > 1. Co-sponsors - especially from the private sector, Internet > community, governments > 2. Right and good speakers > > > > Pl suggest co-sponsors including contacting them on IGC's behalf. We have > little or no constraints on co-sponsorship, so all are welcome. > > > > And also speakers. I expect that in case of speakers - where we constrained > in terms of a final list of 4-5 - we will need to be mindful in our > suggestions as to the possibility of the majority of the list approving our > choices. We should aim at getting a good range of views during the workshop. > I don't think we shd go for a consensus vote for the speakers list. This may > be left to the co-coordinators to go by what they think is the list with > most support. > > > > During the workshop, we may try to keep most of the time for comments from > the floor. Such suggestions about the format etc are also welcome. > > > > 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: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2007 10:51 PM > To: 'IGF' > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] IGF workshop proposal > > > > Dear Sir > > > > Please find enclosed a workshop proposal on 'Fulfilling the mandate of IGF' > on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. We will soon > submit additional information, as mentioned in the proposal. > > > > We did try online submission, but the system does not look like it is > working. > > > > A word of acknowledgement will be appreciated. > > > > Thanks, and best regards > > > > Parminder Jeet Singh > > > > Co-coordinator, > > Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. > > > > > > > > Workshop Proposal from the Civil Society Internet Governance > Caucus for IGF, Rio > > > > Workshop Title: Fulfilling the mandate of IGF > > 1. Provide a concise formulation for the proposed workshop theme > > > > The Tunis Agenda for the Information Society mandates the IGF to perform the > following functions: > > > > a) Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet > > Governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, > stability and development of the Internet; > > b) Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different > > cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and > discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body; > > c) Interface with appropriate inter-governmental organisations and other > > institutions on matters under their purview; > > d) Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, and in this > > regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific and > technical communities; > > e) Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the > > availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world; > > f) Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing > > and/or future Internet Governance mechanisms, particularly those from > developing countries; > > g) Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant > > bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations; > > h) Contribute to capacity-building for Internet Governance in developing > > countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise; > > i) Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS > > principles in Internet Governance processes; > > j) Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources; > > k) Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse > > of the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users; > > l) Publish its proceedings. > > > > Based on the experience of the Athens conference and the draft program > outline for the Rio conference, it could be argued that the IGF is > contributing to the realization of some of these objectives. However, other > items in the list are more difficult to promote solely through annual > conferences comprising main sessions with panels of speakers and an > assortment of workshops. Accordingly, it would be useful to have an open, > inclusive, positive and constructive dialogue about what additional steps, > if any, could be taken on a consensual, multistakeholder basis to help the > IGF community achieve the mandate. To that end, the workshop would consider > such matters as: > > > > A. The thinking behind the formulation of the mandate, which derives from > the WGIG Report and the discussions held during Prep-Com 3 of the WSIS Tunis > phase; > > > > B. Whether some or all of the functions enumerated in the mandate are > important, value-adding, activities that are not being performed elsewhere, > would benefit the global community, and are uniquely suited to the IGF; > > > > C. Operationally practical steps that could be pursued on a consensual, > multistakeholder basis by the IGF community in order to perform those > functions identified in B, above. > > > > > > 2. Provide the Name of the Organizer(s) of the workshop and their > Affiliation to various stakeholder groups. Describe how you will take steps > to adhere to the multi-stakeholder principle, including geographical > diversity. > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus comprises a diverse range of individual and > organizational civil society actors who are committed to the promotion of > global public interest objectives in Internet governance decision-making. > > The caucus was created in early 2003 and played a leading role on Internet > governance issues for the broad civil society coalition that participated in > the WSIS process. Some of its members were early proponents of an IGF and > active participants in the WGIG, and in the current IGF Advisory Group. The > caucus strongly supported the WGIG's proposal of an IGF, as well as the > mandate given to it by the Tunis Agenda. > > > > The caucus has many connections to all relevant stakeholder groups. For > example, a number of caucus members are employed in the private sector; and > many members, and indeed the caucus itself, have had productive > collaborative relationships with international organization, government, and > business representatives in the course of the WSIS and IGF processes, as > well as in other Internet governance-related contexts. > > > > The caucus has every intention of organizing a multistakeholder panel of > speakers representing all groupings involved in the IGF and diverse range of > views on the subject matter. > > > > The caucus would warmly welcome the co-sponsorship of any stakeholder entity > that would like to participate. > > > > > > 3. Why do you think the proposed theme is important? > > > > The theme concerns the purpose and possibilities of the IGF. > > > > > > 4. Describe the workshop's conformity with the Tunis Agenda in terms of > substance and the mandate of the IGF. > > > > The proposed workshop is about the Tunis Agenda's mandate for the IGF. > > > > > > 5. Provide the Name and Affiliation of the panelists you are planning to > invite. > > > > We are soliciting panelists, and a list will be submitted in the next 2-3 > weeks. The panel would comprise known representatives from the > international organization, government, business, technical and > administrative, and civil society communities who are well informed about > the mandate, have a diversity of perspectives on the issues, and can engage > in a constructive and collegial dialogue. > > > > > > 6. Describe the main actors in the field. Have you approached them and asked > whether they would be willing to participate in proposed workshop? > > > > See # 5, above. > > > > > > 7. List similar events you have organized in the past. > > > > Caucus members have organized many related panel discussions during the WSIS > process (including workshops on the nature and mandate of the then proposed > IGF), at the Athens conference, and elsewhere, and are involved in various > proposals for the Rio conference as well. > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.14/885 - Release Date: 3/7/2007 10:02 -- Carlos A. Afonso Rio Brasil *************************************************************** Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações: www.sacix.org.br www.rits.org.br www.coletivodigital.org.br *************************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Jul 5 15:18:56 2007 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 05:18:56 +1000 Subject: [governance] workshop on critical internet resources In-Reply-To: <20070705112035.4AB7BA6C1A@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <030e01c7bf39$5d046a40$9300a8c0@IAN> Parminder, I would be happy for Internet Mark 2 Project to be listed as a co-sponsor, or alternatively Ian Peter and Associates – In my life as a management consultant, I find that, in a corporate setting, that just talking to management will never get a good result – because specifically affected stakeholders need to be consulted. I apply the same to internet governance – just talking to countries cannot get the results which are needed. How do we do this effectively in an Internet setting? All the best, Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info _____ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: 05 July 2007 21:20 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] workshop on critical internet resources We are also seeking co-sponsorship / participation in the proposed workshop on ‘governance of critical internet resources – exploring commons and public interest framework’. As said earlier it is already co-sponsored by APC, and RITS apart from IT for Change. We especially welcome private sector and Internet community participation. Can any IGC member put me in contact with/ or direct me to the appropriate person in ICANN for this… Is ALAC and/or NCUC willing to co-sponsor. Anyone from the private sector….. Thanks Parminder IGF Workshop Proposal Governance of Critical Internet Resources - Exploring Commons and Public Interest Based Frameworks 1. Provide a concise formulation for the proposed workshop theme. Issues and mechanisms of public policy regarding critical Internet resources was a key concern at the WSIS, and remains an issue that is still a work-in-progress. Part of the reason may be that the various parties involved in this matter have remained most focused on who, rather than what. This issue remains dominated by concerns of whether private governance systems are better; or governments should have a greater role; or an international organization should step in; or whether the multi-stakeholder principle is appropriate, and to what extent, and in what manner, it can be applied in an area of substantive policy decisions. It may be better to approach the problem from a different direction, focusing on what should drive and inform public policy regarding critical Internet resources rather than who. This will entail an examination of the normative principles which determines and/or should determine the governance of critical Internet resources. Stability and security are the more obvious issues here; development of the Internet may be an issue that requires greater elaboration, and may involve policy trade-offs; and, beyond these, there are many other issues of public interest that need to elaborated and articulated in the context of IG . The proposed workshop will seek to explore the normative basis of present systems of governance of critical Internet resources, and also alternative normative bases or frameworks - like ones based on the 'commons' principle, public interest principle, 'public nature' or 'public-ness' of the Internet principle, and such. Obviously, such an exploration will also go into examining what constitutes public interest in Internet Governance (IG), and which publics are involved here. 2. Why do you think the proposed theme is important? Exploring the normative basis of governance of resources critical to what has become perhaps the most important social, economic and political infrastructure of the world - the Internet - is obviously important. Taking up such an exercise in a public forum, with full and open participation for all, will help in the use and development of the Internet in the best public interest. 3. Describe the workshop's conformity with the Tunis Agenda in terms of substance and the mandate of the IGF. Tunis Agenda in paragraph 72 outlining the role and mandate of the IGF, in part (j) mentions its role to 'discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources'. Tunis Agenda also speaks of the need for developing public policy principles with regard to governance of critical Internet resources. ________________________________________________ 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 HYPERLINK "http://www.itforchange.net/"www.ITforChange.net Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.8/869 - Release Date: 25/06/2007 17:32 Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.8/869 - Release Date: 25/06/2007 17:32 -------------- 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 Thu Jul 5 15:32:59 2007 From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 15:32:59 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF workshop proposal In-Reply-To: <468CEC6F.2020603@rits.org.br> References: <20070705110742.A77A8E1B53@smtp3.electricembers.net> <468CEC6F.2020603@rits.org.br> Message-ID: ca. Karen's posted a few of the proposals on the wiki @ https://secure.privaterra.org/igcaucus/ regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 On 5-Jul-07, at 9:04 AM, Carlos Afonso wrote: > Hi Parminder, > > Is there a non-official list of all (or most) workshops proposed so > far? > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > Parminder wrote: >> Hi All >> The IGC's workshop on 'Fulfilling the Mandate of 'IGF' needs >> your help for >> getting >> 1. Co-sponsors - especially from the private sector, Internet >> community, governments 2. Right and good speakers Pl suggest co- >> sponsors including contacting them on IGC's behalf. We have >> little or no constraints on co-sponsorship, so all are welcome. >> And also speakers. I expect that in case of speakers - where we >> constrained >> in terms of a final list of 4-5 - we will need to be mindful in our >> suggestions as to the possibility of the majority of the list >> approving our >> choices. We should aim at getting a good range of views during the >> workshop. >> I don't think we shd go for a consensus vote for the speakers >> list. This may >> be left to the co-coordinators to go by what they think is the >> list with >> most support. During the workshop, we may try to keep most of the >> time for comments from >> the floor. Such suggestions about the format etc are also >> welcome. 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: >> Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Saturday, June >> 30, 2007 10:51 PM >> To: 'IGF' >> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: [governance] IGF workshop proposal >> Dear Sir >> Please find enclosed a workshop proposal on 'Fulfilling the >> mandate of IGF' >> on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. We will >> soon >> submit additional information, as mentioned in the proposal. We >> did try online submission, but the system does not look like it is >> working. A word of acknowledgement will be appreciated. >> Thanks, and best regards >> Parminder Jeet Singh >> Co-coordinator, Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. >> Workshop Proposal from the Civil Society Internet >> Governance >> Caucus for IGF, Rio >> Workshop Title: Fulfilling the mandate of IGF >> 1. Provide a concise formulation for the proposed workshop theme >> The Tunis Agenda for the Information Society mandates the IGF to >> perform the >> following functions: >> a) Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of >> Internet >> Governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, >> security, >> stability and development of the Internet; >> b) Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different >> cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet >> and >> discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing >> body; >> c) Interface with appropriate inter-governmental organisations >> and other >> institutions on matters under their purview; d) Facilitate the >> exchange of information and best practices, and in this >> regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific and >> technical communities; >> e) Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to >> accelerate the >> availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing >> world; >> f) Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in >> existing >> and/or future Internet Governance mechanisms, particularly those from >> developing countries; >> g) Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the >> relevant >> bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make >> recommendations; >> h) Contribute to capacity-building for Internet Governance in >> developing >> countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise; >> i) Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS >> principles in Internet Governance processes; >> j) Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet >> resources; >> k) Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use >> and misuse >> of the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users; >> l) Publish its proceedings. >> Based on the experience of the Athens conference and the draft >> program >> outline for the Rio conference, it could be argued that the IGF is >> contributing to the realization of some of these objectives. >> However, other >> items in the list are more difficult to promote solely through annual >> conferences comprising main sessions with panels of speakers and an >> assortment of workshops. Accordingly, it would be useful to have >> an open, >> inclusive, positive and constructive dialogue about what >> additional steps, >> if any, could be taken on a consensual, multistakeholder basis to >> help the >> IGF community achieve the mandate. To that end, the workshop >> would consider >> such matters as: >> A. The thinking behind the formulation of the mandate, which >> derives from >> the WGIG Report and the discussions held during Prep-Com 3 of the >> WSIS Tunis >> phase; >> B. Whether some or all of the functions enumerated in the mandate >> are >> important, value-adding, activities that are not being performed >> elsewhere, >> would benefit the global community, and are uniquely suited to the >> IGF; >> C. Operationally practical steps that could be pursued on a >> consensual, >> multistakeholder basis by the IGF community in order to perform those >> functions identified in B, above. >> 2. Provide the Name of the Organizer(s) of the workshop and their >> Affiliation to various stakeholder groups. Describe how you will >> take steps >> to adhere to the multi-stakeholder principle, including geographical >> diversity. >> The Internet Governance Caucus comprises a diverse range of >> individual and >> organizational civil society actors who are committed to the >> promotion of >> global public interest objectives in Internet governance decision- >> making. >> The caucus was created in early 2003 and played a leading role on >> Internet >> governance issues for the broad civil society coalition that >> participated in >> the WSIS process. Some of its members were early proponents of an >> IGF and >> active participants in the WGIG, and in the current IGF Advisory >> Group. The >> caucus strongly supported the WGIG's proposal of an IGF, as well >> as the >> mandate given to it by the Tunis Agenda. >> The caucus has many connections to all relevant stakeholder >> groups. For >> example, a number of caucus members are employed in the private >> sector; and >> many members, and indeed the caucus itself, have had productive >> collaborative relationships with international organization, >> government, and >> business representatives in the course of the WSIS and IGF >> processes, as >> well as in other Internet governance-related contexts. >> The caucus has every intention of organizing a multistakeholder >> panel of >> speakers representing all groupings involved in the IGF and >> diverse range of >> views on the subject matter. >> The caucus would warmly welcome the co-sponsorship of any >> stakeholder entity >> that would like to participate. 3. Why do you think the proposed >> theme is important? >> The theme concerns the purpose and possibilities of the IGF. >> 4. Describe the workshop's conformity with the Tunis Agenda in >> terms of >> substance and the mandate of the IGF. >> The proposed workshop is about the Tunis Agenda's mandate for the >> IGF. >> 5. Provide the Name and Affiliation of the panelists you are >> planning to >> invite. >> We are soliciting panelists, and a list will be submitted in the >> next 2-3 >> weeks. The panel would comprise known representatives from the >> international organization, government, business, technical and >> administrative, and civil society communities who are well >> informed about >> the mandate, have a diversity of perspectives on the issues, and >> can engage >> in a constructive and collegial dialogue. >> 6. Describe the main actors in the field. Have you approached >> them and asked >> whether they would be willing to participate in proposed workshop? >> See # 5, above. >> 7. List similar events you have organized in the past. >> Caucus members have organized many related panel discussions >> during the WSIS >> process (including workshops on the nature and mandate of the then >> proposed >> IGF), at the Athens conference, and elsewhere, and are involved in >> various >> proposals for the Rio conference as well. >> ________________________________________________ >> 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 >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> --- >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: >> 269.9.14/885 - Release Date: 3/7/2007 10:02 > > -- > > Carlos A. Afonso > Rio Brasil > *************************************************************** > Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital > com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o > Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações: > www.sacix.org.br www.rits.org.br www.coletivodigital.org.br > *************************************************************** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Thu Jul 5 16:28:05 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2007 17:28:05 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGF workshop proposal In-Reply-To: References: <20070705110742.A77A8E1B53@smtp3.electricembers.net> <468CEC6F.2020603@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <468D5455.3000303@rits.org.br> Thanks, Robert. [] fraterno --c.a. Robert Guerra wrote: > ca. Karen's posted a few of the proposals on the wiki @ > > https://secure.privaterra.org/igcaucus/ > > > regards, > > Robert > --- > Robert Guerra > Managing Director, Privaterra > Tel +1 416 893 0377 > > > > On 5-Jul-07, at 9:04 AM, Carlos Afonso wrote: > >> Hi Parminder, >> >> Is there a non-official list of all (or most) workshops proposed so far? >> >> frt rgds >> >> --c.a. >> >> Parminder wrote: >>> Hi All >>> The IGC's workshop on 'Fulfilling the Mandate of 'IGF' needs your >>> help for >>> getting >>> 1. Co-sponsors - especially from the private sector, Internet >>> community, governments 2. Right and good speakers Pl suggest >>> co-sponsors including contacting them on IGC's behalf. We have >>> little or no constraints on co-sponsorship, so all are welcome. And >>> also speakers. I expect that in case of speakers - where we constrained >>> in terms of a final list of 4-5 - we will need to be mindful in our >>> suggestions as to the possibility of the majority of the list >>> approving our >>> choices. We should aim at getting a good range of views during the >>> workshop. >>> I don't think we shd go for a consensus vote for the speakers list. >>> This may >>> be left to the co-coordinators to go by what they think is the list with >>> most support. During the workshop, we may try to keep most of the >>> time for comments from >>> the floor. Such suggestions about the format etc are also welcome. >>> 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: >>> Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Saturday, June 30, >>> 2007 10:51 PM >>> To: 'IGF' >>> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Subject: [governance] IGF workshop proposal >>> Dear Sir >>> Please find enclosed a workshop proposal on 'Fulfilling the mandate >>> of IGF' >>> on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. We will soon >>> submit additional information, as mentioned in the proposal. We did >>> try online submission, but the system does not look like it is >>> working. A word of acknowledgement will be appreciated. >>> Thanks, and best regards >>> Parminder Jeet Singh >>> Co-coordinator, Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. >>> Workshop Proposal from the Civil Society Internet >>> Governance >>> Caucus for IGF, Rio >>> Workshop Title: Fulfilling the mandate of IGF >>> 1. Provide a concise formulation for the proposed workshop theme >>> The Tunis Agenda for the Information Society mandates the IGF to >>> perform the >>> following functions: >>> a) Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet >>> Governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, >>> stability and development of the Internet; >>> b) Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different >>> cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and >>> discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body; >>> c) Interface with appropriate inter-governmental organisations and >>> other >>> institutions on matters under their purview; d) Facilitate the >>> exchange of information and best practices, and in this >>> regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific and >>> technical communities; >>> e) Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to >>> accelerate the >>> availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world; >>> f) Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing >>> and/or future Internet Governance mechanisms, particularly those from >>> developing countries; >>> g) Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the >>> relevant >>> bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make >>> recommendations; >>> h) Contribute to capacity-building for Internet Governance in >>> developing >>> countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise; >>> i) Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS >>> principles in Internet Governance processes; >>> j) Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet >>> resources; >>> k) Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and >>> misuse >>> of the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users; >>> l) Publish its proceedings. >>> Based on the experience of the Athens conference and the draft program >>> outline for the Rio conference, it could be argued that the IGF is >>> contributing to the realization of some of these objectives. >>> However, other >>> items in the list are more difficult to promote solely through annual >>> conferences comprising main sessions with panels of speakers and an >>> assortment of workshops. Accordingly, it would be useful to have an >>> open, >>> inclusive, positive and constructive dialogue about what additional >>> steps, >>> if any, could be taken on a consensual, multistakeholder basis to >>> help the >>> IGF community achieve the mandate. To that end, the workshop would >>> consider >>> such matters as: >>> A. The thinking behind the formulation of the mandate, which derives >>> from >>> the WGIG Report and the discussions held during Prep-Com 3 of the >>> WSIS Tunis >>> phase; >>> B. Whether some or all of the functions enumerated in the mandate are >>> important, value-adding, activities that are not being performed >>> elsewhere, >>> would benefit the global community, and are uniquely suited to the IGF; >>> C. Operationally practical steps that could be pursued on a consensual, >>> multistakeholder basis by the IGF community in order to perform those >>> functions identified in B, above. >>> 2. Provide the Name of the Organizer(s) of the workshop and their >>> Affiliation to various stakeholder groups. Describe how you will take >>> steps >>> to adhere to the multi-stakeholder principle, including geographical >>> diversity. >>> The Internet Governance Caucus comprises a diverse range of >>> individual and >>> organizational civil society actors who are committed to the >>> promotion of >>> global public interest objectives in Internet governance >>> decision-making. >>> The caucus was created in early 2003 and played a leading role on >>> Internet >>> governance issues for the broad civil society coalition that >>> participated in >>> the WSIS process. Some of its members were early proponents of an >>> IGF and >>> active participants in the WGIG, and in the current IGF Advisory >>> Group. The >>> caucus strongly supported the WGIG's proposal of an IGF, as well as the >>> mandate given to it by the Tunis Agenda. >>> The caucus has many connections to all relevant stakeholder groups. For >>> example, a number of caucus members are employed in the private >>> sector; and >>> many members, and indeed the caucus itself, have had productive >>> collaborative relationships with international organization, >>> government, and >>> business representatives in the course of the WSIS and IGF processes, as >>> well as in other Internet governance-related contexts. >>> The caucus has every intention of organizing a multistakeholder >>> panel of >>> speakers representing all groupings involved in the IGF and diverse >>> range of >>> views on the subject matter. >>> The caucus would warmly welcome the co-sponsorship of any >>> stakeholder entity >>> that would like to participate. 3. Why do you think the proposed >>> theme is important? >>> The theme concerns the purpose and possibilities of the IGF. >>> 4. Describe the workshop's conformity with the Tunis Agenda in >>> terms of >>> substance and the mandate of the IGF. >>> The proposed workshop is about the Tunis Agenda's mandate for the IGF. >>> 5. Provide the Name and Affiliation of the panelists you are >>> planning to >>> invite. >>> We are soliciting panelists, and a list will be submitted in the >>> next 2-3 >>> weeks. The panel would comprise known representatives from the >>> international organization, government, business, technical and >>> administrative, and civil society communities who are well informed >>> about >>> the mandate, have a diversity of perspectives on the issues, and can >>> engage >>> in a constructive and collegial dialogue. >>> 6. Describe the main actors in the field. Have you approached them >>> and asked >>> whether they would be willing to participate in proposed workshop? >>> See # 5, above. >>> 7. List similar events you have organized in the past. >>> Caucus members have organized many related panel discussions during >>> the WSIS >>> process (including workshops on the nature and mandate of the then >>> proposed >>> IGF), at the Athens conference, and elsewhere, and are involved in >>> various >>> proposals for the Rio conference as well. >>> ________________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> No virus found in this incoming message. >>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: >>> 269.9.14/885 - Release Date: 3/7/2007 10:02 >> >> -- >> >> Carlos A. Afonso >> Rio Brasil >> *************************************************************** >> Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital >> com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o >> Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações: >> www.sacix.org.br www.rits.org.br www.coletivodigital.org.br >> *************************************************************** >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > -- Carlos A. Afonso Rio Brasil *************************************************************** Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações: www.sacix.org.br www.rits.org.br www.coletivodigital.org.br *************************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Jul 5 17:01:45 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 00:01:45 +0300 Subject: [governance] workshop on critical internet resources In-Reply-To: <030e01c7bf39$5d046a40$9300a8c0@IAN> References: <20070705112035.4AB7BA6C1A@smtp2.electricembers.net> <030e01c7bf39$5d046a40$9300a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: On 7/5/07, Ian Peter wrote: > I apply the same to internet governance – just talking to countries > cannot get the results which are needed. How do we do this effectively in an > Internet setting? > If I want to see elephants, I go on safari. If you want to talk to the people making policy on critical resources, you go to their meetings (or join their lists). -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jul 6 05:04:33 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 14:34:33 +0530 Subject: [governance] workshop on critical internet resources In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070706090439.7AC4F67CA6@smtp1.electricembers.net> > If you want to talk to the people making policy on critical resources, you go to their meetings (or join their lists). Can I instead just request the people who spend a lot of time on these lists/ meetings.... to seek participation from these groups in IGC's workshop :-) 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: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 2:32 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Cc: Parminder Subject: Re: [governance] workshop on critical internet resources On 7/5/07, Ian Peter wrote: I apply the same to internet governance - just talking to countries cannot get the results which are needed. How do we do this effectively in an Internet setting? If I want to see elephants, I go on safari. If you want to talk to the people making policy on critical resources, you go to their meetings (or join their lists). -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From avri at acm.org Fri Jul 6 10:54:17 2007 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 10:54:17 -0400 Subject: [governance] Update on IGF Workshops Message-ID: <9A78A363-3B6E-4816-995A-3A829B5E3EB0@acm.org> Hi, 60 workshops proposals have been submitted. They can be found at: http://info.intgovforum.org/wsl2.php They have been grouped into 7 categories: the 5 thematic areas, the cross cutting issue of development and capacity building, and other. This is more then available space and time will allow for. There is an opportunity for cooperation and merging before any decisions need to be made on which workshops get scheduled. As was stated in the call: “organizers of workshops are, therefore, expected to work with others who submit proposals on the same theme. A willingness to merge proposals is a requirement.” So, now is the time. Those who are able/willing to merge are asked to notify the secretariat by 22 July. Decision on scheduling will be made after 31 July. This is the deadline for proposals for Open Forums, Best Practice Forums and Dynamic Coalitions. Depending on the number of requests for these sessions, there may be a reallocation of scheduling slot to allow for more workshops, but I expect that there will also be many proposal for these other sessions, so I don't expect any major shift in slot availability. I also understand that problems with submission are being worked on, and all those who proposed workshops will be able to access the area for editing in time. a. (Sent with hat of periodic consultant to IGF secretariat on, though not currently under contract.)____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Fri Jul 6 14:04:48 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 20:04:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID Message-ID: <200707061804.l66I4AwC007400@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, As some of you might know, the UN ECOSOC opened its annual substantive session earlier this week. Issues related to the follow up and implementation of WSIS will be discussed and addressed by ECOSOC later this month (according to the provisional timetable of the ECOSOC session, WSIS follow up might be tabled on 23rd and on 25th July). In general, the documents addressing WSIS follow up to be considered by ECOSOC will be: - The SG report on “integrated and coordinated implementation of the outcomes of and follow up to major UN conferences and summit” (E/2007/76, here attached, to be discussed on 23 July; it contains a series of paragraphs in relation to WSIS); See below for some extracts on the various post WSIS processes. - The final report of the 10th session of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (21-25 May 2007), including the two WSIS related decisions of the CSTD (on the flow of information for WSIS follow up, and on multi-year programme of work): see E/2007/31, hereby attached as well, to be discussed on 25 July. As far as we understood from diplomats here in Geneva, there might not be any additional negotiation in Geneva. It is expected that the CSDT decision will be confirmed by ECOSOC. We will anyway monitor the on going process and keep you posted – and hopefully engaged. CONGO would be willing to address the ECOSOC on these various issues, under the two segments that might be available in this regard. We will of course need your remarks, suggestions and feedback. General note The SG report recognises that “implementation and follow-up require a broad engagement of non-governmental stakeholders and partners” (§ 12 of E/2007/76). Commission on Science and Technology for Development The SG report seems quite restrictive in defining the involvement of CS actors in the CSTD processes. Contrary to the Tunis Agenda which requested to take into account the multi-stakeholder approach, the SG Report defines quite poorly the CSTD as an intergovernmental process “with contributions from non-governmental stakeholders channelled through the multi-stakeholder Global Alliance for Information and Communication Technologies and Development” (§14 of E/2007/76). CONGO considers that this quotation is not reflecting paragraph 105 of the Tunis Agenda for the IS and ECOSOC Resolution 2006/46: we understand GAID is a multi-stakeholder component in CSTD and ECOSOC, but certainly not the only one, and that NGO contributions should not be channelled / screened before reaching the CSTD / ECOSOC: CONGO is therefore willing to correct that in the ECOSOC Plenary. UNGIS and Action Line Facilitators process The SG Report only provides a factual description of the creation of the UN Group for the Information Society (“Coordination among the United Nations system entities is undertaken by the United Nations Group on the Information Society, created by the Secretary-General in accordance with the request of the Summit”, § 14 of E/2007/76) and of the May 2007 cluster of WSIS action line facilitation meetings. Internet Governance Forum and enhanced cooperation The SG Report states that WSIS “requested the Secretary-General to convene the Internet Governance Forum, a new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, to discuss, inter alia, public policy issues related to Internet governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet. The inaugural meeting, entitled “Internet governance for development”, was held in Athens from 30 October to 2 November 2006, and the second meeting is scheduled to be held in Rio de Janeiro from 12 to 15 November 2007. Consultations are under way to start a process towards enhanced cooperation among all relevant stakeholders with regard to Internet governance, as requested by the Summit” (§ 14 of E/2007/76). Global Alliance for ICT and Development The SG Report includes an annexed two-page description of GAID and a synopsis of its activities. See pages 21-22 of E/2007/76. Please send us your comments and suggestions in this regard. We will come back to you early next week with more details. All the best, Philippe Philippe Dam CONGO - Information Society & Human Rights Coordinator 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: philippe.dam 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: E 2007 76.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 106144 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: E 2007 31.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 145962 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From iza at anr.org Fri Jul 6 20:55:49 2007 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2007 09:55:49 +0900 Subject: [governance] FWD: Thailand Anti-coup leader Sombat Boonngam-anong is detained Message-ID: [Please forward since no Press is going to publish this news] RTG Army initimidating abduction of social activist Sombat Boonngam-anong 6th of July, 19h00 at ChiangRai local time According to three well informed websites, http://www.prachatai.com/05web/th /home/index.php http://www.nocoup.org/autopage/show_page.php?h=22&s_id=11&d_id=8 http://www.chiangraiplus.com/board/index.php?topic=638.0 Anti-coup leader Sombat Boonngam-anong is detained in MengraiMaharat military Camp. Mr Sombat Boonngam-anong also known as Bokolaychud, his pen name as anticoup activist, was upcountry to organise the response for the referendum on the new constitution, which is slated for later this year. It was about 19H00 local time this 6th of July, when 4-5 army men arrested Mr. Sombat during a Hyde Park styled protest at the ChiangRai Bus Terminal. No reason have been issued for the arrest but it is confirmed he is confined in Mengrai Maharat military Camp. For sure the ChiangRai area is still kept under no civil rights but the marshall law. Some of Mr Sombat followers have been protesting some of their basic rights still are effective even after the military coup of late Sept 19. Gen Jiradet, Chief of the 3rd Military Region recognised the arrest of Mr Sombat, but dismissed as a casual invitation for Mr Sombat to tell the Army who enrolled him to speak. As reporters asked why he could not be visited, Gen Jiradet said that Mr Sombat is not arrested We just question him, there is no reason to visit him. Sombat Boonngam-anong, director of the Chiang Rai-based Krajok Ngao Foundation is a respected social activist. The intimidation manoeuvre of the Army is a good sign the dictatorship is nervous about it’s perennity. Last June 10th, Sombat Boonngamanong said: It is well known that these days the Information Communications and Technology Ministry spends most of its time blocking websites that express political views not to its liking. We all know what the political climate is, though it's the people who should decide what they ought to believe or not believe. People can think for themselves! As to http://www.melonfarmers.com/in.htm Helaas, it is not the first time the Army is abusing activists, - On May 19, Mr Noparuch Worachitwutikul, an anticoup leader and five other people have been abducted to Kavila military camp in ChiangMai. - On Sunday June 17, 2007, 6 Chiang Mai innocent people who were arrested for putting on the T-Shirt saying The Northern People Love Democracy Group and gaving out the leaflets to lift Chiang Mai Province from the Marshall Law and going back to use the 1997 Constitution. The abused group included a 10 year old girl whose name is Bai-Fern Watayajinda, a Chiang Mai Christian Girl School. They all now are kept in the Kawila Military Base in Chiang Mai, Thailand. Among 6 of them, beside Bai-Fern, are Manop the Lampoon Farmer Representative, Nattawut Construction Company Rep., Dr. Chaison, Miss Rakchanok the lawyer, and Mr. Pisit a businessman. We express our concern and warn the foreign press and Embassy our country is under marshall law, it means no law anymore for the population, but are you ready to have the tourists resort manned by army potential abducters. Warn your tourists to exchange their currency for sand sun sea and sex but to keep their mouth and ears shut as in ill fated Burma. ---------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sun Jul 8 10:41:53 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 07:41:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] ITU Strategy and Policy Unit - Civil Society Participation in ITU In-Reply-To: sympa.1181749186.66686.676@lists.cpsr.org Message-ID: Update: [Chairman’s Report of the First Meeting, of meeting June 15] ITU Strategy and Policy Unit - Civil Society Participation in ITU [ITU] COUNCIL WORKING GROUP ON THE RESOLUTION 141 (WG-STUDY) Council Working Group on the Study of the Participation of all Relevant Stakeholders in the Activities of the Union Related to WSIS (WG-Study) Background: Meeting held on 15 June 2007 First meeting: Draft summary of conclusions (WG-Study/1/07) Report issued - Date: 15 June 2007 http://www.itu.int/council/groups/stakeholders/Meeting-Documents/June/WG-Study- 1-07_Conclusions.doc *NEW* Chairman’s Report of the First Meeting (WG-Study/1/08) Report Issued - Date: 4 July 2007 http://www.itu.int/council/groups/stakeholders/Meeting-Documents/June/1-08_2070 7.doc In case of any questions please send an e-mail to ITU-Stakeholders[at]itu.int - Source: http://www.itu.int/council/groups/stakeholders/index.html Meeting Documents First meeting: Draft summary of conclusions (WG-Study/1/07) Chairman’s Report of the First Meeting (WG-Study/1/08) -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Sun Jul 8 10:48:30 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 07:48:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Update - ITU Strategy and Policy Unit - Civil Society Participation in ITU Message-ID: Update: [Chairman�s Report of the First Meeting, of meeting June 15] ITU Strategy and Policy Unit - Civil Society Participation in ITU [ITU] COUNCIL WORKING GROUP ON THE RESOLUTION 141 (WG-STUDY) Council Working Group on the Study of the Participation of all Relevant Stakeholders in the Activities of the Union Related to WSIS (WG-Study) Background: Meeting held on 15 June 2007 First meeting: Draft summary of conclusions (WG-Study/1/07) Report issued - Date: 15 June 2007 http://www.itu.int/council/groups/stakeholders/Meeting-Documents/June/WG-Study- 1-07_Conclusions.doc *NEW* Chairman�s Report of the First Meeting (WG-Study/1/08) Report Issued - Date: 4 July 2007 http://www.itu.int/council/groups/stakeholders/Meeting-Documents/June/1-08_2070 7.doc In case of any questions please send an e-mail to ITU-Stakeholders[at]itu.int - Source: http://www.itu.int/council/groups/stakeholders/index.html Meeting Documents First meeting: Draft summary of conclusions (WG-Study/1/07) Chairman�s Report of the First Meeting (WG-Study/1/08) -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sun Jul 8 16:22:29 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 13:22:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Belgian Court Ruling - True Cost to Who? Message-ID: Belgian ISP Held Responsible for File Sharing Belgian court has ruled that an ISP is responsible for blocking illegal file sharing on its network, could set precedent. James Niccolai, IDG News Service Thursday, July 05, 2007 5:00 AM PDT Re: http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,134159-c,internetlegalissues/article.html A court has ruled that the Belgian ISP Scarlet Extended SA is responsible for blocking illegal file-sharing on its network, setting a precedent that could affect other ISPs in Europe, according to a recording industry group. Belgium's Court of First Instance has given the Internet service provider six months to install technology to prevent its customers from sharing pirated music and video files, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry said. If it fails to do so it will be fined ,2,500 (US$3,400) per day, according to the ruling, published June 29. The music industry has long sought to hold ISPs responsible for illegal file-sharing on their networks, although in the U.S. it has been largely unsuccessful. ISPs have argued that they provide a service like a post office or a telephone company, and shouldn't be required to police the traffic on their networks. The Brussels ruling is based on Belgium's interpretation of the European Union's Information Society Directive, often called the E.U. copyright directive, and as such could set a precedent for other cases in Europe, the IFPI said. "The court has confirmed that the ISPs have both a legal responsibility and the technical means to tackle piracy. This is a decision that we hope will set the mold for government policy and for courts in other countries in Europe and around the world," IFPI Chairman and CEO John Kennedy said in a statement. The case stems from a lawsuit filed against the ISP Tiscali SA by the Belgian Society of Authors, Composers and Publishers, known as SABAM. Tiscali later sold its Belgian operation to Scarlet Belgie Holding NV, and the former Tiscali business became Scarlet Extended. The ruling appears to apply only to the Belgian service and not to Tiscali. Neither company could immediately be reached for comment, and it was unclear if Scarlet planned to appeal the ruling. SABAM said it won a preliminary judgment in the case 2004, and the Belgian court assigned an expert to study the technical options ISPs can use to prevent illegal file sharing. It came up with seven, including a system from Audible Magic that creates a "digital fingerprint" for each copyright work and blocks their delivery over networks. - My question is: At what point (when & where) is the differance between 'Carrier' and 'ISP', will AT&T, BT, and all ... receive proportional judgments under this ruling, or are they effectivly exempt. If left exempt, then we could quite possibly see the end of the small ISP, and only be left with AT&T/Yahoo, COMCAST, etc. Because the Small ISP can not afford the burden of defensive litigation cost, In other words they will be buried. Its a small-overhead cost for AT&T BT etc.. - Re: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/05/belgium_p2p_isp/ ... ISPs once balked at the implications of policing their networks, and sought to extend the "common carrier" defence developed for the first circuit-switched telephone networks. However, the argument was not recognized outside the United States, and could not be made when the carrier knew of the offence. In 2005 the FCC formally excused phone and cable companies from the common carrier obligations. In addition, ISPs argued that the obligations were onerous and intrusive. Modern techniques such as deep packet inspection, and content filtering also make such claims hard to justify. Audio filtering can identify a song accurately from a small number of short samples, for example. In other words, identifying potentially infringing material is now easy and cheap. Seeing the tide turning, a fortnight ago AT&T agreed to start monitoring its network for copyright infringement. The group that represents the international recording business, the IPFI, has hailed the decision as a landmark. ... -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jul 9 04:39:22 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 14:09:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID In-Reply-To: <200707061804.l66I4AwC007400@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Message-ID: <20070709083930.0D2E1E04BA@smtp3.electricembers.net> Thanks a lot Philippe, for keeping us updated, and making this extremely useful summary of important issues in the SG’s report. >The SG report seems quite restrictive in defining the involvement of CS actors in the CSTD processes. Contrary to the Tunis Agenda which requested to take into >account the multi-stakeholder approach, the SG Report defines quite poorly the CSTD as an intergovernmental process “with contributions from non-governmental >stakeholders channelled through the multi-stakeholder Global Alliance for Information and Communication Technologies and Development” (§14 of E/2007/76). >CONGO considers that this quotation is not reflecting paragraph 105 of the Tunis Agenda for the IS and ECOSOC Resolution 2006/46: we understand GAID is a >multi-stakeholder component in CSTD and ECOSOC, but certainly not the only one, and that NGO contributions should not be channelled / screened before >reaching the CSTD / ECOSOC: CONGO is therefore willing to correct that in the ECOSOC Plenary. . I think this is the most serious part which requires urgent attention from civil society. We were at Geneva CSTD meeting, and I don’t remember during any discussions on multistakeholder (MS) participation GAID being mentioned as THE conduit of this participation. Such characterization is dangerous, and civil society must put all its weight behind correcting it . I do not know how the SG report can put in something which was never even brought up, much less agreed to, at the CSTD. Just because GAID had a day of the CSTD proceedings for bringing in diverse views, which no doubt was a useful effort, doesn’t make it THE conduit of MS participation in CSTD. CSTD is the apex co-ordination and follow up body for WSIS, and losing the privilege of direct and complete participation in its working will be a big loss for the CS. First, at the CSTD meeting, as it re-examined its mandate and membership it, in fact, ignored the Tunis mandate of ‘ considering the strengthening of the Commission, taking into account the multi-stakeholder approach’. This would it in a normal meaning of the text mean that some non-governmental membership of CSTD was possible to consider. However, CSTD asserted its fully inter-governmental character, and not many in the CS challenged this, even if only as a formal assertion of ‘acceptance under protest’ kind. While the CSTD’s final resolution at Geneva was very good from a substantial point of view - as having integrated information society (IS) agenda firmly and centrally in its work, as well as (very importantly) putting in place a good reporting mechanism/ interface with all WSIS follow-up and implementing agencies – as well as mentioning MS participation in CSTD, if only with reference to earlier ECOSOC resolutions which are, well, OK, the present document – the SG report – represents a major step back. Moreover, this lacks political authority, because at no point did CSTD discuss GAID as being THE channel of MS participation. It is only one of the channels. And we must assert the legitimacy of our direct participation in CSTD as per existing ECOSOC resolutions reasserted by the CSTD report, and also having made some progress procedurally – on the ground – in Geneva. The CSTD/ SG/ GAID secretariats – whoever put this thing in – cannot do such a thing on their own. Philippe, I think we should put something of the nature of a sign-on campaign protesting this part of the document, and for ecosoc to reassert direct and full MS participation in CSTD as it stands in ECOSOC resolutions. We are fine with GAID being one of the channels, even an important channel, and we ourselves see GAID as playing an important role, and engage with it strongly. However, the present formulation, as per SG’s report, that suggests that GAID is THE channel of CS participation in the CSTD is not acceptable. We should write both the CSTD and to GAID on this to seek clarification, and to present our position. Philippe, I am ready to be an active part of this if you devise a strategy on how to go ahead with this. We will also like to hear the views of the others, but time is short, and therefore I request people to give their comments at the earliest. 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: Friday, July 06, 2007 11:35 PM To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; bureau at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: rbloem at ngocongo.org; 'CONGO - Philippe Dam' Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID Importance: High Dear all, As some of you might know, the UN ECOSOC opened its annual substantive session earlier this week. Issues related to the follow up and implementation of WSIS will be discussed and addressed by ECOSOC later this month (according to the provisional timetable of the ECOSOC session, WSIS follow up might be tabled on 23rd and on 25th July). In general, the documents addressing WSIS follow up to be considered by ECOSOC will be: - The SG report on “integrated and coordinated implementation of the outcomes of and follow up to major UN conferences and summit” (E/2007/76, here attached, to be discussed on 23 July; it contains a series of paragraphs in relation to WSIS); See below for some extracts on the various post WSIS processes. - The final report of the 10th session of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (21-25 May 2007), including the two WSIS related decisions of the CSTD (on the flow of information for WSIS follow up, and on multi-year programme of work): see E/2007/31, hereby attached as well, to be discussed on 25 July. As far as we understood from diplomats here in Geneva, there might not be any additional negotiation in Geneva. It is expected that the CSDT decision will be confirmed by ECOSOC. We will anyway monitor the on going process and keep you posted – and hopefully engaged. CONGO would be willing to address the ECOSOC on these various issues, under the two segments that might be available in this regard. We will of course need your remarks, suggestions and feedback. General note The SG report recognises that “implementation and follow-up require a broad engagement of non-governmental stakeholders and partners” (§ 12 of E/2007/76). Commission on Science and Technology for Development The SG report seems quite restrictive in defining the involvement of CS actors in the CSTD processes. Contrary to the Tunis Agenda which requested to take into account the multi-stakeholder approach, the SG Report defines quite poorly the CSTD as an intergovernmental process “with contributions from non-governmental stakeholders channelled through the multi-stakeholder Global Alliance for Information and Communication Technologies and Development” (§14 of E/2007/76). CONGO considers that this quotation is not reflecting paragraph 105 of the Tunis Agenda for the IS and ECOSOC Resolution 2006/46: we understand GAID is a multi-stakeholder component in CSTD and ECOSOC, but certainly not the only one, and that NGO contributions should not be channelled / screened before reaching the CSTD / ECOSOC: CONGO is therefore willing to correct that in the ECOSOC Plenary. UNGIS and Action Line Facilitators process The SG Report only provides a factual description of the creation of the UN Group for the Information Society (“Coordination among the United Nations system entities is undertaken by the United Nations Group on the Information Society, created by the Secretary-General in accordance with the request of the Summit”, § 14 of E/2007/76) and of the May 2007 cluster of WSIS action line facilitation meetings. Internet Governance Forum and enhanced cooperation The SG Report states that WSIS “requested the Secretary-General to convene the Internet Governance Forum, a new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, to discuss, inter alia, public policy issues related to Internet governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet. The inaugural meeting, entitled “Internet governance for development”, was held in Athens from 30 October to 2 November 2006, and the second meeting is scheduled to be held in Rio de Janeiro from 12 to 15 November 2007. Consultations are under way to start a process towards enhanced cooperation among all relevant stakeholders with regard to Internet governance, as requested by the Summit” (§ 14 of E/2007/76). Global Alliance for ICT and Development The SG Report includes an annexed two-page description of GAID and a synopsis of its activities. See pages 21-22 of E/2007/76. Please send us your comments and suggestions in this regard. We will come back to you early next week with more details. All the best, Philippe Philippe Dam CONGO - Information Society & Human Rights Coordinator 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: philippe.dam 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 parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jul 9 05:20:18 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 14:50:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID In-Reply-To: <200707061804.l66I4AwC007400@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Message-ID: <20070709092023.72557E0495@smtp3.electricembers.net> This is about enhanced cooperation process and the SG’s report to the ECOSOC which will be considered later this month. The report has been forwarded by Philippe with his email below. > Internet Governance Forum and enhanced cooperation >The SG Report states that WSIS “requested the Secretary-General to convene the Internet Governance Forum, a new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, to >discuss, inter alia, public policy issues related to Internet governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the >Internet. The inaugural meeting, entitled “Internet governance for development”, was held in Athens from 30 October to 2 November 2006, and the second meeting is >scheduled to be held in Rio de Janeiro from 12 to 15 November 2007. Consultations are under way to start a process towards enhanced cooperation among all >relevant stakeholders with regard to Internet governance, as requested by the Summit” (§ 14 of E/2007/76). Civil society, and IGC on its behalf and of itself, should obviously make a comment that we are unaware of the consultation process being carried out, and not only we have never been contacted, our official correspondence to the special advisor to SG remains unanswered and un-acknowledged. We should insist that the ‘consultations underway’ should include civil society and this caucus. These consultations should involve CS especially because the documents speaks of ‘towards enhanced cooperation among all >relevant stakeholders with regard to Internet governance’ and obviously any enhanced cooperation cannot involve all stakeholders when its preparatory doesn’t involve all stakeholders. CONGO is ready to include such language on behalf of CS and / or IGC if we can agree on it, in its statement to the ECOSOC when this report is considered with regard to its WSIS parts on 23rd this. It is my personal opinion that something to the effect written by me above is the least that IGC must say at the moment . I will like to hear the views of the other . Are members willing to engage with this issue at all? If so, how? Philippe can take in the views contributed on this list, and if there is a fair consensus these can go on IGC’s behalf. I must remind that the time is short. 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: Friday, July 06, 2007 11:35 PM To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; bureau at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: rbloem at ngocongo.org; 'CONGO - Philippe Dam' Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID Importance: High Dear all, As some of you might know, the UN ECOSOC opened its annual substantive session earlier this week. Issues related to the follow up and implementation of WSIS will be discussed and addressed by ECOSOC later this month (according to the provisional timetable of the ECOSOC session, WSIS follow up might be tabled on 23rd and on 25th July). In general, the documents addressing WSIS follow up to be considered by ECOSOC will be: - The SG report on “integrated and coordinated implementation of the outcomes of and follow up to major UN conferences and summit” (E/2007/76, here attached, to be discussed on 23 July; it contains a series of paragraphs in relation to WSIS); See below for some extracts on the various post WSIS processes. - The final report of the 10th session of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (21-25 May 2007), including the two WSIS related decisions of the CSTD (on the flow of information for WSIS follow up, and on multi-year programme of work): see E/2007/31, hereby attached as well, to be discussed on 25 July. As far as we understood from diplomats here in Geneva, there might not be any additional negotiation in Geneva. It is expected that the CSDT decision will be confirmed by ECOSOC. We will anyway monitor the on going process and keep you posted – and hopefully engaged. CONGO would be willing to address the ECOSOC on these various issues, under the two segments that might be available in this regard. We will of course need your remarks, suggestions and feedback. General note The SG report recognises that “implementation and follow-up require a broad engagement of non-governmental stakeholders and partners” (§ 12 of E/2007/76). Commission on Science and Technology for Development The SG report seems quite restrictive in defining the involvement of CS actors in the CSTD processes. Contrary to the Tunis Agenda which requested to take into account the multi-stakeholder approach, the SG Report defines quite poorly the CSTD as an intergovernmental process “with contributions from non-governmental stakeholders channelled through the multi-stakeholder Global Alliance for Information and Communication Technologies and Development” (§14 of E/2007/76). CONGO considers that this quotation is not reflecting paragraph 105 of the Tunis Agenda for the IS and ECOSOC Resolution 2006/46: we understand GAID is a multi-stakeholder component in CSTD and ECOSOC, but certainly not the only one, and that NGO contributions should not be channelled / screened before reaching the CSTD / ECOSOC: CONGO is therefore willing to correct that in the ECOSOC Plenary. UNGIS and Action Line Facilitators process The SG Report only provides a factual description of the creation of the UN Group for the Information Society (“Coordination among the United Nations system entities is undertaken by the United Nations Group on the Information Society, created by the Secretary-General in accordance with the request of the Summit”, § 14 of E/2007/76) and of the May 2007 cluster of WSIS action line facilitation meetings. Internet Governance Forum and enhanced cooperation The SG Report states that WSIS “requested the Secretary-General to convene the Internet Governance Forum, a new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, to discuss, inter alia, public policy issues related to Internet governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet. The inaugural meeting, entitled “Internet governance for development”, was held in Athens from 30 October to 2 November 2006, and the second meeting is scheduled to be held in Rio de Janeiro from 12 to 15 November 2007. Consultations are under way to start a process towards enhanced cooperation among all relevant stakeholders with regard to Internet governance, as requested by the Summit” (§ 14 of E/2007/76). Global Alliance for ICT and Development The SG Report includes an annexed two-page description of GAID and a synopsis of its activities. See pages 21-22 of E/2007/76. Please send us your comments and suggestions in this regard. We will come back to you early next week with more details. All the best, Philippe Philippe Dam CONGO - Information Society & Human Rights Coordinator 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: philippe.dam 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 drake at hei.unige.ch Mon Jul 9 06:45:42 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 12:45:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID In-Reply-To: <20070709092024.C34E71AD6E5@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: Hi Philippe and Parminder, The concerns you have raised clearly are valid and merit rapid responses. With regard to enhanced cooperation, as Parminder notes, the IG caucus already agreed a letter months ago saying we¹ve been told nothing and would like/expect to be consulted in keeping with the spirit of the TA. There is no need for prolonged debate over whether and how to reiterate already adopted language. Parminder and Vittorio should just draft a few sentences referencing the prior letter and saying these concerns are raised anew by the SG Report and we look forward to a response, and submit it for a quick consensus call under the charter procedure. With regard to broader WSIS F&I, it¹s clear that GAID cannot play a channeling role to CSTD given its institutional arrangements and mandate. Absent any agreed structures for post-WSIS, it¹s not obvious how these concerns could be raised other than via a letter from CONGO as facilitator for ECOSOC-related CS. Best, Bill On 7/9/07 11:20 AM, "Parminder" wrote: > This is about enhanced cooperation process and the SG¹s report to the ECOSOC > which will be considered later this month. The report has been forwarded by > Philippe with his email below.   > >> > Internet Governance Forum and enhanced cooperation >> >The SG Report states that WSIS ³requested the Secretary-General to convene >> the Internet Governance Forum, a new forum for multi-stakeholder policy >> dialogue, to >discuss, inter alia, public policy issues related to Internet >> governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, >> stability and development of the >Internet. The inaugural meeting, entitled >> ³Internet governance for development², was held in Athens from 30 October to >> 2 November 2006, and the second meeting is >scheduled to be held in Rio de >> Janeiro from 12 to 15 November 2007. Consultations are under way to start a >> process towards enhanced cooperation among all >relevant stakeholders with >> regard to Internet governance, as requested by the Summit² (§ 14 of >> E/2007/76). > > Civil society, and IGC on its behalf and of itself, should obviously make a > comment that we are unaware of the consultation process being carried out, and > not only we have never been contacted, our official correspondence to the > special advisor to SG remains unanswered and un-acknowledged. We should insist > that the Œconsultations underway¹ should include civil society and this > caucus. These consultations should involve CS especially because the documents > speaks of Œtowards enhanced cooperation among all >relevant stakeholders with > regard to Internet governance¹ and obviously any enhanced cooperation cannot > involve all stakeholders when its preparatory doesn¹t involve all > stakeholders. > > CONGO is ready to include such language on behalf of CS and / or IGC if we can > agree on it, in its statement to the ECOSOC when this report is considered > with regard to its WSIS parts on 23rd this. > > It is my personal opinion that something to the effect written by me above is > the least that IGC must say at the momentŠ. I will like to hear the views of > the other . > > Are members willing to engage with this issue at all? If so, how? > > Philippe can take in the views contributed on this list, and if there is a > fair consensus these can go on IGC¹s behalf. > > I must remind that the time is short. > > 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: Friday, July 06, 2007 11:35 PM > To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; bureau at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Cc: rbloem at ngocongo.org; 'CONGO - Philippe Dam' > Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: > CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID > Importance: High > > > Dear all, > > As some of you might know, the UN ECOSOC opened its annual substantive session > earlier this week. > Issues related to the follow up and implementation of WSIS will be discussed > and addressed by ECOSOC later this month (according to the provisional > timetable of the ECOSOC session, WSIS follow up might be tabled on 23rd and on > 25th July). > > In general, the documents addressing WSIS follow up to be considered by ECOSOC > will be: > - The SG report on ³integrated and coordinated implementation of the > outcomes of and follow up to major UN conferences and summit² (E/2007/76, here > attached, to be discussed on 23 July; it contains a series of paragraphs in > relation to WSIS); See below for some extracts on the various post WSIS > processes. > - The final report of the 10th session of the Commission on Science and > Technology for Development (21-25 May 2007), including the two WSIS related > decisions of the CSTD (on the flow of information for WSIS follow up, and on > multi-year programme of work): see E/2007/31, hereby attached as well, to be > discussed on 25 July. > > As far as we understood from diplomats here in Geneva, there might not be any > additional negotiation in Geneva. It is expected that the CSDT decision will > be confirmed by ECOSOC. We will anyway monitor the on going process and keep > you posted ­ and hopefully engaged. > > CONGO would be willing to address the ECOSOC on these various issues, under > the two segments that might be available in this regard. We will of course > need your remarks, suggestions and feedback. > > General note > The SG report recognises that ³implementation and follow-up require a broad > engagement of non-governmental stakeholders and partners² (§ 12 of E/2007/76). > > Commission on Science and Technology for Development > The SG report seems quite restrictive in defining the involvement of CS actors > in the CSTD processes. Contrary to the Tunis Agenda which requested to take > into account the multi-stakeholder approach, the SG Report defines quite > poorly the CSTD as an intergovernmental process ³with contributions from > non-governmental stakeholders channelled through the multi-stakeholder Global > Alliance for Information and Communication Technologies and Development² (§14 > of E/2007/76). CONGO considers that this quotation is not reflecting paragraph > 105 of the Tunis Agenda for the IS and ECOSOC Resolution 2006/46: we > understand GAID is a multi-stakeholder component in CSTD and ECOSOC, but > certainly not the only one, and that NGO contributions should not be > channelled / screened before reaching the CSTD / ECOSOC: CONGO is therefore > willing to correct that in the ECOSOC Plenary. > > UNGIS and Action Line Facilitators process > The SG Report only provides a factual description of the creation of the UN > Group for the Information Society (³Coordination among the United Nations > system entities is undertaken by the United Nations Group on the Information > Society, created by the Secretary-General in accordance with the request of > the Summit², § 14 of E/2007/76) and of the May 2007 cluster of WSIS action > line facilitation meetings. > > Internet Governance Forum and enhanced cooperation > The SG Report states that WSIS ³requested the Secretary-General to convene the > Internet Governance Forum, a new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, > to discuss, inter alia, public policy issues related to Internet governance in > order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and > development of the Internet. The inaugural meeting, entitled ³Internet > governance for development², was held in Athens from 30 October to 2 November > 2006, and the second meeting is scheduled to be held in Rio de Janeiro from 12 > to 15 November 2007. Consultations are under way to start a process towards > enhanced cooperation among all relevant stakeholders with regard to Internet > governance, as requested by the Summit² (§ 14 of E/2007/76). > > Global Alliance for ICT and Development > The SG Report includes an annexed two-page description of GAID and a synopsis > of its activities. See pages 21-22 of E/2007/76. > > > > Please send us your comments and suggestions in this regard. We will come back > to you early next week with more details. > All the best, > > Philippe > > Philippe Dam > CONGO - Information Society & > Human Rights Coordinator > 11, Avenue de la Paix > CH-1202 Geneva > Tel: +41 22 301 1000 > Fax: +41 22 301 2000 > E-mail: philippe.dam at ngocongo.org > Website: www.ngocongo.org http://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 http://www.ngocongo.org/> > > > *********************************************************** 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://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.html *********************************************************** -------------- 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 Mon Jul 9 13:10:35 2007 From: mgurst at vcn.bc.ca (Michael Gurstein) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 10:10:35 -0700 Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <066b01c7c24c$5d715540$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> This is certainly a most peculiar development especially in the context where the leadership in the GAID was insistent on its "action" role and that it would not be a "policy" body, as well of course, the GAID lacks structures and resources to accomplish such a mission in any effective manner. As well it might be noted that there has been to my knowledge, no discussion about this within the structure of the GAID itself--certainly nothing beyond the two innermost circles--the Steering Committee and the Strategy Council. Mike Gurstein Member GAID: High Level Panel of Advisors -----Original Message----- From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] Sent: July 9, 2007 3:46 AM To: Plenary; Governance Cc: Bloem, Renate; Dam, Philippe Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID Hi Philippe and Parminder, The concerns you have raised clearly are valid and merit rapid responses. With regard to enhanced cooperation, as Parminder notes, the IG caucus already agreed a letter months ago saying we’ve been told nothing and would like/expect to be consulted in keeping with the spirit of the TA. There is no need for prolonged debate over whether and how to reiterate already adopted language. Parminder and Vittorio should just draft a few sentences referencing the prior letter and saying these concerns are raised anew by the SG Report and we look forward to a response, and submit it for a quick consensus call under the charter procedure. With regard to broader WSIS F&I, it’s clear that GAID cannot play a channeling role to CSTD given its institutional arrangements and mandate. Absent any agreed structures for post-WSIS, it’s not obvious how these concerns could be raised other than via a letter from CONGO as facilitator for ECOSOC-related CS. Best, Bill On 7/9/07 11:20 AM, "Parminder" wrote: This is about enhanced cooperation process and the SG’s report to the ECOSOC which will be considered later this month. The report has been forwarded by Philippe with his email below. > Internet Governance Forum and enhanced cooperation >The SG Report states that WSIS “requested the Secretary-General to convene the Internet Governance Forum, a new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, to >discuss, inter alia, public policy issues related to Internet governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the >Internet. The inaugural meeting, entitled “Internet governance for development”, was held in Athens from 30 October to 2 November 2006, and the second meeting is >scheduled to be held in Rio de Janeiro from 12 to 15 November 2007. Consultations are under way to start a process towards enhanced cooperation among all >relevant stakeholders with regard to Internet governance, as requested by the Summit” (§ 14 of E/2007/76). Civil society, and IGC on its behalf and of itself, should obviously make a comment that we are unaware of the consultation process being carried out, and not only we have never been contacted, our official correspondence to the special advisor to SG remains unanswered and un-acknowledged. We should insist that the ‘consultations underway’ should include civil society and this caucus. These consultations should involve CS especially because the documents speaks of ‘towards enhanced cooperation among all >relevant stakeholders with regard to Internet governance’ and obviously any enhanced cooperation cannot involve all stakeholders when its preparatory doesn’t involve all stakeholders. CONGO is ready to include such language on behalf of CS and / or IGC if we can agree on it, in its statement to the ECOSOC when this report is considered with regard to its WSIS parts on 23rd this. It is my personal opinion that something to the effect written by me above is the least that IGC must say at the moment . I will like to hear the views of the other . Are members willing to engage with this issue at all? If so, how? Philippe can take in the views contributed on this list, and if there is a fair consensus these can go on IGC’s behalf. I must remind that the time is short. 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: Friday, July 06, 2007 11:35 PM To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; bureau at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: rbloem at ngocongo.org; 'CONGO - Philippe Dam' Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID Importance: High Dear all, As some of you might know, the UN ECOSOC opened its annual substantive session earlier this week. Issues related to the follow up and implementation of WSIS will be discussed and addressed by ECOSOC later this month (according to the provisional timetable of the ECOSOC session, WSIS follow up might be tabled on 23rd and on 25th July). In general, the documents addressing WSIS follow up to be considered by ECOSOC will be: - The SG report on “integrated and coordinated implementation of the outcomes of and follow up to major UN conferences and summit” (E/2007/76, here attached, to be discussed on 23 July; it contains a series of paragraphs in relation to WSIS); See below for some extracts on the various post WSIS processes. - The final report of the 10th session of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (21-25 May 2007), including the two WSIS related decisions of the CSTD (on the flow of information for WSIS follow up, and on multi-year programme of work): see E/2007/31, hereby attached as well, to be discussed on 25 July. As far as we understood from diplomats here in Geneva, there might not be any additional negotiation in Geneva. It is expected that the CSDT decision will be confirmed by ECOSOC. We will anyway monitor the on going process and keep you posted – and hopefully engaged. CONGO would be willing to address the ECOSOC on these various issues, under the two segments that might be available in this regard. We will of course need your remarks, suggestions and feedback. General note The SG report recognises that “implementation and follow-up require a broad engagement of non-governmental stakeholders and partners” (§ 12 of E/2007/76). Commission on Science and Technology for Development The SG report seems quite restrictive in defining the involvement of CS actors in the CSTD processes. Contrary to the Tunis Agenda which requested to take into account the multi-stakeholder approach, the SG Report defines quite poorly the CSTD as an intergovernmental process “with contributions from non-governmental stakeholders channelled through the multi-stakeholder Global Alliance for Information and Communication Technologies and Development” (§14 of E/2007/76). CONGO considers that this quotation is not reflecting paragraph 105 of the Tunis Agenda for the IS and ECOSOC Resolution 2006/46: we understand GAID is a multi-stakeholder component in CSTD and ECOSOC, but certainly not the only one, and that NGO contributions should not be channelled / screened before reaching the CSTD / ECOSOC: CONGO is therefore willing to correct that in the ECOSOC Plenary. UNGIS and Action Line Facilitators process The SG Report only provides a factual description of the creation of the UN Group for the Information Society (“Coordination among the United Nations system entities is undertaken by the United Nations Group on the Information Society, created by the Secretary-General in accordance with the request of the Summit”, § 14 of E/2007/76) and of the May 2007 cluster of WSIS action line facilitation meetings. Internet Governance Forum and enhanced cooperation The SG Report states that WSIS “requested the Secretary-General to convene the Internet Governance Forum, a new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, to discuss, inter alia, public policy issues related to Internet governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet. The inaugural meeting, entitled “Internet governance for development”, was held in Athens from 30 October to 2 November 2006, and the second meeting is scheduled to be held in Rio de Janeiro from 12 to 15 November 2007. Consultations are under way to start a process towards enhanced cooperation among all relevant stakeholders with regard to Internet governance, as requested by the Summit” (§ 14 of E/2007/76). Global Alliance for ICT and Development The SG Report includes an annexed two-page description of GAID and a synopsis of its activities. See pages 21-22 of E/2007/76. Please send us your comments and suggestions in this regard. We will come back to you early next week with more details. All the best, Philippe Philippe Dam CONGO - Information Society & Human Rights Coordinator 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: philippe.dam at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org http://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 http://www.ngocongo.org/ > *********************************************************** 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://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.html *********************************************************** !DSPAM:2676,469211fd97911895210621! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From karenb at gn.apc.org Tue Jul 10 02:18:16 2007 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 07:18:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] All Male Panel discussion during UN ECOSOC Session - 5 July 2007 In-Reply-To: <5F0F9635-C7A6-41AE-A10A-A127AAE268C0@ucsd.edu> References: <200707031026.l63AQF0R002134@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> <5F0F9635-C7A6-41AE-A10A-A127AAE268C0@ucsd.edu> Message-ID: <20070710061818.763FC1B9174@mail.gn.apc.org> hi all >I thank you for forwarding this panel list. >I think it is significant that when putting together "new >perspectives" there is not any room for a representative of 51% of >the world: namely WOMEN. yes - interesting panel ;) - but as importantly, what exactly was this panel about? i see a title and a list of names.. but what was the objective and outcome (if any?) karen >DeeDee Halleck > >www.deedeehalleck.blogspot.com >www.deepdishwavesofchange.com > > > >On Jul 3, 2007, at 6:26 AM, CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam wrote: > >>Dear all, >> >> >> >>This is to inform you that a Panel discussion on new perspectives >>for post-WSIS scenarios will be organised this Thursday 5 July in >>Geneva, jointly by GAID, UN CSTD and OCCAM. This will be a side >>event to the annual substantial session of ECOSOC. Find flyer and >>list of panellists attached. >> >> >> >>This meeting is informal and can therefore be attended by civil >>society entities in consultative status with ECOSOC and also by >>entities that were accredited to WSIS. Participants who do not have >>a badge to enter the Palais des Nations should get in touch with >>Mr. Charles Geiger so that they could get a one day visitor's badge >>for this meeting. >> >> >> >>All the best, >> >> >> >>Philippe >> >>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 >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Tue Jul 10 02:58:06 2007 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 07:58:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID In-Reply-To: <200707061804.l66I4AwC007400@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> References: <200707061804.l66I4AwC007400@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Message-ID: <20070710065808.442BF1B2668@mail.gn.apc.org> hi philippe thanks so much for this.. what do you recommend in terms of responding? I support parminder and jean-louis in needing to respond to - in particular - the question of CS participation in the CSTD (certainly in relation to WSIS followup) - i haven't had time to read or reflect on the other issues (enhanced cooperation, action lines etc) do you have the time to facilitate a response from those of us able to put the time in? karen At 19:04 06/07/2007, CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam wrote: > >Dear all, > >As some of you might know, the UN ECOSOC opened >its annual substantive session earlier this week. >Issues related to the follow up and >implementation of WSIS will be discussed and >addressed by ECOSOC later this month (according >to the provisional timetable of the ECOSOC >session, WSIS follow up might be tabled on 23rd and on 25th July). > >In general, the documents addressing WSIS follow >up to be considered by ECOSOC will be: >- The SG report on “integrated and >coordinated implementation of the outcomes of >and follow up to major UN conferences and >summit” (E/2007/76, here attached, to be >discussed on 23 July; it contains a series of >paragraphs in relation to WSIS); See below for >some extracts on the various post WSIS processes. >- The final report of the 10th session >of the Commission on Science and Technology for >Development (21-25 May 2007), including the two >WSIS related decisions of the CSTD (on the flow >of information for WSIS follow up, and on >multi-year programme of work): see E/2007/31, >hereby attached as well, to be discussed on 25 July. > >As far as we understood from diplomats here in >Geneva, there might not be any additional >negotiation in Geneva. It is expected that the >CSDT decision will be confirmed by ECOSOC. We >will anyway monitor the on going process and >keep you posted – and hopefully engaged. > >CONGO would be willing to address the ECOSOC on >these various issues, under the two segments >that might be available in this regard. We will >of course need your remarks, suggestions and feedback. > >General note >The SG report recognises that “implementation >and follow-up require a broad engagement of >non-governmental stakeholders and partners” (§ 12 of E/2007/76). > >Commission on Science and Technology for Development >The SG report seems quite restrictive in >defining the involvement of CS actors in the >CSTD processes. Contrary to the Tunis Agenda >which requested to take into account the >multi-stakeholder approach, the SG Report >defines quite poorly the CSTD as an >intergovernmental process “with contributions >from non-governmental stakeholders channelled >through the multi-stakeholder Global Alliance >for Information and Communication Technologies >and Development” (§14 of E/2007/76). CONGO >considers that this quotation is not reflecting >paragraph 105 of the Tunis Agenda for the IS and >ECOSOC Resolution 2006/46: we understand GAID is >a multi-stakeholder component in CSTD and >ECOSOC, but certainly not the only one, and that >NGO contributions should not be channelled / >screened before reaching the CSTD / ECOSOC: >CONGO is therefore willing to correct that in the ECOSOC Plenary. > >UNGIS and Action Line Facilitators process >The SG Report only provides a factual >description of the creation of the UN Group for >the Information Society (“Coordination among the >United Nations system entities is undertaken by >the United Nations Group on the Information >Society, created by the Secretary-General in >accordance with the request of the Summit”, § 14 >of E/2007/76) and of the May 2007 cluster of >WSIS action line facilitation meetings. > >Internet Governance Forum and enhanced cooperation >The SG Report states that WSIS “requested the >Secretary-General to convene the Internet >Governance Forum, a new forum for >multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, to discuss, >inter alia, public policy issues related to >Internet governance in order to foster the >sustainability, robustness, security, stability >and development of the Internet. The inaugural >meeting, entitled “Internet governance for >development”, was held in Athens from 30 October >to 2 November 2006, and the second meeting is >scheduled to be held in Rio de Janeiro from 12 >to 15 November 2007. Consultations are under way >to start a process towards enhanced cooperation >among all relevant stakeholders with regard to >Internet governance, as requested by the Summit” (§ 14 of E/2007/76). > >Global Alliance for ICT and Development >The SG Report includes an annexed two-page >description of GAID and a synopsis of its >activities. See pages 21-22 of E/2007/76. > > > >Please send us your comments and suggestions in >this regard. We will come back to you early next week with more details. >All the best, > >Philippe > >Philippe Dam >CONGO - Information Society & >Human Rights Coordinator >11, Avenue de la Paix >CH-1202 Geneva >Tel: +41 22 301 1000 >Fax: +41 22 301 2000 >E-mail: philippe.dam 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Tue Jul 10 03:45:37 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:45:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] All Male Panel discussion during UN ECOSOC Session - 5 July 2007 In-Reply-To: <20070710061818.763FC1B9174@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: Hi Karen, On 7/10/07 8:18 AM, "karen banks" wrote: > hi all > >> I thank you for forwarding this panel list. >> I think it is significant that when putting together "new >> perspectives" there is not any room for a representative of 51% of >> the world: namely WOMEN. > > yes - interesting panel ;) - but as importantly, what exactly was > this panel about? i see a title and a list of names.. but what was > the objective and outcome (if any?) Per previous, it was basically a touching bases/networking schmooze while the GAID leadership and a lot of government and industry people were in town for ECOSOC and Global Compact meetings. Luncheon, general discussions about ICT4D and related matters, no outcomes intended or achieved. Renate at the lunch and I at the panel made remarks about the need for transparency and real CS inclusion in post-WSIS and related global policy contexts, etc. There was no mention of the relevant and objectionable language in the SG and CSTD reports, which need CS responses before they're taken up on the 23rd. 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 karenb at gn.apc.org Tue Jul 10 04:05:38 2007 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:05:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] All Male Panel discussion during UN ECOSOC Session - 5 July 2007 In-Reply-To: References: <20070710061818.763FC1B9174@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <20070710080539.7C9DE1C6EED@mail.gn.apc.org> hi bill > > yes - interesting panel ;) - but as importantly, what exactly was > > this panel about? i see a title and a list of names.. but what was > > the objective and outcome (if any?) > >Per previous, it was basically a touching bases/networking schmooze while >the GAID leadership and a lot of government and industry people were in town >for ECOSOC and Global Compact meetings. Luncheon, general discussions about >ICT4D and related matters, no outcomes intended or achieved. Renate at the >lunch and I at the panel made remarks about the need for transparency and >real CS inclusion in post-WSIS and related global policy contexts, etc. >There was no mention of the relevant and objectionable language in the SG >and CSTD reports, which need CS responses before they're taken up on the >23rd. thanks for the update.. and so, it looks like at least some of us are agreed on the need for a response to the report.. which, i think will need to be led by the geneva based folk.. but, i'm willing to help.. karen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jul 10 04:29:07 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 10:29:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46934353.2000107@bertola.eu> William Drake ha scritto: > With regard to enhanced cooperation, as Parminder notes, the IG caucus > already agreed a letter months ago saying we’ve been told nothing and > would like/expect to be consulted in keeping with the spirit of the TA. > There is no need for prolonged debate over whether and how to reiterate > already adopted language. Parminder and Vittorio should just draft a > few sentences referencing the prior letter and saying these concerns are > raised anew by the SG Report and we look forward to a response, and > submit it for a quick consensus call under the charter procedure. Possibly, the report saying "consultations are under way" is an elegant way to say "we've not been doing our homework, so we'll rush something up asap". Nonetheless, my feeling is that everyone realized that that process can't just be deferred forever, so things could actually start to move between now and Rio. So I agree with you, I think that it would be a good idea to issue a statement reminding that civil society has to be involved in this process. I'll work it out with Parminder (he might already have a 3-page draft ready :-D ). -- 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 Tue Jul 10 09:04:08 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 15:04:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] RE: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID In-Reply-To: <20070710065808.442BF1B2668@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <200707101303.l6AD3VV3006235@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> We are actually planning to have discussions on that with CSTD and GAID Secretariat people in the up coming hours, as well as presenting an oral statement to the ECOSOC next week. In my view a letter to the Secretariats might not be appropriate at this stage. We need to further see whether the quotation from the SG report is only an inaccuracy (which I think it is). Ph -----Message d'origine----- De : plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] De la part de karen banks Envoyé : mardi, 10. juillet 2007 07:58 À : plenary at wsis-cs.org; plenary at wsis-cs.org; bureau at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc : rbloem at ngocongo.org; 'CONGO - Philippe Dam' Objet : Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific people] Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic translation of this message! _______________________________________ hi philippe thanks so much for this.. what do you recommend in terms of responding? I support parminder and jean-louis in needing to respond to - in particular - the question of CS participation in the CSTD (certainly in relation to WSIS followup) - i haven't had time to read or reflect on the other issues (enhanced cooperation, action lines etc) do you have the time to facilitate a response from those of us able to put the time in? karen At 19:04 06/07/2007, CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam wrote: > >Dear all, > >As some of you might know, the UN ECOSOC opened >its annual substantive session earlier this week. >Issues related to the follow up and >implementation of WSIS will be discussed and >addressed by ECOSOC later this month (according >to the provisional timetable of the ECOSOC >session, WSIS follow up might be tabled on 23rd and on 25th July). > >In general, the documents addressing WSIS follow >up to be considered by ECOSOC will be: >- The SG report on “integrated and >coordinated implementation of the outcomes of >and follow up to major UN conferences and >summit” (E/2007/76, here attached, to be >discussed on 23 July; it contains a series of >paragraphs in relation to WSIS); See below for >some extracts on the various post WSIS processes. >- The final report of the 10th session >of the Commission on Science and Technology for >Development (21-25 May 2007), including the two >WSIS related decisions of the CSTD (on the flow >of information for WSIS follow up, and on >multi-year programme of work): see E/2007/31, >hereby attached as well, to be discussed on 25 July. > >As far as we understood from diplomats here in >Geneva, there might not be any additional >negotiation in Geneva. It is expected that the >CSDT decision will be confirmed by ECOSOC. We >will anyway monitor the on going process and >keep you posted – and hopefully engaged. > >CONGO would be willing to address the ECOSOC on >these various issues, under the two segments >that might be available in this regard. We will >of course need your remarks, suggestions and feedback. > >General note >The SG report recognises that “implementation >and follow-up require a broad engagement of >non-governmental stakeholders and partners” (§ 12 of E/2007/76). > >Commission on Science and Technology for Development >The SG report seems quite restrictive in >defining the involvement of CS actors in the >CSTD processes. Contrary to the Tunis Agenda >which requested to take into account the >multi-stakeholder approach, the SG Report >defines quite poorly the CSTD as an >intergovernmental process “with contributions >from non-governmental stakeholders channelled >through the multi-stakeholder Global Alliance >for Information and Communication Technologies >and Development” (§14 of E/2007/76). CONGO >considers that this quotation is not reflecting >paragraph 105 of the Tunis Agenda for the IS and >ECOSOC Resolution 2006/46: we understand GAID is >a multi-stakeholder component in CSTD and >ECOSOC, but certainly not the only one, and that >NGO contributions should not be channelled / >screened before reaching the CSTD / ECOSOC: >CONGO is therefore willing to correct that in the ECOSOC Plenary. > >UNGIS and Action Line Facilitators process >The SG Report only provides a factual >description of the creation of the UN Group for >the Information Society (“Coordination among the >United Nations system entities is undertaken by >the United Nations Group on the Information >Society, created by the Secretary-General in >accordance with the request of the Summit”, § 14 >of E/2007/76) and of the May 2007 cluster of >WSIS action line facilitation meetings. > >Internet Governance Forum and enhanced cooperation >The SG Report states that WSIS “requested the >Secretary-General to convene the Internet >Governance Forum, a new forum for >multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, to discuss, >inter alia, public policy issues related to >Internet governance in order to foster the >sustainability, robustness, security, stability >and development of the Internet. The inaugural >meeting, entitled “Internet governance for >development”, was held in Athens from 30 October >to 2 November 2006, and the second meeting is >scheduled to be held in Rio de Janeiro from 12 >to 15 November 2007. Consultations are under way >to start a process towards enhanced cooperation >among all relevant stakeholders with regard to >Internet governance, as requested by the Summit” (§ 14 of E/2007/76). > >Global Alliance for ICT and Development >The SG Report includes an annexed two-page >description of GAID and a synopsis of its >activities. See pages 21-22 of E/2007/76. > > > >Please send us your comments and suggestions in >this regard. We will come back to you early next week with more details. >All the best, > >Philippe > >Philippe Dam >CONGO - Information Society & >Human Rights Coordinator >11, Avenue de la Paix >CH-1202 Geneva >Tel: +41 22 301 1000 >Fax: +41 22 301 2000 >E-mail: philippe.dam 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 > > _______________________________________________ Plenary mailing list Plenary at wsis-cs.org http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Tue Jul 10 23:56:42 2007 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:56:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] the Apple iPhone rort Message-ID: <709713.41696.qm@web54109.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Hi all, I'd put this posting below on my website - http://technewsreview.com.au/ - and thought I'd post it here and see what the response was. It's based on an article in The Guardian today that makes a few more points on the new must-have iPhone. Well, must have only for those who are slaves to marketing hype. It makes points that have been made before. To have an iPhone one must agree to a contract with AT&T, previously described as one of the worst mobile phone service providers in the US. So if you want an iPhone, and you are already contracted to another company, you have to terminate that contract with the related fees that involves. Ben Scott’s article also notes “if you are on a family plan, you may have to pay a separate fee to terminate all of your family's phones.” And there’s the point that that AT&T doesn’t offer full coverage in more than a dozen states. Now, the real point the article makes I’d not thought of, and relevant to this list, is that the “practice of tying users to one provider is unique to the wireless world. Cable TV providers can't tell you what kind of TV to buy. And regular phone service will work on any phone you can find at your favorite electronics store. In the latter case, that's because there is a longstanding set of laws that guarantee consumer choice.” In the USA, at least, this is “called the ‘Carterfone’ rules, these laws make it so you can use any device you want - phone, headset, fax machine or dial-up modem - on your telephone network, so long as it doesn't harm the network.” The article then says, “But it gets worse: phone companies don't just hold the iPhone captive; they also routinely cripple features on handsets (like Wi-Fi, games, audio and video) so that you can only access their ‘preferred’ content. They also limit access to the network, despite marketing ‘unlimited access’. And they reserve the right to boot you off the network if you do almost anything they don't like.” “This kind of ‘blocking and locking’ behavior doesn't stop you from accessing the internet, but it does shape your experience and undermine the open, level playing field that consumers have come to expect online. The iPhone is simply the highest-profile example of a wireless internet market that is drifting further and further away from the free and open internet we've all come to expect. “The only solution to this problem is a political one. Decisions that legislators and regulators in Washington make now will determine what the internet looks like in the future. The US Congress is holding a hearing this week - call it the iPhone hearing - to discuss the new technology and its impact on consumer choice.” So all this, and combined with the rort of having to send your phone to Apple just so you can exchange the battery, and other lock-ins, I’d hope smart people would boycott the iPhone. Even if it’s just to somehow enable consumer choice and stop the drift away from a “free and open internet”. For the article that got me thinking about this post, see http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ben_scott/2007/07/free_the_iphone.html Cheers David --------- David Goldstein address: 4/3 Abbott Street COOGEE NSW 2034 AUSTRALIA email: Goldstein_David @yahoo.com.au phone: +61 418 228 605 (mobile); +61 2 9665 5773 (home) "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 ____________________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo!7 Mail has just got even bigger and better with unlimited storage on all webmail accounts. http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.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 dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Jul 11 00:35:50 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 07:35:50 +0300 Subject: [governance] the Apple iPhone rort In-Reply-To: <709713.41696.qm@web54109.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <709713.41696.qm@web54109.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 7/11/07, David Goldstein wrote: > > Hi all, > > I'd put this posting below on my website - http://technewsreview.com.au/ - > and thought I'd post it here and see what the response was. It's based on an > article in The Guardian today that makes a few more points on the new > must-have iPhone. Well, must have only for those who are slaves to marketing > hype. It makes points that have been made before. > > To have an iPhone one must agree to a contract with AT&T, Now that the iPhone has been cracked/hacked/unlocked you can take it to another provider. I guess you still have to buy an AT&T contract, but you could probably get a pay as you go one, and spend virtually nothing. previously described as one of the worst mobile phone service providers in > the US. So if you want an iPhone, and you are already contracted to another > company, you have to terminate that contract with the related fees that > involves. Ben Scott's article also notes "if you are on a family plan, you > may have to pay a separate fee to terminate all of your family's phones." > And there's the point that that AT&T doesn't offer full coverage in more > than a dozen states. > > Now, the real point the article makes I'd not thought of, and relevant to > this list, is that the "practice of tying users to one provider is unique to > the wireless world. Cable TV providers can't tell you what kind of TV to > buy. No, but you are "locked" to the CPE they give you (or sell you). A wireless CPE where I live now costs ~1000 USD. Most companies here will think long and hard before they switch providers because of the investment they have already made. Provider lock-in is nothing new, and not limited to this phone. And regular phone service will work on any phone you can find at your > favorite electronics store. In the latter case, that's because there is a > longstanding set of laws that guarantee consumer choice." > > In the USA, at least, this is "called the 'Carterfone' rules, these laws > make it so you can use any device you want - phone, headset, fax machine or > dial-up modem - on your telephone network, so long as it doesn't harm the > network." > > The article then says, "But it gets worse: phone companies don't just hold > the iPhone captive; they also routinely cripple features on handsets (like > Wi-Fi, games, audio and video) so that you can only access their 'preferred' > content. They also limit access to the network, despite marketing 'unlimited > access'. And they reserve the right to boot you off the network if you do > almost anything they don't like." > > "This kind of 'blocking and locking' behavior doesn't stop you from > accessing the internet, but it does shape your experience and undermine the > open, level playing field that consumers have come to expect online. The > iPhone is simply the highest-profile example of a wireless internet market > that is drifting further and further away from the free and open internet > we've all come to expect. > > "The only solution to this problem is a political one. or technical, there is a beta OS version of this phone in stores now. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Wed Jul 11 01:23:34 2007 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 08:23:34 +0300 Subject: [governance] the Apple iPhone rort In-Reply-To: <709713.41696.qm@web54109.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <709713.41696.qm@web54109.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20070711052334.GA7615@ylermi.tarvainen.info> On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 08:56:42PM -0700, David Goldstein (goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au) wrote: > To have an iPhone one must agree to a contract with AT&T > the “practice of tying users to one provider is unique to the > wireless world. Cable TV providers can't tell you what kind of TV to > buy. And regular phone service will work on any phone you can find at > your favorite electronics store. In the latter case, that's because > there is a longstanding set of laws that guarantee consumer choice.” > In the USA, at least, this is “called the ‘Carterfone’ rules, these > laws make it so you can use any device you want - phone, headset, > fax machine or dial-up modem - on your telephone network, so long as > it doesn't harm the network.” In Finland it's even stronger: you can't even give discount of a phone price with an operator agreement. Unfortunately, they just last year made an exception for 3G phones for some obscure reasons (something about boosting business...), so with those we also now have those stupid "almost free phone with 36-month operator agreement" -type offers, and chances are it'll spread. :-( -- Tapani Tarvainen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Wed Jul 11 02:12:26 2007 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 23:12:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] the Apple iPhone rort Message-ID: <674124.15679.qm@web54102.mail.re2.yahoo.com> hi McTim, My understanding is there is no "pay-as-you-go" with the iPhone, although someone in the USA may wish to confirm whether this is true. The relevant part of their website has a "Maintenance In Progress" message at the moment... But it would be the case of paying out your contract if you wanted one and could connect to another service provider. The actual provider "lock-in" in this case is also an issue as Apple, supposedly the consumer's champion, is locking in people to one of the worst wireless providers in the US. But then, Greenpeace has already exposed Apple's interest in the consumer with their reports on the environmental credentials of the technology companies. And also the phone is ONLY available through AT&T - you can't even go to another company to get it. BTW, I don't think the phone has been hacked, as of yet, to enable changing carriers. I think this is, to date, only for other aspects of the device. David ----- Original Message ---- From: McTim To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein Sent: Wednesday, 11 July, 2007 2:35:50 PM Subject: Re: [governance] the Apple iPhone rort On 7/11/07, David Goldstein wrote: Hi all, I'd put this posting below on my website - http://technewsreview.com.au/ - and thought I'd post it here and see what the response was. It's based on an article in The Guardian today that makes a few more points on the new must-have iPhone. Well, must have only for those who are slaves to marketing hype. It makes points that have been made before. To have an iPhone one must agree to a contract with AT&T, Now that the iPhone has been cracked/hacked/unlocked you can take it to another provider. I guess you still have to buy an AT&T contract, but you could probably get a pay as you go one, and spend virtually nothing. previously described as one of the worst mobile phone service providers in the US. So if you want an iPhone, and you are already contracted to another company, you have to terminate that contract with the related fees that involves. Ben Scott's article also notes "if you are on a family plan, you may have to pay a separate fee to terminate all of your family's phones." And there's the point that that AT&T doesn't offer full coverage in more than a dozen states. Now, the real point the article makes I'd not thought of, and relevant to this list, is that the "practice of tying users to one provider is unique to the wireless world. Cable TV providers can't tell you what kind of TV to buy. No, but you are "locked" to the CPE they give you (or sell you). A wireless CPE where I live now costs ~1000 USD. Most companies here will think long and hard before they switch providers because of the investment they have already made. Provider lock-in is nothing new, and not limited to this phone. And regular phone service will work on any phone you can find at your favorite electronics store. In the latter case, that's because there is a longstanding set of laws that guarantee consumer choice." In the USA, at least, this is "called the 'Carterfone' rules, these laws make it so you can use any device you want - phone, headset, fax machine or dial-up modem - on your telephone network, so long as it doesn't harm the network." The article then says, "But it gets worse: phone companies don't just hold the iPhone captive; they also routinely cripple features on handsets (like Wi-Fi, games, audio and video) so that you can only access their 'preferred' content. They also limit access to the network, despite marketing 'unlimited access'. And they reserve the right to boot you off the network if you do almost anything they don't like." "This kind of 'blocking and locking' behavior doesn't stop you from accessing the internet, but it does shape your experience and undermine the open, level playing field that consumers have come to expect online. The iPhone is simply the highest-profile example of a wireless internet market that is drifting further and further away from the free and open internet we've all come to expect. "The only solution to this problem is a political one. or technical, there is a beta OS version of this phone in stores now. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo!7 Mail has just got even bigger and better with unlimited storage on all webmail accounts. http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ca at rits.org.br Wed Jul 11 08:20:15 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 09:20:15 -0300 Subject: [governance] the Apple iPhone rort In-Reply-To: <709713.41696.qm@web54109.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <709713.41696.qm@web54109.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi David, Quite interesting, and your points (and The Guardian's article) uncover a real big issue for consumer rights' groups in the US to deal with urgently. It is a fact that, contrary to several other comm industries (perhaps cable tv excluded, as they sell the set-top box and one cannot readily find alternatives in the market), cel phone companies sell the comm device with the services package. What is not common is that a particular device model is exclusively tied to that company's services. Like, I can buy any several models of Sony Ericsson phones in stores and just install a chip I contract with my GSM operator, even though operators also sell the same models as part of their services package. One of the main GSM operators in Brazil is actually doing a huge marketing campaign with the motto "the phone is yours, not the company's", stressing the fact they do not code the phone to function only with their chips (a code which, in any case, is easily hacked out by phone repairers anywhere in the city...). The iPhone case takes this tied purchase practice to an extreme, and again brings AT&T to the fore of the consumer rights' violations debate -- witness the long EFF case against AT&T for unilateral violation of privacy rights of millions of Internet users, using huge packet sniffer installations at key points in their network. What to say of the schizophrenic attitude of Apple, in which they start preaching for an end to DRM and at the same time sign an incredibly restrictive (and dumb, as your message makes clear) contract like this? fraternal regards --c.a. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Carlos A. Afonso http://tapuia.blog.br ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -----Original Message----- From: David Goldstein To: Governance Mailing List Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:56:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] the Apple iPhone rort > Hi all, > > I'd put this posting below on my website - > http://technewsreview.com.au/ - and thought I'd post it here and see > what the response was. It's based on an article in The Guardian today > that makes a few more points on the new must-have iPhone. Well, must > have only for those who are slaves to marketing hype. It makes points > that have been made before. > > To have an iPhone one must agree to a contract with AT&T, previously > described as one of the worst mobile phone service providers in the > US. So if you want an iPhone, and you are already contracted to > another company, you have to terminate that contract with the related > fees that involves. Ben Scott’s article also notes “if you are on > a family plan, you may have to pay a separate fee to terminate all of > your family's phones.” And there’s the point that that AT&T > doesn’t offer full coverage in more than a dozen states. > > Now, the real point the article makes I’d not thought of, and > relevant to this list, is that the “practice of tying users to one > provider is unique to the wireless world. Cable TV providers can't > tell you what kind of TV to buy. And regular phone service will work > on any phone you can find at your favorite electronics store. In the > latter case, that's because there is a longstanding set of laws that > guarantee consumer choice.” > > In the USA, at least, this is “called the ‘Carterfone’ rules, > these laws make it so you can use any device you want - phone, > headset, fax machine or dial-up modem - on your telephone network, so > long as it doesn't harm the network.” > > The article then says, “But it gets worse: phone companies don't > just hold the iPhone captive; they also routinely cripple features on > handsets (like Wi-Fi, games, audio and video) so that you can only > access their ‘preferred’ content. They also limit access to the > network, despite marketing ‘unlimited access’. And they reserve > the right to boot you off the network if you do almost anything they > don't like.” > > “This kind of ‘blocking and locking’ behavior doesn't stop you > from accessing the internet, but it does shape your experience and > undermine the open, level playing field that consumers have come to > expect online. The iPhone is simply the highest-profile example of a > wireless internet market that is drifting further and further away > from the free and open internet we've all come to expect. > > “The only solution to this problem is a political one. Decisions > that legislators and regulators in Washington make now will determine > what the internet looks like in the future. The US Congress is > holding a hearing this week - call it the iPhone hearing - to discuss > the new technology and its impact on consumer choice.” > > So all this, and combined with the rort of having to send your phone > to Apple just so you can exchange the battery, and other lock-ins, > I’d hope smart people would boycott the iPhone. Even if it’s just > to somehow enable consumer choice and stop the drift away from a > “free and open internet”. > > For the article that got me thinking about this post, see > http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ben_scott/2007/07/free_the_iphone > .html > > > Cheers > David > > --------- > David Goldstein > address: 4/3 Abbott Street > COOGEE NSW 2034 > AUSTRALIA > email: Goldstein_David @yahoo.com.au > phone: +61 418 228 605 (mobile); +61 2 9665 5773 (home) > > "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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Wed Jul 11 10:53:49 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 07:53:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Re: [unrelated] the Apple iPhone rort In-Reply-To: 709713.41696.qm@web54109.mail.re2.yahoo.com Message-ID: Hello David, I visted your site. nice work. Question: What kind of 'Feed Aggregator are you using' ? I am looking for a good 'Server-Side Feed Aggregator' preferably non-Php [asp / java / lamp Ok]. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Wed Jul 11 11:08:12 2007 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 08:08:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Re: [unrelated] the Apple iPhone rort Message-ID: <727285.21647.qm@web54107.mail.re2.yahoo.com> The "feed aggregator" is me. :) I presume you mean for pulling all the information together, and not for the RSS feeds. Cheers David ----- Original Message ---- From: "yehudakatz at mailinator.com" To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Thursday, 12 July, 2007 12:53:49 AM Subject: [governance] Re: [unrelated] the Apple iPhone rort Hello David, I visted your site. nice work. Question: What kind of 'Feed Aggregator are you using' ? I am looking for a good 'Server-Side Feed Aggregator' preferably non-Php [asp / java / lamp Ok]. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo!7 Mail has just got even bigger and better with unlimited storage on all webmail accounts. http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Wed Jul 11 12:26:09 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 09:26:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Re: [unrelated] the Apple iPhone rort In-Reply-To: 727285.21647.qm@web54107.mail.re2.yahoo.com Message-ID: David, LOL ... the Goldstein Content Management System! Actually I was referring to the Source Code, [Sever-Side Feed Aggregator |or| Content Management System, for feed redistribution] Something that supports xml and opml. I looked at Attensa [ http://www.attensa.com/ ] running sever-side to power an OPML Powered Dashboard(s) for an output something like this: [ http://www.pageflakes.com/ouseful.ashx?page=6719564 ] Cheers -- >The "feed aggregator" is me. :) I presume you mean for pulling all the >information together, and not for the RSS feeds. > >Cheers >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 David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Wed Jul 11 12:30:11 2007 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 12:30:11 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: the Apple iPhone rort In-Reply-To: <709713.41696.qm@web54109.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <709713.41696.qm@web54109.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Re hacking the iPhone: http://www.salon.com/tech/machinist/feature/2007/07/11/iphone_hackers/index.html One recent take on the open access struggle in the US: http://www.dailywireless.com/features/path-wireless-broadband-062707/ David -------------- 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 Jul 11 12:32:52 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 18:32:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] RE: [CS Bureau] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID In-Reply-To: <20070710065808.442BF1B2668@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <200707111632.l6BGWEPe021369@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Hello all, We had some talks with Sarbuland Khan about the CS and PS Channelling through GAID. Sarbuland stressed that the wording expressed in the SG report was not GAID Secretariat's position, the report having been inaccurately drafted by the UN DESA alone. We still informed Sarbuland of our intention to correct that orally in the ECOSOC plenary and encourage him to do so, which he said he would do. This would definitely help for the record and for clarifying. So that the problem is in a way sorted out. We will circulate more information in due time. All the best, Philippe -----Message d'origine----- De : bureau-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:bureau-admin at wsis-cs.org] De la part de karen banks Envoyé : mardi, 10. juillet 2007 07:58 À : plenary at wsis-cs.org; plenary at wsis-cs.org; bureau at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc : rbloem at ngocongo.org; 'CONGO - Philippe Dam' Objet : [CS Bureau] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID hi philippe thanks so much for this.. what do you recommend in terms of responding? I support parminder and jean-louis in needing to respond to - in particular - the question of CS participation in the CSTD (certainly in relation to WSIS followup) - i haven't had time to read or reflect on the other issues (enhanced cooperation, action lines etc) do you have the time to facilitate a response from those of us able to put the time in? karen At 19:04 06/07/2007, CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam wrote: > >Dear all, > >As some of you might know, the UN ECOSOC opened >its annual substantive session earlier this week. >Issues related to the follow up and >implementation of WSIS will be discussed and >addressed by ECOSOC later this month (according >to the provisional timetable of the ECOSOC >session, WSIS follow up might be tabled on 23rd and on 25th July). > >In general, the documents addressing WSIS follow >up to be considered by ECOSOC will be: >- The SG report on “integrated and >coordinated implementation of the outcomes of >and follow up to major UN conferences and >summit” (E/2007/76, here attached, to be >discussed on 23 July; it contains a series of >paragraphs in relation to WSIS); See below for >some extracts on the various post WSIS processes. >- The final report of the 10th session >of the Commission on Science and Technology for >Development (21-25 May 2007), including the two >WSIS related decisions of the CSTD (on the flow >of information for WSIS follow up, and on >multi-year programme of work): see E/2007/31, >hereby attached as well, to be discussed on 25 July. > >As far as we understood from diplomats here in >Geneva, there might not be any additional >negotiation in Geneva. It is expected that the >CSDT decision will be confirmed by ECOSOC. We >will anyway monitor the on going process and >keep you posted – and hopefully engaged. > >CONGO would be willing to address the ECOSOC on >these various issues, under the two segments >that might be available in this regard. We will >of course need your remarks, suggestions and feedback. > >General note >The SG report recognises that “implementation >and follow-up require a broad engagement of >non-governmental stakeholders and partners” (§ 12 of E/2007/76). > >Commission on Science and Technology for Development >The SG report seems quite restrictive in >defining the involvement of CS actors in the >CSTD processes. Contrary to the Tunis Agenda >which requested to take into account the >multi-stakeholder approach, the SG Report >defines quite poorly the CSTD as an >intergovernmental process “with contributions >from non-governmental stakeholders channelled >through the multi-stakeholder Global Alliance >for Information and Communication Technologies >and Development” (§14 of E/2007/76). CONGO >considers that this quotation is not reflecting >paragraph 105 of the Tunis Agenda for the IS and >ECOSOC Resolution 2006/46: we understand GAID is >a multi-stakeholder component in CSTD and >ECOSOC, but certainly not the only one, and that >NGO contributions should not be channelled / >screened before reaching the CSTD / ECOSOC: >CONGO is therefore willing to correct that in the ECOSOC Plenary. > >UNGIS and Action Line Facilitators process >The SG Report only provides a factual >description of the creation of the UN Group for >the Information Society (“Coordination among the >United Nations system entities is undertaken by >the United Nations Group on the Information >Society, created by the Secretary-General in >accordance with the request of the Summit”, § 14 >of E/2007/76) and of the May 2007 cluster of >WSIS action line facilitation meetings. > >Internet Governance Forum and enhanced cooperation >The SG Report states that WSIS “requested the >Secretary-General to convene the Internet >Governance Forum, a new forum for >multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, to discuss, >inter alia, public policy issues related to >Internet governance in order to foster the >sustainability, robustness, security, stability >and development of the Internet. The inaugural >meeting, entitled “Internet governance for >development”, was held in Athens from 30 October >to 2 November 2006, and the second meeting is >scheduled to be held in Rio de Janeiro from 12 >to 15 November 2007. Consultations are under way >to start a process towards enhanced cooperation >among all relevant stakeholders with regard to >Internet governance, as requested by the Summit” (§ 14 of E/2007/76). > >Global Alliance for ICT and Development >The SG Report includes an annexed two-page >description of GAID and a synopsis of its >activities. See pages 21-22 of E/2007/76. > > > >Please send us your comments and suggestions in >this regard. We will come back to you early next week with more details. >All the best, > >Philippe > >Philippe Dam >CONGO - Information Society & >Human Rights Coordinator >11, Avenue de la Paix >CH-1202 Geneva >Tel: +41 22 301 1000 >Fax: +41 22 301 2000 >E-mail: philippe.dam 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 > > _______________________________________________ Bureau mailing list Bureau at wsis-cs.org http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/bureau ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Wed Jul 11 13:02:42 2007 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 18:02:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] RE: [CS Bureau] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID In-Reply-To: <200707111632.l6BGWEPe021369@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> References: <20070710065808.442BF1B2668@mail.gn.apc.org> <200707111632.l6BGWEPe021369@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Message-ID: <20070711170244.41DA01C3281@mail.gn.apc.org> hi phillipe >We had some talks with Sarbuland Khan about the CS and PS Channelling >through GAID. Sarbuland stressed that the wording expressed in the SG report >was not GAID Secretariat's position, the report having been inaccurately >drafted by the UN DESA alone. It's a very good thing we have people such as yourself being ever so vigilant in reading reports ;) i'm sure the GAID secretariat are also pleased that the inaccuracies have been corrected! >We still informed Sarbuland of our intention to correct that orally in the >ECOSOC plenary and encourage him to do so, which he said he would do. This >would definitely help for the record and for clarifying. So that the problem >is in a way sorted out. thanks phillipe, i think you've (CONGO) handled this well.. >We will circulate more information in due time. look forward to receiving it thanks karen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org Wed Jul 11 13:05:36 2007 From: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?=) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:05:36 +0200 Subject: SV: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] All Male Panel discussion during UN ECOSOC Session - 5 July 2007 In-Reply-To: <20070710061818.763FC1B9174@mail.gn.apc.org> References: <200707031026.l63AQF0R002134@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> <5F0F9635-C7A6-41AE-A10A-A127AAE268C0@ucsd.edu> <20070710061818.763FC1B9174@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F01A8EBFE@ensms02.iris.se> Dear Karen and all, I have the same question as Karen and have to admit, as I have not been present at the meetings, that the panels aims and goals, including its representation, is very vague for me. I am also wondering if "disability" may be part of this panel, as persons with disabilities, in Developing and industrial countries alike, are very underserved, marginalised and less involved in ICT! This exclusion appears more than needed, as lack of recognition is the main problem, both socially, financially and culturally! There are 600 Million PWD in the world, would we not also be part and included in panels like this one? All the best Kicki Kicki Nordström Synskadades Riksförbund (SRF) World Blind Union (WBU) 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: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org kicki.nordstrom at telia.com (private) -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: karen banks [mailto:karenb at gn.apc.org] Skickat: den 10 juli 2007 08:18 Till: plenary at wsis-cs.org; plenary at wsis-cs.org Kopia: bureau at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org; rbloem at ngocongo.org; 'CONGO - Philippe Dam' Ämne: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] All Male Panel discussion during UN ECOSOC Session - 5 July 2007 hi all >I thank you for forwarding this panel list. >I think it is significant that when putting together "new perspectives" >there is not any room for a representative of 51% of the world: namely >WOMEN. yes - interesting panel ;) - but as importantly, what exactly was this panel about? i see a title and a list of names.. but what was the objective and outcome (if any?) karen >DeeDee Halleck > >www.deedeehalleck.blogspot.com >www.deepdishwavesofchange.com > > > >On Jul 3, 2007, at 6:26 AM, CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam wrote: > >>Dear all, >> >> >> >>This is to inform you that a Panel discussion on new perspectives for >>post-WSIS scenarios will be organised this Thursday 5 July in Geneva, >>jointly by GAID, UN CSTD and OCCAM. This will be a side event to the >>annual substantial session of ECOSOC. Find flyer and list of >>panellists attached. >> >> >> >>This meeting is informal and can therefore be attended by civil >>society entities in consultative status with ECOSOC and also by >>entities that were accredited to WSIS. Participants who do not have a >>badge to enter the Palais des Nations should get in touch with Mr. >>Charles Geiger so that they could get a one day visitor's badge for >>this meeting. >> >> >> >>All the best, >> >> >> >>Philippe >> >>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 >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 wsis at ngocongo.org Wed Jul 11 13:52:49 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:52:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] Closure of ICTRC Office in Tehran - Letter for support open for signature Message-ID: <200707111752.l6BHqBIk004840@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, A couple of months ago, I forwarded an e-mail received from our WSIS colleague Mr. Sohrab Razzaghi, announcing that the office of the NGO he is the Executive Director of was closed and sealed by the Revolutionary Court without any legal justification or accusations. Apparently the situation has not evolved and that the staff was prevented to work. This is of particular concern for all of us because the focal points for West Asia and the Middle East within the Civil Society Bureau during the WSIS preparatory phase were member of the ICTRC. A group of NGOs have drafted a support letter regretting the closure of the ICTRC office and asking for clarification to the Iranian Authorities. You are invited to consider signing this support letter. I particularly encourage all formerly CSB members to look into it, in support for our partners during the WSIS process. I'll be happy to forward your signatures to the coordinators of this initiative. All the best, Philippe 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Support Letter ICTRC - Jun07.doc Type: application/msword Size: 30208 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From vb at bertola.eu Thu Jul 12 07:45:31 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:45:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] the Apple iPhone rort In-Reply-To: <709713.41696.qm@web54109.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <709713.41696.qm@web54109.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4696145B.1050803@bertola.eu> David Goldstein ha scritto: > To have an iPhone one must agree to a contract with AT&T, previously > described as one of the worst mobile phone service providers in the > US. So if you want an iPhone, and you are already contracted to > another company, you have to terminate that contract with the related > fees that involves. This is extremely common in the mobile phone market, especially in Europe - operators give you phones almost for free, as long as you tie yourself in either with a contract that you can't terminate for a certain number of years, or by accepting that the phone is sim-locked, i.e. doesn't work with other operators. There have also been several cases of models that were specific to single operators, just like the iPhone. Then, of course, there is a blossoming black market of repair shops that "free" your phone, with consequent legal battles. From one point of view, it's just a bargain between consumers and operators - the (wholesale) price of your phone is covered by the operator as a marketing cost to acquire you as customer. What I don't understand, however, is why Apple decided to go this way - the answer is "a lot of money from AT&T", I guess, but still it's like shooting themselves in the foot by losing a good amount of possible customers right when they have to enter the market - unless they already know that the phone is going to be hacked quickly, or won't make it particularly difficult. In any case, the real point is about noticing how different traditional telco networks are from the Internet - they are all about centralized control and "herding customers". We should pose extreme care in ensuring that the network remains neutral, otherwise we will start to have Apple laptops that only work with certain ISPs or show certain websites. So, getting this kind of principles well recognized and well formalized is IMHO a key task for the mid term... (yes, this also explains my interest in the "Internet bill of rights" idea). -- 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 parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jul 13 02:57:00 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 12:27:00 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Closure of ICTRC Office in Tehran - Letter for support open for signature In-Reply-To: <200707111752.l6BHqBIk004840@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Message-ID: <20070713065708.928D2E0ED0@smtp3.electricembers.net> Hi Philippe IT for Change supports the letter. However, though this does not affect our support, a bit of editing may add great value to the document. Especially please consider replacing We therefore call on the Iranian authorities to maintain the respect of their peers throughout the international community by honoring the commitments they have frequently and freely made in this regard, by abandoning further actions against ICTRC and allowing the activities to proceed. with We therefore call upon the Iranian authorities to honor their commitments made in various international forums, including at WSIS, with regard to freedom of expression and the rights and roles of civil society, by allowing ICTRC to carry on its lawful activities, and abandoning any further actions against them, while rescinding all earlier actions that prevent it from carry on its lawful activities. I must repeat that if it is difficult to make these changes because of any reason, our supports stand even for the present version of the letter. 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: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 11:23 PM To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; bureau at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: rbloem at ngocongo.org; 'CONGO - Philippe Dam' Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Closure of ICTRC Office in Tehran - Letter for support open for signature Importance: High Dear all, A couple of months ago, I forwarded an e-mail received from our WSIS colleague Mr. Sohrab Razzaghi, announcing that the office of the NGO he is the Executive Director of was closed and sealed by the Revolutionary Court without any legal justification or accusations. Apparently the situation has not evolved and that the staff was prevented to work. This is of particular concern for all of us because the focal points for West Asia and the Middle East within the Civil Society Bureau during the WSIS preparatory phase were member of the ICTRC. A group of NGOs have drafted a support letter regretting the closure of the ICTRC office and asking for clarification to the Iranian Authorities. You are invited to consider signing this support letter. I particularly encourage all formerly CSB members to look into it, in support for our partners during the WSIS process. I'll be happy to forward your signatures to the coordinators of this initiative. All the best, Philippe 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 rbloem at ngocongo.org Sun Jul 15 13:05:13 2007 From: rbloem at ngocongo.org (Renate Bloem) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 19:05:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] RE: [CS Bureau] RE: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Closure of ICTRC Office in Tehran - Letter for support open for signature In-Reply-To: <20070713065708.C48721B7970@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <200707151705.l6FH5ExK011838@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Hi Parminder, Yes, changes are difficult to make for various reasons. We thought the same. We received very few responses and will wait some time but will engage in the meantime in some silent lobby. Philippe is on vacation until 1 August Best Renate ----------------------------------------- Renate Bloem President of the Conference of NGOs (CONGO) 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mil: rbloem 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 _____ From: bureau-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:bureau-admin at wsis-cs.org] On Behalf Of Parminder Sent: vendredi, 13. juillet 2007 08:57 To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; bureau at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: rbloem at ngocongo.org; 'CONGO - Philippe Dam' Subject: [CS Bureau] RE: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Closure of ICTRC Office in Tehran - Letter for support open for signature Hi Philippe IT for Change supports the letter. However, though this does not affect our support, a bit of editing may add great value to the document. Especially please consider replacing We therefore call on the Iranian authorities to maintain the respect of their peers throughout the international community by honoring the commitments they have frequently and freely made in this regard, by abandoning further actions against ICTRC and allowing the activities to proceed. with We therefore call upon the Iranian authorities to honor their commitments made in various international forums, including at WSIS, with regard to freedom of expression and the rights and roles of civil society, by allowing ICTRC to carry on its lawful activities, and abandoning any further actions against them, while rescinding all earlier actions that prevent it from carry on its lawful activities. I must repeat that if it is difficult to make these changes because of any reason, our supports stand even for the present version of the letter. 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: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 11:23 PM To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; bureau at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: rbloem at ngocongo.org; 'CONGO - Philippe Dam' Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Closure of ICTRC Office in Tehran - Letter for support open for signature Importance: High Dear all, A couple of months ago, I forwarded an e-mail received from our WSIS colleague Mr. Sohrab Razzaghi, announcing that the office of the NGO he is the Executive Director of was closed and sealed by the Revolutionary Court without any legal justification or accusations. Apparently the situation has not evolved and that the staff was prevented to work. This is of particular concern for all of us because the focal points for West Asia and the Middle East within the Civil Society Bureau during the WSIS preparatory phase were member of the ICTRC. A group of NGOs have drafted a support letter regretting the closure of the ICTRC office and asking for clarification to the Iranian Authorities. You are invited to consider signing this support letter. I particularly encourage all formerly CSB members to look into it, in support for our partners during the WSIS process. I'll be happy to forward your signatures to the coordinators of this initiative. All the best, Philippe 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Jul 17 21:47:05 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:47:05 +0900 Subject: [governance] survey on Evaluation of Internet Self Regulation Message-ID: Hi, Hope a few caucus members will help with a short online survey on the efficacy of self- and co-regulation in various online sectors. It shouldn't take much more than 10 minutes: Note that you do not need to fill in all the questions - you can simply press "Next" to skip pages where you need to. The survey's part of a project led by RAND Europe for the European Commission. Our assessment will cover self-regulatory organisations' efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability in order to identify conditions under which such institutional arrangements can best stimulate innovation without compromising safety, security and fundamental rights. The ultimate aim is to support EC efforts to further these objectives by initiating and/or mediating self- and co-regulation. The evaluation will be based on documentary, quantitative, elite interview and electronic survey evidence, analyzed within a logical framework reflecting existing knowledge of the evolution of self-/co- regulation. The findings and recommendations will be validated by means of a key stakeholder workshop and reported in a form suitable for wide dissemination and discussion. Many 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 goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Tue Jul 17 22:46:46 2007 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 19:46:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] OECD Communications Outlook 2007 Message-ID: <23467.93073.qm@web54105.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Hi all, The OECD's latest Communications Outlook is now available with some amazing information. Well, amazing quantity at least, but some great research. Below is an outline of a little of what's available regarding domain names that I put on my website. But there's a huge amount of information on other topics. There's also a link to the full huge document! Enjoy! Cheers David OECD Communications Outlook 2007 It's a bit hard to know where to start with this massive publication - The OECD Communications Outlook 2007. It presents the most recent comparable data on communication sector performance and provides information on policy frameworks in OECD countries. The report also provides detailed time series data of up to 10 years for a number of key indicators. In addition, for the first time, the 2007 edition includes analysis of the communication sector in five large non-OECD countries: Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. For those interested in issues relating to domain names, the report includes information and statistics on internet subscribers, internet hosts, domain names, web servers, secure servers, national and regional internet development and peering. The report is in pdf format and is 319 pages, or over 5mb in size. Some of the highlights dealing with domain names, are (all figures are for August 2006 unless noted otherwise): from 2000-2006, the 5 countries with the highest annual growth by ccTLD are .be, .ca, .se, .es and .plthe top 5 ccTLD registrations per capita are .dk, .de, .nl, .ch and .be (July 2006).com registrations account for 51% of all domain name registrations, ccTLD registrations (31%), .eu registrations (2%), .net (7%), .org (.5%), .info 3% and .biz (1%)shares of gTLDs in OECD-related domain name registrations - the top 5 countries are USA, Turkey, Canada, Spain and Francedomain name registrations per inhabitant including gTLDs, ccTLDs and .eu - the top 5 countries are Denmark (184/1,000 inhabitants), Germany (174), United States (159), Netherlands (154) and United Kingdom (140)top 5 registrars (2005) - GoDaddy (18%), Network Solutions (10%), eNom (8%), Tucows (7%) and Melbourne IT (6%).See http://technewsreview.com.au/article.php?article=2060. --------- 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 ____________________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo!7 Mail has just got even bigger and better with unlimited storage on all webmail accounts. http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jul 18 12:19:42 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 21:49:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID In-Reply-To: <46934353.2000107@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <20070718161946.3598C67976@smtp1.electricembers.net> Hi All This is regarding the discussions we have been having on the SG's report to ECOSOC and the mention in it of consultations for the process of enhanced cooperation for global public policy regarding the Internet. It is fine if we request CONGO to add the following on the behalf of the IGC in its statement. This is in reference to the SG's report stating that, and we quote, "Consultations are under way to start a process towards enhanced cooperation among all relevant stakeholders with regard to Internet governance, as requested by the Summit". Para 71 of the Tunis Agenda clearly states that " the process towards enhanced cooperation, ...will involve all stakeholders". However, the Civil Society IG Caucus notes with concern that civil society has not been involved at all in the consultations mentioned in the SG's report. We do not even have any information about this consultation, despite directly requesting the SG office regarding it. We request ECOSOC to ensure that the multistakeholder principle in WSIS follow-up is fully adhered to as per WSIS documents, in general spirit, and in specific mandates as in case of the process towards enhanced cooperation, where as mentioned above, the WSIS injunction for multistakeholder involvement is clearly not being complied with. The caucus will like to be invited to and involved in these consultations, along with other civil society groups. Since a lot of civil society groups interested in IG issues converge at IGF meeting, holding such consultations on the sidelines of the IGF meeting may be useful. We will also like to be kept updated on the consultations with other stakeholders. (ends) This has to go to CONGO by 22nd. So if we need to seek consensus over 21st and 22nd, we have only 19th and 20th for comments and amendments. 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: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] On > Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola > Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 1:59 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake > Cc: Plenary > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS > follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID > > [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire list. > Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific > people] > > Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic translation of > this message! > _______________________________________ > > William Drake ha scritto: > > With regard to enhanced cooperation, as Parminder notes, the IG caucus > > already agreed a letter months ago saying we've been told nothing and > > would like/expect to be consulted in keeping with the spirit of the TA. > > There is no need for prolonged debate over whether and how to reiterate > > already adopted language. Parminder and Vittorio should just draft a > > few sentences referencing the prior letter and saying these concerns are > > raised anew by the SG Report and we look forward to a response, and > > submit it for a quick consensus call under the charter procedure. > > Possibly, the report saying "consultations are under way" is an elegant > way to say "we've not been doing our homework, so we'll rush something > up asap". Nonetheless, my feeling is that everyone realized that that > process can't just be deferred forever, so things could actually start > to move between now and Rio. So I agree with you, I think that it would > be a good idea to issue a statement reminding that civil society has to > be involved in this process. I'll work it out with Parminder (he might > already have a 3-page draft ready :-D ). > -- > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > _______________________________________________ > Plenary mailing list > Plenary at wsis-cs.org > http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jul 18 12:44:54 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 22:14:54 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF workshop proposal In-Reply-To: <20070705110742.A77A8E1B53@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20070718164457.C54246792F@smtp1.electricembers.net> We are not making much progress with submitting any additional stuff to IGF secretariat that could bolster the case of IGF's workshop on 'Fulfilling the mandate on the IGF'. I was trying to get the Indian government on, but the person-incharge, the Indian government MAG member, has been transferred to a very different position, and at present there is no one to talk to for co-sponsorship/ partnership. So, if anyone has possible co-sponsors from business, technical community, or governments, pl come forward. Else, we will let the workshop proposal be judged on its present merits, and sponsorship of IGC alone, which is considerable group of civil society members and organizations. This is not a very good thing to do, but members have to volunteer to do the work of getting co-sponsorship and partnership if we are to do any better. Any additional information has to be submitted in the next 4-5 days because apparently the last week will be spent in taking the decision of choosing the 30 workshops from the 60 proposals that are with the secretariat. If no further co-sponsorships come in, we will just report to the secretariat that the we will have one speaker each from a developed and a developing country government, one for the technical community, one from private sector, and a couple of CS and academic sector speakers. And that the IGC has strong connections with all these groups, and with key members in these groups with expertise in IG areas, and we will select the speakers through an internal process of consultations. 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: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 4:38 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] IGF workshop proposal Hi All The IGC's workshop on 'Fulfilling the Mandate of 'IGF' needs your help for getting 1. Co-sponsors - especially from the private sector, Internet community, governments 2. Right and good speakers Pl suggest co-sponsors including contacting them on IGC's behalf. We have little or no constraints on co-sponsorship, so all are welcome. And also speakers. I expect that in case of speakers - where we constrained in terms of a final list of 4-5 - we will need to be mindful in our suggestions as to the possibility of the majority of the list approving our choices. We should aim at getting a good range of views during the workshop. I don't think we shd go for a consensus vote for the speakers list. This may be left to the co-coordinators to go by what they think is the list with most support. During the workshop, we may try to keep most of the time for comments from the floor. Such suggestions about the format etc are also welcome. 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: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2007 10:51 PM To: 'IGF' Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] IGF workshop proposal Dear Sir Please find enclosed a workshop proposal on 'Fulfilling the mandate of IGF' on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. We will soon submit additional information, as mentioned in the proposal. We did try online submission, but the system does not look like it is working. A word of acknowledgement will be appreciated. Thanks, and best regards Parminder Jeet Singh Co-coordinator, Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. Workshop Proposal from the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus for IGF, Rio Workshop Title: Fulfilling the mandate of IGF 1. Provide a concise formulation for the proposed workshop theme The Tunis Agenda for the Information Society mandates the IGF to perform the following functions: a) Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet Governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet; b) Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body; c) Interface with appropriate inter-governmental organisations and other institutions on matters under their purview; d) Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, and in this regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific and technical communities; e) Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world; f) Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing and/or future Internet Governance mechanisms, particularly those from developing countries; g) Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations; h) Contribute to capacity-building for Internet Governance in developing countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise; i) Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes; j) Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources; k) Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse of the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users; l) Publish its proceedings. Based on the experience of the Athens conference and the draft program outline for the Rio conference, it could be argued that the IGF is contributing to the realization of some of these objectives. However, other items in the list are more difficult to promote solely through annual conferences comprising main sessions with panels of speakers and an assortment of workshops. Accordingly, it would be useful to have an open, inclusive, positive and constructive dialogue about what additional steps, if any, could be taken on a consensual, multistakeholder basis to help the IGF community achieve the mandate. To that end, the workshop would consider such matters as: A. The thinking behind the formulation of the mandate, which derives from the WGIG Report and the discussions held during Prep-Com 3 of the WSIS Tunis phase; B. Whether some or all of the functions enumerated in the mandate are important, value-adding, activities that are not being performed elsewhere, would benefit the global community, and are uniquely suited to the IGF; C. Operationally practical steps that could be pursued on a consensual, multistakeholder basis by the IGF community in order to perform those functions identified in B, above. 2. Provide the Name of the Organizer(s) of the workshop and their Affiliation to various stakeholder groups. Describe how you will take steps to adhere to the multi-stakeholder principle, including geographical diversity. The Internet Governance Caucus comprises a diverse range of individual and organizational civil society actors who are committed to the promotion of global public interest objectives in Internet governance decision-making. The caucus was created in early 2003 and played a leading role on Internet governance issues for the broad civil society coalition that participated in the WSIS process. Some of its members were early proponents of an IGF and active participants in the WGIG, and in the current IGF Advisory Group. The caucus strongly supported the WGIG's proposal of an IGF, as well as the mandate given to it by the Tunis Agenda. The caucus has many connections to all relevant stakeholder groups. For example, a number of caucus members are employed in the private sector; and many members, and indeed the caucus itself, have had productive collaborative relationships with international organization, government, and business representatives in the course of the WSIS and IGF processes, as well as in other Internet governance-related contexts. The caucus has every intention of organizing a multistakeholder panel of speakers representing all groupings involved in the IGF and diverse range of views on the subject matter. The caucus would warmly welcome the co-sponsorship of any stakeholder entity that would like to participate. 3. Why do you think the proposed theme is important? The theme concerns the purpose and possibilities of the IGF. 4. Describe the workshop's conformity with the Tunis Agenda in terms of substance and the mandate of the IGF. The proposed workshop is about the Tunis Agenda's mandate for the IGF. 5. Provide the Name and Affiliation of the panelists you are planning to invite. We are soliciting panelists, and a list will be submitted in the next 2-3 weeks. The panel would comprise known representatives from the international organization, government, business, technical and administrative, and civil society communities who are well informed about the mandate, have a diversity of perspectives on the issues, and can engage in a constructive and collegial dialogue. 6. Describe the main actors in the field. Have you approached them and asked whether they would be willing to participate in proposed workshop? See # 5, above. 7. List similar events you have organized in the past. Caucus members have organized many related panel discussions during the WSIS process (including workshops on the nature and mandate of the then proposed IGF), at the Athens conference, and elsewhere, and are involved in various proposals for the Rio conference as well. ________________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From mueller at syr.edu Wed Jul 18 15:29:37 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:29:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID In-Reply-To: <20070718161947.A981F1C9C0B@mail.gn.apc.org> References: <46934353.2000107@bertola.eu> <20070718161947.A981F1C9C0B@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD98D7BDB@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> You have my full support on this. --MM ________________________________ From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] On Behalf Of Parminder Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 12:20 PM To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID Hi All This is regarding the discussions we have been having on the SG's report to ECOSOC and the mention in it of consultations for the process of enhanced cooperation for global public policy regarding the Internet. It is fine if we request CONGO to add the following on the behalf of the IGC in its statement. This is in reference to the SG's report stating that, and we quote, "Consultations are under way to start a process towards enhanced cooperation among all relevant stakeholders with regard to Internet governance, as requested by the Summit". Para 71 of the Tunis Agenda clearly states that " the process towards enhanced cooperation, ...will involve all stakeholders". However, the Civil Society IG Caucus notes with concern that civil society has not been involved at all in the consultations mentioned in the SG's report. We do not even have any information about this consultation, despite directly requesting the SG office regarding it. We request ECOSOC to ensure that the multistakeholder principle in WSIS follow-up is fully adhered to as per WSIS documents, in general spirit, and in specific mandates as in case of the process towards enhanced cooperation, where as mentioned above, the WSIS injunction for multistakeholder involvement is clearly not being complied with. The caucus will like to be invited to and involved in these consultations, along with other civil society groups. Since a lot of civil society groups interested in IG issues converge at IGF meeting, holding such consultations on the sidelines of the IGF meeting may be useful. We will also like to be kept updated on the consultations with other stakeholders. (ends) This has to go to CONGO by 22nd. So if we need to seek consensus over 21st and 22nd, we have only 19th and 20th for comments and amendments. 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: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] On > Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola > Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 1:59 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake > Cc: Plenary > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS > follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID > > [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire list. > Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific > people] > > Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic translation of > this message! > _______________________________________ > > William Drake ha scritto: > > With regard to enhanced cooperation, as Parminder notes, the IG caucus > > already agreed a letter months ago saying we've been told nothing and > > would like/expect to be consulted in keeping with the spirit of the TA. > > There is no need for prolonged debate over whether and how to reiterate > > already adopted language. Parminder and Vittorio should just draft a > > few sentences referencing the prior letter and saying these concerns are > > raised anew by the SG Report and we look forward to a response, and > > submit it for a quick consensus call under the charter procedure. > > Possibly, the report saying "consultations are under way" is an elegant > way to say "we've not been doing our homework, so we'll rush something > up asap". Nonetheless, my feeling is that everyone realized that that > process can't just be deferred forever, so things could actually start > to move between now and Rio. So I agree with you, I think that it would > be a good idea to issue a statement reminding that civil society has to > be involved in this process. I'll work it out with Parminder (he might > already have a 3-page draft ready :-D ). > -- > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > _______________________________________________ > Plenary mailing list > Plenary at wsis-cs.org > http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.8/906 - Release Date: 7/17/2007 6:30 PM -------------- 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 Thu Jul 19 03:12:26 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:12:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF workshop proposal In-Reply-To: <20070718164457.C54246792F@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20070718164457.C54246792F@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <469F0EDA.3000501@bertola.eu> Parminder ha scritto: > We are not making much progress with submitting any additional stuff to > IGF secretariat that could bolster the case of IGF’s workshop on > ‘Fulfilling the mandate on the IGF’… I see it hard that we can get any government to support this workshop, they might not want to expose themselves on such a delicate issue. But perhaps we can ask whether the private sector would like to join us. -- 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 karenb at gn.apc.org Thu Jul 19 04:14:55 2007 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:14:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD98D7BDB@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.ed u> References: <46934353.2000107@bertola.eu> <20070718161947.A981F1C9C0B@mail.gn.apc.org> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD98D7BDB@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20070719081455.7C1A51CA805@mail.gn.apc.org> hi parminder >You have my full support on this. --MM thanks for doing this parminder.. here's some proposed revisions up front - my justifications noted at the end.. === (i'm assuming these few paras will be inserted into a collective statement CONGO is coordinating? === In reference to "Consultations are under way to start a process towards enhanced cooperation among all relevant stakeholders with regard to Internet governance, as requested by the Summit". Para 71 of the Tunis Agenda states: "the process towards enhanced cooperation, ...will involve all stakeholders". The Civil Society IG Caucus notes with concern that the spirit of the WSIS multi-stakeholder principles does not appear to have been applied in relation to the process of enhanced cooperation. In spite of directly requesting information of the SG regarding the process, civil society groups have neither received information about, nor been invited to or involved in consultations, in any way to date. The caucus, along with other civil society groups, has consistently demonstrated it's committment to contribute constructively to the WSIS followup process, a committment which extends to all elements of the process, including that of enhanced cooperation. We request ECOSOC ensures that the WSIS Multi-stakeholder principles are consistently applied to all elements of the WSIS followup process, and that information about consultation processes are provided in a timely and transparent manner to all stakeholders. In order to make the most of civil society participation in this process, it would be useful to include formal consultations on enhanced cooperation during, or around, the annual CSTD May sessions (the WSIS 'weeks') as well as encourage informal meetings during events such as the Internet Governance Forum." notes below.. karen >This is in reference to the SG's report stating that, and we quote, >"Consultations are under way to start a process towards enhanced >cooperation among all relevant stakeholders with regard to Internet >governance, as requested by the Summit". Para 71 of the Tunis Agenda >clearly states that "the process towards enhanced cooperation, >...will involve all stakeholders". However, the Civil Society IG >Caucus notes with concern that civil society has not been involved >at all in the consultations mentioned in the SG's report. We do not >even have any information about this consultation, despite directly >requesting the SG office regarding it. In reference to "Consultations are under way to start a process towards enhanced cooperation among all relevant stakeholders with regard to Internet governance, as requested by the Summit". Para 71 of the Tunis Agenda states: "the process towards enhanced cooperation, ...will involve all stakeholders". The Civil Society IG Caucus notes with concern that, in spite of directly requesting information of the SG regarding the process, civil society has neither received information about, nor been invited or involved in consultations in any way to date. (parminder, you may want to include a copy of the request for info, dated) >We request ECOSOC to ensure that the multistakeholder principle in >WSIS follow-up is fully adhered to as per WSIS documents, in general >spirit, and in specific mandates as in case of the process towards >enhanced cooperation, where as mentioned above, the WSIS injunction >for multistakeholder involvement is clearly not being complied with. eg.. are we asking ECOSOC to ensure that the CSTD ensures MS principles are adhered to in any (and all) consultations related to wsis followup? the CSTD is the entry point for consultation no? ECOSOC only receives reports from CSTD no? (or maybe i've got it all wrong) >The caucus will like to be invited to and involved in these >consultations, along with other civil society groups. Since a lot of >civil society groups interested in IG issues converge at IGF >meeting, holding such consultations on the sidelines of the IGF >meeting may be useful. We will also like to be kept updated on the >consultations with other stakeholders. the above for example, would appear to relate to CS involvement in CSTD process? but you know, i'm not sure i would include text about holding consultations at the IGF specifically.. strategically, i think it's not the best move.. i would prefer to have *formal* consultations about enhanced cooperation as part of the wsis followup process, and therefore, during may each year.. but if you link these two together right now, i am sure it will be resisted.. is that what we want? As a compromise, you could use the IGF as one of several opportunities for consulTations.. proposed text We request ECOSOC ensures that the WSIS Multi-stakeholder principles are consistently applied to all elements of the WSIS followup process, and that information about consultation processes are provided in a timely and transparent manner to all stakeholders. In order to make the most of civil society participation in this process, it would be useful to include formal consultations on enhanced cooperation during, or around, the annual CSTD May sessions (the WSIS 'weeks') as well as encourage informal meetings during events such as the Internet Governance Forum." and - is this statement going to be read, or written and submitted to ECOSOC? i imagine a bit of both? ie, an intervention from the floor, and a written statement? and, what is the relationship between ECOSOC and CSTD - i ask as i want to be clear on who has the power to ask what of whom.. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jul 19 05:13:39 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:13:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID In-Reply-To: <20070719081455.7C1A51CA805@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: Hi, On 7/19/07 10:14 AM, "karen banks" wrote: > (parminder, you may want to include a copy of the request for info, dated) I agree >> We request ECOSOC to ensure that the multistakeholder principle in >> WSIS follow-up is fully adhered to as per WSIS documents, in general >> spirit, and in specific mandates as in case of the process towards >> enhanced cooperation, where as mentioned above, the WSIS injunction >> for multistakeholder involvement is clearly not being complied with. > > eg.. are we asking ECOSOC to ensure that the CSTD ensures MS > principles are adhered to in any (and all) consultations related to > wsis followup? the CSTD is the entry point for consultation no? > ECOSOC only receives reports from CSTD no? (or maybe i've got it all wrong) Yes, although such discussion as there has been on EC (with respect to core resources, not IO programs being relabeled as EC, like ITU security work) is not taking place on a multilateral basis in the first place. Neither ECOSOC nor CSTD can ensure that the main action is multilateral, much less multistakeholder. As such, it might be more encompassing and reflective of reality to say something like, We request that the United Nations and all other parties ensure that the enhanced cooperation process is conducted in a manner that is fully consistent with the principles of transparency and multistakeholder participation set forth in the Tunis Agenda. [full stop] > but you know, i'm not sure i would include text about holding > consultations at the IGF specifically.. strategically, i think it's > not the best move.. i would prefer to have *formal* consultations I agree. While it would be logistically easier, politically the linkage would highly problematic for the IGF and would be strongly resisted in several quarters. The chances of getting what we're asking for are exceedingly small anyway, why make the statement bear this additional burden? 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 karenb at gn.apc.org Thu Jul 19 05:44:19 2007 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 10:44:19 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF workshop proposal In-Reply-To: <469F0EDA.3000501@bertola.eu> References: <20070718164457.C54246792F@smtp1.electricembers.net> <469F0EDA.3000501@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <20070719094603.3649B1C2F77@mail.gn.apc.org> hi >>We are not making much progress with submitting >>any additional stuff to IGF secretariat that >>could bolster the case of IGF’s workshop on >>‘Fulfilling the mandate on the IGF’ > >I see it hard that we can get any government to >support this workshop, they might not want to >expose themselves on such a delicate issue. But >perhaps we can ask whether the private sector would like to join us. i disagree vittorio actually.. not because what you say isn't true - i think it is - but i think it is in relation to interrogating the mandate of the IGF - not in relation to seeing how the IGF is doing in terms of implementing the mandate, how it can do it more effectively and how we can link it to an ongoing review/assessment cycle throughout the IGF these are the points we made in our comments on the proposal initially.. we will get a lot more interest in this workshop - from different stakeholders - if we are to present it in a way which is seen to be (and would be!) useful in terms of the sustainability, effectiveness and impact of the IGF that is certainly our main objective in looking at the mandate of the IGF i think we're giving this workshop the wrong 'spin' if we are thinking that it should be controversial from the outset.. it may well emerge so, but let's not give ourselves unnecessary barriers at this point? Of course we want it to be critical, but constructively critical.. and noone need shy away from that.. karen karen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Thu Jul 19 05:46:07 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:46:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID In-Reply-To: <20070718161946.3598C67976@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20070718161946.3598C67976@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <660D56DF-863F-434B-9EED-669FB93CBA2F@ras.eu.org> Hi Parminder and all, I also support this action from IGC, with text amended as per Karen's proposal, especially the request for a _formal_ consultation re: enhanced cooperation. Not simply because of possible resistance, but also because of probable dilution of this issue in the IGF whole conversation.. Informal discussions during IGF may nevertheless be also encouraged. Best, Meryem Le 18 juil. 07 à 18:19, Parminder a écrit : > Hi All > > > > This is regarding the discussions we have been having on the SG’s > report to ECOSOC and the mention in it of consultations for the > process of enhanced cooperation for global public policy regarding > the Internet. > > > > It is fine if we request CONGO to add the following on the behalf > of the IGC in its statement. > > > > This is in reference to the SG's report stating that, and we quote, > "Consultations are under way to start a process towards enhanced > cooperation among all relevant stakeholders with regard to Internet > governance, as requested by the Summit". Para 71 of the Tunis > Agenda clearly states that " > > the process towards enhanced cooperation, ...will involve all > stakeholders". However, the Civil Society IG Caucus notes with > concern that civil society has not been involved at all in the > consultations mentioned in the SG’s report. We do not even have any > information about this consultation, despite directly requesting > the SG office regarding it. > > > > We request ECOSOC to ensure that the multistakeholder principle in > WSIS follow-up is fully adhered to as per WSIS documents, in > general spirit, and in specific mandates as in case of the process > towards enhanced cooperation, where as mentioned above, the WSIS > injunction for multistakeholder involvement is clearly not being > complied with. The caucus will like to be invited to and involved > in these consultations, along with other civil society groups. > Since a lot of civil society groups interested in IG issues > converge at IGF meeting, holding such consultations on the > sidelines of the IGF meeting may be useful. We will also like to be > kept updated on the consultations with other stakeholders. > > > > (ends) > > > > > > This has to go to CONGO by 22nd. So if we need to seek consensus > over 21st and 22nd, we have only 19th and 20th for comments and > amendments. 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: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis- > cs.org] On > > > Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 1:59 PM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake > > > Cc: Plenary > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing > WSIS > > > follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID > > > > > > [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the > entire list. > > > Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific > > > people] > > > > > > Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic > translation of > > > this message! > > > _______________________________________ > > > > > > William Drake ha scritto: > > > > With regard to enhanced cooperation, as Parminder notes, the IG > caucus > > > > already agreed a letter months ago saying we’ve been told > nothing and > > > > would like/expect to be consulted in keeping with the spirit of > the TA. > > > > There is no need for prolonged debate over whether and how to > reiterate > > > > already adopted language. Parminder and Vittorio should just > draft a > > > > few sentences referencing the prior letter and saying these > concerns are > > > > raised anew by the SG Report and we look forward to a response, > and > > > > submit it for a quick consensus call under the charter procedure. > > > > > > Possibly, the report saying "consultations are under way" is an > elegant > > > way to say "we've not been doing our homework, so we'll rush > something > > > up asap". Nonetheless, my feeling is that everyone realized that > that > > > process can't just be deferred forever, so things could actually > start > > > to move between now and Rio. So I agree with you, I think that it > would > > > be a good idea to issue a statement reminding that civil society > has to > > > be involved in this process. I'll work it out with Parminder (he > might > > > already have a 3-page draft ready :-D ). > > > -- > > > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu > <-------- > > > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ > <-------- > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Plenary mailing list > > > Plenary at wsis-cs.org > > > http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 marzouki at ras.eu.org Thu Jul 19 06:09:15 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 12:09:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF workshop proposal In-Reply-To: <469F0EDA.3000501@bertola.eu> References: <20070718164457.C54246792F@smtp1.electricembers.net> <469F0EDA.3000501@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <4F5C8E1D-FE04-470B-80B3-5D52E9BA2D72@ras.eu.org> Hi again, Le 19 juil. 07 à 09:12, Vittorio Bertola a écrit : > Parminder ha scritto: >> We are not making much progress with submitting any additional >> stuff to IGF secretariat that could bolster the case of IGF’s >> workshop on ‘Fulfilling the mandate on the IGF’… > > I see it hard that we can get any government to support this > workshop, they might not want to expose themselves on such a > delicate issue. But perhaps we can ask whether the private sector > would like to join us. Yes, it may be difficult for workshop _support_, but less difficult for panelists. I suggest that we concentrate our resources and energy on ensuring the participation of good panelists, rather than spending our efforts on co-sponsors. If any co-sponsor is easy to get, they would however be most welcome. Regarding panelists, even with the modified workshop proposal, I maintain that it would be better to ask people who may appear as representatives of main actors. This specially applies to governements. Some names were suggested during our discussion on the workshop proposal: - CS: one of the IGC coordinators - MAG/Secretariat: Nitin Desai / Markus Kummer (ask Desai first, of course) - Business: ICC rep. - Gov: Janis Karklins - IGO: ITU rep. - (if felt needed, but I don't think it is) Tech: ICANN rep. The format of the workshop should leave most of the time for open discussion with participants, i.e. 5 mn given to each panelist to open the discussion (assessment / improvement) and then open discussion. Meryem ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Thu Jul 19 06:16:04 2007 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:16:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF workshop proposal In-Reply-To: <4F5C8E1D-FE04-470B-80B3-5D52E9BA2D72@ras.eu.org> References: <20070718164457.C54246792F@smtp1.electricembers.net> <469F0EDA.3000501@bertola.eu> <4F5C8E1D-FE04-470B-80B3-5D52E9BA2D72@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <20070719101603.EF2FB1C20B7@mail.gn.apc.org> hi >>I see it hard that we can get any government to support this >>workshop, they might not want to expose themselves on such a >>delicate issue. But perhaps we can ask whether the private sector >>would like to join us. > >Yes, it may be difficult for workshop _support_, but less difficult >for panelists. I suggest that we concentrate our resources and energy >on ensuring the participation of good panelists, rather than spending >our efforts on co-sponsors. If any co-sponsor is easy to get, they >would however be most welcome. i agree - i think we can quite comfortably be a single proposer - but have committment from as many stakeholder reps as possible.. and i think meryem's start is a good one >- CS: one of the IGC coordinators >- MAG/Secretariat: Nitin Desai / Markus Kummer (ask Desai first, of course) >- Business: ICC rep. >- Gov: Janis Karklins >- IGO: ITU rep. >- (if felt needed, but I don't think it is) Tech: ICANN rep. - or 'internet' community, isoc for example - i'd also like to see regional representation is possible (the NRO would be good..) >The format of the workshop should leave most of the time for >open discussion with participants, i.e. 5 mn given to each panelist >to open the discussion (assessment / improvement) and then open discussion. yes parminder - why not draft something quite simple, by way of invitation and a brief outline of the workshop and possible 'running order' - and our key objectives.. and send to representatives of the stakeholders (once agreed) and let everyone know all others who have been invited.. karen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jul 19 06:22:28 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:52:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF workshop proposal In-Reply-To: <469F0EDA.3000501@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <20070719102229.87A96E049D@smtp3.electricembers.net> > I see it hard that we can get any government to support this workshop, > they might not want to expose themselves on such a delicate issue. But > perhaps we can ask whether the private sector would like to join us. Do you have anyone from the private sector in mind? ________________________________________________ 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: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] > Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 12:42 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] IGF workshop proposal > > Parminder ha scritto: > > We are not making much progress with submitting any additional stuff to > > IGF secretariat that could bolster the case of IGF's workshop on > > 'Fulfilling the mandate on the IGF'. > > I see it hard that we can get any government to support this workshop, > they might not want to expose themselves on such a delicate issue. But > perhaps we can ask whether the private sector would like to join us. > -- > 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 parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jul 19 06:38:20 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:08:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID In-Reply-To: <20070719081455.7C1A51CA805@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <20070719103822.8F869E04AD@smtp3.electricembers.net> > eg.. are we asking ECOSOC to ensure that the CSTD ensures MS > principles are adhered to in any (and all) consultations related to > wsis followup? the CSTD is the entry point for consultation no? > ECOSOC only receives reports from CSTD no? (or maybe i've got it all > wrong) I understand that ECOSOC has political supervision over CSTD, and is also in charge of all summits follow-ups, and the WSIS one would go through CSTD. So it shd be ok to request ECOSOC to ensure so and so since this is being read out at an ECOSOC substantive meeting. > but you know, i'm not sure i would include text about holding > consultations at the IGF specifically.. strategically, i think it's > not the best move.. i would prefer to have *formal* consultations > about enhanced cooperation as part of the wsis followup process, and > therefore, during may each year.. but if you link these two together > right now, i am sure it will be resisted.. is that what we want? As a > compromise, you could use the IGF as one of several opportunities for > consulTations.. Sure, the idea is to reach out where CS interested in IG issues congregates and not hold consultations on one odd day at New York which can only get little CS participation, which will be quite skewed as well. So, yes, it shd be at Info soc week and at IGF. > and - is this statement going to be read, or written and submitted to > ECOSOC? i imagine a bit of both? ie, an intervention from the floor, > and a written statement? and, what is the relationship between > ECOSOC and CSTD - i ask as i want to be clear on who has the power to > ask what of whom.. Philippe can answer best the issue of how the statement will be used. I have stated above my understanding of the relationship between ECOSOC and CSTD. 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: karen banks [mailto:karenb at gn.apc.org] > Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 1:45 PM > To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS > follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID > > hi parminder > > >You have my full support on this. --MM > > thanks for doing this parminder.. here's some proposed revisions up > front - my justifications noted at the end.. > > === (i'm assuming these few paras will be inserted into a collective > statement CONGO is coordinating? === > > In reference to "Consultations are under way to start a process > towards enhanced cooperation among all relevant stakeholders with > regard to Internet governance, as requested by the Summit". Para 71 > of the Tunis Agenda states: "the process towards enhanced > cooperation, ...will involve all stakeholders". > > The Civil Society IG Caucus notes with concern that the spirit of the > WSIS multi-stakeholder principles does not appear to have been > applied in relation to the process of enhanced cooperation. In spite > of directly requesting information of the SG regarding the process, > civil society groups have neither received information about, nor > been invited to or involved in consultations, in any way to date. > > The caucus, along with other civil society groups, has consistently > demonstrated it's committment to contribute constructively to the > WSIS followup process, a committment which extends to all elements of > the process, including that of enhanced cooperation. > > We request ECOSOC ensures that the WSIS Multi-stakeholder principles > are consistently applied to all elements of the WSIS followup > process, and that information about consultation processes are > provided in a timely and transparent manner to all stakeholders. > > In order to make the most of civil society participation in this > process, it would be useful to include formal consultations on > enhanced cooperation during, or around, the annual CSTD May sessions > (the WSIS 'weeks') as well as encourage informal meetings during > events such as the Internet Governance Forum." > > notes below.. > > karen > > >This is in reference to the SG's report stating that, and we quote, > >"Consultations are under way to start a process towards enhanced > >cooperation among all relevant stakeholders with regard to Internet > >governance, as requested by the Summit". Para 71 of the Tunis Agenda > >clearly states that "the process towards enhanced cooperation, > >...will involve all stakeholders". However, the Civil Society IG > >Caucus notes with concern that civil society has not been involved > >at all in the consultations mentioned in the SG's report. We do not > >even have any information about this consultation, despite directly > >requesting the SG office regarding it. > > In reference to "Consultations are under way to start a process > towards enhanced cooperation among all relevant stakeholders with > regard to Internet governance, as requested by the Summit". > > Para 71 of the Tunis Agenda states: "the process towards enhanced > cooperation, ...will involve all stakeholders". > > The Civil Society IG Caucus notes with concern that, in spite of > directly requesting information of the SG regarding the process, > civil society has neither received information about, nor been > invited or involved in consultations in any way to date. > > (parminder, you may want to include a copy of the request for info, dated) > > >We request ECOSOC to ensure that the multistakeholder principle in > >WSIS follow-up is fully adhered to as per WSIS documents, in general > >spirit, and in specific mandates as in case of the process towards > >enhanced cooperation, where as mentioned above, the WSIS injunction > >for multistakeholder involvement is clearly not being complied with. > > eg.. are we asking ECOSOC to ensure that the CSTD ensures MS > principles are adhered to in any (and all) consultations related to > wsis followup? the CSTD is the entry point for consultation no? > ECOSOC only receives reports from CSTD no? (or maybe i've got it all > wrong) > > >The caucus will like to be invited to and involved in these > >consultations, along with other civil society groups. Since a lot of > >civil society groups interested in IG issues converge at IGF > >meeting, holding such consultations on the sidelines of the IGF > >meeting may be useful. We will also like to be kept updated on the > >consultations with other stakeholders. > > the above for example, would appear to relate to CS involvement in > CSTD process? > > but you know, i'm not sure i would include text about holding > consultations at the IGF specifically.. strategically, i think it's > not the best move.. i would prefer to have *formal* consultations > about enhanced cooperation as part of the wsis followup process, and > therefore, during may each year.. but if you link these two together > right now, i am sure it will be resisted.. is that what we want? As a > compromise, you could use the IGF as one of several opportunities for > consulTations.. > > proposed text > > We request ECOSOC ensures that the WSIS Multi-stakeholder principles > are consistently applied to all elements of the WSIS followup > process, and that information about consultation processes are > provided in a timely and transparent manner to all stakeholders. > > In order to make the most of civil society participation in this > process, it would be useful to include formal consultations on > enhanced cooperation during, or around, the annual CSTD May sessions > (the WSIS 'weeks') as well as encourage informal meetings during > events such as the Internet Governance Forum." > > and - is this statement going to be read, or written and submitted to > ECOSOC? i imagine a bit of both? ie, an intervention from the floor, > and a written statement? and, what is the relationship between > ECOSOC and CSTD - i ask as i want to be clear on who has the power to > ask what of whom.. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 karenb at gn.apc.org Thu Jul 19 06:43:42 2007 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:43:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF workshop proposal In-Reply-To: <20070719102229.87A96E049D@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <469F0EDA.3000501@bertola.eu> <20070719102229.87A96E049D@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20070719104342.8EA171C2FC2@mail.gn.apc.org> hi parminder At 11:22 19/07/2007, Parminder wrote: > > I see it hard that we can get any government to support this workshop, > > they might not want to expose themselves on such a delicate issue. But > > perhaps we can ask whether the private sector would like to join us. > >Do you have anyone from the private sector in mind? i support meryem's suggestion - ask for a rep via BASIS (ICC) karen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Thu Jul 19 06:55:07 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 12:55:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF workshop proposal In-Reply-To: <20070719104342.8EA171C2FC2@mail.gn.apc.org> References: <469F0EDA.3000501@bertola.eu> <20070719102229.87A96E049D@smtp3.electricembers.net> <20070719104342.8EA171C2FC2@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <8CEDB566-7D89-40BC-9298-A0C06ED24C0F@ras.eu.org> Le 19 juil. 07 à 12:43, karen banks a écrit : > hi parminder > > At 11:22 19/07/2007, Parminder wrote: > >> > I see it hard that we can get any government to support this >> workshop, >> > they might not want to expose themselves on such a delicate >> issue. But >> > perhaps we can ask whether the private sector would like to join >> us. >> >> Do you have anyone from the private sector in mind? > > i support meryem's suggestion - ask for a rep via BASIS (ICC) I understand Vittorio was talking about workshop co-sponsors, rather than panelists. Regarding co-sponsorship, I insist on the fact that it makes more sense to have IGC as single proposer, rather than only being able to gather a list of 2-3, non major and non representative of all stakeholders, co-sponsors. Otherwise, this would mean that this workshop is (and is meant) controversial, which is working against our objectives. Meryem____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Thu Jul 19 06:59:46 2007 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:59:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF workshop proposal In-Reply-To: <8CEDB566-7D89-40BC-9298-A0C06ED24C0F@ras.eu.org> References: <469F0EDA.3000501@bertola.eu> <20070719102229.87A96E049D@smtp3.electricembers.net> <20070719104342.8EA171C2FC2@mail.gn.apc.org> <8CEDB566-7D89-40BC-9298-A0C06ED24C0F@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <20070719105945.ACBBD1CA70B@mail.gn.apc.org> hi >I understand Vittorio was talking about workshop co-sponsors, rather >than panelists. > >Regarding co-sponsorship, I insist on the fact that it makes more >sense to have IGC as single proposer, rather than only being able to >gather a list of 2-3, non major and non representative of all >stakeholders, co-sponsors. Otherwise, this would mean that this >workshop is (and is meant) controversial, which is working against >our objectives. apologies, i didn't read that carefully.. and agree - let's get a good MS panel together and not worry about MS co-cponsors.. karen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Jul 19 06:59:57 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 19:59:57 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF workshop proposal In-Reply-To: <20070719104342.8EA171C2FC2@mail.gn.apc.org> References: <469F0EDA.3000501@bertola.eu> <20070719102229.87A96E049D@smtp3.electricembers.net> <20070719104342.8EA171C2FC2@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: At 11:43 AM +0100 7/19/07, karen banks wrote: >hi parminder > >At 11:22 19/07/2007, Parminder wrote: > >> > I see it hard that we can get any government to support this workshop, >>> they might not want to expose themselves on such a delicate issue. But >>> perhaps we can ask whether the private sector would like to join us. >> >>Do you have anyone from the private sector in mind? > >i support meryem's suggestion - ask for a rep via BASIS (ICC) Send me the proposal and I'll ask. Can also ask on the advisory group list for possible partners/co-organizers. Parminder, Vittorio: have you discussed this workshop with Markus Kummer, he knows better than anyone who is interested in what, ask his advice please. Adam >karen > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, 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 Jul 19 07:48:03 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 13:48:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF workshop proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi On 7/19/07 12:59 PM, "Adam Peake" wrote: > Parminder, Vittorio: have you discussed this workshop with Markus > Kummer, he knows better than anyone who is interested in what, ask > his advice please. I did at some length, and then talked with Parminder about it, but the understanding of the latter hasn't been carried over here. In any event, I wouldn't spend more cycles on the co-sponsorship and would again suggest that if it is to be productive, the ws should concentrate on a systematic dissection of the agenda's elements in terms of their intent and their potential functional utility and political/operational viability in the current context. Accordingly, I would involve some of the government, industry, and CS people who framed and agreed to them, e.g. in the WGIG and if possible, Tunis. Conversely, I think trying to load up the panel with people who either will not be in a position to speak frankly and/or would prefer to just forget the mandate and move on as is is less likely to result in us identifying any bits that can be carried forward. 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 LMcKnigh at syr.edu Thu Jul 19 14:26:29 2007 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:26:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF workshop proposal Message-ID: I'll try to round up a government or 2, will report back to the list by next week. In general I support the text as it is emerging, and the non-threatening approach of treating this as the start of a routine discussion on what the IGF is and might be. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> parminder at itforchange.net 7/19/2007 6:22 AM >>> > I see it hard that we can get any government to support this workshop, > they might not want to expose themselves on such a delicate issue. But > perhaps we can ask whether the private sector would like to join us. Do you have anyone from the private sector in mind? ________________________________________________ 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: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] > Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 12:42 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] IGF workshop proposal > > Parminder ha scritto: > > We are not making much progress with submitting any additional stuff to > > IGF secretariat that could bolster the case of IGF's workshop on > > 'Fulfilling the mandate on the IGF'. > > I see it hard that we can get any government to support this workshop, > they might not want to expose themselves on such a delicate issue. But > perhaps we can ask whether the private sector would like to join us. > -- > 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 LMcKnigh at syr.edu Thu Jul 19 14:29:43 2007 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:29:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF workshop proposal Message-ID: ok, still catching up on email, if govt co-aponsors unneccessary that is even better. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> drake at hei.unige.ch 7/19/2007 7:48 AM >>> Hi On 7/19/07 12:59 PM, "Adam Peake" wrote: > Parminder, Vittorio: have you discussed this workshop with Markus > Kummer, he knows better than anyone who is interested in what, ask > his advice please. I did at some length, and then talked with Parminder about it, but the understanding of the latter hasn't been carried over here. In any event, I wouldn't spend more cycles on the co-sponsorship and would again suggest that if it is to be productive, the ws should concentrate on a systematic dissection of the agenda's elements in terms of their intent and their potential functional utility and political/operational viability in the current context. Accordingly, I would involve some of the government, industry, and CS people who framed and agreed to them, e.g. in the WGIG and if possible, Tunis. Conversely, I think trying to load up the panel with people who either will not be in a position to speak frankly and/or would prefer to just forget the mandate and move on as is is less likely to result in us identifying any bits that can be carried forward. 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 mueller at syr.edu Thu Jul 19 14:17:19 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:17:19 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: OECD Online Public Consultation on the Ministerial meeting on the Future of the Internet Economy Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD98D7BF0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Hello, all. Please take a look at this. OECD Online Public Consultation on the Ministerial meeting on the Future of the Internet Economy The OECD is inviting public comments on the themes of the Ministerial meeting on the Future of the Internet Economy. This online public consultation aims to provide an opportunity for all stakeholders to comment on the topics and issues to be discussed at the Ministerial, and to help ensure that the meeting will benefit from a wide-range of viewpoints and expertise. The consultation is open to all parties wishing to contribute, in particular civil society groups, representatives of the Internet technical community, individual experts, and business. Members of the general public are also invited to comment. Participate in the Public Consultation now. The consultation will be open until Friday 14 September 2007. After then responses will be published on the Future of the Internet Economy website (http://www.oecd.org/FutureInternet ). ****** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jul 20 00:59:20 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 10:29:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF workshop proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070720045924.9DD46678C7@smtp1.electricembers.net> I understand the sentiment expressed by Meryem > Regarding co-sponsorship, I insist on the fact that it makes more > sense to have IGC as single proposer, rather than only being able to > gather a list of 2-3, non major and non representative of all > stakeholders, co-sponsors. Otherwise, this would mean that this > workshop is (and is meant) controversial, which is working against > our objectives. > However, I wouldn't want to take the risk - there is going to be a lot of workshop proposals rejected this time around. And multi-stakeholder principle is the only criteria which I have heard mentioned so far...( though I agree it wont be easy to reject an IGC sponsored workshop.) And when we propose to get others to co-sponsors, for instance through Adam's offer to check with MAG, we do show our openness, and in the process itself, strengthen our claim. So I will request Adam to check with MAG and separately with any private sector body, and Lee to try the governments he wanted to try. That will be useful. And Vittorio, you too, if you have anyone from the private sector in mind. We need to submit this information asap, preferably within the next 2-3 days. Thanks everyone 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: Lee McKnight [mailto:LMcKnigh at syr.edu] > Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 12:00 AM > To: drake at hei.unige.ch; Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] IGF workshop proposal > > ok, still catching up on email, if govt co-aponsors unneccessary that is > even better. > > Lee > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > > >>> drake at hei.unige.ch 7/19/2007 7:48 AM >>> > Hi > > On 7/19/07 12:59 PM, "Adam Peake" wrote: > > > Parminder, Vittorio: have you discussed this workshop with Markus > > Kummer, he knows better than anyone who is interested in what, ask > > his advice please. > > I did at some length, and then talked with Parminder about it, but the > understanding of the latter hasn't been carried over here. In any > event, I > wouldn't spend more cycles on the co-sponsorship and would again > suggest > that if it is to be productive, the ws should concentrate on a > systematic > dissection of the agenda's elements in terms of their intent and their > potential functional utility and political/operational viability in > the > current context. Accordingly, I would involve some of the government, > industry, and CS people who framed and agreed to them, e.g. in the WGIG > and > if possible, Tunis. Conversely, I think trying to load up the panel > with > people who either will not be in a position to speak frankly and/or > would > prefer to just forget the mandate and move on as is is less likely to > result > in us identifying any bits that can be carried forward. > > 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Fri Jul 20 01:25:21 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 10:55:21 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF workshop proposal In-Reply-To: <20070720045924.9DD46678C7@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20070720052521.DC73567992@smtp1.electricembers.net> For those who haven't seen it, the proposal is at http://info.intgovforum.org/yoppy.php?poj=91 ________________________________________________ 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: Friday, July 20, 2007 10:29 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Lee McKnight'; drake at hei.unige.ch > Subject: RE: [governance] IGF workshop proposal > > > > I understand the sentiment expressed by Meryem > > > Regarding co-sponsorship, I insist on the fact that it makes more > > sense to have IGC as single proposer, rather than only being able to > > gather a list of 2-3, non major and non representative of all > > stakeholders, co-sponsors. Otherwise, this would mean that this > > workshop is (and is meant) controversial, which is working against > > our objectives. > > > > > However, I wouldn't want to take the risk - there is going to be a lot of > workshop proposals rejected this time around. And multi-stakeholder > principle is the only criteria which I have heard mentioned so far...( > though I agree it wont be easy to reject an IGC sponsored workshop.) > > And when we propose to get others to co-sponsors, for instance through > Adam's offer to check with MAG, we do show our openness, and in the > process > itself, strengthen our claim. > > So I will request Adam to check with MAG and separately with any private > sector body, and Lee to try the governments he wanted to try. That will be > useful. And Vittorio, you too, if you have anyone from the private sector > in > mind. We need to submit this information asap, preferably within the next > 2-3 days. > > Thanks everyone > > 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: Lee McKnight [mailto:LMcKnigh at syr.edu] > > Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 12:00 AM > > To: drake at hei.unige.ch; Governance > > Subject: Re: [governance] IGF workshop proposal > > > > ok, still catching up on email, if govt co-aponsors unneccessary that is > > even better. > > > > Lee > > > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > > School of Information Studies > > Syracuse University > > +1-315-443-6891office > > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > > > > >>> drake at hei.unige.ch 7/19/2007 7:48 AM >>> > > Hi > > > > On 7/19/07 12:59 PM, "Adam Peake" wrote: > > > > > Parminder, Vittorio: have you discussed this workshop with Markus > > > Kummer, he knows better than anyone who is interested in what, ask > > > his advice please. > > > > I did at some length, and then talked with Parminder about it, but the > > understanding of the latter hasn't been carried over here. In any > > event, I > > wouldn't spend more cycles on the co-sponsorship and would again > > suggest > > that if it is to be productive, the ws should concentrate on a > > systematic > > dissection of the agenda's elements in terms of their intent and their > > potential functional utility and political/operational viability in > > the > > current context. Accordingly, I would involve some of the government, > > industry, and CS people who framed and agreed to them, e.g. in the WGIG > > and > > if possible, Tunis. Conversely, I think trying to load up the panel > > with > > people who either will not be in a position to speak frankly and/or > > would > > prefer to just forget the mandate and move on as is is less likely to > > result > > in us identifying any bits that can be carried forward. > > > > 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 karenb at gn.apc.org Fri Jul 20 03:56:03 2007 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 08:56:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF workshop proposal In-Reply-To: <20070720045924.9DD46678C7@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20070720045924.9DD46678C7@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20070720075605.B738A1C3B0D@mail.gn.apc.org> hi parminder > > Regarding co-sponsorship, I insist on the fact that it makes more > > sense to have IGC as single proposer, rather than only being able to > > gather a list of 2-3, non major and non representative of all > > stakeholders, co-sponsors. Otherwise, this would mean that this > > workshop is (and is meant) controversial, which is working against > > our objectives. > >However, I wouldn't want to take the risk - there is going to be a lot of >workshop proposals rejected this time around. And multi-stakeholder >principle is the only criteria which I have heard mentioned so far...( >though I agree it wont be easy to reject an IGC sponsored workshop.) i agree - hard to reject but possible.. >And when we propose to get others to co-sponsors, for instance through >Adam's offer to check with MAG, we do show our openness, and in the process >itself, strengthen our claim. > >So I will request Adam to check with MAG and separately with any private >sector body, and Lee to try the governments he wanted to try. That will be >useful. And Vittorio, you too, if you have anyone from the private sector in >mind. We need to submit this information asap, preferably within the next >2-3 days. i have a call in with ayesha hassan today (BASIS/ICC) and have informally asked matthew shears (ISOC) what he thinks.. i will raise it with ayesha karen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Fri Jul 20 04:51:29 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 10:51:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF workshop proposal In-Reply-To: <20070720045924.9DD46678C7@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20070720045924.9DD46678C7@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <0EBBC0EF-45B2-4030-8BC4-C4325ECFF746@ras.eu.org> Le 20 juil. 07 à 06:59, Parminder a écrit : > > However, I wouldn't want to take the risk - there is going to be a > lot of > workshop proposals rejected this time around. And multi-stakeholder > principle is the only criteria which I have heard mentioned so far...( > though I agree it wont be easy to reject an IGC sponsored workshop.) > > And when we propose to get others to co-sponsors, for instance through > Adam's offer to check with MAG, we do show our openness, and in the > process > itself, strengthen our claim. The latter is an important point, I agree with this. Meryem ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 wzb.eu Fri Jul 20 06:33:18 2007 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:33:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF workshop proposal In-Reply-To: <0EBBC0EF-45B2-4030-8BC4-C4325ECFF746@ras.eu.org> References: <20070720045924.9DD46678C7@smtp1.electricembers.net> <0EBBC0EF-45B2-4030-8BC4-C4325ECFF746@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <46A08F6E.10903@wzb.eu> Multi-stakeholder sponsorship and panel composition is one of the few objective criteria the MAG has for selection workshop proposals. Even if the multi stakeholder approach has not been defined as mandatory element, I would urge all applicants to organize thir proposals as inclusive as possible. jeanette Meryem Marzouki wrote: > > Le 20 juil. 07 à 06:59, Parminder a écrit : > >> >> However, I wouldn't want to take the risk - there is going to be a lot of >> workshop proposals rejected this time around. And multi-stakeholder >> principle is the only criteria which I have heard mentioned so far...( >> though I agree it wont be easy to reject an IGC sponsored workshop.) >> >> And when we propose to get others to co-sponsors, for instance through >> Adam's offer to check with MAG, we do show our openness, and in the >> process >> itself, strengthen our claim. > > The latter is an important point, I agree with this. > Meryem > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 michael_leibrandt at web.de Fri Jul 20 09:13:22 2007 From: michael_leibrandt at web.de (Michael Leibrandt) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 15:13:22 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF workshop proposal Message-ID: <1725083894@web.de> ...and I think it would be a very strange signal to the community if those who rightly request that other stakeholder groups comply to the ms principle would not comply themselfs... Michael ______________________________________________________________________ XXL-Speicher, PC-Virenschutz, Spartarife & mehr: Nur im WEB.DE Club! Jetzt testen! http://produkte.web.de/club/?mc=021130 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Fri Jul 20 09:42:56 2007 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 15:42:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF workshop proposal In-Reply-To: <1725083894@web.de> References: <1725083894@web.de> Message-ID: ...And what about MAG coming out with clear criteria for the selection so as to avoid some unnecessary squabblings that do sprout on this forum whn some ideas are raised. MAG could chose a more inclusive way of having the set of criteria posted and debated here for a consensus to be arrived at. Aaron On 7/20/07, Michael Leibrandt wrote: > ...and I think it would be a very strange signal to the community if those who rightly request that other stakeholder groups comply to the ms principle would not comply themselfs... > > Michael > ______________________________________________________________________ > XXL-Speicher, PC-Virenschutz, Spartarife & mehr: Nur im WEB.DE Club! > Jetzt testen! http://produkte.web.de/club/?mc=021130 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 50 22 Fax. 237 3342 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 LMcKnigh at syr.edu Fri Jul 20 10:59:36 2007 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 10:59:36 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF workshop proposal Message-ID: OK, I'll get on it, look for a report back to the list by Monday. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> "Parminder" 7/20/2007 12:59 AM >>> I understand the sentiment expressed by Meryem > Regarding co-sponsorship, I insist on the fact that it makes more > sense to have IGC as single proposer, rather than only being able to > gather a list of 2-3, non major and non representative of all > stakeholders, co-sponsors. Otherwise, this would mean that this > workshop is (and is meant) controversial, which is working against > our objectives. > However, I wouldn't want to take the risk - there is going to be a lot of workshop proposals rejected this time around. And multi-stakeholder principle is the only criteria which I have heard mentioned so far...( though I agree it wont be easy to reject an IGC sponsored workshop.) And when we propose to get others to co-sponsors, for instance through Adam's offer to check with MAG, we do show our openness, and in the process itself, strengthen our claim. So I will request Adam to check with MAG and separately with any private sector body, and Lee to try the governments he wanted to try. That will be useful. And Vittorio, you too, if you have anyone from the private sector in mind. We need to submit this information asap, preferably within the next 2-3 days. Thanks everyone 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: Lee McKnight [mailto:LMcKnigh at syr.edu] > Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 12:00 AM > To: drake at hei.unige.ch; Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] IGF workshop proposal > > ok, still catching up on email, if govt co-aponsors unneccessary that is > even better. > > Lee > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > > >>> drake at hei.unige.ch 7/19/2007 7:48 AM >>> > Hi > > On 7/19/07 12:59 PM, "Adam Peake" wrote: > > > Parminder, Vittorio: have you discussed this workshop with Markus > > Kummer, he knows better than anyone who is interested in what, ask > > his advice please. > > I did at some length, and then talked with Parminder about it, but the > understanding of the latter hasn't been carried over here. In any > event, I > wouldn't spend more cycles on the co-sponsorship and would again > suggest > that if it is to be productive, the ws should concentrate on a > systematic > dissection of the agenda's elements in terms of their intent and their > potential functional utility and political/operational viability in > the > current context. Accordingly, I would involve some of the government, > industry, and CS people who framed and agreed to them, e.g. in the WGIG > and > if possible, Tunis. Conversely, I think trying to load up the panel > with > people who either will not be in a position to speak frankly and/or > would > prefer to just forget the mandate and move on as is is less likely to > result > in us identifying any bits that can be carried forward. > > 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jul 20 15:21:40 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 21:21:40 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN Nomcom review open for comments Message-ID: <46A10B44.90102@bertola.eu> (From my ICANN announcements blog @ http://bertola.eu/netblog/?p=13 - as this list includes several former and current Nomcom members or candidates) NomCom review open for comments Interisle, the independent reviewer of ICANN’s Nominating Committee, is asking for public comments and input by anyone who has had experiences of interaction with ICANN’s nominating process, or simply wants to comment on it. The Nominating Committee process is the main avenue to appoint individuals representing the global public interest to the ICANN Board and several other places - as such, the transparency, accountability and effectiveness of this process is extremely important. Further information can be found here (http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-19jul07.htm) - the deadline for submissions is September 17. -- 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Jul 22 04:57:54 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 10:57:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] UN & ITU References: <20070720052521.DC73567992@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D752@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI http://www.itu.int/newsroom/press_releases/2007/17.html Wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jul 22 05:23:51 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 11:23:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] AW: UN & ITU 1 References: <20070720052521.DC73567992@smtp1.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D752@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D754@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Again FYI. Toure did not mention "Internet Governance", only cybersecurity. http://www.itu.int/net/ITU-SG/speeches/2007/jul17.aspx wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk Sun Jul 22 12:27:03 2007 From: kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk (kwasi boakye-akyeampong) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 17:27:03 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] Effects of lack of electricity on the digital divide In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D754@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <362407.59440.qm@web25515.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Folks, I share with you below an interesting piece i just read: http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/artikel.php?ID=127357 Can we effectively close the digital gap when most parts of the developing world are still struggling with electricity to power ICT systems? Please follow the link above and read some of the comments from readers. Kwasi EFFECT OF ELECTRICITY CRISIS ON INFORMATION AND TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS IN GHANA The modern global community is linked by the Internet and with the rapid proliferation of mobile terminals and other developments, the world is now experiencing the emergence of a ubiquitous information society in which anyone can access information from anywhere at any time. Ironically, the current electricity crisis has denied Ghanaians the full benefit of ICT enabling opportunities. The country’s information and telecommunication systems have been paralyzed by poor distribution of power supply, a critical requirement for the successful operation of ICT systems. ICT involves the storing, processing, and distribution of information by radio, television, telephone, and computers. It plays vital role in all sectors of the economy. It enhances education; assists in health delivery systems; increases productivity; promote efficiency, and facilitates cost-savings. There are many advantages that accrue from the use of ICT, particularly the saving of time. It helps in communicating information with one another irrespective of geographical barriers which assists people to work effectively. However, without electricity ICT systems cannot function and these essential benefits will be an illusion. Without effective communication businesses, hospitals, educational and research institutions, and other corporate bodies cannot operate effectively and efficiently. Therefore, the provision of unregulated electric supply is paramount to sustaining ICT systems and the socio-economic development of Ghana. Access to information and the ability to use information effectively is vital to the development of the Ghanaian society. It is sad to note that the country’s electricity crisis has forced some factories to either close down or cut production levels, several businesses continue to loose money, and there is now general inefficiency across the broad spectrum of different entities in the country. The economy is collapsing and it is about time our policy makers understood that without a reliable high quality supply of electricity, and a sustained communication and information systems, we cannot achieve appreciable economic growth as a nation. According to the European Commission, “the importance of ICTs lies less in the technology itself than in its ability to create greater access to information and communication in underserved populations. Many countries around the world have established organizations for the promotion of ICTs, because it is feared that unless less technologically advanced areas have a chance to catch up, the increasing technological advances in developed nations will only serve to exacerbate the already-existing economic gap between technological "have" and "have not" areas.” This noble objective of the European Commission is far from reality in the developing nations because of the poor conditions under which ICT systems are operated. Communications technologies are taken for granted in developing countries due to either lack of interest, awareness, and money to finance ICT systems. The solution to solving the electricity crisis and hence saving ICT systems in Ghana rests entirely with the government. Unfortunately, there seems to be no clear strategy to solving the problem. This is evidenced in the comical display by government actors who contradict one another on government’s strategy and time-frame in bringing the crisis to an end. For now, Ghanaians don’t know how the electricity crisis is going to be solved, and for how long power rationing will last. The only consolation the citizens have is assurances that “government is doing its best to solve the crisis.” Significantly, the energy crisis that has overwhelmed the nation is not an issue for political rhetoric. Neither can a solution be found in the corridors of political accusations and counter-accusations. It is a national problem that calls for general brainstorming from among experts irrespective of political ideology or leaning. Government should therefore open wide its doors to receive constructive inputs from people with required expertise in finding a lasting and quicker solution to the problem. Time is running out, the economy is freezing, industries are collapsing, communication has broken down, and darkness has engulfed the nation. The earlier we act, the more better we are as a nation. http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/artikel.php?ID=127357 .............................................................................................................................. “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I? And if not now, when?” - Rabbi Hillal .............................................................................................................................. --------------------------------- Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, sign up for your freeaccount today. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Sun Jul 22 14:43:31 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 11:43:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Effects of lack of electricity on the digital divide In-Reply-To: 362407.59440.qm@web25515.mail.ukl.yahoo.com Message-ID: Brilliant post Kwasi - excellent I also found this article interesting: Africa, mostly offline, struggles to get on the Internet By Ron Nixon Re: The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.com http://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?id=6765556 Sunday, July 22, 2007 On a muggy day in Kigali in 2003, some of the highest-ranking officials in the Rwandan government, including President Paul Kagame, flanked an American businessman, Greg Wyler, as he boldly described how he could help turn their small country into a hub of Internet activity. Wyler, an executive based in Boston who made his fortune during the technology boom, said he would lace Rwanda with fiber optic cables, connecting schools, government institutions and homes with low-cost, high-speed Internet service. Until that point, Wyler, 37, had never set foot in Africa - he was invited by a Rwandan government official he had met at a wedding. Wyler never expected to start a business there; he simply wanted to try to help the war-torn country. Even so, Wyler's company, Terracom, was granted a contract to connect 300 schools to the Internet. Later, the company would buy 99 percent of the shares in Rwandatel, the national telecommunications company, for $20 million. But after nearly four years, most of the benefits hailed by him and his company have failed to materialize, Rwandan officials say. "The bottom line is that he promised many things and didn't deliver," Albert Butare, the Rwandan telecommunications minister, said. Wyler says he sees things differently and that he and the Rwandan officials will probably never agree on why their joint venture has been so slow to get off the ground. But Terracom's tale is more than a story about a business dispute in Rwanda. It is also emblematic of what can happen when good intentions run into the technical, political and business realities of Africa. Attempts to bring affordable high-speed Internet service to the masses have made little headway on the continent. Less than 4 percent of the African population is connected to the Web. Most subscribers are in North African countries and the republic of South Africa. A lack of infrastructure is the biggest problem. In many countries, years of civil conflict destroyed communications networks, and continuing political instability deters governments or companies from investing in new systems. E-mail messages and phone calls sent from some African countries have to be routed through Britain, or even the United States, increasing expenses and delivery times. About 75 percent of African Internet traffic is routed this way and costs African countries billions of extra dollars each year that they would not incur if their infrastructure was up to date. "Most African governments haven't paid much attention to their infrastructure," said Vincent Oria, an associate professor of computer science at the New Jersey Institute of Technology who is from the Ivory Coast. "In places where hunger, AIDS and poverty are rampant, they didn't see it as critical until now." Rwandan officials were especially interested in wiring schools, seeing information technology as crucial to modernizing the rural economy. But as of mid-July, only one-third of the 300 schools covered in Terracom's contract had high-speed Internet service. All 300 were supposed to have been connected by 2006. Overall, less than 1 percent of the population is connected to the Internet. Rwandan officials say Terracom seems more interested in tapping the more lucrative cellphone market than in being an Internet service provider. In November, Wyler stepped down as chief executive of Terracom, saying he wanted to spend more time with his family. He still serves on the board. Wyler said by telephone from his Boston home that he would not address the government's criticism. He said he did not want to be quoted as saying anything negative. But he said there were some things he had not anticipated, particularly the technical challenges of linking the Rwandan Internet network to the rest of the world. "Terracom has done everything it can, " he said. "Because of the technical challenges, the Internet service is as good as it's going to get. But given what we started from, I still think we have accomplished a lot. In the beginning there were a few people with Internet service. Now there are thousands." The Rwandan government had hoped that the number of Web surfers would be much higher by now. Rwanda has little industry, and its infrastructure is still being rebuilt after the 1994 genocide in which 800,000 to a million people were killed. "We have almost no natural resources and no seaports in Rwanda, which leaves us only with trying to become a knowledge-based society," said Romain Murenzi, the Rwandan minister of science, technology and scientific research. Wyler said he had not been involved in Terracom for nearly 10 months and could not comment on its current operations. Christopher Lundh, Terracom's new chief executive and a former executive of Gateway Communications in London, has worked in several African countries. He now lives and works full time in Rwanda, and many government officials say Terracom's performance has improved under his leadership. Lundh said there were problems with the company's operations in the past but that the Rwandan government was responsible for some of the delays. "We would get to schools that don't even have electricity or computers," he said. "That is not our fault." In addition, he said that many of the complaints about the company concerned things beyond its ability to control. Getting adequate bandwidth remains a constant challenge. Like most telecommunications companies in eastern Africa, Terracom depends on satellites for Internet service. Satellite service is much slower than cable because of delays in the signals. Satellites also provide less bandwidth than cable. Adding to the problem is that most of the satellites serving Africa were launched nearly 20 years ago and are aging or going out of commission. A satellite set to go into service last year blew up on the launching pad. Power is also an issue, as intermittent power failures in Rwanda hamper efforts to provide a steady electricity source. Despite these limitations and earlier setbacks, Lundh said Terracom was moving ahead with plans to give Rwanda the most advanced Internet infrastructure in Africa. A nationwide wireless connection should begin operating near year-end, he said. Magnus K. Mazimpaka contributed reporting from Rwanda. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ronda.netizen at gmail.com Sun Jul 22 19:26:34 2007 From: ronda.netizen at gmail.com (Ronda Hauben) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 19:26:34 -0400 Subject: [governance] Effects of lack of electricity on the digital divide In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for sending this article to the list. It just seems that the job of connecting Rawanda and other African countries to the Internet and building infrastructure is a scientific problem, not a commercial problem. The problems described remind me of the kinds of problems (though different) that the pioneers building the Internet faced, and they figured out how to solve them as they were focusing on a scientific approach and using the technology they had developed to help them solve the problems. At the UN there was a presentation by Professor Juma, a Harvard Professor originally from Kenya, talking about how Rwanda is a prototype for others. He didn't mention the problems being encountered so it is good to see the real situation described. After the WSIS meeting in Tunisia I met a government official from Tanzania who described the problems of spreading connectivity and how the commercial efforts were to make a profit not to spread the net. So its not that the commercial should not be part of the situation dealing with the problem, but putting the solution in their hands is probably not going to solve the problems in itself. Ronda On 7/22/07, yehudakatz at mailinator.com wrote: > > Brilliant post Kwasi - excellent > I also found this article interesting: > > Africa, mostly offline, struggles to get on the Internet > By Ron Nixon > Re: The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.com > http://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?id=6765556 > > Sunday, July 22, 2007 > On a muggy day in Kigali in 2003, some of the highest-ranking officials in > the > Rwandan government, including President Paul Kagame, flanked an American > businessman, Greg Wyler, as he boldly described how he could help turn > their > small country into a hub of Internet activity. > > Wyler, an executive based in Boston who made his fortune during the > technology > boom, said he would lace Rwanda with fiber optic cables, connecting > schools, > government institutions and homes with low-cost, high-speed Internet > service. > > Until that point, Wyler, 37, had never set foot in Africa - he was invited > by a > Rwandan government official he had met at a wedding. Wyler never expected > to > start a business there; he simply wanted to try to help the war-torn > country. > > Even so, Wyler's company, Terracom, was granted a contract to connect 300 > schools to the Internet. Later, the company would buy 99 percent of the > shares > in Rwandatel, the national telecommunications company, for $20 million. > > But after nearly four years, most of the benefits hailed by him and his > company > have failed to materialize, Rwandan officials say. "The bottom line is > that he > promised many things and didn't deliver," Albert Butare, the Rwandan > telecommunications minister, said. > > Wyler says he sees things differently and that he and the Rwandan > officials > will probably never agree on why their joint venture has been so slow to > get > off the ground. But Terracom's tale is more than a story about a business > dispute in Rwanda. It is also emblematic of what can happen when good > intentions run into the technical, political and business realities of > Africa. > > Attempts to bring affordable high-speed Internet service to the masses > have > made little headway on the continent. Less than 4 percent of the African > population is connected to the Web. Most subscribers are in North African > countries and the republic of South Africa. > > A lack of infrastructure is the biggest problem. In many countries, years > of > civil conflict destroyed communications networks, and continuing political > instability deters governments or companies from investing in new systems. > > E-mail messages and phone calls sent from some African countries have to > be > routed through Britain, or even the United States, increasing expenses and > delivery times. About 75 percent of African Internet traffic is routed > this way > and costs African countries billions of extra dollars each year that they > would > not incur if their infrastructure was up to date. > > "Most African governments haven't paid much attention to their > infrastructure," > said Vincent Oria, an associate professor of computer science at the New > Jersey > Institute of Technology who is from the Ivory Coast. "In places where > hunger, > AIDS and poverty are rampant, they didn't see it as critical until now." > > Rwandan officials were especially interested in wiring schools, seeing > information technology as crucial to modernizing the rural economy. > > But as of mid-July, only one-third of the 300 schools covered in > Terracom's > contract had high-speed Internet service. All 300 were supposed to have > been > connected by 2006. > > Overall, less than 1 percent of the population is connected to the > Internet. > Rwandan officials say Terracom seems more interested in tapping the more > lucrative cellphone market than in being an Internet service provider. > > In November, Wyler stepped down as chief executive of Terracom, saying he > wanted to spend more time with his family. He still serves on the board. > > Wyler said by telephone from his Boston home that he would not address the > government's criticism. He said he did not want to be quoted as saying > anything > negative. But he said there were some things he had not anticipated, > particularly the technical challenges of linking the Rwandan Internet > network > to the rest of the world. > > "Terracom has done everything it can, " he said. "Because of the technical > challenges, the Internet service is as good as it's going to get. But > given > what we started from, I still think we have accomplished a lot. In the > beginning there were a few people with Internet service. Now there are > thousands." > > The Rwandan government had hoped that the number of Web surfers would be > much > higher by now. Rwanda has little industry, and its infrastructure is still > being rebuilt after the 1994 genocide in which 800,000 to a million people > were > killed. > > "We have almost no natural resources and no seaports in Rwanda, which > leaves us > only with trying to become a knowledge-based society," said Romain > Murenzi, the > Rwandan minister of science, technology and scientific research. > > Wyler said he had not been involved in Terracom for nearly 10 months and > could > not comment on its current operations. > > Christopher Lundh, Terracom's new chief executive and a former executive > of > Gateway Communications in London, has worked in several African countries. > He > now lives and works full time in Rwanda, and many government officials say > Terracom's performance has improved under his leadership. > > Lundh said there were problems with the company's operations in the past > but > that the Rwandan government was responsible for some of the delays. > > "We would get to schools that don't even have electricity or computers," > he > said. "That is not our fault." > > In addition, he said that many of the complaints about the company > concerned > things beyond its ability to control. Getting adequate bandwidth remains a > constant challenge. Like most telecommunications companies in eastern > Africa, > Terracom depends on satellites for Internet service. Satellite service is > much > slower than cable because of delays in the signals. Satellites also > provide > less bandwidth than cable. > > Adding to the problem is that most of the satellites serving Africa were > launched nearly 20 years ago and are aging or going out of commission. A > satellite set to go into service last year blew up on the launching pad. > Power > is also an issue, as intermittent power failures in Rwanda hamper efforts > to > provide a steady electricity source. > > Despite these limitations and earlier setbacks, Lundh said Terracom was > moving > ahead with plans to give Rwanda the most advanced Internet infrastructure > in > Africa. A nationwide wireless connection should begin operating near > year-end, > he said. > > Magnus K. Mazimpaka contributed reporting from Rwanda. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From dan at musicunbound.com Sun Jul 22 20:29:31 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 17:29:31 -0700 Subject: [governance] Effects of lack of electricity on the digital divide In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 7:26 PM -0400 7/22/07, Ronda Hauben wrote: >The problems described remind me of the kinds of problems (though >different) that the pioneers building the Internet faced, and they figured >out how to solve them as they were focusing on a scientific approach and >using the technology they had developed to help them solve the problems. >... >So its not that the commercial should not be part of the situation dealing >with the problem, but putting the solution in their hands is probably not >going to solve the problems in itself. I would suggest that there are three domains here, not just two. Commercial, yes. Technological (science), yes. But also *public policy*. What was solved in the technological origins of the Internet also included a number of implicit (and perhaps explicit) public policy issues. For example, the technical architecture of TCP/IP encompasses the public policy issue of common carriage of information. It would be up to David Reed and Vint Cerf to recount how much the public policy issues were an explicit part of that architectural decision, but even if they weren't explicitly thinking of the public policy issue of common carriage, their decision affected that policy, at least for some years (it is seriously threatened in the US these days, because we lack the interconnection regulation that sustains structural competition such as in the EU -- we're actually fighting that fight right now over a patch of wireless spectrum that is due to be freed up in the pending transition from analog to digital TV). In the US, we still fight over the issue of universal geographical coverage (the policy code word is "red-lining" which has been generally prohibited for telco service and depending on the municipality may or may not be allowed for cable TV -- the application to Internet service is unclear so far, but looming). This is likely not going to be addressed technologically or by the market on its own -- the only technological solution would be to find a way to make provision of service to sparsely populated areas comparable to the costs of provision to more densely populated areas, thus allowing market demand to attract profitable provision of service to all areas. In the absence of such a technological breakthrough, coverage of unprofitable regions will ultimately require public regulation of coverage to avoid "creaming" by commercial service providers (to maximize profit), or else abject public deployment and provision of service to otherwise unserved regions of the market. If these sorts of things are still issues in the US (which they most certainly are), it's not hard to see why they would be issues elsewhere as well. Where markets and architecture fail, and where social norms do not apply, regulation should still be considered in order to rectify those failures. This is one reason why "Internet Governance" is really an integrated component of "public governance" in general. Dan PS -- Furthermore, the long term fate of the global energy crunch will clearly impact the long term fate of the digital divide around the world. If we start rationing energy, the wealthy will surely find ways to avoid having to constrain their own use, while rationing applies disproportionately to the non-wealthy. I don't think this issue is at all geographically constrained in the long run. Beware the erosion of the commonwealth, because a divided society is a wasteful, weak and contentious society. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jul 23 02:23:09 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:53:09 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID In-Reply-To: <20070719103823.9580A1B6B89@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <20070723062339.C34D4678E4@smtp1.electricembers.net> Hi All, We have been taking comments for a IGC statement on non-inclusion in and non-transparency of the enhanced cooperation process to be read at the ongoing ECOSOC session which will take up the secretary general's report which alludes to this issue. (I am enclosing the original email by Philippe to clarify matter for those who may have not followed the debate). I am proposing the following text pulling together various comments/ text proposals that came up, for a consensus call. This may be need to be used by CONGO any time now depending when does the discussion come up (Philippe, Renate, can you give us some information on this). But I think we may still have around 48 hours we normally use for consensus seeking for statements on the behalf of IGF. I am sorry for some delay in posting this. I had planned to so it over the weekend, but was busy, and it slipped my mind.) (starts) This is in reference to the relevant part in the Secretary General's report to the ECOSOC which mentions that "consultations are under way to start a process towards enhanced cooperation among all relevant stakeholders with regard to Internet governance, as requested by the Summit". In this respect it is pertinent to note that Para 71 of the Tunis Agenda also clearly states that: "the process towards enhanced cooperation, ...will involve all stakeholders". The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus notes with concern that the letter and spirit of the WSIS multi-stakeholder principles do not appear to have been applied in relation to the processes around 'enhanced cooperation' for Internet Governance. In spite of directly requesting information of the SG's office regarding the process, through our leeter dated 29th January, 2007, addressed to SG's Special Advisor on WSIS, civil society groups have neither received information about, nor been invited to or involved in consultations, in any way to date. The caucus, along with other civil society groups, has consistently demonstrated it's commitment to contribute constructively to the WSIS follow-up process, a commitment which extends to all elements of the process, including that of enhanced cooperation. We request that the United Nations, ECOSOC, and all other parties ensure that the enhanced cooperation process is conducted in a manner that is fully consistent with the principles of transparency and multistakeholder participation set forth in the Tunis Agenda. All information about consultation processes for enhanced cooperation should be provided in a timely and transparent manner to all stakeholders, as well as modalities ensured for their participation in all processes, including of initial consultations and developing the initial agenda and format for enhanced cooperation. In order to ensure participation of an appropriately wide range of civil society in this process, it would be useful to include formal consultations on enhanced cooperation during, or around, the annual CSTD May sessions (the Information Society week events) as well as encourage informal meetings during events such as the Internet Governance Forum. (ends) As per usual we will not take any in any amendment comments at this point. Only support or otherwise. 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: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] On > Behalf Of Parminder > Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 4:08 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'karen banks'; plenary at wsis-cs.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS > follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID > > [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire list. > Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific > people] > > Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic translation of > this message! > _______________________________________ > > > > eg.. are we asking ECOSOC to ensure that the CSTD ensures MS > > principles are adhered to in any (and all) consultations related to > > wsis followup? the CSTD is the entry point for consultation no? > > ECOSOC only receives reports from CSTD no? (or maybe i've got it all > > wrong) > > I understand that ECOSOC has political supervision over CSTD, and is also > in > charge of all summits follow-ups, and the WSIS one would go through CSTD. > So > it shd be ok to request ECOSOC to ensure so and so since this is being > read > out at an ECOSOC substantive meeting. > > > > but you know, i'm not sure i would include text about holding > > consultations at the IGF specifically.. strategically, i think it's > > not the best move.. i would prefer to have *formal* consultations > > about enhanced cooperation as part of the wsis followup process, and > > therefore, during may each year.. but if you link these two together > > right now, i am sure it will be resisted.. is that what we want? As a > > compromise, you could use the IGF as one of several opportunities for > > consulTations.. > > Sure, the idea is to reach out where CS interested in IG issues > congregates > and not hold consultations on one odd day at New York which can only get > little CS participation, which will be quite skewed as well. So, yes, it > shd > be at Info soc week and at IGF. > > > and - is this statement going to be read, or written and submitted to > > ECOSOC? i imagine a bit of both? ie, an intervention from the floor, > > and a written statement? and, what is the relationship between > > ECOSOC and CSTD - i ask as i want to be clear on who has the power to > > ask what of whom.. > > Philippe can answer best the issue of how the statement will be used. I > have > stated above my understanding of the relationship between ECOSOC and CSTD. > > 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: karen banks [mailto:karenb at gn.apc.org] > > Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 1:45 PM > > To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS > > follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID > > > > hi parminder > > > > >You have my full support on this. --MM > > > > thanks for doing this parminder.. here's some proposed revisions up > > front - my justifications noted at the end.. > > > > === (i'm assuming these few paras will be inserted into a collective > > statement CONGO is coordinating? === > > > > In reference to "Consultations are under way to start a process > > towards enhanced cooperation among all relevant stakeholders with > > regard to Internet governance, as requested by the Summit". Para 71 > > of the Tunis Agenda states: "the process towards enhanced > > cooperation, ...will involve all stakeholders". > > > > The Civil Society IG Caucus notes with concern that the spirit of the > > WSIS multi-stakeholder principles does not appear to have been > > applied in relation to the process of enhanced cooperation. In spite > > of directly requesting information of the SG regarding the process, > > civil society groups have neither received information about, nor > > been invited to or involved in consultations, in any way to date. > > > > The caucus, along with other civil society groups, has consistently > > demonstrated it's committment to contribute constructively to the > > WSIS followup process, a committment which extends to all elements of > > the process, including that of enhanced cooperation. > > > > We request ECOSOC ensures that the WSIS Multi-stakeholder principles > > are consistently applied to all elements of the WSIS followup > > process, and that information about consultation processes are > > provided in a timely and transparent manner to all stakeholders. > > > > In order to make the most of civil society participation in this > > process, it would be useful to include formal consultations on > > enhanced cooperation during, or around, the annual CSTD May sessions > > (the WSIS 'weeks') as well as encourage informal meetings during > > events such as the Internet Governance Forum." > > > > notes below.. > > > > karen > > > > >This is in reference to the SG's report stating that, and we quote, > > >"Consultations are under way to start a process towards enhanced > > >cooperation among all relevant stakeholders with regard to Internet > > >governance, as requested by the Summit". Para 71 of the Tunis Agenda > > >clearly states that "the process towards enhanced cooperation, > > >...will involve all stakeholders". However, the Civil Society IG > > >Caucus notes with concern that civil society has not been involved > > >at all in the consultations mentioned in the SG's report. We do not > > >even have any information about this consultation, despite directly > > >requesting the SG office regarding it. > > > > In reference to "Consultations are under way to start a process > > towards enhanced cooperation among all relevant stakeholders with > > regard to Internet governance, as requested by the Summit". > > > > Para 71 of the Tunis Agenda states: "the process towards enhanced > > cooperation, ...will involve all stakeholders". > > > > The Civil Society IG Caucus notes with concern that, in spite of > > directly requesting information of the SG regarding the process, > > civil society has neither received information about, nor been > > invited or involved in consultations in any way to date. > > > > (parminder, you may want to include a copy of the request for info, > dated) > > > > >We request ECOSOC to ensure that the multistakeholder principle in > > >WSIS follow-up is fully adhered to as per WSIS documents, in general > > >spirit, and in specific mandates as in case of the process towards > > >enhanced cooperation, where as mentioned above, the WSIS injunction > > >for multistakeholder involvement is clearly not being complied with. > > > > eg.. are we asking ECOSOC to ensure that the CSTD ensures MS > > principles are adhered to in any (and all) consultations related to > > wsis followup? the CSTD is the entry point for consultation no? > > ECOSOC only receives reports from CSTD no? (or maybe i've got it all > > wrong) > > > > >The caucus will like to be invited to and involved in these > > >consultations, along with other civil society groups. Since a lot of > > >civil society groups interested in IG issues converge at IGF > > >meeting, holding such consultations on the sidelines of the IGF > > >meeting may be useful. We will also like to be kept updated on the > > >consultations with other stakeholders. > > > > the above for example, would appear to relate to CS involvement in > > CSTD process? > > > > but you know, i'm not sure i would include text about holding > > consultations at the IGF specifically.. strategically, i think it's > > not the best move.. i would prefer to have *formal* consultations > > about enhanced cooperation as part of the wsis followup process, and > > therefore, during may each year.. but if you link these two together > > right now, i am sure it will be resisted.. is that what we want? As a > > compromise, you could use the IGF as one of several opportunities for > > consulTations.. > > > > proposed text > > > > We request ECOSOC ensures that the WSIS Multi-stakeholder principles > > are consistently applied to all elements of the WSIS followup > > process, and that information about consultation processes are > > provided in a timely and transparent manner to all stakeholders. > > > > In order to make the most of civil society participation in this > > process, it would be useful to include formal consultations on > > enhanced cooperation during, or around, the annual CSTD May sessions > > (the WSIS 'weeks') as well as encourage informal meetings during > > events such as the Internet Governance Forum." > > > > and - is this statement going to be read, or written and submitted to > > ECOSOC? i imagine a bit of both? ie, an intervention from the floor, > > and a written statement? and, what is the relationship between > > ECOSOC and CSTD - i ask as i want to be clear on who has the power to > > ask what of whom.. > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > _______________________________________________ > Plenary mailing list > Plenary at wsis-cs.org > http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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: "CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam" Subject: [governance] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 23:34:48 +0530 Size: 370709 URL: From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Mon Jul 23 02:49:36 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:49:36 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID In-Reply-To: <20070723062339.C34D4678E4@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20070723062339.C34D4678E4@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <46A44F80.7040901@Malcolm.id.au> Parminder wrote: > I am proposing the following text pulling together various comments/ text > proposals that came up, for a consensus call. This may be need to be used by > CONGO any time now depending when does the discussion come up (Philippe, > Renate, can you give us some information on this). But I think we may still > have around 48 hours we normally use for consensus seeking for statements on > the behalf of IGF. I am sorry for some delay in posting this. I had planned > to so it over the weekend, but was busy, and it slipped my mind.) Yea. -- 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 akigua at telia.com Mon Jul 23 03:14:25 2007 From: akigua at telia.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ann-Kristin_H=E5kansson?=) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 09:14:25 +0200 (MEST) Subject: Sv: Re: [governance] Effects of lack of electricity on the digital divide Message-ID: <3952297.1185174865897.JavaMail.tomcat@pne-ps4-sn2> Dear Ronda, Isn´t this what we tried to describe all along the WSIS process? However, I´m not sure that building infrastructure is only a scientific or commercial problem, I think it is mainly political. Regards, Ann-Kristin Indigenous ICT tf----Ursprungligt meddelande----Från: ronda.netizen at gmail.comDatum: Jul 23, 2007 1:26:34 AMTill: governance at lists.cpsr.org, yehudakatz at mailinator.comKopia: ronda hauben Ärende: Re: [governance] Effects of lack of electricity on the digital divide Thanks for sending this article to the list. It just seems that the job of connecting Rawanda and other African countries to the Internet and building infrastructure is a scientific problem, not a commercial problem. The problems described remind me of the kinds of problems (though different) that the pioneers building the Internet faced, and they figured out how to solve them as they were focusing on a scientific approach and using the technology they had developed to help them solve the problems. At the UN there was a presentation by Professor Juma, a Harvard Professor originally from Kenya, talking about how Rwanda is a prototype for others. He didn't mention the problems being encountered so it is good to see the real situation described. After the WSIS meeting in Tunisia I met a government official from Tanzania who described the problems of spreading connectivity and how the commercial efforts were to make a profit not to spread the net. So its not that the commercial should not be part of the situation dealing with the problem, but putting the solution in their hands is probably not going to solve the problems in itself. Ronda On 7/22/07, yehudakatz at mailinator.com wrote: Brilliant post Kwasi - excellentI also found this article interesting:Africa, mostly offline, struggles to get on the Internet By Ron NixonRe: The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.comhttp://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?id=6765556Sunday, July 22, 2007 On a muggy day in Kigali in 2003, some of the highest-ranking officials in theRwandan government, including President Paul Kagame, flanked an Americanbusinessman, Greg Wyler, as he boldly described how he could help turn their small country into a hub of Internet activity.Wyler, an executive based in Boston who made his fortune during the technologyboom, said he would lace Rwanda with fiber optic cables, connecting schools,government institutions and homes with low-cost, high-speed Internet service. Until that point, Wyler, 37, had never set foot in Africa - he was invited by aRwandan government official he had met at a wedding. Wyler never expected tostart a business there; he simply wanted to try to help the war-torn country. Even so, Wyler's company, Terracom, was granted a contract to connect 300schools to the Internet. Later, the company would buy 99 percent of the sharesin Rwandatel, the national telecommunications company, for $20 million. But after nearly four years, most of the benefits hailed by him and his companyhave failed to materialize, Rwandan officials say. "The bottom line is that hepromised many things and didn't deliver," Albert Butare, the Rwandan telecommunications minister, said.Wyler says he sees things differently and that he and the Rwandan officialswill probably never agree on why their joint venture has been so slow to getoff the ground. But Terracom's tale is more than a story about a business dispute in Rwanda. It is also emblematic of what can happen when goodintentions run into the technical, political and business realities of Africa.Attempts to bring affordable high-speed Internet service to the masses have made little headway on the continent. Less than 4 percent of the Africanpopulation is connected to the Web. Most subscribers are in North Africancountries and the republic of South Africa.A lack of infrastructure is the biggest problem. In many countries, years of civil conflict destroyed communications networks, and continuing politicalinstability deters governments or companies from investing in new systems.E-mail messages and phone calls sent from some African countries have to be routed through Britain, or even the United States, increasing expenses anddelivery times. About 75 percent of African Internet traffic is routed this wayand costs African countries billions of extra dollars each year that they would not incur if their infrastructure was up to date."Most African governments haven't paid much attention to their infrastructure,"said Vincent Oria, an associate professor of computer science at the New Jersey Institute of Technology who is from the Ivory Coast. "In places where hunger,AIDS and poverty are rampant, they didn't see it as critical until now."Rwandan officials were especially interested in wiring schools, seeing information technology as crucial to modernizing the rural economy.But as of mid-July, only one-third of the 300 schools covered in Terracom'scontract had high-speed Internet service. All 300 were supposed to have been connected by 2006.Overall, less than 1 percent of the population is connected to the Internet.Rwandan officials say Terracom seems more interested in tapping the morelucrative cellphone market than in being an Internet service provider. In November, Wyler stepped down as chief executive of Terracom, saying hewanted to spend more time with his family. He still serves on the board.Wyler said by telephone from his Boston home that he would not address the government's criticism. He said he did not want to be quoted as saying anythingnegative. But he said there were some things he had not anticipated,particularly the technical challenges of linking the Rwandan Internet network to the rest of the world."Terracom has done everything it can, " he said. "Because of the technicalchallenges, the Internet service is as good as it's going to get. But givenwhat we started from, I still think we have accomplished a lot. In the beginning there were a few people with Internet service. Now there arethousands."The Rwandan government had hoped that the number of Web surfers would be muchhigher by now. Rwanda has little industry, and its infrastructure is still being rebuilt after the 1994 genocide in which 800,000 to a million people werekilled."We have almost no natural resources and no seaports in Rwanda, which leaves usonly with trying to become a knowledge-based society," said Romain Murenzi, the Rwandan minister of science, technology and scientific research.Wyler said he had not been involved in Terracom for nearly 10 months and couldnot comment on its current operations.Christopher Lundh, Terracom's new chief executive and a former executive of Gateway Communications in London, has worked in several African countries. Henow lives and works full time in Rwanda, and many government officials sayTerracom's performance has improved under his leadership. Lundh said there were problems with the company's operations in the past butthat the Rwandan government was responsible for some of the delays."We would get to schools that don't even have electricity or computers," he said. "That is not our fault."In addition, he said that many of the complaints about the company concernedthings beyond its ability to control. Getting adequate bandwidth remains aconstant challenge. Like most telecommunications companies in eastern Africa, Terracom depends on satellites for Internet service. Satellite service is muchslower than cable because of delays in the signals. Satellites also provideless bandwidth than cable.Adding to the problem is that most of the satellites serving Africa were launched nearly 20 years ago and are aging or going out of commission. Asatellite set to go into service last year blew up on the launching pad. Poweris also an issue, as intermittent power failures in Rwanda hamper efforts to provide a steady electricity source.Despite these limitations and earlier setbacks, Lundh said Terracom was movingahead with plans to give Rwanda the most advanced Internet infrastructure inAfrica. A nationwide wireless connection should begin operating near year-end, he said.Magnus K. Mazimpaka contributed reporting from Rwanda.____________________________________________________________You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.orgTo be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.orgFor all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance-- Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From marzouki at ras.eu.org Mon Jul 23 03:51:22 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 09:51:22 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID In-Reply-To: <20070723062339.C34D4678E4@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20070723062339.C34D4678E4@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <48940053-8F9B-47F7-B48E-776DD6B09931@ras.eu.org> Hi, Le 23 juil. 07 à 08:23, Parminder a écrit : > > I am proposing the following text pulling together various > comments/ text > proposals that came up, for a consensus call. This may be need to > be used by > CONGO any time now depending when does the discussion come up > (Philippe, > Renate, can you give us some information on this). But I think we > may still > have around 48 hours we normally use for consensus seeking for > statements on > the behalf of IGF. I am sorry for some delay in posting this. I had > planned > to so it over the weekend, but was busy, and it slipped my mind.) Thanks for this, Parminder. You've my support. Meryem____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mon Jul 23 04:55:45 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:55:45 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID In-Reply-To: <20070723062341.6A2BB1C1996@mail.gn.apc.org> References: <20070723062341.6A2BB1C1996@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: Parminder, thanks. Hope you will take a friendly amendment to change leeter to letter :-) Slightly concerned about suggesting the discussion take place in the CSTD process where non-govt stakeholders are lucky to get a word in. But agree it should not take place in the IGF process. Could we add some emphasis? e.g change: as well as modalities ensured for their participation in all processes as well as modalities to ensure the full and equal participation of all stakeholders in all processes Anyway, I support the statement. Thanks, Adam At 11:53 AM +0530 7/23/07, Parminder wrote: >Hi All, > >We have been taking comments for a IGC statement on non-inclusion in and >non-transparency of the enhanced cooperation process to be read at the >ongoing ECOSOC session which will take up the secretary general's report >which alludes to this issue. (I am enclosing the original email by Philippe >to clarify matter for those who may have not followed the debate). > >I am proposing the following text pulling together various comments/ text >proposals that came up, for a consensus call. This may be need to be used by >CONGO any time now depending when does the discussion come up (Philippe, >Renate, can you give us some information on this). But I think we may still >have around 48 hours we normally use for consensus seeking for statements on >the behalf of IGF. I am sorry for some delay in posting this. I had planned >to so it over the weekend, but was busy, and it slipped my mind.) > >(starts) > >This is in reference to the relevant part in the Secretary General's report >to the ECOSOC which mentions that "consultations are under way to start a >process towards enhanced cooperation among all relevant stakeholders with >regard to Internet governance, as requested by the Summit". In this respect >it is pertinent to note that Para 71 of the Tunis Agenda also clearly states >that: "the process towards enhanced cooperation, ...will involve all >stakeholders". > >The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus notes with concern that the >letter and spirit of the WSIS multi-stakeholder principles do not appear to >have been applied in relation to the processes around 'enhanced cooperation' >for Internet Governance. In spite of directly requesting information of the >SG's office regarding the process, through our leeter dated 29th January, >2007, addressed to SG's Special Advisor on WSIS, civil society groups have >neither received information about, nor been invited to or involved in >consultations, in any way to date. > >The caucus, along with other civil society groups, has consistently >demonstrated it's commitment to contribute constructively to the WSIS >follow-up process, a commitment which extends to all elements of the >process, including that of enhanced cooperation. > > >We request that the United Nations, ECOSOC, and all other parties ensure >that the enhanced cooperation process is conducted in a manner that is fully >consistent with the principles of transparency and multistakeholder >participation set forth in the Tunis Agenda. All information about >consultation processes for enhanced cooperation should be provided in a >timely and transparent manner to all stakeholders, as well as modalities >ensured for their participation in all processes, including of initial >consultations and developing the initial agenda and format for enhanced >cooperation. > >In order to ensure participation of an appropriately wide range of civil >society in this process, it would be useful to include formal consultations >on enhanced cooperation during, or around, the annual CSTD May sessions (the >Information Society week events) as well as encourage informal meetings >during events such as the Internet Governance Forum. > >(ends) > >As per usual we will not take any in any amendment comments at this point. >Only support or otherwise. > >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 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jul 23 05:23:36 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:53:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070723092416.3BB0FE166B@smtp3.electricembers.net> > Slightly concerned about suggesting the discussion take place in the > CSTD process where non-govt stakeholders are lucky to get a word in. Yes, I think that was an over-sight, and not intentional. The real intention was to speak about information society week events - and not CSTD. I don't think CSTD needs to be mentioned. I will remove it, and only leave 'information society week events' - since the purpose is to suggest a space where civil society interested in IS issues congregates, and not link it to any process in particular. I of course will take the other grammatical changes as well. Such changes are fine to suggest. 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: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 2:26 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS > follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID > > Parminder, thanks. > > Hope you will take a friendly amendment to change leeter to letter :-) > > Slightly concerned about suggesting the discussion take place in the > CSTD process where non-govt stakeholders are lucky to get a word in. > But agree it should not take place in the IGF process. Could we add > some emphasis? e.g change: > > as well as modalities ensured for their participation in all processes > > as well as modalities to ensure the full and equal participation of > all stakeholders in all processes > > > Anyway, I support the statement. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > At 11:53 AM +0530 7/23/07, Parminder wrote: > >Hi All, > > > >We have been taking comments for a IGC statement on non-inclusion in and > >non-transparency of the enhanced cooperation process to be read at the > >ongoing ECOSOC session which will take up the secretary general's report > >which alludes to this issue. (I am enclosing the original email by > Philippe > >to clarify matter for those who may have not followed the debate). > > > >I am proposing the following text pulling together various comments/ text > >proposals that came up, for a consensus call. This may be need to be used > by > >CONGO any time now depending when does the discussion come up (Philippe, > >Renate, can you give us some information on this). But I think we may > still > >have around 48 hours we normally use for consensus seeking for statements > on > >the behalf of IGF. I am sorry for some delay in posting this. I had > planned > >to so it over the weekend, but was busy, and it slipped my mind.) > > > >(starts) > > > >This is in reference to the relevant part in the Secretary General's > report > >to the ECOSOC which mentions that "consultations are under way to start a > >process towards enhanced cooperation among all relevant stakeholders with > >regard to Internet governance, as requested by the Summit". In this > respect > >it is pertinent to note that Para 71 of the Tunis Agenda also clearly > states > >that: "the process towards enhanced cooperation, ...will involve all > >stakeholders". > > > >The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus notes with concern that the > >letter and spirit of the WSIS multi-stakeholder principles do not appear > to > >have been applied in relation to the processes around 'enhanced > cooperation' > >for Internet Governance. In spite of directly requesting information of > the > >SG's office regarding the process, through our leeter dated 29th January, > >2007, addressed to SG's Special Advisor on WSIS, civil society groups > have > >neither received information about, nor been invited to or involved in > >consultations, in any way to date. > > > >The caucus, along with other civil society groups, has consistently > >demonstrated it's commitment to contribute constructively to the WSIS > >follow-up process, a commitment which extends to all elements of the > >process, including that of enhanced cooperation. > > > > > >We request that the United Nations, ECOSOC, and all other parties ensure > >that the enhanced cooperation process is conducted in a manner that is > fully > >consistent with the principles of transparency and multistakeholder > >participation set forth in the Tunis Agenda. All information about > >consultation processes for enhanced cooperation should be provided in a > >timely and transparent manner to all stakeholders, as well as modalities > >ensured for their participation in all processes, including of initial > >consultations and developing the initial agenda and format for enhanced > >cooperation. > > > >In order to ensure participation of an appropriately wide range of civil > >society in this process, it would be useful to include formal > consultations > >on enhanced cooperation during, or around, the annual CSTD May sessions > (the > >Information Society week events) as well as encourage informal meetings > >during events such as the Internet Governance Forum. > > > >(ends) > > > >As per usual we will not take any in any amendment comments at this > point. > >Only support or otherwise. > > > >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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 ronda.netizen at gmail.com Mon Jul 23 07:47:23 2007 From: ronda.netizen at gmail.com (Ronda Hauben) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 07:47:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] Effects of lack of electricity on the digital divide In-Reply-To: <3952297.1185174865897.JavaMail.tomcat@pne-ps4-sn2> References: <3952297.1185174865897.JavaMail.tomcat@pne-ps4-sn2> Message-ID: Dear Ann-Kristin During the early development of the Internet there was an AUP - an Acceptible Use Policy. This was a means of restricting commercial participation and political pressure. The scientific and technical development was possible because the commercial and political pressures were being managed and kept from impeding the scientific and technical development. The Information Processing Techniques Organization (IPTO) which provided the leadership for this development was also subject to political pressures and by the mid 1980s this became a serious problem which eventually led its ending. So there are political pressures to be sure - for science and technology to function there is a need to have an environment where the scientists and engineers can do their research and the political pressures are kept from impeding the developments. So Ann-Kristin I would disagree with your formulation. There's a need for science and the scientific approach to the technology to dominate, not poltiics. (I realize you could say this is political, but then the science is lost.) best wishes Ronda On 7/23/07, Ann-Kristin Håkansson wrote: > > Dear Ronda, > > Isn´t this what we tried to describe all along the WSIS process? However, > I´m not sure that building infrastructure is only a scientific or commercial > problem, I think it is mainly political. > > Regards, > > Ann-Kristin > > Indigenous ICT tf > > ----Ursprungligt meddelande---- > Från: ronda.netizen at gmail.com > Datum: Jul 23, 2007 1:26:34 AM > Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org, yehudakatz at mailinator.com > Kopia: ronda hauben > Ärende: Re: [governance] Effects of lack of electricity on the digital > divide > > Thanks for sending this article to the list. It just seems that the job of > connecting Rawanda and other African > countries to the Internet and building infrastructure is a scientific > problem, not a commercial problem. > The problems described remind me of the kinds of problems (though > different) that the pioneers building > the Internet faced, and they figured out how to solve them as they were > focusing on a scientific > approach and using the technology they had developed to help them solve > the problems. > > At the UN there was a presentation by Professor Juma, a Harvard Professor > originally from Kenya, > talking about how Rwanda is a prototype for others. He didn't mention the > problems being encountered > so it is good to see the real situation described. > > After the WSIS meeting in Tunisia I met a government official from > Tanzania who described the problems > of spreading connectivity and how the commercial efforts were to make a > profit not to spread the net. > So its not that the commercial should not be part of the situation dealing > with the problem, but putting > the solution in their hands is probably not going to solve the problems in > itself. > > Ronda > > > > > On 7/22/07, yehudakatz at mailinator.com wrote: > > > Brilliant post Kwasi - excellent > > I also found this article interesting: > > > > Africa, mostly offline, struggles to get on the Internet > > By Ron Nixon > > Re: The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.com > > http://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?id=6765556 > > > > Sunday, July 22, 2007 > > On a muggy day in Kigali in 2003, some of the highest-ranking officials > > in the > > Rwandan government, including President Paul Kagame, flanked an American > > businessman, Greg Wyler, as he boldly described how he could help turn > > their > > small country into a hub of Internet activity. > > > > Wyler, an executive based in Boston who made his fortune during the > > technology > > boom, said he would lace Rwanda with fiber optic cables, connecting > > schools, > > government institutions and homes with low-cost, high-speed Internet > > service. > > > > Until that point, Wyler, 37, had never set foot in Africa - he was > > invited by a > > Rwandan government official he had met at a wedding. Wyler never > > expected to > > start a business there; he simply wanted to try to help the war-torn > > country. > > > > Even so, Wyler's company, Terracom, was granted a contract to connect > > 300 > > schools to the Internet. Later, the company would buy 99 percent of the > > shares > > in Rwandatel, the national telecommunications company, for $20 million. > > > > But after nearly four years, most of the benefits hailed by him and his > > company > > have failed to materialize, Rwandan officials say. "The bottom line is > > that he > > promised many things and didn't deliver," Albert Butare, the Rwandan > > telecommunications minister, said. > > > > Wyler says he sees things differently and that he and the Rwandan > > officials > > will probably never agree on why their joint venture has been so slow to > > get > > off the ground. But Terracom's tale is more than a story about a > > business > > dispute in Rwanda. It is also emblematic of what can happen when good > > intentions run into the technical, political and business realities of > > Africa. > > > > Attempts to bring affordable high-speed Internet service to the masses > > have > > made little headway on the continent. Less than 4 percent of the African > > population is connected to the Web. Most subscribers are in North > > African > > countries and the republic of South Africa. > > > > A lack of infrastructure is the biggest problem. In many countries, > > years of > > civil conflict destroyed communications networks, and continuing > > political > > instability deters governments or companies from investing in new > > systems. > > > > E-mail messages and phone calls sent from some African countries have to > > be > > routed through Britain, or even the United States, increasing expenses > > and > > delivery times. About 75 percent of African Internet traffic is routed > > this way > > and costs African countries billions of extra dollars each year that > > they would > > not incur if their infrastructure was up to date. > > > > "Most African governments haven't paid much attention to their > > infrastructure," > > said Vincent Oria, an associate professor of computer science at the New > > Jersey > > Institute of Technology who is from the Ivory Coast. "In places where > > hunger, > > AIDS and poverty are rampant, they didn't see it as critical until now." > > > > Rwandan officials were especially interested in wiring schools, seeing > > information technology as crucial to modernizing the rural economy. > > > > But as of mid-July, only one-third of the 300 schools covered in > > Terracom's > > contract had high-speed Internet service. All 300 were supposed to have > > been > > connected by 2006. > > > > Overall, less than 1 percent of the population is connected to the > > Internet. > > Rwandan officials say Terracom seems more interested in tapping the more > > lucrative cellphone market than in being an Internet service provider. > > > > In November, Wyler stepped down as chief executive of Terracom, saying > > he > > wanted to spend more time with his family. He still serves on the board. > > > > Wyler said by telephone from his Boston home that he would not address > > the > > government's criticism. He said he did not want to be quoted as saying > > anything > > negative. But he said there were some things he had not anticipated, > > particularly the technical challenges of linking the Rwandan Internet > > network > > to the rest of the world. > > > > "Terracom has done everything it can, " he said. "Because of the > > technical > > challenges, the Internet service is as good as it's going to get. But > > given > > what we started from, I still think we have accomplished a lot. In the > > beginning there were a few people with Internet service. Now there are > > thousands." > > > > The Rwandan government had hoped that the number of Web surfers would be > > much > > higher by now. Rwanda has little industry, and its infrastructure is > > still > > being rebuilt after the 1994 genocide in which 800,000 to a million > > people were > > killed. > > > > "We have almost no natural resources and no seaports in Rwanda, which > > leaves us > > only with trying to become a knowledge-based society," said Romain > > Murenzi, the > > Rwandan minister of science, technology and scientific research. > > > > Wyler said he had not been involved in Terracom for nearly 10 months and > > could > > not comment on its current operations. > > > > Christopher Lundh, Terracom's new chief executive and a former executive > > of > > Gateway Communications in London, has worked in several African > > countries. He > > now lives and works full time in Rwanda, and many government officials > > say > > Terracom's performance has improved under his leadership. > > > > Lundh said there were problems with the company's operations in the past > > but > > that the Rwandan government was responsible for some of the delays. > > > > "We would get to schools that don't even have electricity or computers," > > he > > said. "That is not our fault." > > > > In addition, he said that many of the complaints about the company > > concerned > > things beyond its ability to control. Getting adequate bandwidth remains > > a > > constant challenge. Like most telecommunications companies in eastern > > Africa, > > Terracom depends on satellites for Internet service. Satellite service > > is much > > slower than cable because of delays in the signals. Satellites also > > provide > > less bandwidth than cable. > > > > Adding to the problem is that most of the satellites serving Africa were > > > > launched nearly 20 years ago and are aging or going out of commission. A > > satellite set to go into service last year blew up on the launching pad. > > Power > > is also an issue, as intermittent power failures in Rwanda hamper > > efforts to > > provide a steady electricity source. > > > > Despite these limitations and earlier setbacks, Lundh said Terracom was > > moving > > ahead with plans to give Rwanda the most advanced Internet > > infrastructure in > > Africa. A nationwide wireless connection should begin operating near > > year-end, > > he said. > > > > Magnus K. Mazimpaka contributed reporting from Rwanda. > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > -- Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook -------------- 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 Mon Jul 23 08:01:02 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:01:02 +0300 Subject: [governance] Effects of lack of electricity on the digital divide In-Reply-To: <362407.59440.qm@web25515.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D754@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <362407.59440.qm@web25515.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 7/22/07, kwasi boakye-akyeampong wrote: > Folks, > I share with you below an interesting piece i just read: > http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/artikel.php?ID=127357 > Can we effectively close the digital gap when most parts of the developing > world are still struggling with electricity to power ICT systems? The answer is clearly yes, the ISPs I work with have been doing it in Uganda for a decade. Relying on grid power is a losing proposition in much of the world. You need to use a system that stabilises power (if you have grid, solar or wind work a treat if you don't), then charge battery banks, which then run your low power Internet and computing kit. If you are a telco, you typically use gen sets to provide power to your remote sites, with the fuel and maintenance costs being part of the reason mobile telephony costs are what they are. -- 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 ronda.netizen at gmail.com Mon Jul 23 08:01:14 2007 From: ronda.netizen at gmail.com (Ronda Hauben) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:01:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] Effects of lack of electricity on the digital divide In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dan, what you say leaves out that the Internet's early development was done in an environment that was a protected environment, an environment that was an open academic situation where there could be public discussion of the science done, sharing of what was happening, and researchers from different countries were able to collaborate. The design of tcp/ip grew up in such a culture. I have some papers describing this and how the problems were dealt with. I would be glad to provide the urls. Its important to know the discuss the real situation, not create scenarios. Someone the scientific origins seem to be lost in the current milieu. An Acceptible Use Policy was critical at the early stages. Similarly that this was developed in an academic environment and that it wasn't under proprietary restrictions. There was a need to involve a large scientific community in the development and I even found that the early papers went to researchers in Eastern Europe (despite the cold war on at the time) and that they discussed the early tcp/ip architecture plans and alternatives at a research institute in Laxenburg, Austria at the International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis, (IIASA) in the early and mid 1970s. So its important to sort out the scientific environment needed for technological developments and how to create and nourish such an environment. Ronda On 7/22/07, Dan Krimm wrote: > > At 7:26 PM -0400 7/22/07, Ronda Hauben wrote: > > >The problems described remind me of the kinds of problems (though > >different) that the pioneers building the Internet faced, and they > figured > >out how to solve them as they were focusing on a scientific approach and > >using the technology they had developed to help them solve the problems. > >... > >So its not that the commercial should not be part of the situation > dealing > >with the problem, but putting the solution in their hands is probably not > >going to solve the problems in itself. > > > I would suggest that there are three domains here, not just two. > Commercial, yes. Technological (science), yes. But also *public policy*. > What was solved in the technological origins of the Internet also included > a number of implicit (and perhaps explicit) public policy issues. > > For example, the technical architecture of TCP/IP encompasses the public > policy issue of common carriage of information. It would be up to David > Reed and Vint Cerf to recount how much the public policy issues were an > explicit part of that architectural decision, but even if they weren't > explicitly thinking of the public policy issue of common carriage, their > decision affected that policy, at least for some years (it is seriously > threatened in the US these days, because we lack the interconnection > regulation that sustains structural competition such as in the EU -- we're > actually fighting that fight right now over a patch of wireless spectrum > that is due to be freed up in the pending transition from analog to > digital > TV). > > In the US, we still fight over the issue of universal geographical > coverage > (the policy code word is "red-lining" which has been generally prohibited > for telco service and depending on the municipality may or may not be > allowed for cable TV -- the application to Internet service is unclear so > far, but looming). This is likely not going to be addressed > technologically or by the market on its own -- the only technological > solution would be to find a way to make provision of service to sparsely > populated areas comparable to the costs of provision to more densely > populated areas, thus allowing market demand to attract profitable > provision of service to all areas. In the absence of such a technological > breakthrough, coverage of unprofitable regions will ultimately require > public regulation of coverage to avoid "creaming" by commercial service > providers (to maximize profit), or else abject public deployment and > provision of service to otherwise unserved regions of the market. > > If these sorts of things are still issues in the US (which they most > certainly are), it's not hard to see why they would be issues elsewhere as > well. Where markets and architecture fail, and where social norms do not > apply, regulation should still be considered in order to rectify those > failures. This is one reason why "Internet Governance" is really an > integrated component of "public governance" in general. > > Dan > > PS -- Furthermore, the long term fate of the global energy crunch will > clearly impact the long term fate of the digital divide around the world. > If we start rationing energy, the wealthy will surely find ways to avoid > having to constrain their own use, while rationing applies > disproportionately to the non-wealthy. I don't think this issue is at all > geographically constrained in the long run. Beware the erosion of the > commonwealth, because a divided society is a wasteful, weak and > contentious > society. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jul 23 08:28:22 2007 From: kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk (kwasi boakye-akyeampong) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:28:22 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] Effects of lack of electricity on the digital divide In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <573430.58143.qm@web25508.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> McTim, Can you share with me your experiences. i would be grateful. Kwasi McTim wrote: On 7/22/07, kwasi boakye-akyeampong wrote: > Folks, > I share with you below an interesting piece i just read: > http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/artikel.php?ID=127357 > Can we effectively close the digital gap when most parts of the developing > world are still struggling with electricity to power ICT systems? The answer is clearly yes, the ISPs I work with have been doing it in Uganda for a decade. Relying on grid power is a losing proposition in much of the world. You need to use a system that stabilises power (if you have grid, solar or wind work a treat if you don't), then charge battery banks, which then run your low power Internet and computing kit. If you are a telco, you typically use gen sets to provide power to your remote sites, with the fuel and maintenance costs being part of the reason mobile telephony costs are what they are. -- 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 .............................................................................................................................. “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I? And if not now, when?” - Rabbi Hillal .............................................................................................................................. --------------------------------- Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, sign up for your freeaccount today. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From mueller at syr.edu Mon Jul 23 09:29:27 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 09:29:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: OII Call for Applications from Civil Society Practitioners in the global South Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD947387A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> _____ From: Jennifer A. De Beer [mailto:jennifer.debeer at oii.ox.ac.uk] Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 7:32 AM To: destinatarios-no-revelados Subject: OII Call for Applications from Civil Society Practitioners in the global South Oxford Internet Institute - Civil Society Practitioners Programme Invitation to apply The HYPERLINK "http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/"Oxford Internet Institute (University of Oxford) invites applications from the global South to fill two places in its Civil Society Practitioners Programme. This visitor programme is intended for Civil Society Practitioners of distinction or outstanding promise who wish to visit the Institute for a period of six weeks between February and December 2008, to undertake research concerning the social impact of the Internet and related ICTs. Visitors are expected to reside in Oxford during their stay, and to participate fully in the intellectual life of the Institute. The successful applicants will receive: * A subsistence allowance of 3800 GBP (7500 USD) to cover research expenses and living costs during their stay in Oxford * A travel grant of up to 1000 GBP (2000 USD) for travel to and from the UK Applications will ideally be submitted by Civil Society Practitioners in or from the global South, active in the areas of freedom of expression, media reform, media justice, and communications and information policy in the globalized context of the Internet. How to apply For details on how to apply, please download: Information for Applicants (PDF, 45kb) at HYPERLINK "http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/CSPP_Application_Information.pdf"http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/CSPP_Application_Information.pdf You may also request to have this information emailed to you in plain text form. The deadline for completed applications to reach the OII Academic and Student Affairs Officer (by post or email: contact details below) is 26 September 2007. Please note that incomplete applications cannot be considered. Final notification of an award will occur in November 2007. Successful candidates will be expected to take up their six week residency in Oxford at any time between February and December 2008. Contact Laura Taylor Academic and Student Affairs Officer Oxford Internet Institute University of Oxford 1 St Giles, Oxford OX1 3JS United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)1865 287222 Fax: +44 (0)1865 287211 Email: HYPERLINK "mailto:recruit at oii.ox.ac.uk?subject=Civil%20Society%20Practitioners%20Programme"recruit at oii.ox.ac.uk This programme has been made possible through funding by the HYPERLINK "http://www.fordfound.org/"Ford Foundation´s Media, Arts and Culture unit. This Call for Applications is also available at: HYPERLINK "http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/microsites/cspp/"http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/microsites/cspp/ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.12/910 - Release Date: 7/21/2007 3:52 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.12/910 - Release Date: 7/21/2007 3:52 PM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From nb at bollow.ch Mon Jul 23 10:19:16 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:19:16 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Desirable vs undue commercial and government involvement In-Reply-To: (ronda.netizen@gmail.com) References: <3952297.1185174865897.JavaMail.tomcat@pne-ps4-sn2> Message-ID: <20070723141916.2C4CA2202EF@quill.bollow.ch> Ronda Hauben wrote: > During the early development of the Internet there was an AUP - an > Acceptible Use Policy. > > This was a means of restricting commercial participation and political > pressure. Obviously applying the same kind of AUP to today's internet is neither feasible nor desirable. However, let's try to figure out what kinds of commercial participation and government involvements are desirable and what kinds should not be considered acceptable. When we have clarity about all that, we can discuss possible measures for increasing that which is desirable and decreasing that which should not be considered acceptable. Gruss, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch Präsident der Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch Die SIUG engagiert sich für den Schutz der Privatsphäre und dafür, dass auch in Zukunft das Internet auf offenen Standards basiert. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From akigua at telia.com Mon Jul 23 10:51:11 2007 From: akigua at telia.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ann-Kristin_H=E5kansson?=) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:51:11 +0200 (MEST) Subject: Sv: Re: Re: [governance] Effects of lack of electricity on the digital divide Message-ID: <12337746.1185202271154.JavaMail.tomcat@pne-ps3-sn2> Dear Ronda, I agree that commercial and political pressure should not be put on scientific and technical development but i still see that the implementation of that development depend on political decisions. Best regards, Ann-Kristin----Ursprungligt meddelande----Från: ronda.netizen at gmail.comDatum: Jul 23, 2007 1:47:23 PMTill: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Ann-Kristin Håkansson Kopia: ronda hauben Ärende: Re: Re: [governance] Effects of lack of electricity on the digital divide Dear Ann-Kristin During the early development of the Internet there was an AUP - an Acceptible Use Policy. This was a means of restricting commercial participation and political pressure. The scientific and technical development was possible because the commercial and political pressures were being managed and kept from impeding the scientific and technical development. The Information Processing Techniques Organization (IPTO) which provided the leadership for this development was also subject to political pressures and by the mid 1980s this became a serious problem which eventually led its ending. So there are political pressures to be sure - for science and technology to function there is a need to have an environment where the scientists and engineers can do their research and the political pressures are kept from impeding the developments. So Ann-Kristin I would disagree with your formulation. There's a need for science and the scientific approach to the technology to dominate, not poltiics. (I realize you could say this is political, but then the science is lost.) best wishes Ronda On 7/23/07, Ann-Kristin Håkansson wrote: Dear Ronda, Isn´t this what we tried to describe all along the WSIS process? However, I´m not sure that building infrastructure is only a scientific or commercial problem, I think it is mainly political. Regards, Ann-Kristin Indigenous ICT tf----Ursprungligt meddelande----Från: ronda.netizen at gmail.comDatum: Jul 23, 2007 1:26:34 AM Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org, yehudakatz at mailinator.comKopia: ronda hauben Ärende: Re: [governance] Effects of lack of electricity on the digital divide Thanks for sending this article to the list. It just seems that the job of connecting Rawanda and other African countries to the Internet and building infrastructure is a scientific problem, not a commercial problem. The problems described remind me of the kinds of problems (though different) that the pioneers building the Internet faced, and they figured out how to solve them as they were focusing on a scientific approach and using the technology they had developed to help them solve the problems. At the UN there was a presentation by Professor Juma, a Harvard Professor originally from Kenya, talking about how Rwanda is a prototype for others. He didn't mention the problems being encountered so it is good to see the real situation described. After the WSIS meeting in Tunisia I met a government official from Tanzania who described the problems of spreading connectivity and how the commercial efforts were to make a profit not to spread the net. So its not that the commercial should not be part of the situation dealing with the problem, but putting the solution in their hands is probably not going to solve the problems in itself. Ronda On 7/22/07, yehudakatz at mailinator.com wrote: Brilliant post Kwasi - excellentI also found this article interesting:Africa, mostly offline, struggles to get on the Internet By Ron NixonRe: The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.comhttp://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?id=6765556Sunday, July 22, 2007 On a muggy day in Kigali in 2003, some of the highest-ranking officials in theRwandan government, including President Paul Kagame, flanked an American businessman, Greg Wyler, as he boldly described how he could help turn their small country into a hub of Internet activity.Wyler, an executive based in Boston who made his fortune during the technologyboom, said he would lace Rwanda with fiber optic cables, connecting schools,government institutions and homes with low-cost, high-speed Internet service. Until that point, Wyler, 37, had never set foot in Africa - he was invited by a Rwandan government official he had met at a wedding. Wyler never expected tostart a business there; he simply wanted to try to help the war-torn country. Even so, Wyler's company, Terracom, was granted a contract to connect 300 schools to the Internet. Later, the company would buy 99 percent of the sharesin Rwandatel, the national telecommunications company, for $20 million. But after nearly four years, most of the benefits hailed by him and his company have failed to materialize, Rwandan officials say. "The bottom line is that hepromised many things and didn't deliver," Albert Butare, the Rwandan telecommunications minister, said.Wyler says he sees things differently and that he and the Rwandan officials will probably never agree on why their joint venture has been so slow to getoff the ground. But Terracom's tale is more than a story about a business dispute in Rwanda. It is also emblematic of what can happen when good intentions run into the technical, political and business realities of Africa.Attempts to bring affordable high-speed Internet service to the masses have made little headway on the continent. Less than 4 percent of the African population is connected to the Web. Most subscribers are in North Africancountries and the republic of South Africa.A lack of infrastructure is the biggest problem. In many countries, years of civil conflict destroyed communications networks, and continuing political instability deters governments or companies from investing in new systems.E-mail messages and phone calls sent from some African countries have to be routed through Britain, or even the United States, increasing expenses and delivery times. About 75 percent of African Internet traffic is routed this wayand costs African countries billions of extra dollars each year that they would not incur if their infrastructure was up to date."Most African governments haven't paid much attention to their infrastructure,"said Vincent Oria, an associate professor of computer science at the New Jersey Institute of Technology who is from the Ivory Coast. "In places where hunger, AIDS and poverty are rampant, they didn't see it as critical until now."Rwandan officials were especially interested in wiring schools, seeing information technology as crucial to modernizing the rural economy. But as of mid-July, only one-third of the 300 schools covered in Terracom'scontract had high-speed Internet service. All 300 were supposed to have been connected by 2006.Overall, less than 1 percent of the population is connected to the Internet. Rwandan officials say Terracom seems more interested in tapping the morelucrative cellphone market than in being an Internet service provider. In November, Wyler stepped down as chief executive of Terracom, saying he wanted to spend more time with his family. He still serves on the board.Wyler said by telephone from his Boston home that he would not address the government's criticism. He said he did not want to be quoted as saying anything negative. But he said there were some things he had not anticipated,particularly the technical challenges of linking the Rwandan Internet network to the rest of the world."Terracom has done everything it can, " he said. "Because of the technical challenges, the Internet service is as good as it's going to get. But givenwhat we started from, I still think we have accomplished a lot. In the beginning there were a few people with Internet service. Now there are thousands."The Rwandan government had hoped that the number of Web surfers would be muchhigher by now. Rwanda has little industry, and its infrastructure is still being rebuilt after the 1994 genocide in which 800,000 to a million people were killed."We have almost no natural resources and no seaports in Rwanda, which leaves usonly with trying to become a knowledge-based society," said Romain Murenzi, the Rwandan minister of science, technology and scientific research. Wyler said he had not been involved in Terracom for nearly 10 months and couldnot comment on its current operations.Christopher Lundh, Terracom's new chief executive and a former executive of Gateway Communications in London, has worked in several African countries. He now lives and works full time in Rwanda, and many government officials sayTerracom's performance has improved under his leadership. Lundh said there were problems with the company's operations in the past but that the Rwandan government was responsible for some of the delays."We would get to schools that don't even have electricity or computers," he said. "That is not our fault."In addition, he said that many of the complaints about the company concernedthings beyond its ability to control. Getting adequate bandwidth remains aconstant challenge. Like most telecommunications companies in eastern Africa, Terracom depends on satellites for Internet service. Satellite service is muchslower than cable because of delays in the signals. Satellites also provideless bandwidth than cable.Adding to the problem is that most of the satellites serving Africa were launched nearly 20 years ago and are aging or going out of commission. Asatellite set to go into service last year blew up on the launching pad. Poweris also an issue, as intermittent power failures in Rwanda hamper efforts to provide a steady electricity source.Despite these limitations and earlier setbacks, Lundh said Terracom was movingahead with plans to give Rwanda the most advanced Internet infrastructure inAfrica. A nationwide wireless connection should begin operating near year-end, he said.Magnus K. Mazimpaka contributed reporting from Rwanda.____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.orgTo be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internethttp://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ronda.netizen at gmail.com Mon Jul 23 11:26:31 2007 From: ronda.netizen at gmail.com (Ronda Hauben) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:26:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] Desirable vs undue commercial and government involvement In-Reply-To: <20070723141916.2C4CA2202EF@quill.bollow.ch> References: <3952297.1185174865897.JavaMail.tomcat@pne-ps4-sn2> <20070723141916.2C4CA2202EF@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: The discussion originated in referring to what is happening in Africa in the attempts to develop the infrastructure for the Internet in different countries like Rwanda and on the African continent. I am suggesting that this is a scientific problem, not a problem of getting enough commercial investment, which is how the problem seems to be approached in the few things I have seen regarding it. So its not only as you say here what is the role for the commercial entity and for government, but the question of whether we can agree its a scientific problem and that creating the proper environment to solve such a problem is where the role of government and the commercial sector need to be determined. Thanks for trying to clarify. Ronda On 7/23/07, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Ronda Hauben wrote: > > > During the early development of the Internet there was an AUP - an > > Acceptible Use Policy. > > > > This was a means of restricting commercial participation and political > > pressure. > > Obviously applying the same kind of AUP to today's internet is neither > feasible nor desirable. > > However, let's try to figure out what kinds of commercial participation > and government involvements are desirable and what kinds should not be > considered acceptable. > > When we have clarity about all that, we can discuss possible measures > for increasing that which is desirable and decreasing that which should > not be considered acceptable. > > Gruss, > Norbert. > > > -- > Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch > Präsident der Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch > Die SIUG engagiert sich für den Schutz der Privatsphäre und dafür, > dass auch in Zukunft das Internet auf offenen Standards basiert. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ronda.netizen at gmail.com Mon Jul 23 12:09:13 2007 From: ronda.netizen at gmail.com (Ronda Hauben) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:09:13 -0400 Subject: [governance] Effects of lack of electricity on the digital divide In-Reply-To: References: <12337746.1185202271154.JavaMail.tomcat@pne-ps3-sn2> Message-ID: Dear Ann-Kristin Yes there is a need to create an environment for science and technology. There are two uses of the word "political" that I guess we are using it seems and I am not sure how to sort out the two uses. One is that "politics" is to geer science in a mode that is different from what it would be if the particular interest involved stayed out or was restricted. That is one use. The other use is that underlying what happens there is some political agreement. These seem two different uses of the term "politics" and we are each using a different meaning. With regard to the research giving birth to and developing the Internet there was a need to keep out the first use that I refer to. I don't see in your formulation, which seems to be the second use, a way to dealing with the need to restrict something being treated in a way that diverts what one does because of political ends. Perhaps you are saying that science is only political and I am disagreeing. ronda On 7/23/07, Ann-Kristin Håkansson wrote: > > Dear Ronda, > > I agree that commercial and political pressure should not be put on > scientific and technical development but i still see that the implementation > of that development depend on political decisions. > > Best regards, > > Ann-Kristin > > ----Ursprungligt meddelande---- > Från: ronda.netizen at gmail.com > Datum: Jul 23, 2007 1:47:23 PM > Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Ann-Kristin Håkansson > Kopia: ronda hauben > Ärende: Re: Re: [governance] Effects of lack of electricity on the digital > divide > > Dear Ann-Kristin > > During the early development of the Internet there was an AUP - an > Acceptible Use Policy. > > This was a means of restricting commercial participation and political > pressure. > > The scientific and technical development was possible because the > commercial and political pressures were being managed and kept from impeding > the scientific and technical development. > > The Information Processing Techniques Organization (IPTO) which provided > the leadership for this development was also subject to political pressures > and by the mid 1980s this became a serious problem which eventually led its > ending. > > So there are political pressures to be sure - for science and technology > to function there is a need to have an environment where the scientists and > engineers can do their research and the political pressures are kept from > impeding the developments. > > So Ann-Kristin I would disagree with your formulation. There's a need for > science and the scientific approach to the technology to dominate, not > poltiics. (I realize you could say this is political, but then the science > is lost.) > > best wishes > > Ronda > > > > > On 7/23/07, Ann-Kristin Håkansson < akigua at telia.com> wrote: > > > > Dear Ronda, > > > > Isn´t this what we tried to describe all along the WSIS process? > > However, I´m not sure that building infrastructure is only a scientific or > > commercial problem, I think it is mainly political. > > > > Regards, > > > > Ann-Kristin > > > > Indigenous ICT tf > > > > ----Ursprungligt meddelande---- > > Från: ronda.netizen at gmail.com > > Datum: Jul 23, 2007 1:26:34 AM > > Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org, yehudakatz at mailinator.com > > Kopia: ronda hauben > > Ärende: Re: [governance] Effects of lack of electricity on the digital > > divide > > > > Thanks for sending this article to the list. It just seems that the job > > of connecting Rawanda and other African > > countries to the Internet and building infrastructure is a scientific > > problem, not a commercial problem. > > The problems described remind me of the kinds of problems (though > > different) that the pioneers building > > the Internet faced, and they figured out how to solve them as they were > > focusing on a scientific > > approach and using the technology they had developed to help them solve > > the problems. > > > > At the UN there was a presentation by Professor Juma, a Harvard > > Professor originally from Kenya, > > talking about how Rwanda is a prototype for others. He didn't mention > > the problems being encountered > > so it is good to see the real situation described. > > > > After the WSIS meeting in Tunisia I met a government official from > > Tanzania who described the problems > > of spreading connectivity and how the commercial efforts were to make a > > profit not to spread the net. > > So its not that the commercial should not be part of the situation > > dealing with the problem, but putting > > the solution in their hands is probably not going to solve the problems > > in itself. > > > > Ronda > > > > > > > > > > On 7/22/07, yehudakatz at mailinator.com > > wrote: > > > > > Brilliant post Kwasi - excellent > > > I also found this article interesting: > > > > > > Africa, mostly offline, struggles to get on the Internet > > > By Ron Nixon > > > Re: The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.com > > > http://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?id=6765556 > > > > > > Sunday, July 22, 2007 > > > On a muggy day in Kigali in 2003, some of the highest-ranking > > > officials in the > > > Rwandan government, including President Paul Kagame, flanked an > > > American > > > businessman, Greg Wyler, as he boldly described how he could help turn > > > their > > > small country into a hub of Internet activity. > > > > > > Wyler, an executive based in Boston who made his fortune during the > > > technology > > > boom, said he would lace Rwanda with fiber optic cables, connecting > > > schools, > > > government institutions and homes with low-cost, high-speed Internet > > > service. > > > > > > Until that point, Wyler, 37, had never set foot in Africa - he was > > > invited by a > > > Rwandan government official he had met at a wedding. Wyler never > > > expected to > > > start a business there; he simply wanted to try to help the war-torn > > > country. > > > > > > Even so, Wyler's company, Terracom, was granted a contract to connect > > > 300 > > > schools to the Internet. Later, the company would buy 99 percent of > > > the shares > > > in Rwandatel, the national telecommunications company, for $20 > > > million. > > > > > > But after nearly four years, most of the benefits hailed by him and > > > his company > > > have failed to materialize, Rwandan officials say. "The bottom line is > > > that he > > > promised many things and didn't deliver," Albert Butare, the Rwandan > > > telecommunications minister, said. > > > > > > Wyler says he sees things differently and that he and the Rwandan > > > officials > > > will probably never agree on why their joint venture has been so slow > > > to get > > > off the ground. But Terracom's tale is more than a story about a > > > business > > > dispute in Rwanda. It is also emblematic of what can happen when good > > > intentions run into the technical, political and business realities of > > > Africa. > > > > > > Attempts to bring affordable high-speed Internet service to the masses > > > have > > > made little headway on the continent. Less than 4 percent of the > > > African > > > population is connected to the Web. Most subscribers are in North > > > African > > > countries and the republic of South Africa. > > > > > > A lack of infrastructure is the biggest problem. In many countries, > > > years of > > > civil conflict destroyed communications networks, and continuing > > > political > > > instability deters governments or companies from investing in new > > > systems. > > > > > > E-mail messages and phone calls sent from some African countries have > > > to be > > > routed through Britain, or even the United States, increasing expenses > > > and > > > delivery times. About 75 percent of African Internet traffic is routed > > > this way > > > and costs African countries billions of extra dollars each year that > > > they would > > > not incur if their infrastructure was up to date. > > > > > > "Most African governments haven't paid much attention to their > > > infrastructure," > > > said Vincent Oria, an associate professor of computer science at the > > > New Jersey > > > Institute of Technology who is from the Ivory Coast. "In places where > > > hunger, > > > AIDS and poverty are rampant, they didn't see it as critical until > > > now." > > > > > > Rwandan officials were especially interested in wiring schools, seeing > > > > > > information technology as crucial to modernizing the rural economy. > > > > > > But as of mid-July, only one-third of the 300 schools covered in > > > Terracom's > > > contract had high-speed Internet service. All 300 were supposed to > > > have been > > > connected by 2006. > > > > > > Overall, less than 1 percent of the population is connected to the > > > Internet. > > > Rwandan officials say Terracom seems more interested in tapping the > > > more > > > lucrative cellphone market than in being an Internet service provider. > > > > > > > > > In November, Wyler stepped down as chief executive of Terracom, saying > > > he > > > wanted to spend more time with his family. He still serves on the > > > board. > > > > > > Wyler said by telephone from his Boston home that he would not address > > > the > > > government's criticism. He said he did not want to be quoted as saying > > > anything > > > negative. But he said there were some things he had not anticipated, > > > particularly the technical challenges of linking the Rwandan Internet > > > network > > > to the rest of the world. > > > > > > "Terracom has done everything it can, " he said. "Because of the > > > technical > > > challenges, the Internet service is as good as it's going to get. But > > > given > > > what we started from, I still think we have accomplished a lot. In the > > > > > > beginning there were a few people with Internet service. Now there are > > > > > > thousands." > > > > > > The Rwandan government had hoped that the number of Web surfers would > > > be much > > > higher by now. Rwanda has little industry, and its infrastructure is > > > still > > > being rebuilt after the 1994 genocide in which 800,000 to a million > > > people were > > > killed. > > > > > > "We have almost no natural resources and no seaports in Rwanda, which > > > leaves us > > > only with trying to become a knowledge-based society," said Romain > > > Murenzi, the > > > Rwandan minister of science, technology and scientific research. > > > > > > Wyler said he had not been involved in Terracom for nearly 10 months > > > and could > > > not comment on its current operations. > > > > > > Christopher Lundh, Terracom's new chief executive and a former > > > executive of > > > Gateway Communications in London, has worked in several African > > > countries. He > > > now lives and works full time in Rwanda, and many government officials > > > say > > > Terracom's performance has improved under his leadership. > > > > > > Lundh said there were problems with the company's operations in the > > > past but > > > that the Rwandan government was responsible for some of the delays. > > > > > > "We would get to schools that don't even have electricity or > > > computers," he > > > said. "That is not our fault." > > > > > > In addition, he said that many of the complaints about the company > > > concerned > > > things beyond its ability to control. Getting adequate bandwidth > > > remains a > > > constant challenge. Like most telecommunications companies in eastern > > > Africa, > > > Terracom depends on satellites for Internet service. Satellite service > > > is much > > > slower than cable because of delays in the signals. Satellites also > > > provide > > > less bandwidth than cable. > > > > > > Adding to the problem is that most of the satellites serving Africa > > > were > > > launched nearly 20 years ago and are aging or going out of commission. > > > A > > > satellite set to go into service last year blew up on the launching > > > pad. Power > > > is also an issue, as intermittent power failures in Rwanda hamper > > > efforts to > > > provide a steady electricity source. > > > > > > Despite these limitations and earlier setbacks, Lundh said Terracom > > > was moving > > > ahead with plans to give Rwanda the most advanced Internet > > > infrastructure in > > > Africa. A nationwide wireless connection should begin operating near > > > year-end, > > > he said. > > > > > > Magnus K. Mazimpaka contributed reporting from Rwanda. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > > -- > Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet > > http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook > > -- Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook -- Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From rbloem at ngocongo.org Mon Jul 23 12:13:46 2007 From: rbloem at ngocongo.org (Renate Bloem) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:13:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200707231616.l6NGGgbo011986@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, Sorry, for not coming earlier back to you. I am running between various ECOSOC mechanisms and CONGO's ongoing work. I have tried to get your proposals into one single statement for Wednesday. There will be no other space. I did my bit on criticising "CS participation 'channelled' through GAID" last week. Look at the attachment and come back to me latest by Tuesday noon. Will be in meetings afterwards. All best Renate ---------------------------------- Renate Bloem President of the Conference of NGOs (CONGO) 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: rbloem 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 -----Message d'origine----- De : Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Envoyé : lundi, 23. juillet 2007 09:56 À : governance at lists.cpsr.org Objet : RE: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID Parminder, thanks. Hope you will take a friendly amendment to change leeter to letter :-) Slightly concerned about suggesting the discussion take place in the CSTD process where non-govt stakeholders are lucky to get a word in. But agree it should not take place in the IGF process. Could we add some emphasis? e.g change: as well as modalities ensured for their participation in all processes as well as modalities to ensure the full and equal participation of all stakeholders in all processes Anyway, I support the statement. Thanks, Adam At 11:53 AM +0530 7/23/07, Parminder wrote: >Hi All, > >We have been taking comments for a IGC statement on non-inclusion in and >non-transparency of the enhanced cooperation process to be read at the >ongoing ECOSOC session which will take up the secretary general's report >which alludes to this issue. (I am enclosing the original email by Philippe >to clarify matter for those who may have not followed the debate). > >I am proposing the following text pulling together various comments/ text >proposals that came up, for a consensus call. This may be need to be used by >CONGO any time now depending when does the discussion come up (Philippe, >Renate, can you give us some information on this). But I think we may still >have around 48 hours we normally use for consensus seeking for statements on >the behalf of IGF. I am sorry for some delay in posting this. I had planned >to so it over the weekend, but was busy, and it slipped my mind.) > >(starts) > >This is in reference to the relevant part in the Secretary General's report >to the ECOSOC which mentions that "consultations are under way to start a >process towards enhanced cooperation among all relevant stakeholders with >regard to Internet governance, as requested by the Summit". In this respect >it is pertinent to note that Para 71 of the Tunis Agenda also clearly states >that: "the process towards enhanced cooperation, ...will involve all >stakeholders". > >The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus notes with concern that the >letter and spirit of the WSIS multi-stakeholder principles do not appear to >have been applied in relation to the processes around 'enhanced cooperation' >for Internet Governance. In spite of directly requesting information of the >SG's office regarding the process, through our leeter dated 29th January, >2007, addressed to SG's Special Advisor on WSIS, civil society groups have >neither received information about, nor been invited to or involved in >consultations, in any way to date. > >The caucus, along with other civil society groups, has consistently >demonstrated it's commitment to contribute constructively to the WSIS >follow-up process, a commitment which extends to all elements of the >process, including that of enhanced cooperation. > > >We request that the United Nations, ECOSOC, and all other parties ensure >that the enhanced cooperation process is conducted in a manner that is fully >consistent with the principles of transparency and multistakeholder >participation set forth in the Tunis Agenda. All information about >consultation processes for enhanced cooperation should be provided in a >timely and transparent manner to all stakeholders, as well as modalities >ensured for their participation in all processes, including of initial >consultations and developing the initial agenda and format for enhanced >cooperation. > >In order to ensure participation of an appropriately wide range of civil >society in this process, it would be useful to include formal consultations >on enhanced cooperation during, or around, the annual CSTD May sessions (the >Information Society week events) as well as encourage informal meetings >during events such as the Internet Governance Forum. > >(ends) > >As per usual we will not take any in any amendment comments at this point. >Only support or otherwise. > >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 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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: ECOSOC on CSTD and GAID 2.doc Type: application/msword Size: 690176 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mueller at syr.edu Mon Jul 23 15:04:12 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:04:12 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID In-Reply-To: <20070723062339.C34D4678E4@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20070719103823.9580A1B6B89@mail.gn.apc.org> <20070723062339.C34D4678E4@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD98D7C17@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Support from me --MM -----Original Message----- From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 2:23 AM (starts) This is in reference to the relevant part in the Secretary General's report to the ECOSOC which mentions that "consultations are under way to start a process towards enhanced cooperation among all relevant stakeholders with regard to Internet governance, as requested by the Summit". In this respect it is pertinent to note that Para 71 of the Tunis Agenda also clearly states that: "the process towards enhanced cooperation, ...will involve all stakeholders". The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus notes with concern that the letter and spirit of the WSIS multi-stakeholder principles do not appear to have been applied in relation to the processes around 'enhanced cooperation' for Internet Governance. In spite of directly requesting information of the SG's office regarding the process, through our leeter dated 29th January, 2007, addressed to SG's Special Advisor on WSIS, civil society groups have neither received information about, nor been invited to or involved in consultations, in any way to date. The caucus, along with other civil society groups, has consistently demonstrated it's commitment to contribute constructively to the WSIS follow-up process, a commitment which extends to all elements of the process, including that of enhanced cooperation. We request that the United Nations, ECOSOC, and all other parties ensure that the enhanced cooperation process is conducted in a manner that is fully consistent with the principles of transparency and multistakeholder participation set forth in the Tunis Agenda. All information about consultation processes for enhanced cooperation should be provided in a timely and transparent manner to all stakeholders, as well as modalities ensured for their participation in all processes, including of initial consultations and developing the initial agenda and format for enhanced cooperation. In order to ensure participation of an appropriately wide range of civil society in this process, it would be useful to include formal consultations on enhanced cooperation during, or around, the annual CSTD May sessions (the Information Society week events) as well as encourage informal meetings during events such as the Internet Governance Forum. (ends) As per usual we will not take any in any amendment comments at this point. Only support or otherwise. 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: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] On > Behalf Of Parminder > Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 4:08 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'karen banks'; plenary at wsis-cs.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS > follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID > > [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire list. > Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific > people] > > Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic translation of > this message! > _______________________________________ > > > > eg.. are we asking ECOSOC to ensure that the CSTD ensures MS > > principles are adhered to in any (and all) consultations related to > > wsis followup? the CSTD is the entry point for consultation no? > > ECOSOC only receives reports from CSTD no? (or maybe i've got it all > > wrong) > > I understand that ECOSOC has political supervision over CSTD, and is also > in > charge of all summits follow-ups, and the WSIS one would go through CSTD. > So > it shd be ok to request ECOSOC to ensure so and so since this is being > read > out at an ECOSOC substantive meeting. > > > > but you know, i'm not sure i would include text about holding > > consultations at the IGF specifically.. strategically, i think it's > > not the best move.. i would prefer to have *formal* consultations > > about enhanced cooperation as part of the wsis followup process, and > > therefore, during may each year.. but if you link these two together > > right now, i am sure it will be resisted.. is that what we want? As a > > compromise, you could use the IGF as one of several opportunities for > > consulTations.. > > Sure, the idea is to reach out where CS interested in IG issues > congregates > and not hold consultations on one odd day at New York which can only get > little CS participation, which will be quite skewed as well. So, yes, it > shd > be at Info soc week and at IGF. > > > and - is this statement going to be read, or written and submitted to > > ECOSOC? i imagine a bit of both? ie, an intervention from the floor, > > and a written statement? and, what is the relationship between > > ECOSOC and CSTD - i ask as i want to be clear on who has the power to > > ask what of whom.. > > Philippe can answer best the issue of how the statement will be used. I > have > stated above my understanding of the relationship between ECOSOC and CSTD. > > 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: karen banks [mailto:karenb at gn.apc.org] > > Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 1:45 PM > > To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS > > follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID > > > > hi parminder > > > > >You have my full support on this. --MM > > > > thanks for doing this parminder.. here's some proposed revisions up > > front - my justifications noted at the end.. > > > > === (i'm assuming these few paras will be inserted into a collective > > statement CONGO is coordinating? === > > > > In reference to "Consultations are under way to start a process > > towards enhanced cooperation among all relevant stakeholders with > > regard to Internet governance, as requested by the Summit". Para 71 > > of the Tunis Agenda states: "the process towards enhanced > > cooperation, ...will involve all stakeholders". > > > > The Civil Society IG Caucus notes with concern that the spirit of the > > WSIS multi-stakeholder principles does not appear to have been > > applied in relation to the process of enhanced cooperation. In spite > > of directly requesting information of the SG regarding the process, > > civil society groups have neither received information about, nor > > been invited to or involved in consultations, in any way to date. > > > > The caucus, along with other civil society groups, has consistently > > demonstrated it's committment to contribute constructively to the > > WSIS followup process, a committment which extends to all elements of > > the process, including that of enhanced cooperation. > > > > We request ECOSOC ensures that the WSIS Multi-stakeholder principles > > are consistently applied to all elements of the WSIS followup > > process, and that information about consultation processes are > > provided in a timely and transparent manner to all stakeholders. > > > > In order to make the most of civil society participation in this > > process, it would be useful to include formal consultations on > > enhanced cooperation during, or around, the annual CSTD May sessions > > (the WSIS 'weeks') as well as encourage informal meetings during > > events such as the Internet Governance Forum." > > > > notes below.. > > > > karen > > > > >This is in reference to the SG's report stating that, and we quote, > > >"Consultations are under way to start a process towards enhanced > > >cooperation among all relevant stakeholders with regard to Internet > > >governance, as requested by the Summit". Para 71 of the Tunis Agenda > > >clearly states that "the process towards enhanced cooperation, > > >...will involve all stakeholders". However, the Civil Society IG > > >Caucus notes with concern that civil society has not been involved > > >at all in the consultations mentioned in the SG's report. We do not > > >even have any information about this consultation, despite directly > > >requesting the SG office regarding it. > > > > In reference to "Consultations are under way to start a process > > towards enhanced cooperation among all relevant stakeholders with > > regard to Internet governance, as requested by the Summit". > > > > Para 71 of the Tunis Agenda states: "the process towards enhanced > > cooperation, ...will involve all stakeholders". > > > > The Civil Society IG Caucus notes with concern that, in spite of > > directly requesting information of the SG regarding the process, > > civil society has neither received information about, nor been > > invited or involved in consultations in any way to date. > > > > (parminder, you may want to include a copy of the request for info, > dated) > > > > >We request ECOSOC to ensure that the multistakeholder principle in > > >WSIS follow-up is fully adhered to as per WSIS documents, in general > > >spirit, and in specific mandates as in case of the process towards > > >enhanced cooperation, where as mentioned above, the WSIS injunction > > >for multistakeholder involvement is clearly not being complied with. > > > > eg.. are we asking ECOSOC to ensure that the CSTD ensures MS > > principles are adhered to in any (and all) consultations related to > > wsis followup? the CSTD is the entry point for consultation no? > > ECOSOC only receives reports from CSTD no? (or maybe i've got it all > > wrong) > > > > >The caucus will like to be invited to and involved in these > > >consultations, along with other civil society groups. Since a lot of > > >civil society groups interested in IG issues converge at IGF > > >meeting, holding such consultations on the sidelines of the IGF > > >meeting may be useful. We will also like to be kept updated on the > > >consultations with other stakeholders. > > > > the above for example, would appear to relate to CS involvement in > > CSTD process? > > > > but you know, i'm not sure i would include text about holding > > consultations at the IGF specifically.. strategically, i think it's > > not the best move.. i would prefer to have *formal* consultations > > about enhanced cooperation as part of the wsis followup process, and > > therefore, during may each year.. but if you link these two together > > right now, i am sure it will be resisted.. is that what we want? As a > > compromise, you could use the IGF as one of several opportunities for > > consulTations.. > > > > proposed text > > > > We request ECOSOC ensures that the WSIS Multi-stakeholder principles > > are consistently applied to all elements of the WSIS followup > > process, and that information about consultation processes are > > provided in a timely and transparent manner to all stakeholders. > > > > In order to make the most of civil society participation in this > > process, it would be useful to include formal consultations on > > enhanced cooperation during, or around, the annual CSTD May sessions > > (the WSIS 'weeks') as well as encourage informal meetings during > > events such as the Internet Governance Forum." > > > > and - is this statement going to be read, or written and submitted to > > ECOSOC? i imagine a bit of both? ie, an intervention from the floor, > > and a written statement? and, what is the relationship between > > ECOSOC and CSTD - i ask as i want to be clear on who has the power to > > ask what of whom.. > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > _______________________________________________ > Plenary mailing list > Plenary at wsis-cs.org > http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 dan at musicunbound.com Mon Jul 23 16:52:41 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:52:41 -0700 Subject: [governance] Effects of lack of electricity on the digital divide In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Rhonda, I guess I would say that the Internet is no longer (and can no longer be) relegated to a "protected environment" for development. Those days are over. Political dynamics have imposed themselves upon this communication platform with a vengeance, and there is no getting rid of them. The reason for this is that the Internet has become *important* politically, whereas at the outset it was purely a tech development project that the politicians did not understand as affecting them significantly. Well, that project has born many valuable fruit, and those fruit are proving to be massively disruptive to the power balance of the past. There are many positive potentials here for "the little guy" but by the same token it threatens entrenched powers potentially at their very core, and there are also threats to recast the technology into a tool for massive oppression (or to more subtly shape its implementation in ways that maintain the power divide under the radar, without alerting the general population to their betrayal). Regardless of what would be ideal, I find it unrealistic to think that politics can ever be banished from the process ever again, any more than it can when it comes to television/radio policy or telecommunications policy in general. The Internet is becoming the future of the Fourth Estate, and that makes it front and center in all political dynamics. The spotlight is shining on it, and that spotlight is not about to go away. The Internet is far too impactful on political power dynamics that are far too important to ever recreate the protected development environment again. The cat is out of the bag, and there's no putting it back. This is a measure of the success of any scientific/technological development effort: if the kings want to control your technology, you know it makes a big difference to society generally. The involvement of political dynamics is inevitable for any successful and mature technology of broad social impact (and thus broad political impact). The Internet has grown up, and this is what happens when you leave the nest for the wild world. You have to deal with power on its own terms, because now you are playing in the realm of adults, and you can't have the parents set the rules unilaterally any more. The initial startup environment of the Internet is a one-time occurrence that can never be recaptured at this level of technological maturity. "You can't go home again." My advice is to get used to it and learn how to navigate in these rough waters. We're out of the controlled swimming pool and out onto the wild ocean where hurricanes and sharks and rip tides are simply part of the axioms of life. If you want another swimming pool, find another nascent technology to work on. This one has been birthed, weaned and sent out into the cruel world to fend for itself. The egg shell has been permanently shattered, and will never be put together again. Dan PS -- Sorry for the long string of metaphors. I'm just trying to find stories that will get the point across. :-) At 8:01 AM -0400 7/23/07, Ronda Hauben wrote: >Dan, what you say leaves out that the Internet's early development was >done in an environment that was a protected environment, an environment >that was an open academic situation where there could be public discussion >of the science done, sharing of what was happening, and researchers from >different countries were able to collaborate. The design of tcp/ip grew up >in such a culture. I have some papers describing this and how the problems >were dealt with. I would be glad to provide the urls. > >Its important to know the discuss the real situation, not create scenarios. > >Someone the scientific origins seem to be lost in the current milieu. > >An Acceptible Use Policy was critical at the early stages. Similarly that >this was developed in an academic environment and that it wasn't under >proprietary restrictions. > >There was a need to involve a large scientific community in the >development and I even found that the early papers went to researchers in >Eastern Europe (despite the cold war on at the time) and that they >discussed the early tcp/ip architecture plans and alternatives at a >research institute in Laxenburg, Austria at the International Institute >of Applied Systems Analysis, (IIASA) in the early and mid 1970s. > >So its important to sort out the scientific environment needed for >technological developments and how to create and nourish such an >environment. > >Ronda > >On 7/22/07, Dan Krimm <dan at musicunbound.com> >wrote: > >At 7:26 PM -0400 7/22/07, Ronda Hauben wrote: > >>The problems described remind me of the kinds of problems (though >>different) that the pioneers building the Internet faced, and they figured >>out how to solve them as they were focusing on a scientific approach and >>using the technology they had developed to help them solve the problems. >>... >>So its not that the commercial should not be part of the situation dealing >>with the problem, but putting the solution in their hands is probably not >>going to solve the problems in itself. > > >I would suggest that there are three domains here, not just two. >Commercial, yes. Technological (science), yes. But also *public policy*. >What was solved in the technological origins of the Internet also included >a number of implicit (and perhaps explicit) public policy issues. > >For example, the technical architecture of TCP/IP encompasses the public >policy issue of common carriage of information. It would be up to David >Reed and Vint Cerf to recount how much the public policy issues were an >explicit part of that architectural decision, but even if they weren't >explicitly thinking of the public policy issue of common carriage, their >decision affected that policy, at least for some years (it is seriously >threatened in the US these days, because we lack the interconnection >regulation that sustains structural competition such as in the EU -- we're >actually fighting that fight right now over a patch of wireless spectrum >that is due to be freed up in the pending transition from analog to digital >TV). > >In the US, we still fight over the issue of universal geographical coverage >(the policy code word is "red-lining" which has been generally prohibited >for telco service and depending on the municipality may or may not be >allowed for cable TV -- the application to Internet service is unclear so >far, but looming). This is likely not going to be addressed >technologically or by the market on its own -- the only technological >solution would be to find a way to make provision of service to sparsely >populated areas comparable to the costs of provision to more densely >populated areas, thus allowing market demand to attract profitable >provision of service to all areas. In the absence of such a technological >breakthrough, coverage of unprofitable regions will ultimately require >public regulation of coverage to avoid "creaming" by commercial service >providers (to maximize profit), or else abject public deployment and >provision of service to otherwise unserved regions of the market. > >If these sorts of things are still issues in the US (which they most >certainly are), it's not hard to see why they would be issues elsewhere as >well. Where markets and architecture fail, and where social norms do not >apply, regulation should still be considered in order to rectify those >failures. This is one reason why "Internet Governance" is really an >integrated component of "public governance" in general. > >Dan > >PS -- Furthermore, the long term fate of the global energy crunch will >clearly impact the long term fate of the digital divide around the world. >If we start rationing energy, the wealthy will surely find ways to avoid >having to constrain their own use, while rationing applies >disproportionately to the non-wealthy. I don't think this issue is at all >geographically constrained in the long run. Beware the erosion of the >commonwealth, because a divided society is a wasteful, weak and contentious >society. >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > >-- >Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet > >http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, 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 dan at musicunbound.com Mon Jul 23 17:01:55 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:01:55 -0700 Subject: [governance] Desirable vs undue commercial and government involvement In-Reply-To: References: <3952297.1185174865897.JavaMail.tomcat@pne-ps4-sn2> <20070723141916.2C4CA2202EF@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Ronda, Can you explain in more detail exactly how science might be expected to solve the problems at hand? How do you define the problems in the first place, and what possible solutions are there to those problems? If the problem is indeed technological, then the solution is technological (and possibly also political and commercial, if the technological solution impacts government and markets). But if the problem is inherently political/commercial then certainly the solution must involve politics/commerce. In the US, the delays in widespread deployment of broadband Internet access are largely political and commercial in origin. Technologically it is fairly well understood, as we have many better examples from around the rest of the world at this time. I would suggest that the burden of proof is on you to show why the problems are technological in nature, and why political and commercial issues do not have a significant impact. Dan At 11:26 AM -0400 7/23/07, Ronda Hauben wrote: >The discussion originated in referring to what is happening in Africa in >the attempts to develop the infrastructure for the Internet in different >countries like Rwanda and on the African continent. > >I am suggesting that this is a scientific problem, not a problem of >getting enough commercial investment, which is how the problem seems to be >approached in the few things I have seen regarding it. > >So its not only as you say here what is the role for the commercial entity >and for government, but the question of whether we can agree its a >scientific problem and that creating the proper environment to solve such >a problem is where the role of government and the commercial sector need >to be determined. > >Thanks for trying to clarify. > >Ronda > > >On 7/23/07, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote: > >Ronda Hauben <ronda.netizen at gmail.com> wrote: > >> During the early development of the Internet there was an AUP - an >> Acceptible Use Policy. >> >> This was a means of restricting commercial participation and political >> pressure. > >Obviously applying the same kind of AUP to today's internet is neither >feasible nor desirable. > >However, let's try to figure out what kinds of commercial participation >and government involvements are desirable and what kinds should not be >considered acceptable. > >When we have clarity about all that, we can discuss possible measures >for increasing that which is desirable and decreasing that which should >not be considered acceptable. > >Gruss, >Norbert. > > >-- >Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> >http://Norbert.ch >Präsident der Swiss Internet User Group >SIUG http://SIUG.ch >Die SIUG engagiert sich für den Schutz der Privatsphäre und dafür, >dass auch in Zukunft das Internet auf offenen Standards basiert. >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > >-- >Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet > >http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, 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 Tue Jul 24 06:56:13 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:26:13 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID In-Reply-To: <200707231616.l6NGGgbo011986@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Message-ID: <20070724105620.ABDE2E04C3@smtp3.electricembers.net> Renate I think the statement is good. Thanks for including the IGC's part on EC. However, I remain concerned about the part in SG's report where GAID is mentioned as THE conduit to CSTD. Is there any behind-the-scenes process to correct this. If we have any doubts on that it is best to make a clear statement on this issue. As you saw on the plenary list there is a strong urging and support by many to make the point clear with ECOSOC. Thanks for all the work 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: Renate Bloem [mailto:rbloem at ngocongo.org] > Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 9:44 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Adam Peake'; Parminder; Dr. Francis MUGUET > Cc: congo at ngocongo.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS > follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID > Importance: High > > > Dear all, > > Sorry, for not coming earlier back to you. I am running between various > ECOSOC mechanisms and CONGO's ongoing work. I have tried to get your > proposals into one single statement for Wednesday. There will be no other > space. I did my bit on criticising "CS participation 'channelled' through > GAID" last week. Look at the attachment and come back to me latest by > Tuesday noon. Will be in meetings afterwards. > > All best > Renate > > ---------------------------------- > Renate Bloem > President of the Conference of NGOs (CONGO) > 11, Avenue de la Paix > CH-1202 Geneva > Tel: +41 22 301 1000 > Fax: +41 22 301 2000 > E-mail: rbloem 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 > > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Envoyé : lundi, 23. juillet 2007 09:56 > À : governance at lists.cpsr.org > Objet : RE: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS > follow > up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID > > Parminder, thanks. > > Hope you will take a friendly amendment to change leeter to letter :-) > > Slightly concerned about suggesting the discussion take place in the > CSTD process where non-govt stakeholders are lucky to get a word in. > But agree it should not take place in the IGF process. Could we add > some emphasis? e.g change: > > as well as modalities ensured for their participation in all processes > > as well as modalities to ensure the full and equal participation of > all stakeholders in all processes > > > Anyway, I support the statement. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > At 11:53 AM +0530 7/23/07, Parminder wrote: > >Hi All, > > > >We have been taking comments for a IGC statement on non-inclusion in and > >non-transparency of the enhanced cooperation process to be read at the > >ongoing ECOSOC session which will take up the secretary general's report > >which alludes to this issue. (I am enclosing the original email by > Philippe > >to clarify matter for those who may have not followed the debate). > > > >I am proposing the following text pulling together various comments/ text > >proposals that came up, for a consensus call. This may be need to be used > by > >CONGO any time now depending when does the discussion come up (Philippe, > >Renate, can you give us some information on this). But I think we may > still > >have around 48 hours we normally use for consensus seeking for statements > on > >the behalf of IGF. I am sorry for some delay in posting this. I had > planned > >to so it over the weekend, but was busy, and it slipped my mind.) > > > >(starts) > > > >This is in reference to the relevant part in the Secretary General's > report > >to the ECOSOC which mentions that "consultations are under way to start a > >process towards enhanced cooperation among all relevant stakeholders with > >regard to Internet governance, as requested by the Summit". In this > respect > >it is pertinent to note that Para 71 of the Tunis Agenda also clearly > states > >that: "the process towards enhanced cooperation, ...will involve all > >stakeholders". > > > >The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus notes with concern that the > >letter and spirit of the WSIS multi-stakeholder principles do not appear > to > >have been applied in relation to the processes around 'enhanced > cooperation' > >for Internet Governance. In spite of directly requesting information of > the > >SG's office regarding the process, through our leeter dated 29th January, > >2007, addressed to SG's Special Advisor on WSIS, civil society groups > have > >neither received information about, nor been invited to or involved in > >consultations, in any way to date. > > > >The caucus, along with other civil society groups, has consistently > >demonstrated it's commitment to contribute constructively to the WSIS > >follow-up process, a commitment which extends to all elements of the > >process, including that of enhanced cooperation. > > > > > >We request that the United Nations, ECOSOC, and all other parties ensure > >that the enhanced cooperation process is conducted in a manner that is > fully > >consistent with the principles of transparency and multistakeholder > >participation set forth in the Tunis Agenda. All information about > >consultation processes for enhanced cooperation should be provided in a > >timely and transparent manner to all stakeholders, as well as modalities > >ensured for their participation in all processes, including of initial > >consultations and developing the initial agenda and format for enhanced > >cooperation. > > > >In order to ensure participation of an appropriately wide range of civil > >society in this process, it would be useful to include formal > consultations > >on enhanced cooperation during, or around, the annual CSTD May sessions > (the > >Information Society week events) as well as encourage informal meetings > >during events such as the Internet Governance Forum. > > > >(ends) > > > >As per usual we will not take any in any amendment comments at this > point. > >Only support or otherwise. > > > >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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 rbloem at ngocongo.org Tue Jul 24 07:37:53 2007 From: rbloem at ngocongo.org (Renate Bloem - iprolink) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:37:53 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID In-Reply-To: <20070724105621.98A101B7639@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <469C9147001678B6@mail18.bluewin.ch> (added by postmaster@bluewin.ch) Hi Parminder, I gave attached statement already on the 19th. This was on a very sudden basi; I could not consult any more. However, I knew that many had raised the issue. Renate ------ Renate Bloem President of the Conference of NGOs (CONGO) 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: rbloem 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 -----Message d'origine----- De : plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] De la part de Parminder Envoyé : mardi, 24. juillet 2007 11:56 À : 'Renate Bloem'; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Adam Peake'; 'Dr. Francis MUGUET' Cc : congo at ngocongo.org; plenary at wsis-cs.org Objet : RE: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific people] Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic translation of this message! _______________________________________ Renate I think the statement is good. Thanks for including the IGC's part on EC. However, I remain concerned about the part in SG's report where GAID is mentioned as THE conduit to CSTD. Is there any behind-the-scenes process to correct this. If we have any doubts on that it is best to make a clear statement on this issue. As you saw on the plenary list there is a strong urging and support by many to make the point clear with ECOSOC. Thanks for all the work 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: Renate Bloem [mailto:rbloem at ngocongo.org] > Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 9:44 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Adam Peake'; Parminder; Dr. Francis MUGUET > Cc: congo at ngocongo.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS > follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID > Importance: High > > > Dear all, > > Sorry, for not coming earlier back to you. I am running between various > ECOSOC mechanisms and CONGO's ongoing work. I have tried to get your > proposals into one single statement for Wednesday. There will be no other > space. I did my bit on criticising "CS participation 'channelled' through > GAID" last week. Look at the attachment and come back to me latest by > Tuesday noon. Will be in meetings afterwards. > > All best > Renate > > ---------------------------------- > Renate Bloem > President of the Conference of NGOs (CONGO) > 11, Avenue de la Paix > CH-1202 Geneva > Tel: +41 22 301 1000 > Fax: +41 22 301 2000 > E-mail: rbloem 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 > > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Envoyé : lundi, 23. juillet 2007 09:56 > À : governance at lists.cpsr.org > Objet : RE: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS > follow > up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID > > Parminder, thanks. > > Hope you will take a friendly amendment to change leeter to letter :-) > > Slightly concerned about suggesting the discussion take place in the > CSTD process where non-govt stakeholders are lucky to get a word in. > But agree it should not take place in the IGF process. Could we add > some emphasis? e.g change: > > as well as modalities ensured for their participation in all processes > > as well as modalities to ensure the full and equal participation of > all stakeholders in all processes > > > Anyway, I support the statement. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > At 11:53 AM +0530 7/23/07, Parminder wrote: > >Hi All, > > > >We have been taking comments for a IGC statement on non-inclusion in and > >non-transparency of the enhanced cooperation process to be read at the > >ongoing ECOSOC session which will take up the secretary general's report > >which alludes to this issue. (I am enclosing the original email by > Philippe > >to clarify matter for those who may have not followed the debate). > > > >I am proposing the following text pulling together various comments/ text > >proposals that came up, for a consensus call. This may be need to be used > by > >CONGO any time now depending when does the discussion come up (Philippe, > >Renate, can you give us some information on this). But I think we may > still > >have around 48 hours we normally use for consensus seeking for statements > on > >the behalf of IGF. I am sorry for some delay in posting this. I had > planned > >to so it over the weekend, but was busy, and it slipped my mind.) > > > >(starts) > > > >This is in reference to the relevant part in the Secretary General's > report > >to the ECOSOC which mentions that "consultations are under way to start a > >process towards enhanced cooperation among all relevant stakeholders with > >regard to Internet governance, as requested by the Summit". In this > respect > >it is pertinent to note that Para 71 of the Tunis Agenda also clearly > states > >that: "the process towards enhanced cooperation, ...will involve all > >stakeholders". > > > >The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus notes with concern that the > >letter and spirit of the WSIS multi-stakeholder principles do not appear > to > >have been applied in relation to the processes around 'enhanced > cooperation' > >for Internet Governance. In spite of directly requesting information of > the > >SG's office regarding the process, through our leeter dated 29th January, > >2007, addressed to SG's Special Advisor on WSIS, civil society groups > have > >neither received information about, nor been invited to or involved in > >consultations, in any way to date. > > > >The caucus, along with other civil society groups, has consistently > >demonstrated it's commitment to contribute constructively to the WSIS > >follow-up process, a commitment which extends to all elements of the > >process, including that of enhanced cooperation. > > > > > >We request that the United Nations, ECOSOC, and all other parties ensure > >that the enhanced cooperation process is conducted in a manner that is > fully > >consistent with the principles of transparency and multistakeholder > >participation set forth in the Tunis Agenda. All information about > >consultation processes for enhanced cooperation should be provided in a > >timely and transparent manner to all stakeholders, as well as modalities > >ensured for their participation in all processes, including of initial > >consultations and developing the initial agenda and format for enhanced > >cooperation. > > > >In order to ensure participation of an appropriately wide range of civil > >society in this process, it would be useful to include formal > consultations > >on enhanced cooperation during, or around, the annual CSTD May sessions > (the > >Information Society week events) as well as encourage informal meetings > >during events such as the Internet Governance Forum. > > > >(ends) > > > >As per usual we will not take any in any amendment comments at this > point. > >Only support or otherwise. > > > >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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance _______________________________________________ Plenary mailing list Plenary at wsis-cs.org http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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: ECOSOC - Follow up to Conferences.doc Type: application/msword Size: 677888 bytes Desc: not available URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Jul 24 09:23:10 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 18:53:10 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID In-Reply-To: <469C9147001678B6@mail18.bluewin.ch> (added by postmaster@bluewin.ch) Message-ID: <20070724132316.7EE5DE0475@smtp3.electricembers.net> But Renate, This issue was being discussed with some force in the plenary and IGC and Philippe assured us that something is being done - whereby everyone thanked him etc. And this stopped further exchanges on the list... I know it is possible that you may not have noticed all emails because Phillipe had been handling this issue, and things may have been complicated by Philippe's being on vacation. However, as first pointed out by CONGO itself, it is very problematic for us not to say anything on this issue. In my view this just must be taken up when you get an opportunity to speak on 25th, and taken up strongly. I am also not clear if the assurances we had from GAID secretariat on this, that this is only a mistake means anything by way of correction. And what was the response of CSTD folks - Charles and Mongi. Thanks. And sorry to be raising so many issues when I know you have so many different things to deal with in many different areas at the ECOSOC meeting. 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: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] On > Behalf Of Renate Bloem - iprolink > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 5:08 PM > To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Adam Peake'; 'Dr. > Francis MUGUET' > Cc: congo at ngocongo.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS > follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID > > > Hi Parminder, > > I gave attached statement already on the 19th. This was on a very sudden > basi; I could not consult any more. However, I knew that many had raised > the > issue. > Renate > ------ > Renate Bloem > President of the Conference of NGOs (CONGO) > 11, Avenue de la Paix > CH-1202 Geneva > Tel: +41 22 301 1000 > Fax: +41 22 301 2000 > E-mail: rbloem 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 > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] De la > part > de Parminder > Envoyé : mardi, 24. juillet 2007 11:56 > À : 'Renate Bloem'; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Adam Peake'; 'Dr. Francis > MUGUET' > Cc : congo at ngocongo.org; plenary at wsis-cs.org > Objet : RE: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS > follow > up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID > > [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire list. > Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific > people] > > Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic translation of > this message! > _______________________________________ > > Renate > > I think the statement is good. Thanks for including the IGC's part on EC. > However, I remain concerned about the part in SG's report where GAID is > mentioned as THE conduit to CSTD. Is there any behind-the-scenes process > to > correct this. If we have any doubts on that it is best to make a clear > statement on this issue. As you saw on the plenary list there is a strong > urging and support by many to make the point clear with ECOSOC. > > Thanks for all the work > > 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: Renate Bloem [mailto:rbloem at ngocongo.org] > > Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 9:44 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Adam Peake'; Parminder; Dr. Francis > MUGUET > > Cc: congo at ngocongo.org > > Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS > > follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID > > Importance: High > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > Sorry, for not coming earlier back to you. I am running between various > > ECOSOC mechanisms and CONGO's ongoing work. I have tried to get your > > proposals into one single statement for Wednesday. There will be no > other > > space. I did my bit on criticising "CS participation 'channelled' > through > > GAID" last week. Look at the attachment and come back to me latest by > > Tuesday noon. Will be in meetings afterwards. > > > > All best > > Renate > > > > ---------------------------------- > > Renate Bloem > > President of the Conference of NGOs (CONGO) > > 11, Avenue de la Paix > > CH-1202 Geneva > > Tel: +41 22 301 1000 > > Fax: +41 22 301 2000 > > E-mail: rbloem 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 > > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > De : Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > > Envoyé : lundi, 23. juillet 2007 09:56 > > À : governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Objet : RE: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS > > follow > > up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID > > > > Parminder, thanks. > > > > Hope you will take a friendly amendment to change leeter to letter :-) > > > > Slightly concerned about suggesting the discussion take place in the > > CSTD process where non-govt stakeholders are lucky to get a word in. > > But agree it should not take place in the IGF process. Could we add > > some emphasis? e.g change: > > > > as well as modalities ensured for their participation in all processes > > > > as well as modalities to ensure the full and equal participation of > > all stakeholders in all processes > > > > > > Anyway, I support the statement. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > At 11:53 AM +0530 7/23/07, Parminder wrote: > > >Hi All, > > > > > >We have been taking comments for a IGC statement on non-inclusion in > and > > >non-transparency of the enhanced cooperation process to be read at the > > >ongoing ECOSOC session which will take up the secretary general's > report > > >which alludes to this issue. (I am enclosing the original email by > > Philippe > > >to clarify matter for those who may have not followed the debate). > > > > > >I am proposing the following text pulling together various comments/ > text > > >proposals that came up, for a consensus call. This may be need to be > used > > by > > >CONGO any time now depending when does the discussion come up > (Philippe, > > >Renate, can you give us some information on this). But I think we may > > still > > >have around 48 hours we normally use for consensus seeking for > statements > > on > > >the behalf of IGF. I am sorry for some delay in posting this. I had > > planned > > >to so it over the weekend, but was busy, and it slipped my mind.) > > > > > >(starts) > > > > > >This is in reference to the relevant part in the Secretary General's > > report > > >to the ECOSOC which mentions that "consultations are under way to start > a > > >process towards enhanced cooperation among all relevant stakeholders > with > > >regard to Internet governance, as requested by the Summit". In this > > respect > > >it is pertinent to note that Para 71 of the Tunis Agenda also clearly > > states > > >that: "the process towards enhanced cooperation, ...will involve all > > >stakeholders". > > > > > >The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus notes with concern that > the > > >letter and spirit of the WSIS multi-stakeholder principles do not > appear > > to > > >have been applied in relation to the processes around 'enhanced > > cooperation' > > >for Internet Governance. In spite of directly requesting information of > > the > > >SG's office regarding the process, through our leeter dated 29th > January, > > >2007, addressed to SG's Special Advisor on WSIS, civil society groups > > have > > >neither received information about, nor been invited to or involved in > > >consultations, in any way to date. > > > > > >The caucus, along with other civil society groups, has consistently > > >demonstrated it's commitment to contribute constructively to the WSIS > > >follow-up process, a commitment which extends to all elements of the > > >process, including that of enhanced cooperation. > > > > > > > > >We request that the United Nations, ECOSOC, and all other parties > ensure > > >that the enhanced cooperation process is conducted in a manner that is > > fully > > >consistent with the principles of transparency and multistakeholder > > >participation set forth in the Tunis Agenda. All information about > > >consultation processes for enhanced cooperation should be provided in a > > >timely and transparent manner to all stakeholders, as well as > modalities > > >ensured for their participation in all processes, including of initial > > >consultations and developing the initial agenda and format for enhanced > > >cooperation. > > > > > >In order to ensure participation of an appropriately wide range of > civil > > >society in this process, it would be useful to include formal > > consultations > > >on enhanced cooperation during, or around, the annual CSTD May sessions > > (the > > >Information Society week events) as well as encourage informal meetings > > >during events such as the Internet Governance Forum. > > > > > >(ends) > > > > > >As per usual we will not take any in any amendment comments at this > > point. > > >Only support or otherwise. > > > > > >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 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > _______________________________________________ > Plenary mailing list > Plenary at wsis-cs.org > http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From rbloem at ngocongo.org Tue Jul 24 10:41:58 2007 From: rbloem at ngocongo.org (Renate Bloem - iprolink) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:41:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID In-Reply-To: <20070724132317.302181CF02E@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <469C9A9400186880@mail20.bluewin.ch> (added by postmaster@bluewin.ch) But Parminder, I took it up very strongly in the statement on the 19th, attached to previous message and here again. Please read also below. Best Renate ------------------------------------------------------------------- Conference of NGOs in Consultative Relationship with the United Nations (CONGO) ECOSOC substantive session – Items 6 and 13 (b) 19 July 2007 Mr. President, Distinguished Delegates, As part of the trend for its strengthening, ECOSOC has promoted an integrated and coordinated approach to the various conference follow up processes. We thank the UN Secretary General for his report. I would like to present a few comments to his report E/2007/76 on enhancing the efficiency of the conference follow up process through the lens of strengthening the involvement of civil society, and on the follow up to the World Summit on the Information Society. Enhancing the efficiency of the Conference follow up process through the lens of strengthening the involvement of civil society We are pleased to see once more the UN Secretary General’s recognition of the significant increase of civil society participation in the work of the United Nations and in the implementation of the UN development goals. The Secretary General noted that bringing the different follow up processes together and establishing new ECOSOC functions would promote a greater interaction among all constituencies. We could not more agree with that. The ECOSOC High Level Segment demonstrated that these new working functions would strengthen its capacity to address global issues. At the same time, the ECOSOC would also benefit from a higher degree of involvement and contribution from NGO partners in reviewing progress in implementation in a cross-sectoral manner. The Conference of NGOs is ready to engage in a dialogue on how to further attract civil society contributions to ECOSOC activities in the perspective of the comprehensive ECOSOC reform resolution, which is expected to elaborate further on resolution 61/16. First, informal consultations with civil society actors should be held during the process of drafting of the ECOSOC Ministerial Declaration. More transparency in the drafting process would indeed facilitate inputs from NGOs at some stages of the process, but would also increase the visibility for the Council’s work and further encourage NGO actors to engage in disseminating and implementing the provisions included in the ministerial declaration. Secondly, on the Annual Ministerial-level Review, we call countries under voluntary review during future sessions of the Council to organise an inclusive national consultation process involving civil society actors. In addition, the Council should adopt a flexible way of involving NGOs in the AMR proceedings, to guarantee that NGO inputs be fully included in the AMR programme. This would help create a space for genuine and constructive dialogue between all stakeholders involved in the implementation of international development targets. Follow up to the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society I would now like to comment on the paragraphs devoted to the WSIS implementation and follow up (para. 12 to 14), and in particular on the reference that contributions from non-governmental stakeholders to CSTD were “channelled through the multi-stakeholder Global Alliance for ICTs and Development”. The Conference of NGOs is of the opinion that this assertion does not accurately reflect paragraph 105 of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society and the provisions of Resolution 2006/46 adopted last year by ECOSOC. In line with the practice of ECOSOC subsidiary bodies, with the arrangements observed during CSTD-10 and with the provisions of ECOSOC resolutions 1996/31 and 2006/46, non-governmental organisations observing the CSTD are able to directly contribute to its work. We understand that GAID, as an initiative created by the UN Secretary General in March 2006, is a catalyser for multi-stakeholder and action oriented partnerships and a multi-stakeholder platform for cross-sectoral policy dialogue, with the view to harness the use of ICTs towards achieving the UN development agenda, including the MDGs. We once more support the Global Alliance as a very significant tool for the implementation of the development goals, and it should continue to play an important role in the follow up and implementation of WSIS. We also encourage all actors concerned to also engage in its work. In that sense, there is a great interest that GAID feeds into the work of the CSTD and of ECOSOC and provide its input as the result of its standing multi-stakeholder processes. We were in particular fully pleased by the one-day CSTD-GAID joint event organised during the May 2007 session as a very positive innovation that must be continued. However, the Global Alliance should not be considered as the only multi-stakeholder process of the CSTD, but only as one of them. We therefore object that the Global Alliance could be used to channel the participation of NGOs in the CSTD process, since it would represent a serious step backwards in the multi-stakeholder approach to be taken into account through the WSIS follow-up performed by the CSTD. I’ll be happy to further develop on the successful 10th CSTD session of May 2007 and on the very significant work delivered by GAID during the consideration of the CSTD report on 25 July. Renate Bloem President of the Conference of NGOs (CONGO) 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: rbloem 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 -----Message d'origine----- De : plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] De la part de Parminder Envoyé : mardi, 24. juillet 2007 14:23 À : plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Adam Peake'; 'Dr. Francis MUGUET' Cc : congo at ngocongo.org Objet : RE: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific people] Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic translation of this message! _______________________________________ But Renate, This issue was being discussed with some force in the plenary and IGC and Philippe assured us that something is being done - whereby everyone thanked him etc. And this stopped further exchanges on the list... I know it is possible that you may not have noticed all emails because Phillipe had been handling this issue, and things may have been complicated by Philippe's being on vacation. However, as first pointed out by CONGO itself, it is very problematic for us not to say anything on this issue. In my view this just must be taken up when you get an opportunity to speak on 25th, and taken up strongly. I am also not clear if the assurances we had from GAID secretariat on this, that this is only a mistake means anything by way of correction. And what was the response of CSTD folks - Charles and Mongi. Thanks. And sorry to be raising so many issues when I know you have so many different things to deal with in many different areas at the ECOSOC meeting. 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: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] On > Behalf Of Renate Bloem - iprolink > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 5:08 PM > To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Adam Peake'; 'Dr. > Francis MUGUET' > Cc: congo at ngocongo.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS > follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID > > > Hi Parminder, > > I gave attached statement already on the 19th. This was on a very sudden > basi; I could not consult any more. However, I knew that many had raised > the > issue. > Renate > ------ > Renate Bloem > President of the Conference of NGOs (CONGO) > 11, Avenue de la Paix > CH-1202 Geneva > Tel: +41 22 301 1000 > Fax: +41 22 301 2000 > E-mail: rbloem 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 > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] De la > part > de Parminder > Envoyé : mardi, 24. juillet 2007 11:56 > À : 'Renate Bloem'; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Adam Peake'; 'Dr. Francis > MUGUET' > Cc : congo at ngocongo.org; plenary at wsis-cs.org > Objet : RE: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS > follow > up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID > > [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire list. > Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific > people] > > Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic translation of > this message! > _______________________________________ > > Renate > > I think the statement is good. Thanks for including the IGC's part on EC. > However, I remain concerned about the part in SG's report where GAID is > mentioned as THE conduit to CSTD. Is there any behind-the-scenes process > to > correct this. If we have any doubts on that it is best to make a clear > statement on this issue. As you saw on the plenary list there is a strong > urging and support by many to make the point clear with ECOSOC. > > Thanks for all the work > > 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: Renate Bloem [mailto:rbloem at ngocongo.org] > > Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 9:44 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Adam Peake'; Parminder; Dr. Francis > MUGUET > > Cc: congo at ngocongo.org > > Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS > > follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID > > Importance: High > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > Sorry, for not coming earlier back to you. I am running between various > > ECOSOC mechanisms and CONGO's ongoing work. I have tried to get your > > proposals into one single statement for Wednesday. There will be no > other > > space. I did my bit on criticising "CS participation 'channelled' > through > > GAID" last week. Look at the attachment and come back to me latest by > > Tuesday noon. Will be in meetings afterwards. > > > > All best > > Renate > > > > ---------------------------------- > > Renate Bloem > > President of the Conference of NGOs (CONGO) > > 11, Avenue de la Paix > > CH-1202 Geneva > > Tel: +41 22 301 1000 > > Fax: +41 22 301 2000 > > E-mail: rbloem 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 > > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > De : Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > > Envoyé : lundi, 23. juillet 2007 09:56 > > À : governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Objet : RE: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS > > follow > > up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID > > > > Parminder, thanks. > > > > Hope you will take a friendly amendment to change leeter to letter :-) > > > > Slightly concerned about suggesting the discussion take place in the > > CSTD process where non-govt stakeholders are lucky to get a word in. > > But agree it should not take place in the IGF process. Could we add > > some emphasis? e.g change: > > > > as well as modalities ensured for their participation in all processes > > > > as well as modalities to ensure the full and equal participation of > > all stakeholders in all processes > > > > > > Anyway, I support the statement. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > At 11:53 AM +0530 7/23/07, Parminder wrote: > > >Hi All, > > > > > >We have been taking comments for a IGC statement on non-inclusion in > and > > >non-transparency of the enhanced cooperation process to be read at the > > >ongoing ECOSOC session which will take up the secretary general's > report > > >which alludes to this issue. (I am enclosing the original email by > > Philippe > > >to clarify matter for those who may have not followed the debate). > > > > > >I am proposing the following text pulling together various comments/ > text > > >proposals that came up, for a consensus call. This may be need to be > used > > by > > >CONGO any time now depending when does the discussion come up > (Philippe, > > >Renate, can you give us some information on this). But I think we may > > still > > >have around 48 hours we normally use for consensus seeking for > statements > > on > > >the behalf of IGF. I am sorry for some delay in posting this. I had > > planned > > >to so it over the weekend, but was busy, and it slipped my mind.) > > > > > >(starts) > > > > > >This is in reference to the relevant part in the Secretary General's > > report > > >to the ECOSOC which mentions that "consultations are under way to start > a > > >process towards enhanced cooperation among all relevant stakeholders > with > > >regard to Internet governance, as requested by the Summit". In this > > respect > > >it is pertinent to note that Para 71 of the Tunis Agenda also clearly > > states > > >that: "the process towards enhanced cooperation, ...will involve all > > >stakeholders". > > > > > >The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus notes with concern that > the > > >letter and spirit of the WSIS multi-stakeholder principles do not > appear > > to > > >have been applied in relation to the processes around 'enhanced > > cooperation' > > >for Internet Governance. In spite of directly requesting information of > > the > > >SG's office regarding the process, through our leeter dated 29th > January, > > >2007, addressed to SG's Special Advisor on WSIS, civil society groups > > have > > >neither received information about, nor been invited to or involved in > > >consultations, in any way to date. > > > > > >The caucus, along with other civil society groups, has consistently > > >demonstrated it's commitment to contribute constructively to the WSIS > > >follow-up process, a commitment which extends to all elements of the > > >process, including that of enhanced cooperation. > > > > > > > > >We request that the United Nations, ECOSOC, and all other parties > ensure > > >that the enhanced cooperation process is conducted in a manner that is > > fully > > >consistent with the principles of transparency and multistakeholder > > >participation set forth in the Tunis Agenda. All information about > > >consultation processes for enhanced cooperation should be provided in a > > >timely and transparent manner to all stakeholders, as well as > modalities > > >ensured for their participation in all processes, including of initial > > >consultations and developing the initial agenda and format for enhanced > > >cooperation. > > > > > >In order to ensure participation of an appropriately wide range of > civil > > >society in this process, it would be useful to include formal > > consultations > > >on enhanced cooperation during, or around, the annual CSTD May sessions > > (the > > >Information Society week events) as well as encourage informal meetings > > >during events such as the Internet Governance Forum. > > > > > >(ends) > > > > > >As per usual we will not take any in any amendment comments at this > > point. > > >Only support or otherwise. > > > > > >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 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > _______________________________________________ > Plenary mailing list > Plenary at wsis-cs.org > http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary _______________________________________________ Plenary mailing list Plenary at wsis-cs.org http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ECOSOC - Follow up to Conferences.doc Type: application/msword Size: 677888 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Jul 24 11:20:41 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 20:50:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID In-Reply-To: <469C9A9400186880@mail20.bluewin.ch> (added by postmaster@bluewin.ch) Message-ID: <20070724152104.520EC6791D@smtp1.electricembers.net> My profuse apologies, Renate. It was a complete misunderstanding. I didn’t see your enclosed statement of the 19th. It is perfect. Thanks a lot for all the work. 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: Renate Bloem - iprolink [mailto:rbloem at ngocongo.org] Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 8:12 PM To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Adam Peake'; 'Dr. Francis MUGUET' Cc: congo at ngocongo.org Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID Importance: High But Parminder, I took it up very strongly in the statement on the 19th, attached to previous message and here again. Please read also below. Best Renate ------------------------------------------------------------------- Conference of NGOs in Consultative Relationship with the United Nations (CONGO) ECOSOC substantive session – Items 6 and 13 (b) 19 July 2007 Mr. President, Distinguished Delegates, As part of the trend for its strengthening, ECOSOC has promoted an integrated and coordinated approach to the various conference follow up processes. We thank the UN Secretary General for his report. I would like to present a few comments to his report E/2007/76 on enhancing the efficiency of the conference follow up process through the lens of strengthening the involvement of civil society, and on the follow up to the World Summit on the Information Society. Enhancing the efficiency of the Conference follow up process through the lens of strengthening the involvement of civil society We are pleased to see once more the UN Secretary General’s recognition of the significant increase of civil society participation in the work of the United Nations and in the implementation of the UN development goals. The Secretary General noted that bringing the different follow up processes together and establishing new ECOSOC functions would promote a greater interaction among all constituencies. We could not more agree with that. The ECOSOC High Level Segment demonstrated that these new working functions would strengthen its capacity to address global issues. At the same time, the ECOSOC would also benefit from a higher degree of involvement and contribution from NGO partners in reviewing progress in implementation in a cross-sectoral manner. The Conference of NGOs is ready to engage in a dialogue on how to further attract civil society contributions to ECOSOC activities in the perspective of the comprehensive ECOSOC reform resolution, which is expected to elaborate further on resolution 61/16. First, informal consultations with civil society actors should be held during the process of drafting of the ECOSOC Ministerial Declaration. More transparency in the drafting process would indeed facilitate inputs from NGOs at some stages of the process, but would also increase the visibility for the Council’s work and further encourage NGO actors to engage in disseminating and implementing the provisions included in the ministerial declaration. Secondly, on the Annual Ministerial-level Review, we call countries under voluntary review during future sessions of the Council to organise an inclusive national consultation process involving civil society actors. In addition, the Council should adopt a flexible way of involving NGOs in the AMR proceedings, to guarantee that NGO inputs be fully included in the AMR programme. This would help create a space for genuine and constructive dialogue between all stakeholders involved in the implementation of international development targets. Follow up to the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society I would now like to comment on the paragraphs devoted to the WSIS implementation and follow up (para. 12 to 14), and in particular on the reference that contributions from non-governmental stakeholders to CSTD were “channelled through the multi-stakeholder Global Alliance for ICTs and Development”. The Conference of NGOs is of the opinion that this assertion does not accurately reflect paragraph 105 of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society and the provisions of Resolution 2006/46 adopted last year by ECOSOC. In line with the practice of ECOSOC subsidiary bodies, with the arrangements observed during CSTD-10 and with the provisions of ECOSOC resolutions 1996/31 and 2006/46, non-governmental organisations observing the CSTD are able to directly contribute to its work. We understand that GAID, as an initiative created by the UN Secretary General in March 2006, is a catalyser for multi-stakeholder and action oriented partnerships and a multi-stakeholder platform for cross-sectoral policy dialogue, with the view to harness the use of ICTs towards achieving the UN development agenda, including the MDGs. We once more support the Global Alliance as a very significant tool for the implementation of the development goals, and it should continue to play an important role in the follow up and implementation of WSIS. We also encourage all actors concerned to also engage in its work. In that sense, there is a great interest that GAID feeds into the work of the CSTD and of ECOSOC and provide its input as the result of its standing multi-stakeholder processes. We were in particular fully pleased by the one-day CSTD-GAID joint event organised during the May 2007 session as a very positive innovation that must be continued. However, the Global Alliance should not be considered as the only multi-stakeholder process of the CSTD, but only as one of them. We therefore object that the Global Alliance could be used to channel the participation of NGOs in the CSTD process, since it would represent a serious step backwards in the multi-stakeholder approach to be taken into account through the WSIS follow-up performed by the CSTD. I’ll be happy to further develop on the successful 10th CSTD session of May 2007 and on the very significant work delivered by GAID during the consideration of the CSTD report on 25 July. Renate Bloem President of the Conference of NGOs (CONGO) 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: rbloem 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 -----Message d'origine----- De : plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] De la part de Parminder Envoyé : mardi, 24. juillet 2007 14:23 À : plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Adam Peake'; 'Dr. Francis MUGUET' Cc : congo at ngocongo.org Objet : RE: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific people] Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic translation of this message! _______________________________________ But Renate, This issue was being discussed with some force in the plenary and IGC and Philippe assured us that something is being done - whereby everyone thanked him etc. And this stopped further exchanges on the list... I know it is possible that you may not have noticed all emails because Phillipe had been handling this issue, and things may have been complicated by Philippe's being on vacation. However, as first pointed out by CONGO itself, it is very problematic for us not to say anything on this issue. In my view this just must be taken up when you get an opportunity to speak on 25th, and taken up strongly. I am also not clear if the assurances we had from GAID secretariat on this, that this is only a mistake means anything by way of correction. And what was the response of CSTD folks - Charles and Mongi. Thanks. And sorry to be raising so many issues when I know you have so many different things to deal with in many different areas at the ECOSOC meeting. 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: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] On > Behalf Of Renate Bloem - iprolink > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 5:08 PM > To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Adam Peake'; 'Dr. > Francis MUGUET' > Cc: congo at ngocongo.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS > follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID > > > Hi Parminder, > > I gave attached statement already on the 19th. This was on a very sudden > basi; I could not consult any more. However, I knew that many had raised > the > issue. > Renate > ------ > Renate Bloem > President of the Conference of NGOs (CONGO) > 11, Avenue de la Paix > CH-1202 Geneva > Tel: +41 22 301 1000 > Fax: +41 22 301 2000 > E-mail: rbloem 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 > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] De la > part > de Parminder > Envoyé : mardi, 24. juillet 2007 11:56 > À : 'Renate Bloem'; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Adam Peake'; 'Dr. Francis > MUGUET' > Cc : congo at ngocongo.org; plenary at wsis-cs.org > Objet : RE: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS > follow > up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID > > [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire list. > Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific > people] > > Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic translation of > this message! > _______________________________________ > > Renate > > I think the statement is good. Thanks for including the IGC's part on EC. > However, I remain concerned about the part in SG's report where GAID is > mentioned as THE conduit to CSTD. Is there any behind-the-scenes process > to > correct this. If we have any doubts on that it is best to make a clear > statement on this issue. As you saw on the plenary list there is a strong > urging and support by many to make the point clear with ECOSOC. > > Thanks for all the work > > 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: Renate Bloem [mailto:rbloem at ngocongo.org] > > Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 9:44 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Adam Peake'; Parminder; Dr. Francis > MUGUET > > Cc: congo at ngocongo.org > > Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS > > follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID > > Importance: High > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > Sorry, for not coming earlier back to you. I am running between various > > ECOSOC mechanisms and CONGO's ongoing work. I have tried to get your > > proposals into one single statement for Wednesday. There will be no > other > > space. I did my bit on criticising "CS participation 'channelled' > through > > GAID" last week. Look at the attachment and come back to me latest by > > Tuesday noon. Will be in meetings afterwards. > > > > All best > > Renate > > > > ---------------------------------- > > Renate Bloem > > President of the Conference of NGOs (CONGO) > > 11, Avenue de la Paix > > CH-1202 Geneva > > Tel: +41 22 301 1000 > > Fax: +41 22 301 2000 > > E-mail: rbloem 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 > > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > De : Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > > Envoyé : lundi, 23. juillet 2007 09:56 > > À : governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Objet : RE: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS > > follow > > up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID > > > > Parminder, thanks. > > > > Hope you will take a friendly amendment to change leeter to letter :-) > > > > Slightly concerned about suggesting the discussion take place in the > > CSTD process where non-govt stakeholders are lucky to get a word in. > > But agree it should not take place in the IGF process. Could we add > > some emphasis? e.g change: > > > > as well as modalities ensured for their participation in all processes > > > > as well as modalities to ensure the full and equal participation of > > all stakeholders in all processes > > > > > > Anyway, I support the statement. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > At 11:53 AM +0530 7/23/07, Parminder wrote: > > >Hi All, > > > > > >We have been taking comments for a IGC statement on non-inclusion in > and > > >non-transparency of the enhanced cooperation process to be read at the > > >ongoing ECOSOC session which will take up the secretary general's > report > > >which alludes to this issue. (I am enclosing the original email by > > Philippe > > >to clarify matter for those who may have not followed the debate). > > > > > >I am proposing the following text pulling together various comments/ > text > > >proposals that came up, for a consensus call. This may be need to be > used > > by > > >CONGO any time now depending when does the discussion come up > (Philippe, > > >Renate, can you give us some information on this). But I think we may > > still > > >have around 48 hours we normally use for consensus seeking for > statements > > on > > >the behalf of IGF. I am sorry for some delay in posting this. I had > > planned > > >to so it over the weekend, but was busy, and it slipped my mind.) > > > > > >(starts) > > > > > >This is in reference to the relevant part in the Secretary General's > > report > > >to the ECOSOC which mentions that "consultations are under way to start > a > > >process towards enhanced cooperation among all relevant stakeholders > with > > >regard to Internet governance, as requested by the Summit". In this > > respect > > >it is pertinent to note that Para 71 of the Tunis Agenda also clearly > > states > > >that: "the process towards enhanced cooperation, ...will involve all > > >stakeholders". > > > > > >The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus notes with concern that > the > > >letter and spirit of the WSIS multi-stakeholder principles do not > appear > > to > > >have been applied in relation to the processes around 'enhanced > > cooperation' > > >for Internet Governance. In spite of directly requesting information of > > the > > >SG's office regarding the process, through our leeter dated 29th > January, > > >2007, addressed to SG's Special Advisor on WSIS, civil society groups > > have > > >neither received information about, nor been invited to or involved in > > >consultations, in any way to date. > > > > > >The caucus, along with other civil society groups, has consistently > > >demonstrated it's commitment to contribute constructively to the WSIS > > >follow-up process, a commitment which extends to all elements of the > > >process, including that of enhanced cooperation. > > > > > > > > >We request that the United Nations, ECOSOC, and all other parties > ensure > > >that the enhanced cooperation process is conducted in a manner that is > > fully > > >consistent with the principles of transparency and multistakeholder > > >participation set forth in the Tunis Agenda. All information about > > >consultation processes for enhanced cooperation should be provided in a > > >timely and transparent manner to all stakeholders, as well as > modalities > > >ensured for their participation in all processes, including of initial > > >consultations and developing the initial agenda and format for enhanced > > >cooperation. > > > > > >In order to ensure participation of an appropriately wide range of > civil > > >society in this process, it would be useful to include formal > > consultations > > >on enhanced cooperation during, or around, the annual CSTD May sessions > > (the > > >Information Society week events) as well as encourage informal meetings > > >during events such as the Internet Governance Forum. > > > > > >(ends) > > > > > >As per usual we will not take any in any amendment comments at this > > point. > > >Only support or otherwise. > > > > > >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 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > _______________________________________________ > Plenary mailing list > Plenary at wsis-cs.org > http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary _______________________________________________ Plenary mailing list Plenary at wsis-cs.org http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Wed Jul 25 23:10:42 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 20:10:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID In-Reply-To: 20070724152104.520EC6791D@smtp1.electricembers.net Message-ID: Well " it's all water under the Bridge " now. re: http://www.intgovforum.org/sg-letter-en_.html ... These consultations produced general agreement that the second Forum should build on the success of Athens, and retain its overall theme of �Internet Governance for Development�, with capacity-building remaining a cross-cutting priority. ... (Signed) Ban Ki-moon ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Wed Jul 25 23:14:56 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 20:14:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID In-Reply-To: 20070724152104.520EC6791D@smtp1.electricembers.net Message-ID: Well " it's all water-under-the-bridge " now. re: http://www.intgovforum.org/sg-letter-en_.html ... These consultations produced general agreement that the second Forum should build on the success of Athens, and retain its overall theme of �Internet Governance for Development�, with capacity-building remaining a cross-cutting priority. There was also broad support for retaining the four main themes of the inaugural meeting: access, diversity, openness and security. * In addition, a fifth theme, �critical Internet resources�, will also be added to the agenda, together with consideration of emerging issues. ... (Signed) Ban Ki-moon ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk Thu Jul 26 03:20:02 2007 From: kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk (kwasi boakye-akyeampong) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 08:20:02 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] IS THE DIGITAL DIVIDE A PHANTOM? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <889016.90265.qm@web25503.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Some one recently asked me: "is it within the remit of ICANN to ensure access?" Access is seen from many angles including availability of the technology and systems and also costs. This fellow was wondering why it costs more to obtain a .gh (Ghana) domain name than to get a .com or a .co.uk? Can members help me explain? Because despite the many years and many initiatives of attempting to bridge the digital divide, it still costs more to access technology in developing countries. Is the digital divide a mirage? Kwasi .............................................................................................................................. “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I? And if not now, when?” - Rabbi Hillal .............................................................................................................................. --------------------------------- Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, sign up for your freeaccount today. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Thu Jul 26 06:25:08 2007 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:25:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID In-Reply-To: <469C9A9400186880@mail20.bluewin.ch> References: <20070724132317.302181CF02E@mail.gn.apc.org> <469C9A9400186880@mail20.bluewin.ch> Message-ID: <954259bd0707260325s1b901c60o7e1b9509990c66f4@mail.gmail.com> Dear all, Just to let you know that this point regarding the paragraph in the SG's report was also of concern for governments, including France. Accordingly, the EU statement in the Ecosoc Session regarding the CSTD contains the following paragraph : "The EU also welcomes the joint CSTD-GAID (Global Alliance for ICT and Development) panel discussion of last May 22nd. We encourage GAID to continue providing its valuable input, amongst other stakeholders, to the WSIS follow-up in the CSTD." In UN-speak, this clearly is intended to underscore that the GAID is not the sole channel for multi-stakeholder participation in the work of the CSTD regarding WSIS follow-up. If this statement has already been made by the EU presidency, I encourage a reference to it in Congo's intervention. The french delegation is a good contact if needed. Best Bertrand -- ____________________ 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 parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jul 26 06:45:43 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:15:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID In-Reply-To: <954259bd0707260325s1b901c60o7e1b9509990c66f4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070726104549.DCB90A6C7C@smtp2.electricembers.net> Thanks Bertrand for this information. EU’s input is appreciated. I think this statement on record is quite useful. I am sure CONGO will use it, if, as was the plan, its statement is not already made. 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: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 3:55 PM To: plenary at wsis-cs.org Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; congo at ngocongo.org Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID Dear all, Just to let you know that this point regarding the paragraph in the SG's report was also of concern for governments, including France. Accordingly, the EU statement in the Ecosoc Session regarding the CSTD contains the following paragraph : "The EU also welcomes the joint CSTD-GAID (Global Alliance for ICT and Development) panel discussion of last May 22nd. We encourage GAID to continue providing its valuable input, amongst other stakeholders, to the WSIS follow-up in the CSTD." In UN-speak, this clearly is intended to underscore that the GAID is not the sole channel for multi-stakeholder participation in the work of the CSTD regarding WSIS follow-up. If this statement has already been made by the EU presidency, I encourage a reference to it in Congo's intervention. The french delegation is a good contact if needed. Best Bertrand -- ____________________ 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 kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org Thu Jul 26 09:52:16 2007 From: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?=) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:52:16 +0200 Subject: SV: [governance] IS THE DIGITAL DIVIDE A PHANTOM? In-Reply-To: <889016.90265.qm@web25503.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <889016.90265.qm@web25503.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F01A8F1F3@ensms02.iris.se> Dear all, To get access to application programs for persons with disabilities, it cost more for PWD in developing countries, and the income is of course lower. No insurance can be used. World Blind Union has tried to negotiate with the producer of screen reading programs, that we from industrial could pay more to reduce the price for customer in developing countries. But this was not possible due to business tradition. All the best Kicki Kicki Nordström Synskadades Riksförbund (SRF) World Blind Union (WBU) 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: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org kicki.nordstrom at telia.com (private) ________________________________ Från: kwasi boakye-akyeampong [mailto:kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk] Skickat: den 26 juli 2007 09:20 Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org Ämne: [governance] IS THE DIGITAL DIVIDE A PHANTOM? Some one recently asked me: "is it within the remit of ICANN to ensure access?" Access is seen from many angles including availability of the technology and systems and also costs. This fellow was wondering why it costs more to obtain a .gh (Ghana) domain name than to get a .com or a .co.uk? Can members help me explain? Because despite the many years and many initiatives of attempting to bridge the digital divide, it still costs more to access technology in developing countries. Is the digital divide a mirage? Kwasi .............................................................................................................................. "If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I? And if not now, when?" - Rabbi Hillal .............................................................................................................................. ________________________________ Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, sign up for your free account today . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Thu Jul 26 10:07:37 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 07:07:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IS THE DIGITAL DIVIDE A PHANTOM? In-Reply-To: 889016.90265.qm@web25503.mail.ukl.yahoo.com Message-ID: You want an Honest answer. In one word: Syllogism - If you want to understand 'what & how' it works, then you should start with reading: How Europe Underdeveloped Africa by Walter Rodney Introduction by Vincent Harding copyright 1972, revised ed. 1981 [HC800.R62 1981] 330.98 81-6240 ISBN 0-88258-096-5 (pbk.) AACR2 ISBN 0-88258-105-8 (cloth) This book is a bit dated in terms of it's era. Thus it comes from a Socialist perspective indicative of that era. However many of its passages hold true today. - Now ... having said that, I am in no-way in league with the socialist idealism covered by the text. On the contrary, my interests are Jeffersonian. - If you don't have time for this book (make time). Here's a sound bit from a 1976 movie called 'Networks' you'll get the point. http://www.americanrhetoric.com/mp3clips/newmoviespeeches/moviespeechnetwork4.m p3 Ref: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechnetwork4.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 rbloem at ngocongo.org Thu Jul 26 12:38:02 2007 From: rbloem at ngocongo.org (Renate Bloem) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:38:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID In-Reply-To: <20070726104549.DCB90A6C7C@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <200707261638.l6QGc2N3030118@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Dear Bertrand and Parminder, Renate Bloem President of the Conference of NGOs (CONGO) 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mil: rbloem 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 _____ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: jeudi, 26. juillet 2007 12:46 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Bertrand de La Chapelle'; plenary at wsis-cs.org Cc: congo at ngocongo.org Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID Thanks Bertrand for this information. EU’s input is appreciated. I think this statement on record is quite useful. I am sure CONGO will use it, if, as was the plan, its statement is not already made. 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: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 3:55 PM To: plenary at wsis-cs.org Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; congo at ngocongo.org Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID Dear all, Just to let you know that this point regarding the paragraph in the SG's report was also of concern for governments, including France. Accordingly, the EU statement in the Ecosoc Session regarding the CSTD contains the following paragraph : "The EU also welcomes the joint CSTD-GAID (Global Alliance for ICT and Development) panel discussion of last May 22nd. We encourage GAID to continue providing its valuable input, amongst other stakeholders, to the WSIS follow-up in the CSTD." In UN-speak, this clearly is intended to underscore that the GAID is not the sole channel for multi-stakeholder participation in the work of the CSTD regarding WSIS follow-up. If this statement has already been made by the EU presidency, I encourage a reference to it in Congo's intervention. The french delegation is a good contact if needed. Best Bertrand -- ____________________ 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 rbloem at ngocongo.org Thu Jul 26 13:20:05 2007 From: rbloem at ngocongo.org (Renate Bloem) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 19:20:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID In-Reply-To: <20070726104549.DCB90A6C7C@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <200707261720.l6QHK5O2027746@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Oops, for previous .. Dear Bertrand, Parminder and all, Below statement was given yesterday and was met with quite some interest from many governments. The red is what I added orally. Best Renate Report of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development Report of the Secretary General on the activities of GAID Items 7 (f) and 13 (b) 25 July 2007 Mr. President Distinguished Delegates, The UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development held in May 2007 its first session since its successful review by the Economic and Social Council one year ago. For the first time in a subsidiary body of ECOSOC, it was decided that an intergovernmental body would take into account the multi-stakeholder approach, as confirmed by ECOSOC decisions 2007/215 and 2007/216. It implied evolutions in the working methods of the Commission, in particular regarding NGO participation in the Commission’s proceedings. Among the good examples observed during the 10th session of the CSTD, I would like to refer to the one day joint event organised by CSTD and the Global Alliance for ICT and Development (GAID), which brought views from multiple categories of stakeholders involved in harnessing the use of ICT to accelerate the UN development agenda. It also included the oral participation of all stakeholders in plenary meetings of the CSTD as well as in informal meetings. It finally consisted of various interactions and consultations between the CSTD Bureau and representatives of non governmental observers. These good practices should be maintained and strengthened. - In particular, NGOs and other observers should be reserved a specific amount of time to address the CSTD Plenary at each of its segments or interactive discussion and under each substantive theme and agenda item as they are taken up by the CSTD. It could in that sense become inspired by the experience gained during the WSIS process in terms of arrangements for NGO participation. - As proposed by several non State actors during the CSTD session, a format such as a multi-stakeholder advisory group could be considered as a permanent structure working through electronic devices to assist and advice the CSTD Bureau and the CSTD Secretariat, even in the intersession period. - As a prerequisite, it is also fundamental that predictability in the organisation of its segments be increased to better attract issue-related specialists and gain higher expertise from civil society and private sector observers. - We welcome paragraph 12 of ECOSOC resolution 2006/46, requesting that “future sessions of the Commission will increasingly be conducted in the form of interactive dialogue”, and in line with the last recommendation of the draft resolution proposed by the CSTD for adoption by the Council, we also support that the working methods of the Commission be articulated around focused and itemised interactive segments, following multi-stakeholder principle at the discretion of the CSTD Chairperson in offering the floor. Reporting to CSTD The 2007 CSTD Resolution proposed for adoption by the Council addresses the crucial issue of reporting patterns between the WSIS multi-stakeholder implementation process and the system wide follow up to the CSTD. The establishment of such an articulation between the implementation process and the system wide follow up is a significant positive and welcomed step. This will support the reporting process to be performed by the UN Secretary General to the CSTD. Action Line facilitation meetings proved to be an important space for progress tracking and sharing knowledge and good practice. Efforts should be continued by international organisations facilitating this process in terms of outreach to all relevant actors from all categories of stakeholders. In this context allow me, Mr. President, to mention the concerns of the WSIS CS Working Group on Financing for Development and I quote their concerns and suggestions: “The Geneva Plan of action implementation has been structured along specific Action Lines. However, they lack clear priorities. * Regarding the e-science action line, there should be more synergy between the old and new mandate of CSTD. * The governance part of the Tunis Agenda is implemented through the specific mechanism of the Internet Governance Forum, while the financial part of the Tunis agenda has been left as an orphan without care, without direction, without specific implementation or integration in any of the follow-up mechanisms. Therefore, it is suggested, in order to recover some symmetry with the Geneva process that the ECOSOC should constitute Assessment Lines facilitated by specific UN agencies and other organizations, within similar rules of procedures and practices. The proposed four post-WSIS Assessment Lines could be: * A1: Official Development Assistance ODA ( UNDP, World Bank, EU-EFD) * A2: Multi-stakeholder Partnerships ( UNCTAD, ITU ) * A3: Innovative Financial Mechanisms ( UNCTAD, DSF ) * A4: Infrastructure and International Interconnection costs ( ITU, UNCTAD, a representative body of the African Union, e.g. ATU ) Facilitators and co-facilitators have been suggested on a exploratory basis, and CSTD could select other facilitators as appropriate.” End of quote. More info can be obtained from the WG. WSIS implementation activities should be encouraged to use a common template for reporting to the CSTD Secretariat. In any event, the CSTD should not devote its meeting time to repeat the stock-taking exercise, but only concentrate on the review and assessment task as defined in its mandate. Enhanced Cooperation Mr. President, Let me also briefly mention some concerns of the CS Internet Governance Caucus with reference to the relevant part in the Secretary General's report to the ECOSOC which mentions that "consultations are under way to start a process towards enhanced cooperation among all relevant stakeholders with regard to Internet governance, as requested by the Summit". In this respect it is pertinent to note that Para 71 of the Tunis Agenda also clearly states that: "the process towards enhanced cooperation ...will involve all stakeholders”. In the following I quote the CS Internet Governance Caucus: “The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus notes with concern that the letter and spirit of the WSIS multi-stakeholder principles do not appear to have been applied in relation to the processes around 'enhanced cooperation'for Internet Governance. In spite of directly requesting information of the SG's office regarding the process, through our letter dated 29th January, 2007, addressed to SG's Special Advisor on WSIS, civil society groups have neither received information about, nor been invited to or involved in consultations, in any way to date. The caucus, along with other civil society groups, has consistently demonstrated it's commitment to contribute constructively to the WSIS follow-up process, a commitment which extends to all elements of the process, including that of enhanced cooperation. We request that the United Nations, ECOSOC, and all other parties ensure that the enhanced cooperation process is conducted in a manner that is fully consistent with the principles of transparency and multi-stakeholder participation set forth in the Tunis Agenda. All information about consultation processes for enhanced cooperation should be provided in a timely and transparent manner to all stakeholders, as well as modalities ensured for their participation in all processes, including of initial consultations and developing the initial agenda and format for enhanced cooperation. In order to ensure participation of an appropriately wide range of civil society in this process, it would be useful to include formal consultations on enhanced cooperation during, or around, the Information Society week events in May as well as encourage informal meetings during events such as the Internet Governance Forum.” End of quote Report of the Secretary General on the activities of GAID CONGO supports the engagement of all categories of stakeholders in the work realized by the Global Alliance for ICT and Development. As a catalyser for multi-stakeholder and action oriented partnerships and as a multi-stakeholder platform for cross-sectoral policy dialogue, with the view to harness the use of ICTs towards achieving the UN development agenda, including the MDGs, GAID is also a very innovative and significant tool to support the achievement of the WSIS outcomes. In this context, civil society, due to its diversity of perspective and expertise, has a major role to play and can bring to GAID a very significant added value. One of the priorities of GAID would be to continue to find means to have a greater involvement from those who work from the grassroots communities and those in contact with the use of ICT on the ground, with the view to better and more directly access their needs, knowledge and experience. To that end, the bottom-up and inclusive approaches should be strengthened in the GAID decision taking process. The involvement of additional groups of partners, such as more traditional development practitioners and major foundations, could also be considered in the up coming year. One year after its launch, GAID has achieved many very positive steps, including in becoming one of the multi-stakeholder processes feeding into the CSTD. However, as I said already in my statement on the 19th, the GAID should not be considered as the only multi-stakeholder process of the CSTD, but only as one of them. CONGO and a number of civil society entities are ready to continue to work with the GAID Secretariat to consolidate this initiative and to strengthen the sense of community among its members and partners. I thank you for your attention and for giving me this opportunity to speak. Renate Bloem President of the Conference of NGOs (CONGO) 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mil: rbloem 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 _____ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: jeudi, 26. juillet 2007 12:46 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Bertrand de La Chapelle'; plenary at wsis-cs.org Cc: congo at ngocongo.org Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID Thanks Bertrand for this information. EU’s input is appreciated. I think this statement on record is quite useful. I am sure CONGO will use it, if, as was the plan, its statement is not already made. 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: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 3:55 PM To: plenary at wsis-cs.org Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; congo at ngocongo.org Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID Dear all, Just to let you know that this point regarding the paragraph in the SG's report was also of concern for governments, including France. Accordingly, the EU statement in the Ecosoc Session regarding the CSTD contains the following paragraph : "The EU also welcomes the joint CSTD-GAID (Global Alliance for ICT and Development) panel discussion of last May 22nd. We encourage GAID to continue providing its valuable input, amongst other stakeholders, to the WSIS follow-up in the CSTD." In UN-speak, this clearly is intended to underscore that the GAID is not the sole channel for multi-stakeholder participation in the work of the CSTD regarding WSIS follow-up. If this statement has already been made by the EU presidency, I encourage a reference to it in Congo's intervention. The french delegation is a good contact if needed. Best Bertrand -- ____________________ 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ECOSOC on CSTD and GAID 2.doc Type: application/msword Size: 689664 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ECOSOC - Follow up to Conferences (2).doc Type: application/msword Size: 676352 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From nb at bollow.ch Sat Jul 28 07:16:06 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 13:16:06 +0200 (CEST) Subject: SV: [governance] IS THE DIGITAL DIVIDE A PHANTOM? In-Reply-To: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F01A8F1F3@ensms02.iris.se> (message from =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?= on Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:52:16 +0200) References: <889016.90265.qm@web25503.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F01A8F1F3@ensms02.iris.se> Message-ID: <20070728111606.B6B992202EF@quill.bollow.ch> Kicki Nordstrom wrote: > World Blind Union has tried to negotiate with the producer of screen > reading programs, that we from industrial could pay more to reduce > the price for customer in developing countries. But this was not > possible due to business tradition. I think this calls for the development of a good screen reader program as Free Software. This of course needs to be funded somehow, but as soon as this has been achieved, all visually disabled people everywhere will be able to benefit from this, and will be able to always use the newest version without big extra costs, without being contrained by the "business traditions" of a profit-oriented company. 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Jul 28 07:59:02 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 14:59:02 +0300 Subject: [governance] IS THE DIGITAL DIVIDE A PHANTOM? In-Reply-To: <889016.90265.qm@web25503.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <889016.90265.qm@web25503.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 7/26/07, kwasi boakye-akyeampong wrote: > Some one recently asked me: > > "is it within the remit of ICANN to ensure access?" and what did you tell them? I hope it was "NO" > > Access is seen from many angles including availability of the technology and > systems and also costs. This fellow was wondering why it costs more to > obtain a .gh (Ghana) domain name than to get a .com or a .co.uk? > economy of scale > Can members help me explain? Because despite the many years and many > initiatives of attempting to bridge the digital divide, it still costs more > to access technology in developing countries. Is the digital divide a > mirage? certainly not. IMO domains names have nowt to do with access. Chalk n cheese. -- 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 kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk Sat Jul 28 08:16:08 2007 From: kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk (kwasi boakye-akyeampong) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 13:16:08 +0100 (BST) Subject: SV: [governance] IS THE DIGITAL DIVIDE A PHANTOM? In-Reply-To: <20070728111606.B6B992202EF@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <38786.80169.qm@web25503.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Norbert, you wrote: "This of course needs to be funded somehow, but as soon as this has been achieved, all visually disabled people everywhere will be able to benefit from this ...". I disagree with the underlined bit because in the developing (under-developed) regions, even the non-visually impaired are struggling to have access to computers. Internet access is even worse. So for the visually impaired it is worse for them in developing countries. Believe me, the digital divide issue is worse than we make it sound. Most of the solutions we propose are just not practicable in the deprived regions. They are models fit for the developed countries. For instance, most developing countries are struggling with electricity supply even in the cities. Most rural communities are not connected to the national electricity grid. So bridging the digital divide goes beyond providing them with computers. Greetings, Kwasi Norbert Bollow wrote: Kicki Nordstrom wrote: > World Blind Union has tried to negotiate with the producer of screen > reading programs, that we from industrial could pay more to reduce > the price for customer in developing countries. But this was not > possible due to business tradition. I think this calls for the development of a good screen reader program as Free Software. This of course needs to be funded somehow, but as soon as this has been achieved, all visually disabled people everywhere will be able to benefit from this, and will be able to always use the newest version without big extra costs, without being contrained by the "business traditions" of a profit-oriented company. 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 I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I? And if not now, when?” - Rabbi Hillal .............................................................................................................................. --------------------------------- Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, sign up for your freeaccount today. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From avri at psg.com Sat Jul 28 12:07:06 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 12:07:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] IS THE DIGITAL DIVIDE A PHANTOM? In-Reply-To: References: <889016.90265.qm@web25503.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <65FDA444-875B-4AE5-B062-F351DBCED6B0@psg.com> On 28 jul 2007, at 07.59, McTim wrote: > IMO domains names have nowt to do with access. 'nowt' is a difficult amount to agree with. i would certainly agree that it is difficult to see a direct relationship. i think arguing that there is some indirect relationship between the business opportunities, the multi lingual expansion and other second order effects that contribute to bring about expanded access through may be possible. i think that in this discussions people, on both sides of the discussion. often confuse second order effect with direct or primary cause. 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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Sat Jul 28 13:21:42 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 10:21:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IS THE DIGITAL DIVIDE A PHANTOM? In-Reply-To: 889016.90265.qm@web25503.mail.ukl.yahoo.com Message-ID: Kwasi, I don't think you ask the right question. In regards to this thread ... What do you really want? (how & what is it, you'd like to see?) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sat Jul 28 16:07:36 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 16:07:36 -0400 Subject: [governance] IS THE DIGITAL DIVIDE A PHANTOM? In-Reply-To: References: <889016.90265.qm@web25503.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B148@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > >This fellow was wondering why it costs more to > >obtain a .gh (Ghana) domain name than to get a .com or a .co.uk? > economy of scale ...and competition >IMO domains names have nowt to do with access. Try reading or using a domain name that's coded in Chinese. See how accessible it is. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.23/924 - Release Date: 7/28/2007 3:50 PM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From remmyn at yahoo.co.uk Sat Jul 28 18:51:31 2007 From: remmyn at yahoo.co.uk (Remmy Nweke) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 23:51:31 +0100 (BST) Subject: SV: [governance] IS THE DIGITAL DIVIDE A PHANTOM? In-Reply-To: <38786.80169.qm@web25503.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <860804.90162.qm@web23305.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Hi Kwasi and friends, My thinking is that no matter what, I still believe that digital divide is not a phantom. Although it is apparent that the divide may not be closed or abridged to a greater extent but it is a motivation for most governments of developing countries to wake up and do what they should ordinarily do in terms of infrastructure provisions. For some of us, it is a call on developing countries to live up to standard prescribed ovally by the developed nations of the world, even though there may not be any clear cut line as to when this divide would be closed or near it, it is expected that by bringing the concept to the fore of governance, leaders especially in least developing countries would be 'inwardly' worried and try to catch up. Economically speaking, it could be phantom, but for most social advocates, it is not because it gives hope to those at the bottom of the tunnel that one day their lives would be improved upon, but we must not forget that as one economies improve his demands increases as well as and there is the law anywhere that states that those advanced countries of today should be static in development and wait for less developed to meet up before forging ahead. kwasi boakye-akyeampong wrote: Norbert, you wrote: "This of course needs to be funded somehow, but as soon as this has been achieved, all visually disabled people everywhere will be able to benefit from this ...". I disagree with the underlined bit because in the developing (under-developed) regions, even the non-visually impaired are struggling to have access to computers. Internet access is even worse. So for the visually impaired it is worse for them in developing countries. Believe me, the digital divide issue is worse than we make it sound. Most of the solutions we propose are just not practicable in the deprived regions. They are models fit for the developed countries. For instance, most developing countries are struggling with electricity supply even in the cities. Most rural communities are not connected to the national electricity grid. So bridging the digital divide goes beyond providing them with computers. Greetings, Kwasi Norbert Bollow wrote: Kicki Nordstrom wrote: > World Blind Union has tried to negotiate with the producer of screen > reading programs, that we from industrial could pay more to reduce > the price for customer in developing countries. But this was not > possible due to business tradition. I think this calls for the development of a good screen reader program as Free Software. This of course needs to be funded somehow, but as soon as this has been achieved, all visually disabled people everywhere will be able to benefit from this, and will be able to always use the newest version without big extra costs, without being contrained by the "business traditions" of a profit-oriented company. 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 I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I? And if not now, when?” - Rabbi Hillal .............................................................................................................................. --------------------------------- Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, sign up for your free account today.____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance --------------------------------- Copy addresses and emails from any email account to Yahoo! Mail - quick, easy and free. Do it now... -------------- 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 Sat Jul 28 22:46:05 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 05:46:05 +0300 Subject: [governance] IS THE DIGITAL DIVIDE A PHANTOM? In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B148@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <889016.90265.qm@web25503.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B148@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hi miton, On 7/28/07, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > >This fellow was wondering why it costs more to > > >obtain a .gh (Ghana) domain name than to get a .com or a .co.uk? > > > economy of scale > > ...and competition cetainly true that competition has driven prices down for gTLD's. For many ccTLDs, competition is a very dirty word. > > >IMO domains names have nowt to do with access. > > Try reading or using a domain name that's coded in Chinese. > See how accessible it is. We clearly have differing definitions of "access" For me, It's accesible if I can ping the host (Do I have acccess to the Internet?). For you it's reading a page? Try Google's "translate this" feature. -- 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 kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org Sun Jul 29 16:33:56 2007 From: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?=) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 22:33:56 +0200 Subject: SV: SV: [governance] IS THE DIGITAL DIVIDE A PHANTOM? In-Reply-To: <38786.80169.qm@web25503.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <20070728111606.B6B992202EF@quill.bollow.ch> <38786.80169.qm@web25503.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F01A8F274@ensms02.iris.se> Dear Kwasi, You are so right but to this we must add the extra ordinary costs that additional programs as screen readers etc, takes for enable blind and visually impaired persons to access ICT. A screen reading program and a Braille Display to read the text, cost several times more than the computer as such and it is no reduction because you are coming from a developing country! I should not afford this technology if I have to pay from my own income, but in Sweden, we get this through different insurance, and can therefore use the available technology! But the technology is also underdeveloped, as many Websites are inaccessible due to formats, drawings and pictures, colours, columns and tables which the screen reader can not interpret as it is also problems with PDF-files. Equality of accessing ICT is far away for poor people from any country but in particular developing countries, and then to get the world to understand that everything designed in a website can not and will not be possible to read for the worlds 180 million blind and visually impaired persons. We need to get a new solidarity and understanding what is possible to technical develop and teach to normal blind and visually impaired people, The more technical and specific the ICT become, the more exclusive it will be. Warm regards Kicki Kicki Nordström Synskadades Riksförbund (SRF) World Blind Union (WBU) 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: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org kicki.nordstrom at telia.com (private) ________________________________ Från: kwasi boakye-akyeampong [mailto:kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk] Skickat: den 28 juli 2007 14:16 Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Norbert Bollow Ämne: Re: SV: [governance] IS THE DIGITAL DIVIDE A PHANTOM? Norbert, you wrote: "This of course needs to be funded somehow, but as soon as this has been achieved, all visually disabled people everywhere will be able to benefit from this ...". I disagree with the underlined bit because in the developing (under-developed) regions, even the non-visually impaired are struggling to have access to computers. Internet access is even worse. So for the visually impaired it is worse for them in developing countries. Believe me, the digital divide issue is worse than we make it sound. Most of the solutions we propose are just not practicable in the deprived regions. They are models fit for the developed countries. For instance, most developing countries are struggling with electricity supply even in the cities. Most rural communities are not connected to the national electricity grid. So bridging the digital divide goes beyond providing them with computers. Greetings, Kwasi Norbert Bollow wrote: Kicki Nordstrom wrote: > World Blind Union has tried to negotiate with the producer of screen > reading programs, that we from industrial could pay more to reduce > the price for customer in developing countries. But this was not > possible due to business tradition. I think this calls for the development of a good screen reader program as Free Software. This of course needs to be funded somehow, but as soon as this has been achieved, all visually disabled people everywhere will be able to benefit from this, and will be able to always use the newest version without big extra costs, without being contrained by the "business traditions" of a profit-oriented company. 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 I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I? And if not now, when?" - Rabbi Hillal .............................................................................................................................. ________________________________ Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, sign up for your free account today . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Sun Jul 29 19:52:26 2007 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 16:52:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SV: SV: [governance] IS THE DIGITAL DIVIDE A PHANTOM? Message-ID: <188065.38032.qm@web54107.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Kicki has mentioned something that is overlooked, and that has nothing to do if one is from a developing country. Web developers are often appalling in their appreciation of the issues faced by people who are blind in accessing the internet. Even with the best screen readers and computer equipment, they are often next to useless if the websites can't be "read" by the screen reading software. David ----- Original Message ---- From: Kicki Nordström To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; kwasi boakye-akyeampong Sent: Monday, 30 July, 2007 6:33:56 AM Subject: SV: SV: [governance] IS THE DIGITAL DIVIDE A PHANTOM? Dear Kwasi, You are so right but to this we must add the extra ordinary costs that additional programs as screen readers etc, takes for enable blind and visually impaired persons to access ICT. A screen reading program and a Braille Display to read the text, cost several times more than the computer as such and it is no reduction because you are coming from a developing country! I should not afford this technology if I have to pay from my own income, but in Sweden, we get this through different insurance, and can therefore use the available technology! But the technology is also underdeveloped, as many Websites are inaccessible due to formats, drawings and pictures, colours, columns and tables which the screen reader can not interpret as it is also problems with PDF-files. Equality of accessing ICT is far away for poor people from any country but in particular developing countries, and then to get the world to understand that everything designed in a website can not and will not be possible to read for the worlds 180 million blind and visually impaired persons. We need to get a new solidarity and understanding what is possible to technical develop and teach to normal blind and visually impaired people, The more technical and specific the ICT become, the more exclusive it will be. Warm regards Kicki Kicki Nordström Synskadades Riksförbund (SRF) World Blind Union (WBU) 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: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org kicki.nordstrom at telia.com (private) Från: kwasi boakye-akyeampong [mailto:kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk] Skickat: den 28 juli 2007 14:16 Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Norbert Bollow Ämne: Re: SV: [governance] IS THE DIGITAL DIVIDE A PHANTOM? Norbert, you wrote: "This of course needs to be funded somehow, but as soon as this has been achieved, all visually disabled people everywhere will be able to benefit from this ...". I disagree with the underlined bit because in the developing (under-developed) regions, even the non-visually impaired are struggling to have access to computers. Internet access is even worse. So for the visually impaired it is worse for them in developing countries. Believe me, the digital divide issue is worse than we make it sound. Most of the solutions we propose are just not practicable in the deprived regions. They are models fit for the developed countries. For instance, most developing countries are struggling with electricity supply even in the cities. Most rural communities are not connected to the national electricity grid. So bridging the digital divide goes beyond providing them with computers. Greetings, Kwasi Norbert Bollow wrote: Kicki Nordstrom wrote: > World Blind Union has tried to negotiate with the producer of screen > reading programs, that we from industrial could pay more to reduce > the price for customer in developing countries. But this was not > possible due to business tradition. I think this calls for the development of a good screen reader program as Free Software. This of course needs to be funded somehow, but as soon as this has been achieved, all visually disabled people everywhere will be able to benefit from this, and will be able to always use the newest version without big extra costs, without being contrained by the "business traditions" of a profit-oriented company. 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 I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I? And if not now, when?” - Rabbi Hillal .............................................................................................................................. Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, sign up for your free account today. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo!7 Mail has just got even bigger and better with unlimited storage on all webmail accounts. http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From dan at musicunbound.com Sun Jul 29 21:45:19 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 18:45:19 -0700 Subject: [governance] IS THE DIGITAL DIVIDE A PHANTOM? In-Reply-To: References: <889016.90265.qm@web25503.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B148@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: At 5:46 AM +0300 7/29/07, McTim wrote: >> Try reading or using a domain name that's coded in Chinese. >> See how accessible it is. > >We clearly have differing definitions of "access" For me, It's >accesible if I can ping the host (Do I have acccess to the Internet?). > For you it's reading a page? Try Google's "translate this" feature. Now *that's* funny. I've had occasion to try Google's machine translation many times recently (I'm coordinating a project that aspires to be as international and multi-lingual as possible on pro bono resources, and I am not functionally multi-lingual myself, even though I passed the language requirement for my college degree some 30 years ago or so). I can assure you that machine translation algorithms provided by Google and by my Mac Dashboard do not provide genuinely reliable "access" to other languages. Perhaps there are better available for a fee, but if so I am not aware of them as I don't have resources for the fee. Perhaps there is still potential for these algorithms to be improved over time, but until they are, machine translation is a partial solution at best, and worthless at worst (i.e., when the writer is using highly idiomatic forms of expression or other creative license). Access in a rudimentary technological sense without access in a productively functional sense is no access to the real value of the tool. The narrow sense of access is ultimately not extremely relevant. Access to something of value requires access to everything that is necessary in order to get the benefit of that value. If you have a different definition of "access" then your definition seems to be inferior in the context of the goals importantly at issue here. Dan ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mon Jul 30 07:51:28 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 13:51:28 +0200 (CEST) Subject: SV: [governance] IS THE DIGITAL DIVIDE A PHANTOM? In-Reply-To: <38786.80169.qm@web25503.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> (message from kwasi boakye-akyeampong on Sat, 28 Jul 2007 13:16:08 +0100 (BST)) References: <38786.80169.qm@web25503.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20070730115128.459972202EF@quill.bollow.ch> Kwasi Boakye-Akyeampong wrote: > Norbert, you wrote: > "This of course needs to be funded somehow, but as > soon as this has been achieved, all visually disabled people > everywhere will be able to benefit from this ...". > > I disagree with the underlined bit because in the developing > (under-developed) regions, even the non-visually impaired are > struggling to have access to computers. Internet access is even > worse. Yes, yes. I have been to rural Africa (not where tourists go, but where the genuine reality is), and I would certainly say that visiting with the wonderful people living there or in some other region with major technological and economic development challenges, and trying to understand them and their situations as well as possible for an outsider who can only commit a relatively limited amount of time to getting to know them, that is certainly an absolutely very fundamentally valuable experience for anyone who would like to make a contribution toward bridging or reducing the digital divide. Please don't dismiss my statements about the benefits of making screen reader software available as Free Software by addressing me as if I were someone who doesn't know what he's talking about. It is not necessary to have reliable electricity or internet connectivity before screen reader software becomes valuable to visually disabled people. Even when for a given area it is not possible to do more than visiting them e.g. once a week with a mobile "information society communication center" containing one or more battery operated laptop computers, certainly at least one of those computers should be equipped with screen reader software. By the way, has it been tried to use screen reader software for the purpose of making information society technologies more accessible to illiterate/not-yet-literate people? > Believe me, the digital divide issue is worse than we make it > sound. Most of the solutions we propose are just not practicable in > the deprived regions. They are models fit for the developed > countries. For instance, most developing countries are struggling > with electricity supply even in the cities. Most rural communities > are not connected to the national electricity grid. So bridging the > digital divide goes beyond providing them with computers. Certainly. In my opinion, based on the observations that I have made, empowering people to use computers productively is much more difficult than providing them with computers, electricity and some kind of internet connection. Quite a lot of measures are necessary in order to transform that human-empowerment task from being virtually-unsolvably difficult into being feasible with the ordinary level of skill that can be realistically expected from teachers at rural schools in economically underdeveloped regions of the world. One measure that will in my opinion help a lot is to provide them with Free Software rather than proprietary software. Screen reader software is a special case because in that area, AFAIK the needed functionality does not exist yet as Free Software, hence there is a need for thinking about how the develeopment of this kind of software as Free Software can be funded. In most other important areas, the essential functionality is already available as Free Software and just needs to be marketed more effectively. 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 kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jul 30 09:15:44 2007 From: kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk (kwasi boakye-akyeampong) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 14:15:44 +0100 (BST) Subject: SV: [governance] IS THE DIGITAL DIVIDE A PHANTOM? In-Reply-To: <20070730115128.459972202EF@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <570995.83865.qm@web25505.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Hello Norbert, Sorry, if I sounded like you did not know what you are talking about. My response was as a result of the following: " ... as soon as this has been achieved, all visually disabled people everywhere will be able to benefit from this ..." Taken out of context, it sounds like as soon as a screen reader becomes free then the digital divide will be bridged. You are right, we must ensure that the technology becomes, at least, accessible to those who are fortunate enough to have it available like Kikki suggested. It is a shame that visually challenged people in developed regions are still struggling to have access to technology though it is available by others around them. This can be attributed to the same old devil, economies of scale, as someone mentioned earlier. If commercial interests are allowed to drive technological change, that is what happens. May be the digital divide argument has been over-simplified and its definition too narrow. Matter of fact, the visually impaired and physically challenged folks in deprived regions (developing countries) of the world are totally left out of the discussions when it comes to national ICT policy discussions. And if we don't start talking about it now, we shall still be looking answers for these questions 20 years down the line. Regards, Kwasi Norbert Bollow wrote: Kwasi Boakye-Akyeampong wrote: > Norbert, you wrote: > "This of course needs to be funded somehow, but as > soon as this has been achieved, all visually disabled people > everywhere will be able to benefit from this ...". > > I disagree with the underlined bit because in the developing > (under-developed) regions, even the non-visually impaired are > struggling to have access to computers. Internet access is even > worse. Yes, yes. I have been to rural Africa (not where tourists go, but where the genuine reality is), and I would certainly say that visiting with the wonderful people living there or in some other region with major technological and economic development challenges, and trying to understand them and their situations as well as possible for an outsider who can only commit a relatively limited amount of time to getting to know them, that is certainly an absolutely very fundamentally valuable experience for anyone who would like to make a contribution toward bridging or reducing the digital divide. Please don't dismiss my statements about the benefits of making screen reader software available as Free Software by addressing me as if I were someone who doesn't know what he's talking about. It is not necessary to have reliable electricity or internet connectivity before screen reader software becomes valuable to visually disabled people. Even when for a given area it is not possible to do more than visiting them e.g. once a week with a mobile "information society communication center" containing one or more battery operated laptop computers, certainly at least one of those computers should be equipped with screen reader software. By the way, has it been tried to use screen reader software for the purpose of making information society technologies more accessible to illiterate/not-yet-literate people? > Believe me, the digital divide issue is worse than we make it > sound. Most of the solutions we propose are just not practicable in > the deprived regions. They are models fit for the developed > countries. For instance, most developing countries are struggling > with electricity supply even in the cities. Most rural communities > are not connected to the national electricity grid. So bridging the > digital divide goes beyond providing them with computers. Certainly. In my opinion, based on the observations that I have made, empowering people to use computers productively is much more difficult than providing them with computers, electricity and some kind of internet connection. Quite a lot of measures are necessary in order to transform that human-empowerment task from being virtually-unsolvably difficult into being feasible with the ordinary level of skill that can be realistically expected from teachers at rural schools in economically underdeveloped regions of the world. One measure that will in my opinion help a lot is to provide them with Free Software rather than proprietary software. Screen reader software is a special case because in that area, AFAIK the needed functionality does not exist yet as Free Software, hence there is a need for thinking about how the develeopment of this kind of software as Free Software can be funded. In most other important areas, the essential functionality is already available as Free Software and just needs to be marketed more effectively. 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 I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I? And if not now, when?” - Rabbi Hillal .............................................................................................................................. --------------------------------- Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, sign up for your freeaccount today. -------------- 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 Mon Jul 30 10:43:26 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 10:43:26 -0400 Subject: [governance] registration for Rio IGF is open Message-ID: <20070730144333.4DC66337D8B@mxr.isoc.bg> http://intgovforum.org/register/index.php Registration for the second meeting of the IGF is now open. [updated 30 July 2007] The Government of Brazil will host the second IGF meeting. It will take place in Rio de Janeiro on 12 - 15 November 2007. best, 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 kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org Mon Jul 30 11:11:09 2007 From: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?=) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 17:11:09 +0200 Subject: SV: SV: SV: [governance] IS THE DIGITAL DIVIDE A PHANTOM? In-Reply-To: <188065.38032.qm@web54107.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <188065.38032.qm@web54107.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F01A8F3AD@ensms02.iris.se> Dear David, Thanks a lot for catching up this issue. You are so right that this is not only a question where you come from, it is a true matter of accessibility and an true interest to close the gap of electronic accessibility. But it is also a matter of costs, as blind persons must buy application programs which is so extremely expensive,and put the cost for the computer to a minor cost. Not all of us can afford this. So the whole issue is about affordability and accessibility, no matter where you come from. I will say, it is no problem with the skills and interest of using ICT among blind persons, but as websites in most cases are inaccessible it marginalise us and keep us out from the information stream , even if we wish to be part of it, we can not. It is a good example of how a bad designed environment makes persons unnecessary "disable" by ignore and acknowledge the existence of blind and visually impaired persons in the world. It is to make us disabled , it is not us who are disabled behind the keyboard! Kind regards Kicki Kicki Nordström Synskadades Riksförbund (SRF) World Blind Union (WBU) 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: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org kicki.nordstrom at telia.com (private) ________________________________ Från: David Goldstein [mailto:goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au] Skickat: den 30 juli 2007 01:52 Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org Ämne: Re: SV: SV: [governance] IS THE DIGITAL DIVIDE A PHANTOM? Kicki has mentioned something that is overlooked, and that has nothing to do if one is from a developing country. Web developers are often appalling in their appreciation of the issues faced by people who are blind in accessing the internet. Even with the best screen readers and computer equipment, they are often next to useless if the websites can't be "read" by the screen reading software. David ----- Original Message ---- From: Kicki Nordström To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; kwasi boakye-akyeampong Sent: Monday, 30 July, 2007 6:33:56 AM Subject: SV: SV: [governance] IS THE DIGITAL DIVIDE A PHANTOM? Dear Kwasi, You are so right but to this we must add the extra ordinary costs that additional programs as screen readers etc, takes for enable blind and visually impaired persons to access ICT. A screen reading program and a Braille Display to read the text, cost several times more than the computer as such and it is no reduction because you are coming from a developing country! I should not afford this technology if I have to pay from my own income, but in Sweden, we get this through different insurance, and can therefore use the available technology! But the technology is also underdeveloped, as many Websites are inaccessible due to formats, drawings and pictures, colours, columns and tables which the screen reader can not interpret as it is also problems with PDF-files. Equality of accessing ICT is far away for poor people from any country but in particular developing countries, and then to get the world to understand that everything designed in a website can not and will not be possible to read for the worlds 180 million blind and visually impaired persons. We need to get a new solidarity and understanding what is possible to technical develop and teach to normal blind and visually impaired people, The more technical and specific the ICT become, the more exclusive it will be. Warm regards Kicki Kicki Nordström Synskadades Riksförbund (SRF) World Blind Union (WBU) 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: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org kicki.nordstrom at telia.com (private) ________________________________ Från: kwasi boakye-akyeampong [mailto:kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk] Skickat: den 28 juli 2007 14:16 Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Norbert Bollow Ämne: Re: SV: [governance] IS THE DIGITAL DIVIDE A PHANTOM? Norbert, you wrote: "This of course needs to be funded somehow, but as soon as this has been achieved, all visually disabled people everywhere will be able to benefit from this ...". I disagree with the underlined bit because in the developing (under-developed) regions, even the non-visually impaired are struggling to have access to computers. Internet access is even worse. So for the visually impaired it is worse for them in developing countries. Believe me, the digital divide issue is worse than we make it sound. Most of the solutions we propose are just not practicable in the deprived regions. They are models fit for the developed countries. For instance, most developing countries are struggling with electricity supply even in the cities. Most rural communities are not connected to the national electricity grid. So bridging the digital divide goes beyond providing them with computers. Greetings, Kwasi Norbert Bollow wrote: Kicki Nordstrom wrote: > World Blind Union has tried to negotiate with the producer of screen > reading programs, that we from industrial could pay more to reduce > the price for customer in developing countries. But this was not > possible due to business tradition. I think this calls for the development of a good screen reader program as Free Software. This of course needs to be funded somehow, but as soon as this has been achieved, all visually disabled people everywhere will be able to benefit from this, and will be able to always use the newest version without big extra costs, without being contrained by the "business traditions" of a profit-oriented company. 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 I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I? And if not now, when?" - Rabbi Hillal .............................................................................................................................. ________________________________ Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, sign up for your free account today . ________________________________ Yahoo!7 Mail has just got even bigger and better with unlimited storage on all webmail accounts. Find out more . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ecrire at catherine-roy.net Mon Jul 30 11:17:45 2007 From: ecrire at catherine-roy.net (zara) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 11:17:45 -0400 Subject: SV: [governance] IS THE DIGITAL DIVIDE A PHANTOM? In-Reply-To: <570995.83865.qm@web25505.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0JLZ00GTCZTMR010@VL-MO-MR002.ip.videotron.ca> Hi, I am new to this list and I have been following this discussion with much interest. I would like to address a few things with regards to access to ICTs for people with disabilities and Open Source software. First, I would like to point out that, with regards to OS tools for the disabled, there are indeed many tools that have been developed so far and there is a very engaged community still working on this challenge. For example, there is the OATSoft Interest Group[1], a group dedicated to improving Assistive Technology and computer accessibility through the power of Open Source development techniques. More information can be found on their Web site. They have made information available about the tools that exist through a repository[2] and they foster the development of more initiatives in this regard. One thing that has come up on their mailing list concerns how to create interest and reach out to developing countries with regards to OS assistive technologies and I will certainly make them aware of this discussion here. But obviously, the information is not getting through enough if people think that OS has not been explored for the development of assistive technologies and that challenge will need to be addressed. And still, OS assistive technology has limited penetration because, among other things, in developed countries, proprietary tools have a monopoly, they are prescribed and people are trained to use them because they are often the only tools that medical and physical therapy professionals and training resources know of. I suspect that, to varying degrees, this can be the case also in developing countries, though I am unaware of how assistive technologies are delivered in these parts of the world. Also, as was pointed out by Kikki and others, there is a great need for Web authors and developers to be more aware of accessibility standards (such as those developed at the W3C) because even with all the tools (OS or not), their impact will be limited without adherence to these standards. This was discussed at length by the Disability Caucus during the WSIS. Much progress has been made over the years but much more still needs to be done because accessibility standards are an important part of the puzzle with regards to accessing the Web for people with disabilities. Best regards, Catherine -- [1] http://www.oatsoft.org/ [2] http://www.oatsoft.org/Software/ -- Catherine Roy www.catherine-roy.net > -----Original Message----- > From: kwasi boakye-akyeampong > [mailto:kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk] > Sent: July 30, 2007 9:16 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Norbert Bollow > Subject: Re: SV: [governance] IS THE DIGITAL DIVIDE A > PHANTOM? > > Hello Norbert, > > Sorry, if I sounded like you did not know what you > are talking about. My response was as a result of the > following: > > " ... as soon as this has been achieved, all visually > disabled people everywhere will be able to benefit > from this ..." > > Taken out of context, it sounds like as soon as a > screen reader becomes free then the digital divide > will be bridged. > > You are right, we must ensure that the technology > becomes, at least, accessible to those who are > fortunate enough to have it available like Kikki > suggested. It is a shame that visually challenged > people in developed regions are still struggling to > have access to technology though it is available by > others around them. This can be attributed to the > same old devil, economies of scale, as someone > mentioned earlier. If commercial interests are > allowed to drive technological change, that is what > happens. > > May be the digital divide argument has been over- > simplified and its definition too narrow. Matter of > fact, the visually impaired and physically challenged > folks in deprived regions (developing countries) of > the world are totally left out of the discussions > when it comes to national ICT policy discussions. And > if we don't start talking about it now, we shall > still be looking answers for these questions 20 years > down the line. > > Regards, > Kwasi > > > Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Kwasi Boakye-Akyeampong wrote: > > > Norbert, you wrote: > > "This of course needs to be funded somehow, > but as > > soon as this has been achieved, all visually > disabled people > > everywhere will be able to benefit from this > ...". > > > > I disagree with the underlined bit because in > the developing > > (under-developed) regions, even the non- > visually impaired are > > struggling to have access to computers. > Internet access is even > > worse. > > Yes, yes. I have been to rural Africa (not > where tourists go, but > where the genuine reality is), and I would > certainly say that visiting > with the wonderful people living there or in > some other region with > major technological and economic development > challenges, and trying to > understand them and their situations as well as > possible for an > outsider who can only commit a relatively > limited amount of time to > getting to know them, that is certainly an > absolutely very > fundamentally valuable experience for anyone > who would like to make a > contribution toward bridging or reducing the > digital divide. > > Please don't dismiss my statements about the > benefits of making > screen reader software available as Free > Software by addressing me > as if I were someone who doesn't know what he's > talking about. It is > not necessary to have reliable electricity or > internet connectivity > before screen reader software becomes valuable > to visually disabled > people. Even when for a given area it is not > possible to do more than > visiting them e.g. once a week with a mobile > "information society > communication center" containing one or more > battery operated laptop > computers, certainly at least one of those > computers should be > equipped with screen reader software. > > By the way, has it been tried to use screen > reader software for the > purpose of making information society > technologies more accessible > to illiterate/not-yet-literate people? > > > Believe me, the digital divide issue is worse > than we make it > > sound. Most of the solutions we propose are > just not practicable in > > the deprived regions. They are models fit for > the developed > > countries. For instance, most developing > countries are struggling > > with electricity supply even in the cities. > Most rural communities > > are not connected to the national electricity > grid. So bridging the > > digital divide goes beyond providing them > with computers. > > Certainly. In my opinion, based on the > observations that I have made, > empowering people to use computers productively > is much more difficult > than providing them with computers, electricity > and some kind of > internet connection. Quite a lot of measures > are necessary in order > to transform that human-empowerment task from > being virtually-unsolvably > difficult into being feasible with the ordinary > level of skill that can > be realistically expected from teachers at > rural schools in economically > underdeveloped regions of the world. > > One measure that will in my opinion help a lot > is to provide them with > Free Software rather than proprietary software. > > Screen reader software is a special case > because in that area, AFAIK the > needed functionality does not exist yet as Free > Software, hence there > is a need for thinking about how the > develeopment of this kind of > software as Free Software can be funded. > > In most other important areas, the essential > functionality is already > available as Free Software and just needs to be > marketed more > effectively. > > 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 I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am > not for others, what am I? And if not now, when?” > - Rabbi Hillal > ..................................................... > ..................................................... > .................... > > ________________________________ > > Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't > settle for less, sign up for your free account today > oo.com/mail/winter07.html> . > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.25/926 - > Release Date: 29/07/2007 11:14 PM > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.25/926 - Release Date: 29/07/2007 11:14 PM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Mon Jul 30 11:25:31 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 11:25:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] IS THE DIGITAL DIVIDE A PHANTOM? In-Reply-To: References: <889016.90265.qm@web25503.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B148@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD98D7C68@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] >We clearly have differing definitions of "access" >For me, It's accesible if I can ping the host >(Do I have acccess to the Internet?). >For you it's reading a page? Tell me how you ping a host if you can't understand the domain name? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm Mon Jul 30 12:02:02 2007 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (Carlton A Samuels) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 11:02:02 -0500 Subject: SV: [governance] IS THE DIGITAL DIVIDE A PHANTOM? In-Reply-To: <38786.80169.qm@web25503.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Thanks for - yet again- outlining the reality for some stakeholders! Carlton Samuels _____ From: kwasi boakye-akyeampong [mailto:kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk] Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 7:16 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Norbert Bollow Subject: Re: SV: [governance] IS THE DIGITAL DIVIDE A PHANTOM? Norbert, you wrote: "This of course needs to be funded somehow, but as soon as this has been achieved, all visually disabled people everywhere will be able to benefit from this ...". I disagree with the underlined bit because in the developing (under-developed) regions, even the non-visually impaired are struggling to have access to computers. Internet access is even worse. So for the visually impaired it is worse for them in developing countries. Believe me, the digital divide issue is worse than we make it sound. Most of the solutions we propose are just not practicable in the deprived regions. They are models fit for the developed countries. For instance, most developing countries are struggling with electricity supply even in the cities. Most rural communities are not connected to the national electricity grid. So bridging the digital divide goes beyond providing them with computers. Greetings, Kwasi Norbert Bollow wrote: Kicki Nordstrom wrote: > World Blind Union has tried to negotiate with the producer of screen > reading programs, that we from industrial could pay more to reduce > the price for customer in developing countries. But this was not > possible due to business tradition. I think this calls for the development of a good screen reader program as Free Software. This of course needs to be funded somehow, but as soon as this has been achieved, all visually disabled people everywhere will be able to benefit from this, and will be able to always use the newest version without big extra costs, without being contrained by the "business traditions" of a profit-oriented company. 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 I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I? And if not now, when?" - Rabbi Hillal ............................................................................ .................................................. _____ Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, sign up for your free account today. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Mon Jul 30 12:36:38 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 09:36:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Is the ITU and the IGF on a Collision Course? Message-ID: Is the ITU and the IGF on a Collision Course? ---------------------------------------------------- Is the ITU looking toward the IGF to make Internet trade activity profitable for ITU project/operations? vis-�-vis (as opposed to) Is the IGF looking toward the ITU/Icann to make Internet trade activity profitable for IGF project/operations? [Are they looking toward each other as a means to raise funding?] ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Mon Jul 30 15:57:43 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:57:43 -0700 Subject: [governance] IS THE DIGITAL DIVIDE A PHANTOM? In-Reply-To: References: <889016.90265.qm@web25503.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B148@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <46AE42B7.8000105@cavebear.com> McTim wrote: > We clearly have differing definitions of "access" For me, It's > accesible if I can ping the host (Do I have acccess to the Internet?). > For you it's reading a page? Try Google's "translate this" feature. I believe in starting small and learning before trying to solve all problems. Thus for purposes of these intial stages of internet governance I have on several occassions defined the internet in the following terms: The internet is the open system that carries IP packets from source IP addresses to destination IP addresses. Governance of that the thing that reifies that limited definition is already a complex topic that has, so far, defied solution. Going beyond that and including governance of layered-on, optional applications (such as HTML carried in HTTP, i.e. "the web") seems, to my mind, to be biting off too much and reduces the chances of success. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mon Jul 30 17:27:57 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 00:27:57 +0300 Subject: [governance] IS THE DIGITAL DIVIDE A PHANTOM? In-Reply-To: <46AE42B7.8000105@cavebear.com> References: <889016.90265.qm@web25503.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B148@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <46AE42B7.8000105@cavebear.com> Message-ID: On 7/30/07, Karl Auerbach wrote: > McTim wrote: > > > We clearly have differing definitions of "access" For me, It's > > accesible if I can ping the host (Do I have acccess to the Internet?). > > For you it's reading a page? Try Google's "translate this" feature. > > I believe in starting small and learning before trying to solve all > problems. Thus for purposes of these intial stages of internet > governance I have on several occassions defined the internet in the > following terms: > > The internet is the open system that carries IP packets from source > IP addresses to destination IP addresses. > > Governance of that the thing that reifies that limited definition is > already a complex topic that has, so far, defied solution. > > Going beyond that and including governance of layered-on, optional > applications (such as HTML carried in HTTP, i.e. "the web") seems, to my > mind, to be biting off too much and reduces the chances of success. Agreed. My favorite definition is Seth Breidbart's: "It's the largest equivalence class in the reflexive transitive symmetric closure of the relationship "can be reached by an IP packet from". -- 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 dan at musicunbound.com Mon Jul 30 18:45:39 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 15:45:39 -0700 Subject: [governance] IS THE DIGITAL DIVIDE A PHANTOM? In-Reply-To: References: <889016.90265.qm@web25503.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B148@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <46AE42B7.8000105@cavebear.com> Message-ID: What this says to me is that "Internet Governance" is insufficient to address the Public Governance issues surrounding the Internet. So, let's talk about Internet access as a matter of broad Public Governance (PG) rather than narrow Internet Governance (IG), and let's talk about the relationship of IG to PG of the Internet (PGoI -- starting by distinguishing them, and then by incorporating IG into the PG domain). Seems to me this crowd has been going around in circles about this ever since I joined up last fall. I imagine for quite some time before as well. Maybe it's time to start defining terms in detail. You guys have defined IG in narrow technical terms, which is fair enough. But then, PGoI is something that needs to be addressed separately starting yesterday, because that is where issues like the Digital Divide and Net Neutrality make a difference to public citizens across the globe. It may be that we can never "solve all problems" and that even if we start small, we might not be able to solve *those* problems, or if we can then we may not be able to translate those narrow solutions to broader public policy domains. Politics (like time itself) waits for no human. It is happening in real time, and we need to deal with it in real time, even if we don't have the perfect solution figured out just yet. Perfection is not an option in politics, public policy, and public governance. It may not be an option for PGoI either. Politics is like walking on quicksand -- it's a moving target and the perfect theoretical solution may simply not exist, or may be quickly obsoleted. How do we "satisfice" in getting the best we can, now? I would suggest that by narrowing our focus to only technical IG, we lose sight of the broader issues that still *must* and *will* be addressed, even in the default. (Even if we decide to ignore those issues, that is in fact an affirmative decision that addresses the policy by "retaining the status quo" and that may not be the best policy choice available to us.) Of course, the choice of the appropriate political venue to address these issues is a critical factor in the choice, and that is a big part of our struggle today, as we do not yet necessarily have an ideal venue to deal with these issues. That's perhaps the biggest problem we face today, from a structural standpoint. If there is no "there" there in terms of accountable political venue and jurisdiction, then no matter what the best choices are, we will have a difficult time implementing them in a productive manner. Dan At 12:27 AM +0300 7/31/07, McTim wrote: >On 7/30/07, Karl Auerbach wrote: >> McTim wrote: >> >> > We clearly have differing definitions of "access" For me, It's >> > accesible if I can ping the host (Do I have acccess to the Internet?). >> > For you it's reading a page? Try Google's "translate this" feature. >> >> I believe in starting small and learning before trying to solve all >> problems. Thus for purposes of these intial stages of internet >> governance I have on several occassions defined the internet in the >> following terms: >> >> The internet is the open system that carries IP packets from source >> IP addresses to destination IP addresses. >> >> Governance of that the thing that reifies that limited definition is >> already a complex topic that has, so far, defied solution. >> >> Going beyond that and including governance of layered-on, optional >> applications (such as HTML carried in HTTP, i.e. "the web") seems, to my >> mind, to be biting off too much and reduces the chances of success. > >Agreed. > >My favorite definition is Seth Breidbart's: > >"It's the largest equivalence class in the reflexive transitive >symmetric closure of the relationship "can be reached by an IP > packet from". > > >-- >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 karl at cavebear.com Mon Jul 30 19:47:49 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 16:47:49 -0700 Subject: [governance] IS THE DIGITAL DIVIDE A PHANTOM? In-Reply-To: References: <889016.90265.qm@web25503.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B148@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <46AE42B7.8000105@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <46AE78A5.60506@cavebear.com> Dan Krimm wrote: > What this says to me is that "Internet Governance" is insufficient to > address the Public Governance issues surrounding the Internet. ... > Maybe it's time to start defining terms in detail. You guys have defined > IG in narrow technical terms, which is fair enough. But then, PGoI is > something that needs to be addressed separately starting yesterday, because > that is where issues like the Digital Divide and Net Neutrality make a > difference to public citizens across the globe. At which point this effort comes under what in the US is a very negative political banner, "world governance". There are many problems in the world, a goodly number of which touch the internet. But they also touch telephones and electricity and medicines and patent law and clean water and ... And for the same reasons that drive you to feel that these problems should be solved under the "Public Governance issues surrounding the Internet" banner, it could be argued with equal force that they fall under those other banners as well. The best way to make no progress on any front is to try to make progress on too many fronts. > How do we "satisfice" in getting the best we can, now? I would suggest > that by narrowing our focus to only technical IG, we lose sight of the > broader issues that still *must* and *will* be addressed, even in the > default. I doubt we will ever loose sight of the needs of people, we tend to become noisy. But if we do not do a decent job with the little stuff - things that have a clear tie to technical needs - then we will not obtain the credibility to attempt the greater issues, much less to succeed at them. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dan at musicunbound.com Tue Jul 31 00:08:02 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:08:02 -0700 Subject: [governance] IS THE DIGITAL DIVIDE A PHANTOM? In-Reply-To: <46AE78A5.60506@cavebear.com> References: <889016.90265.qm@web25503.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B148@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <46AE42B7.8000105@cavebear.com> <46AE78A5.60506@cavebear.com> Message-ID: At 4:47 PM -0700 7/30/07, Karl Auerbach wrote: >Dan Krimm wrote: >> What this says to me is that "Internet Governance" is insufficient to >> address the Public Governance issues surrounding the Internet. >... >> Maybe it's time to start defining terms in detail. You guys have defined >> IG in narrow technical terms, which is fair enough. But then, PGoI is >> something that needs to be addressed separately starting yesterday, because >> that is where issues like the Digital Divide and Net Neutrality make a >> difference to public citizens across the globe. > >At which point this effort comes under what in the US is a very negative >political banner, "world governance". I wouldn't cast all of America with the same characterization, but admittedly the current administration thinks this way. Take heart that an increasing number of Americans find this approach alien and abhorrent, and are working actively to change the frames of reference of the political debate (cf. Rockridge Institute and George Lakoff). >There are many problems in the world, a goodly number of which touch the >internet. > >But they also touch telephones and electricity and medicines and patent >law and clean water and ... And for the same reasons that drive you to >feel that these problems should be solved under the "Public Governance >issues surrounding the Internet" banner, it could be argued with equal >force that they fall under those other banners as well. The banners that I think are most important WRT the Internet include telephone, television and telecommunications in general, because this forms the platform for the Fourth Estate, which is a critical linchpin of any democracy. >The best way to make no progress on any front is to try to make progress >on too many fronts. This certainly makes sense when you have limited resources (a single person or a small collective), but I think it is possible for multi-front coalitions to spread the efforts and coordinate across a variety of fronts simultaneously. The special interests of narrow plutocratic wealth certainly do not limit themselves to a small number of fronts. They play politics the way they invest: with a broadly diversified portfolio. If we let up on too many fronts, we cede the game to them there and allow them greater synergy in their total game plan. So, it may well be that the "Internet Governance" community may not address the "Public Governance" aspects of the Internet, but then there ought to be another "cousin" community that is concerned with that (PGoI), and the two communities ought to coordinate their actions across related fronts. You can be sure the IP lobby and the "morality" lobby and the rest of that power-hungry plutocracy coalition does not limit itself to any one of these fronts at a time. >> How do we "satisfice" in getting the best we can, now? I would suggest >> that by narrowing our focus to only technical IG, we lose sight of the >> broader issues that still *must* and *will* be addressed, even in the >> default. > >I doubt we will ever lose sight of the needs of people, we tend to >become noisy. > >But if we do not do a decent job with the little stuff - things that >have a clear tie to technical needs - then we will not obtain the >credibility to attempt the greater issues, much less to succeed at them. I suppose I am a bit more ambitious than you with regard to political dynamics. It all depends on who "we" is. If you define "we" narrowly, then I redefine the "meta-we" more broadly and I think the "meta-we" ultimately needs to have as broad a scope of action as the plutocrats, in order to match them head to head on all fronts. In your terms, I think *someone* needs to "become noisy" (about PGoI) right now! Best, Dan ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Jul 31 04:09:34 2007 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:09:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: IS THE DIGITAL DIVIDE A PHANTOM? In-Reply-To: References: <889016.90265.qm@web25503.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B148@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <46AE42B7.8000105@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20070731080934.GA25447@nic.fr> On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 12:27:57AM +0300, McTim wrote a message of 44 lines which said: > My favorite definition is Seth Breidbart's: > > "It's the largest equivalence class in the reflexive transitive > symmetric closure of the relationship "can be reached by an IP > packet from". I may be pedantic but it seems to be that this definition excludes all the poor guys locked behind a NAT since, in that case, their link to the Internet is neither really reflexive, nor symmetric and certainly not transitive. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org Tue Jul 31 07:01:45 2007 From: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?=) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 13:01:45 +0200 Subject: SV: SV: [governance] IS THE DIGITAL DIVIDE A PHANTOM? In-Reply-To: <20070730115128.459972202EF@quill.bollow.ch> References: <38786.80169.qm@web25503.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <20070730115128.459972202EF@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F01A8F451@ensms02.iris.se> Dear Norbert, I think you have a very valid point in the following: "By the way, has it been tried to use screen reader software for the purpose of making information society technologies more accessible to illiterate/not-yet-literate people? " I have suggested this many times, but no one seems to understand how important screen reading programs can be for other groups outside the context of blind and visually impaired persons. We also know that at least 10% (in industrial countries there statistics is available), have Dyslexia and for those a screen reading program is very helpful as well. There are many more than blind persons who should benefit from a screen reading program. But I think we are discussing two things here, the access to computers and electricity in developing countries and in particular in rural areas. This does not contradict to the need of screen reading programs for those of need. I would not like to see a society that gives priorities to non-disabled persons first and then provide those with special needs later, with what is available. If we are talking of closing the ICT divide, we must embrace all persons! The first is to make sure people have access to a computer, and electricity. Then we must ensure that programs used are accessible for all people, and for this reason programs must be compatible and accessible. Yours Kicki Kicki Nordström Synskadades Riksförbund (SRF) World Blind Union (WBU) 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: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org kicki.nordstrom at telia.com (private) -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: Norbert Bollow [mailto:nb at bollow.ch] Skickat: den 30 juli 2007 13:51 Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org Ämne: Re: SV: [governance] IS THE DIGITAL DIVIDE A PHANTOM? Kwasi Boakye-Akyeampong wrote: > Norbert, you wrote: > "This of course needs to be funded somehow, but as soon as this has > been achieved, all visually disabled people everywhere will be able to > benefit from this ...". > > I disagree with the underlined bit because in the developing > (under-developed) regions, even the non-visually impaired are > struggling to have access to computers. Internet access is even worse. Yes, yes. I have been to rural Africa (not where tourists go, but where the genuine reality is), and I would certainly say that visiting with the wonderful people living there or in some other region with major technological and economic development challenges, and trying to understand them and their situations as well as possible for an outsider who can only commit a relatively limited amount of time to getting to know them, that is certainly an absolutely very fundamentally valuable experience for anyone who would like to make a contribution toward bridging or reducing the digital divide. Please don't dismiss my statements about the benefits of making screen reader software available as Free Software by addressing me as if I were someone who doesn't know what he's talking about. It is not necessary to have reliable electricity or internet connectivity before screen reader software becomes valuable to visually disabled people. Even when for a given area it is not possible to do more than visiting them e.g. once a week with a mobile "information society communication center" containing one or more battery operated laptop computers, certainly at least one of those computers should be equipped with screen reader software. By the way, has it been tried to use screen reader software for the purpose of making information society technologies more accessible to illiterate/not-yet-literate people? > Believe me, the digital divide issue is worse than we make it sound. > Most of the solutions we propose are just not practicable in the > deprived regions. They are models fit for the developed countries. For > instance, most developing countries are struggling with electricity > supply even in the cities. Most rural communities are not connected to > the national electricity grid. So bridging the digital divide goes > beyond providing them with computers. Certainly. In my opinion, based on the observations that I have made, empowering people to use computers productively is much more difficult than providing them with computers, electricity and some kind of internet connection. Quite a lot of measures are necessary in order to transform that human-empowerment task from being virtually-unsolvably difficult into being feasible with the ordinary level of skill that can be realistically expected from teachers at rural schools in economically underdeveloped regions of the world. One measure that will in my opinion help a lot is to provide them with Free Software rather than proprietary software. Screen reader software is a special case because in that area, AFAIK the needed functionality does not exist yet as Free Software, hence there is a need for thinking about how the develeopment of this kind of software as Free Software can be funded. In most other important areas, the essential functionality is already available as Free Software and just needs to be marketed more effectively. 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 kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org Tue Jul 31 07:06:31 2007 From: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?=) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 13:06:31 +0200 Subject: SV: SV: [governance] IS THE DIGITAL DIVIDE A PHANTOM? In-Reply-To: <570995.83865.qm@web25505.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <20070730115128.459972202EF@quill.bollow.ch> <570995.83865.qm@web25505.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F01A8F452@ensms02.iris.se> Dear Kwasi, Yes, and why could we not learn from earlier mistakes and why must we always reinvent the wheel? Let us bring in to Governments in developing countries, what we know by experience from industrial countries, and also bring in our knowledge of what could be done then developing countries are building up its ICT infrastructure. Warm regards Kicki , Kicki Nordström Synskadades Riksförbund (SRF) World Blind Union (WBU) 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: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org kicki.nordstrom at telia.com (private) ________________________________ Från: kwasi boakye-akyeampong [mailto:kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk] Skickat: den 30 juli 2007 15:16 Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Norbert Bollow Ämne: Re: SV: [governance] IS THE DIGITAL DIVIDE A PHANTOM? Hello Norbert, Sorry, if I sounded like you did not know what you are talking about. My response was as a result of the following: " ... as soon as this has been achieved, all visually disabled people everywhere will be able to benefit from this ..." Taken out of context, it sounds like as soon as a screen reader becomes free then the digital divide will be bridged. You are right, we must ensure that the technology becomes, at least, accessible to those who are fortunate enough to have it available like Kikki suggested. It is a shame that visually challenged people in developed regions are still struggling to have access to technology though it is available by others around them. This can be attributed to the same old devil, economies of scale, as someone mentioned earlier. If commercial interests are allowed to drive technological change, that is what happens. May be the digital divide argument has been over-simplified and its definition too narrow. Matter of fact, the visually impaired and physically challenged folks in deprived regions (developing countries) of the world are totally left out of the discussions when it comes to national ICT policy discussions. And if we don't start talking about it now, we shall still be looking answers for these questions 20 years down the line. Regards, Kwasi Norbert Bollow wrote: Kwasi Boakye-Akyeampong wrote: > Norbert, you wrote: > "This of course needs to be funded somehow, but as > soon as this has been achieved, all visually disabled people > everywhere will be able to benefit from this ...". > > I disagree with the underlined bit because in the developing > (under-developed) regions, even the non-visually impaired are > struggling to have access to computers. Internet access is even > worse. Yes, yes. I have been to rural Africa (not where tourists go, but where the genuine reality is), and I would certainly say that visiting with the wonderful people living there or in some other region with major technological and economic development challenges, and trying to understand them and their situations as well as possible for an outsider who can only commit a relatively limited amount of time to getting to know them, that is certainly an absolutely very fundamentally valuable experience for anyone who would like to make a contribution toward bridging or reducing the digital divide. Please don't dismiss my statements about the benefits of making screen reader software available as Free Software by addressing me as if I were someone who doesn't know what he's talking about. It is not necessary to have reliable electricity or internet connectivity before screen reader software becomes valuable to visually disabled people. Even when for a given area it is not possible to do more than visiting them e.g. once a week with a mobile "information society communication center" containing one or more battery operated laptop computers, certainly at least one of those computers should be equipped with screen reader software. By the way, has it been tried to use screen reader software for the purpose of making information society technologies more accessible to illiterate/not-yet-literate people? > Believe me, the digital divide issue is worse than we make it > sound. Most of the solutions we propose are just not practicable in > the deprived regions. They are models fit for the developed > countries. For instance, most developing countries are struggling > with electricity supply even in the cities. Most rural communities > are not connected to the national electricity grid. So bridging the > digital divide goes beyond providing them with computers. Certainly. In my opinion, based on the observations that I have made, empowering people to use computers productively is much more difficult than providing them with computers, electricity and some kind of internet connection. Quite a lot of measures are necessary in order to transform that human-empowerment task from being virtually-unsolvably difficult into being feasible with the ordinary level of skill that can be realistically expected from teachers at rural schools in economically underdeveloped regions of the world. One measure that will in my opinion help a lot is to provide them with Free Software rather than proprietary software. Screen reader software is a special case because in that area, AFAIK the needed functionality does not exist yet as Free Software, hence there is a need for thinking about how the develeopment of this kind of software as Free Software can be funded. In most other important areas, the essential functionality is already available as Free Software and just needs to be marketed more effectively. 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 I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I? And if not now, when?" - Rabbi Hillal .............................................................................................................................. ________________________________ Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, sign up for your free account today . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org Tue Jul 31 10:19:18 2007 From: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?=) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 16:19:18 +0200 Subject: SV: SV: [governance] IS THE DIGITAL DIVIDE A PHANTOM? In-Reply-To: <0JLZ00GTCZTMR010@VL-MO-MR002.ip.videotron.ca> References: <570995.83865.qm@web25505.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <0JLZ00GTCZTMR010@VL-MO-MR002.ip.videotron.ca> Message-ID: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F01A8F4C7@ensms02.iris.se> Dear Catherine and all, Thanks Catherine for your inputs! In the field of blindness we all are linked together and share information which we know about and also if we can afford it, examine. WBU have also a working group on technology for enhancement of information to our constituencies. WE know that much research are made by many companies, but they never ask us as user of the technology. This is very sad as it is us who know the actual problems. It is as always, others are experts on us! There are no different need of computer designs (hardware) for blind persons to sighted persons (if not concentrating on Braille), What is the real problem is the cost, the little cooperation between program makers and lack of interest from the public to make sure things are pushed in the right direction. WE need the help from the rest of the Civil Society. But worse and the biggest barrier, is the commercial part of the programming industry, that makes special programs extremely expensive and thereby also excluding many who could benefit from them. All the best and thanks for the interests! Kicki Kicki Nordström Synskadades Riksförbund (SRF) World Blind Union (WBU) 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: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org kicki.nordstrom at telia.com (private) -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: zara [mailto:ecrire at catherine-roy.net] Skickat: den 30 juli 2007 17:18 Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org Ämne: RE: SV: [governance] IS THE DIGITAL DIVIDE A PHANTOM? Hi, I am new to this list and I have been following this discussion with much interest. I would like to address a few things with regards to access to ICTs for people with disabilities and Open Source software. First, I would like to point out that, with regards to OS tools for the disabled, there are indeed many tools that have been developed so far and there is a very engaged community still working on this challenge. For example, there is the OATSoft Interest Group[1], a group dedicated to improving Assistive Technology and computer accessibility through the power of Open Source development techniques. More information can be found on their Web site. They have made information available about the tools that exist through a repository[2] and they foster the development of more initiatives in this regard. One thing that has come up on their mailing list concerns how to create interest and reach out to developing countries with regards to OS assistive technologies and I will certainly make them aware of this discussion here. But obviously, the information is not getting through enough if people think that OS has not been explored for the development of assistive technologies and that challenge will need to be addressed. And still, OS assistive technology has limited penetration because, among other things, in developed countries, proprietary tools have a monopoly, they are prescribed and people are trained to use them because they are often the only tools that medical and physical therapy professionals and training resources know of. I suspect that, to varying degrees, this can be the case also in developing countries, though I am unaware of how assistive technologies are delivered in these parts of the world. Also, as was pointed out by Kikki and others, there is a great need for Web authors and developers to be more aware of accessibility standards (such as those developed at the W3C) because even with all the tools (OS or not), their impact will be limited without adherence to these standards. This was discussed at length by the Disability Caucus during the WSIS. Much progress has been made over the years but much more still needs to be done because accessibility standards are an important part of the puzzle with regards to accessing the Web for people with disabilities. Best regards, Catherine -- [1] http://www.oatsoft.org/ [2] http://www.oatsoft.org/Software/ -- Catherine Roy www.catherine-roy.net > -----Original Message----- > From: kwasi boakye-akyeampong > [mailto:kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk] > Sent: July 30, 2007 9:16 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Norbert Bollow > Subject: Re: SV: [governance] IS THE DIGITAL DIVIDE A PHANTOM? > > Hello Norbert, > > Sorry, if I sounded like you did not know what you are talking about. > My response was as a result of the > following: > > " ... as soon as this has been achieved, all visually disabled people > everywhere will be able to benefit from this ..." > > Taken out of context, it sounds like as soon as a screen reader > becomes free then the digital divide will be bridged. > > You are right, we must ensure that the technology becomes, at least, > accessible to those who are fortunate enough to have it available like > Kikki suggested. It is a shame that visually challenged people in > developed regions are still struggling to have access to technology > though it is available by others around them. This can be attributed > to the same old devil, economies of scale, as someone mentioned > earlier. If commercial interests are allowed to drive technological > change, that is what happens. > > May be the digital divide argument has been over- simplified and its > definition too narrow. Matter of fact, the visually impaired and > physically challenged folks in deprived regions (developing countries) > of the world are totally left out of the discussions when it comes to > national ICT policy discussions. And if we don't start talking about > it now, we shall still be looking answers for these questions 20 years > down the line. > > Regards, > Kwasi > > > Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Kwasi Boakye-Akyeampong wrote: > > > Norbert, you wrote: > > "This of course needs to be funded somehow, but as > > soon as this has been achieved, all visually disabled people > > everywhere will be able to benefit from this ...". > > > > I disagree with the underlined bit because in the developing > > (under-developed) regions, even the non- visually impaired are > > struggling to have access to computers. > Internet access is even > > worse. > > Yes, yes. I have been to rural Africa (not where tourists go, but > where the genuine reality is), and I would certainly say that > visiting > with the wonderful people living there or in some other region with > major technological and economic development challenges, and trying > to > understand them and their situations as well as possible for an > outsider who can only commit a relatively limited amount of time to > getting to know them, that is certainly an absolutely very > fundamentally valuable experience for anyone who would like to make a > contribution toward bridging or reducing the digital divide. > > Please don't dismiss my statements about the benefits of making > screen reader software available as Free Software by addressing me > as if I were someone who doesn't know what he's talking about. It is > not necessary to have reliable electricity or internet connectivity > before screen reader software becomes valuable to visually disabled > people. Even when for a given area it is not possible to do more than > visiting them e.g. once a week with a mobile "information society > communication center" containing one or more battery operated laptop > computers, certainly at least one of those computers should be > equipped with screen reader software. > > By the way, has it been tried to use screen reader software for the > purpose of making information society technologies more accessible > to illiterate/not-yet-literate people? > > > Believe me, the digital divide issue is worse than we make it > > sound. Most of the solutions we propose are just not practicable in > > the deprived regions. They are models fit for the developed > > countries. For instance, most developing countries are struggling > > with electricity supply even in the cities. > Most rural communities > > are not connected to the national electricity grid. So bridging the > > digital divide goes beyond providing them with computers. > > Certainly. In my opinion, based on the observations that I have made, > empowering people to use computers productively is much more > difficult > than providing them with computers, electricity and some kind of > internet connection. Quite a lot of measures are necessary in order > to transform that human-empowerment task from being > virtually-unsolvably > difficult into being feasible with the ordinary level of skill that > can > be realistically expected from teachers at rural schools in > economically > underdeveloped regions of the world. > > One measure that will in my opinion help a lot is to provide them > with > Free Software rather than proprietary software. > > Screen reader software is a special case because in that area, AFAIK > the > needed functionality does not exist yet as Free Software, hence there > is a need for thinking about how the > develeopment of this kind of > software as Free Software can be funded. > > In most other important areas, the essential functionality is already > available as Free Software and just needs to be marketed more > effectively. > > 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 I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am > not for others, what am I? And if not now, when?" > - Rabbi Hillal > ..................................................... > ..................................................... > .................... > > ________________________________ > > Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, > sign up for your free account today > oo.com/mail/winter07.html> . > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.25/926 - Release Date: > 29/07/2007 11:14 PM > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.25/926 - Release Date: 29/07/2007 11:14 PM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Tue Jul 31 10:41:33 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 07:41:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SV: SV: [governance] IS THE DIGITAL DIVIDE A PHANTOM? In-Reply-To: 3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F01A8F452@ensms02.iris.se Message-ID: Your right Kiki/Kwasi, Both of you have a common dilemma. * Blind is Blind * If you can't 'see' Internet information, whether its due to; physical capacity, environmental capacity, economic capacity or even mental capacity. The later, applies to the masses, that can't 'see' nor understand issues. Epistemologically that is: How they 'see' it, isn't the way it is. - Re: >Dear Kwasi, >Yes, and why could we not learn from earlier mistakes and why must we always reinvent the wheel? >Let us bring in to Governments in developing countries, what we know by experience from industrial countries, and also bring in our knowledge of what could be done then developing countries are building up its ICT infrastructure. >Warm regards >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 kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org Tue Jul 31 10:49:54 2007 From: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?=) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 16:49:54 +0200 Subject: SV: SV: SV: [governance] IS THE DIGITAL DIVIDE A PHANTOM? In-Reply-To: References: 3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F01A8F452@ensms02.iris.se Message-ID: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F01A8F4D2@ensms02.iris.se> >Dear Kwasi,, That is right, but the only real problem does not lay with blindness, it lays with the design of the society! It is the society that makes us disabled, primarily, as we can in most cases learn how to operate a computer with existing software. But as the design is not adopted to the situation for all users, we get disabled because we can not access what others can who have full sight. Thanks for your interest and understanding. Yours Kicki Kicki Nordström Synskadades Riksförbund (SRF) World Blind Union (WBU) 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: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org kicki.nordstrom at telia.com (private) -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: yehudakatz at mailinator.com [mailto:yehudakatz at mailinator.com] Skickat: den 31 juli 2007 16:42 Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org Ämne: Re: SV: SV: [governance] IS THE DIGITAL DIVIDE A PHANTOM? Your right Kiki/Kwasi, Both of you have a common dilemma. * Blind is Blind * If you can't 'see' Internet information, whether its due to; physical capacity, environmental capacity, economic capacity or even mental capacity. The later, applies to the masses, that can't 'see' nor understand issues. Epistemologically that is: How they 'see' it, isn't the way it is. - Re: >Dear Kwasi, >Yes, and why could we not learn from earlier mistakes and why must we >always reinvent the wheel? >Let us bring in to Governments in developing countries, what we know by experience from industrial countries, and also bring in our knowledge of what could be done then developing countries are building up its ICT infrastructure. >Warm regards >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 ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Tue Jul 31 11:17:01 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (l.d.misek-falkoff) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:17:01 -0400 Subject: SV: SV: [governance] IS THE DIGITAL DIVIDE A PHANTOM? In-Reply-To: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F01A8F4D2@ensms02.iris.se> References: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F01A8F4D2@ensms02.iris.se> Message-ID: <8cbfe7410707310817y767b5cd4o56c62da1cf747531@mail.gmail.com> Hi Kicki and All: Reinforcing your posts and precepts, Like *most* *systems* - "Information or Knowledge or Data" systems are systems of systems. Access to parts of the whole set only - often defeats "access" in general. Of course we do not always have to get into the back rooms, the tech details, the mechanical underpinnings. But we must be able to access the front door, to get into any system. The front-door, that is, is part of the system and a pre-condition to proceeding further.. It flows that Indeed screen-readers must be free, or optimally inexpensive, or built in universally. Or otherwise not problematic. But further and as wisely observed by many, fully meaningful "access" to the society and its varied, multitudinous bestowings will take far more than that. An 'Attiduindal Climate Change' perhaps, sprung by the Convention on the Rights of Disabilities on which we all have been working through the U.N. But equally with a global *sea-change* that knows Us as one People. The interconnecting value of "We." Very best wishes, collegially, and *Respectfully Interfacing,* L D M F Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff For I. D. here presently: - International Disability Caucus ICT Taskforce, - Communications Coordination Committee For The U.N. - 50 years in Computing and Related Fields, Available for Presentation. - Other Affiliations on Request. On 7/31/07, Kicki Nordström wrote: > > >Dear Kwasi,, > > That is right, but the only real problem does not lay with blindness, it > lays with the design of the society! It is the society that makes us > disabled, primarily, as we can in most cases learn how to operate a computer > with existing software. But as the design is not adopted to the situation > for all users, we get disabled because we can not access what others can who > have full sight. > Thanks for your interest and understanding. > Yours > Kicki > > > Kicki Nordström > Synskadades Riksförbund (SRF) > World Blind Union (WBU) > 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: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org > > kicki.nordstrom at telia.com (private) > > > -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- > Från: yehudakatz at mailinator.com [mailto:yehudakatz at mailinator.com] > Skickat: den 31 juli 2007 16:42 > Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Ämne: Re: SV: SV: [governance] IS THE DIGITAL DIVIDE A PHANTOM? > > Your right Kiki/Kwasi, > > Both of you have a common dilemma. > > * Blind is Blind * > If you can't 'see' Internet information, whether its due to; physical > capacity, environmental capacity, economic capacity or even mental capacity. > > The later, applies to the masses, that can't 'see' nor understand issues. > Epistemologically that is: How they 'see' it, isn't the way it is. > > - > Re: > >Dear Kwasi, > > >Yes, and why could we not learn from earlier mistakes and why must we > >always > reinvent the wheel? > > >Let us bring in to Governments in developing countries, what we know by > experience from industrial countries, and also bring in our knowledge of > what could be done then developing countries are building up its ICT > infrastructure. > > > >Warm regards > >Kicki > ____________________________________________________________ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From nb at bollow.ch Tue Jul 31 12:23:09 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:23:09 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Fundamentally broken design of society In-Reply-To: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F01A8F4D2@ensms02.iris.se> (message from =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?= on Tue, 31 Jul 2007 16:49:54 +0200) References: 3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F01A8F452@ensms02.iris.se <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F01A8F4D2@ensms02.iris.se> Message-ID: <20070731162309.459DC2202EF@quill.bollow.ch> Dear Kicki, I very strongly agree with your assertion that the real problem lies with a fundamentally broken design of society! (Note: The following sentence is perhaps a bit complicated, but it can be safely ignored by all but the most pedantic of readers. In the above statement, I understand "design of society" to mean both the currently existing system by means of which society as a whole is composed out of a very large number of sub-systems, as well the way in which the decisions are made by means of which society as a whole is allowed to evolve.) Now the question arises, how can this fundamental brokenness be fixed? Certainly it is not possible for society as a whole to get fixed all at once! So the best that can be done, in my opinion, is to start small, get a small but diverse group of people together (electronically, by means of a mailing list) who agree on wanting to figure out how a subsystem of society can be constructed which avoids the kind of fundamental "design of society" flaws that result in the production of _disabling_ software. I'm sure that when we figure out how to produce, within such a subsystem of society, computer software which is not disabling but rather empowering for everyone, that kind of software is going to be a commercial success also with the large number of computer users who are not particularly interested in "design of society" problems. What do you think? Gruss, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch Präsident der Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch Die SIUG engagiert sich für den Schutz der Privatsphäre und dafür, dass auch in Zukunft das Internet auf offenen Standards basiert. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org Tue Jul 31 12:41:47 2007 From: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?=) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:41:47 +0200 Subject: SV: [governance] Fundamentally broken design of society In-Reply-To: <20070731162309.459DC2202EF@quill.bollow.ch> References: 3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F01A8F452@ensms02.iris.se <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F01A8F4D2@ensms02.iris.se> <20070731162309.459DC2202EF@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F01A8F4DC@ensms02.iris.se> Dear Norbert., Maybe you are absolutely right, we the civil society have to show the way forward! A group of people could be assigned to discuss this matter, and there are, I think, a network of persons with disabilities, linked to this list, (I hope) and we may have just to address this network to put a group together?! Others may be interested as well and should be welcome. The group I am thinking of was created at the first WSIS and with its side event, we have continued to work on the resolution we adopted, wishing a ICT society open for ALL! The resolution was further developed in Tunis at the second phase of WSIS and the disability Forum hold the second side event. I really hope something will happen now so as we can move this issue a bit further! Thanks Norbert., for your good initiative, do you mind to take the lead? Yours Kicki Kicki Nordström Synskadades Riksförbund (SRF) World Blind Union (WBU) 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: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org kicki.nordstrom at telia.com (private) -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: Norbert Bollow [mailto:nb at bollow.ch] Skickat: den 31 juli 2007 18:23 Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org Ämne: [governance] Fundamentally broken design of society Dear Kicki, I very strongly agree with your assertion that the real problem lies with a fundamentally broken design of society! (Note: The following sentence is perhaps a bit complicated, but it can be safely ignored by all but the most pedantic of readers. In the above statement, I understand "design of society" to mean both the currently existing system by means of which society as a whole is composed out of a very large number of sub-systems, as well the way in which the decisions are made by means of which society as a whole is allowed to evolve.) Now the question arises, how can this fundamental brokenness be fixed? Certainly it is not possible for society as a whole to get fixed all at once! So the best that can be done, in my opinion, is to start small, get a small but diverse group of people together (electronically, by means of a mailing list) who agree on wanting to figure out how a subsystem of society can be constructed which avoids the kind of fundamental "design of society" flaws that result in the production of _disabling_ software. I'm sure that when we figure out how to produce, within such a subsystem of society, computer software which is not disabling but rather empowering for everyone, that kind of software is going to be a commercial success also with the large number of computer users who are not particularly interested in "design of society" problems. What do you think? Gruss, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch Präsident der Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch Die SIUG engagiert sich für den Schutz der Privatsphäre und dafür, dass auch in Zukunft das Internet auf offenen Standards basiert. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk Tue Jul 31 14:06:12 2007 From: kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk (kwasi boakye-akyeampong) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 19:06:12 +0100 (BST) Subject: SV: [governance] Fundamentally broken design of society In-Reply-To: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F01A8F4DC@ensms02.iris.se> Message-ID: <120784.72500.qm@web25511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Norbert, Kikki, I'd be part of any such initiative if you'd take it up. It will be an opportunity for me to learn. Until Kikki threw the disability angle to the digital divide debate, I, personally, had not given it much consideration since it is something that is (if I'm not exagerating) totally ignored in the developing world. I can at least say that for my country Ghana. Thanks, Kwasi Kicki Nordström wrote: Dear Norbert., Maybe you are absolutely right, we the civil society have to show the way forward! A group of people could be assigned to discuss this matter, and there are, I think, a network of persons with disabilities, linked to this list, (I hope) and we may have just to address this network to put a group together?! Others may be interested as well and should be welcome. The group I am thinking of was created at the first WSIS and with its side event, we have continued to work on the resolution we adopted, wishing a ICT society open for ALL! The resolution was further developed in Tunis at the second phase of WSIS and the disability Forum hold the second side event. I really hope something will happen now so as we can move this issue a bit further! Thanks Norbert., for your good initiative, do you mind to take the lead? Yours Kicki Kicki Nordström Synskadades Riksförbund (SRF) World Blind Union (WBU) 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: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org kicki.nordstrom at telia.com (private) -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: Norbert Bollow [mailto:nb at bollow.ch] Skickat: den 31 juli 2007 18:23 Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org Ämne: [governance] Fundamentally broken design of society Dear Kicki, I very strongly agree with your assertion that the real problem lies with a fundamentally broken design of society! (Note: The following sentence is perhaps a bit complicated, but it can be safely ignored by all but the most pedantic of readers. In the above statement, I understand "design of society" to mean both the currently existing system by means of which society as a whole is composed out of a very large number of sub-systems, as well the way in which the decisions are made by means of which society as a whole is allowed to evolve.) Now the question arises, how can this fundamental brokenness be fixed? Certainly it is not possible for society as a whole to get fixed all at once! So the best that can be done, in my opinion, is to start small, get a small but diverse group of people together (electronically, by means of a mailing list) who agree on wanting to figure out how a subsystem of society can be constructed which avoids the kind of fundamental "design of society" flaws that result in the production of _disabling_ software. I'm sure that when we figure out how to produce, within such a subsystem of society, computer software which is not disabling but rather empowering for everyone, that kind of software is going to be a commercial success also with the large number of computer users who are not particularly interested in "design of society" problems. What do you think? Gruss, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch Präsident der Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch Die SIUG engagiert sich für den Schutz der Privatsphäre und dafür, dass auch in Zukunft das Internet auf offenen Standards basiert. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 .............................................................................................................................. “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I? And if not now, when?” - Rabbi Hillal .............................................................................................................................. --------------------------------- Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, sign up for your freeaccount today. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: